Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject Musical Theatre

Main Talk Page

If you have come from other parts of Wikipedia, please see our other subpages:

as your question may be answered or may currently be in discussion there. Thanks!

— The WikiProject Musical Theatre Team

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Tackling Awards

So I've noticed that the "awards" sections in several articles have turned into long, unsightly lists. In an effort to combat this, I've created a mockup of a table that could list awards. It's over in the Template Sandbox. Right now it's hard coded, but eventually, I'd like to make it a sort of infobox style "just type the fields in here" template. But first, I thought it would be best to find an effective visual format. So take a look at the two mockups (a generic example and an "in-use" example) and tell me what ya think! Happy Editing! --omtay38 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and alot tidier.Mark E (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That table is slick man, i want to use it in every article that has awards. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks wonderful. Thank you.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sherman Brothers

I think we need to take a look at Category:Songs by the Sherman Brothers. Every single song they ever wrote has an article. Are all of these notable? There is a bit of a WP:COI issue here, as well, as I believe that the creator is the grandson of one of the brothers. What should be done? —  MusicMaker5376 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy this looks like a big cleanup. From WP:MUS:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

My bet is that very few, if any of these, meet this criteria. However I bet there are one or two that do. All of these seem to have been started by the same person (under a few different ip's) but because the sherman brothers wrote so many different songs that were recorded by so many different people, each article has taken a life of its own. Part of me is tempted to say "just leave them alone, they're not hurting anybody." But most have very little important information on them.
My vote: go through, keep the songs that "have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists," move the other information to a Songs by the Sherman Brothers and then AfD the rest. Thoughts? --omtay38 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Happy New Year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need a little help

Alright, this totals to something like 120 or so songs. I'm working on gathering information about them over here PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free to help (i.e. edit that page). Both Stub Length and Notable are completely personal judgement calls, just to get a quick sense of what we're dealing with. So if you've got nothing to do for a bit, feel free to go through these songs and list the creator, whether or not it's stub length, and if you think it's notable (i.e. worthy of inclusion). Thanks a bunch! --omtay38 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's quite a job; it's been in the back of my head for about 6 months, and, in those 6 months, more articles have been added. I can't work on it right now as I'm at work, but I'll definitely lend a hand. AWB might help -- at least you can load all of the articles and go through them a little faster. You have AWB, right?
Also, I think the easiest thing to do would be to prod them, but I feel the creator will remove the tag. We can, at least, try that before we bring them all to AfD. —  MusicMaker5376 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got AWB (it helped me get all the article names) but for just figuring all this stuff out it's not much help. It's just a lot of good, old fashioned, reading and typing. I would feel sort of bad proding these articles because of the sheer magnitude of this deletion. We could possibly be deleting more than 100 articles. Prod-ing that many seems to me like sneaking it under the radar. The AfD is one of the reasons i'm making this chart. That way I can go "here's a breakdown of all the articles, who made them, how big they are, and which are being moved." --omtay38 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, my philosophy regarding prods is that, if no one bothered to look at the article during the week or so that the tag is there, then it's not serving much purpose as an article. There is a bot that notifies the creator that the article has been prodded (I can't vouch for its reliability). What may be beneficial is nominating one "token" article at AfD, prodding the rest, and noting that fact in the AfD nom. If anyone in the AfD conversation objects to the token article being deleted, they can remove the prods from the other articles and we can go from there. I know that the "AfD regulars" will object to having a group nom with 100 articles, as well will they object to having 100 separate nominations. Six of one.... —  MusicMaker5376 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, well, let's see what the numbers turn out like when the list is finished and go from there. Perhaps the maybes could be AfD-ed and the No's could be Prod-ed? I just don't want us to be accused of trying to slip under the radar. By the way, you all rock for your help. --omtay38 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me to run MelonBot to append one or more of: number of revisions, page length, number of contributors, presence of stub templates, wikiproject assessment? Happy‑melon 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that those statistics would be helpful, Melon. In fact, I already think that we have too many columns in the table by specifying whether the article is currently a stub. The fact that an article is a stub only means that Howard352 did not have that much at the tip of his tongue to say about a particular song, but it may actually be misleading: There are lots of notable subjects that only have a stub (or no article at all yet) on Wikipedia. The question is simply whether the song is notable enough for its own article, and our judging the answer to that subjective question depends on the facts that we know (or can find) about the song, which are probably incomplete. Basically, it boils down to whether we Musicals Project people have heard of the song, or whether Howard352 has provided sufficient notability information in the article. A more reliable way to do it, of course, would be to do some research on each song, but that project is too big, and Wikipedia policy is to shoot first and make the editor come up with a better article with clearer notability information. So, I agree that where there is not enough notability info in the article, we are justified in PROD-ing it. Personally, I would leave the "maybe" ones alone for now, and just put a notability tag on them to try to attract more editors. Then, next summer when Omtay is out of school, he can check on them again and see if anyone has improved the article. Of course, if there is info in an article that is being PROD-ed or AfD'd that is not already in the show's article, I would suggest moving the info into the appropriate article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria

I broke the quote above into three criteria and placed them at the top of Omtay's page. We can refer to the criteria each passes by number. I'm noting that "is a standard" is not a criteria. Not sure how I feel about that. —  MusicMaker5376 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

There's a Disney wiki, isn't there? Most of these could possibly be transwikied there. For example, by the criteria at WP:MUS, The Best Time of Your Life is not notable. However, there's a wealth of information there that should be kept. Why don't we just move them en masse? —  MusicMaker5376 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the The unofficial Disney Wiki, it's not very active, plus the "create an article" button gives me error. I agree, that information should be kept somewhere, at least to honor poor ol' Howard that's getting all his articles deleted.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea is definitely not to honor Howard.... —  MusicMaker5376 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Joke!--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. Sorry. I'm becoming less and less able to recognize humor on WP! —  MusicMaker5376 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hair (musical)

...is currently up for peer review. Any comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. —  MusicMaker5376 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album musical

Check out this new article, Album musical. There is also an article called concept album. I notice that the editor of the new article has changed a lot of links from concept album point to the new article. Do we need both articles? Is the information in both articles the right information, or should some info from one be in another? I'm not an audiophile, so I hope someone can take a look and see if any correction is needed on these. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I saw that too, and I'm not sure what to think. It seems like whatever this new article is talking about was sort of a precursor to the concept albums of the late 60s. I'd never heard of it, previously. It's kinda interesting, and they seem like separate ideas -- the album musical had casts, whereas concept albums had bands, usually. (Which would make JCS an album musical.) Not sure what to think, really. —  MusicMaker5376 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I created this page because "concept album" clearly does not cover the issue of original musicals created for records. All album musicals may be considered concept albums, but very few concept albums are album musicals. This was for many years (and still is) a genre unto itself. There are many other examples of album musicals (prior to 1969) that could be added to the page and none of them appeal to the same audience reading about rock albums tied together with a theme, etc. Even taking into consideration such albums as Jesus Christ Superstar and The Who's Tommy, the writers did not know when they created them that they would end up on the stage and, in fact, both had material added when they became stage shows. I hope you will not bury in the unwieldy concept page what I think is an interesting discussion on its own. Lumping album musicals in with all concept albums is like lumping all soundtrack albums onto the original cast album page. They are the same thing -- but they're not. Interestingly enough, You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," and yet it was completely ignored in the original article on You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, written by someone who knew little more than that there was a 1999 revival. This is a genre unto itself worth noting. I hope you agree. Sincerely, Rarmin (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to look at this article a little closer, I'm noticing that none of your references use the phrase "album musical". I'd like to see one source -- ANYWHERE, demonstrably published prior to April 8, 2008 -- that confirms that this is something other than something you just made up to create a difference between the concept albums before 1968 and those after. Otherwise, I'm taking this claptrap to AfD. —  MusicMaker5376 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, You're a Good Man Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," which was demonstrably published in 1966. While I have seen the term used elsewhere, much of my record collection (which includes almost all of the American original cast albums released since the birth of recording to the dawn of the compact disc age, and a great many since) is packed away where I can't get at it at the moment, so I can't offer other examples. However, even with no other examples, why do you refer to my use of the term album musical as "claptrap?" Would you prefer to lump Stan Freberg Presents The United States of America, Volume One and Judy Garland in The Letter with albums by Smashing Pumpkins and the Beach Boys? How useful is the term "concept album," when the editor of that article clearly states that its difficult to define the term? I truly do not wish to step on any toes here, especially considering your extraordinary efforts to expand the musical theatre articles, but it seems to me that you should be more interested in correcting the many factual errors on Wikipedia than in criticizing what I think is an intelligent discussion on a unique genre of recording. By the way, I see that Hair is a major interest of yours. Do you know the name of the publication from which Rado and Ragni lifted the words to "Frank Mills?" I've had a copy since 1966. And I was at the Aquarius Theatre, helping clean up the mess, on the day the L.A. production opened. I look forward to seeing you at the Hair reunion next month. By the way, my name is Robert Armin. What's yours? Rarmin (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"I can't find my sources," isn't going to cut it. Find one article, one book, ANYTHING that documents this phenomenon.
Simply because there are problems with the terminology and definition of "concept album" doesn't mean that you can pull a two-word marketing phrase from a long out-of-print album and create a Wikipedia article. Yes, there are problems with the terminology. If you're so important, write a book, get it published, and cite it in the article. The "factual errors" you cite are merely a difference of opinion: unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition of the genre. Yes, Stan Freberg and Judy Garland should be lumped in with Smashing Pumpkins and the Beach Boys, simply because there is no consensus -- not just among WP editors, but the genre in general -- as to what constitutes a concept album. That doesn't mean we INVENT a way, that means that we document the problem. This is blatant POV-pushing, original research, and, I'll say it again, claptrap.
Furthermore, since you seem to have so much information regarding Hair, feel free to add it to the article. Properly cited, of course. —  MusicMaker5376 04:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know where this anger is coming from. Kill the page if you so choose, although I think you should get a few other opinions first. I wasn't trying to one-up you on Hair -- just showing a mutual interest. I suppose mentioning that I have the original off-Broadway script in manuscript before the show went into rehearsals at the Public might be considered pushing it a bit. So I won't. But I hope we can find a more friendly way to discuss musical theatre. Most sincerely, Robert Armin (real name).Rarmin (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. I agree that there is no reason for anyone to make any accusations here, and I'd ask MusicMaker to please be polite. Of course, he never listens to my advice, but such is life on Wikipedia!  :) On the other hand, one of the important rules of Wikipedia is that people don't need to use their real names. Robert, please do take a look at the Hair article and see if you can add anything. Your knowledge would certainly be valued, and, as MusicMaker says, any new information would need to be referenced. Several of us have been working fairly seriously on Hair for about a year, and we think it's about ready to be nominated for advancement to GA class. Since we are describing the Broadway version of the script in the Synopsis section, we don't need to also describe the Off-Broadway version of the script. As for "album musicals", what we are looking for is a citation from a reliable source, like an article, or even a couple of reviews, that discusses "album musicals" and applies the term to the sorts of albums described in your article. Unfortunately, a Google search did not turn up a reference right away. The article is nicely written, but under-referenced. But even if the article were to be combined with the "concept album" article, your descriptions of the various albums would still be very useful. Wikipedia relies on information that can be verified from published sources. I read your above responses as merely saying that you can't get at your sources right now, but that you will look when you can get to them. There is no emergency. I think most Wikipedia editors are willing to wait a week or two before taking action on an article if an editor says, "hold on until I can get to my sources." Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send you a note on your own page to thank you for your supportive comments. But I'll do it here instead. Courtesy has not entirely died out, apparently. I gave my own name because I proudly stand behind what I contribute and will, graciously, accept corrections when they are warranted. I have submitted the question on "album musical" to a recognized expert in the field (other than myself) and will listen to his opinion on the matter. If there is another way to address this particular genre, so be it. I didn't coin the term, but I think it is a valid one. Fold the information into another page if that is the decision of whomever it is that makes these decisions. It seemed to me that this was a pretty good forum to offer my four decades of accumulated theatrical knowledge and, unless I am blocked in some way, I will continue to do so. As for Hair, I will wait until after the reunion next month before I disclose any "revelations" I may have. In 40 years, I've never heard or read the correct information on "Frank Mills." My best good wishes to you and MusicMaker5376.Rarmin (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I will actually be at the Hair reunion, so see you there. You can e-mail me if you would like my real name (There's an e-mail option on talk pages for people who have that option available). Decision-making on Wikipedia is by a process of WP:CONSENSUS tempered by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. No one editor can tell everyone what to do. Here at WP:MUSICALS, we have established and agreed on guidelines for Article Structure for the musicals articles. Of course, those can change if a good number of editors agree to change them. But everyone needs to follow the basic wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. We just can't add stuff to Wikipedia for which we cannot find a published source, no matter how interesting it is or how sure we are about it. By the way, programs and sleeve notes are OK, as long as they can be verified through a library. One thing is certain: you can't please all of the people all of the time, so "consensus" requires some compromise, and I don't always get what I want. But, little by little, we keep making the encyclopedia better. There is no doubt that there is much better coverage of musicals on Wikipedia now than there was even a year ago. There are a number of wonderful editors working on musicals who don't like to talk much on this page. Anyhow, you are a very good writer, and we certainly need more of those. If you are interested in Gilbert and Sullivan, also check out WP:G&S. It's a very small project covering just a few hundred articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I second Ssilvers comments. And I enjoyed reading your article. You are a good writer and I really hope you are able to find verifiable sources for the information presented. If you are not already a member of this project I hope you will join. I myself am a new member to the project but have edited on wikipedia for some time. It takes a while to get familiar with wikipedia policy and procedure and at times it can be frustrating. Ultimately, however, you will come to like the rules because they really do make wikipedia better. And most people on wikipedia are polite and respectful so don't worry about the musicmakers of the world. lolBroadweighbabe (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me apologize for any feathers I might have ruffled; I certainly didn't mean to. An explanation:
This concept album/rock opera/rock musical debate has been smoldering for about three years, and was one of the first I came upon in WP. I argued 'till I was blue in the face for about two weeks before realizing that the inherent problem was that everyone involved with the argument -- myself included -- thinks everyone else is wrong and is completely unwilling to compromise, so, since then, I've just left it alone.
As you can see from my first comment, when I first saw this article, I liked it. Seems reasonable. Then I read it, and saw that you chose to include Tommy in this genre. I don't want to re-open this resurgent can of worms, but that pissed me off, so I called it "claptrap". To me, "claptrap" is an inherently funny word -- two equally-weighted syllables, both starting with consonant blends, having the same vowel in the middle, and ending in "p". I should know from experience on both sides of the table that WP is the vortex at which all humor dies.
Then I felt that my credentials were being called into question on Hair. As is evident from my username, I was born 8 years after Hair opened on Bway. I won't be at the reunion because I have no one to reunite with. Though it does take place on my (and Tom O'Horgan's) birthday, and, frankly, I couldn't think of a better way to spend my 32nd. (And, truly, I meant to pull "If you're so important..." from my response. There was another line in there along those lines that I took out, but missed that one, and, once you hit that "Save page" button, it's all out there....)
So, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.... I may be rude, but I always admit when I'm wrong. (If that is the case, and, frankly, it doesn't happen that often.... [There's that vortex, again....])
Now, as for this article, I would say that the pertinent information could probably be merged into concept album, but with taking references to "album musical" out of the text and setting up a redirect at album musical. (Like I said, I haven't looked at the article for concept album in about three years, so if that's not the best idea, I'm open to suggestions.) If You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was, in fact, marketed as such, that can be mentioned -- but the only recordings I've been able to locate have been the original Off-Bway cast, orig Bway cast, and the '99 revival cast, so I would like to see a source. (I agree that that that article is written from a very revival-centric viewpoint. It's a show that is very dear to my heart, and I would love to see a much better article up there.) If, at some point, someone writes something regarding the phenomenon of the "album musical" (and, preferably, it gains some currency in the community -- existence is not notability), I would not be against recreating the article. But, frankly, we're probably a good 5-10 years away from that point.
And, again, if you have any information to add to Hair (musical), with the proper citations, it would be greatly appreciated. As it stands, the article seems to skip about 15 years of productions of the show, jumping from the movie to the early 90s. There probably weren't many productions of note in the "Me decade" of the 80s, but it feels like it should be fleshed out a little bit. Also, if you happen to have any personal photos from the production that you wouldn't mind licensing under the GFDL, that would be great. I'm in the process of writing Dagmar, the staff photographer of the production, but I wouldn't be surprised if she might not be willing to do so. And, if you have a source for the origination of "Frank Mills", I'm all about it -- it's my favorite song in the show (I used it as my Facebook status yesterday). I'm not sure where we could fit it into the article, but there's very little in the article about the creation of the show -- my guess is that it's been lost to both antiquity and, erm, clouded memories. The article is coming along rather nicely, but it still has a ways to go.
So, again, my apologies. I promised myself that I would stop writing these long diatribes on WP as no one wants to take the time to read them. Yet another promise to myself shattered in pieces.... —  MusicMaker5376 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm honored that your latest "diatribe" was so positive -- and directed at me. This place is feeling more warm and cuddly already. Thanks.Rarmin (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the Album Musical page. I have attempted to add even more clarification to the genre. I think it addresses some of MusicMaker's feelings about rock musicals being incorporated and makes it clear that there is no one term for the genre, even though the genre clearly exists. Thanks. Rarmin (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is not specifically in the area of the Musical Theatre project, but I just noticed the entry "gapless albums." This is a bizarre category that seems to exist primarily because of a feature created for the Ipod. A "gapless" album seems to be any recording in which the tracks crossfade into each other. Isn't any unedited "live" album automatically a gapless recording because of the applause leading into the next track. The first CD of "Phantom of the Opera" was, theoretically, gapless because the label didn't put in any track breaks on the disks. I haven't heard any of the recordings listed on the "gapless albums" page, but I would bet that most (if not all) have individual track numbers. I certainly have no objection to the existence of the "gapless albums" page (even though absolutely no other album page links to it), but it seems that there is a far more distinct genre of "album musical" than there is a "gapless album." Please do not take offense at these comments (as I know you had nothing to do with that page), but it does highlight the inexactitude of defining any type of recording.Rarmin (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your issue should be raised at the Albums project. However, there is also a rather good article on gapless playback. This isn't a new idea -- gapless recordings have been around forever. Because of the nature of compact disks and iPods, it makes it much, much easier to have a gapless recording that can still be tracked. Many of the albums on gapless albums came out long before CDs (Dark Side..., etc...). On vinyl, if you wanted to play a specific song on a gapless recording, you just had to guess. A song list would be okay, as the songs were individual compositions, but you couldn't track them as you can now. Having individual track numbers doesn't necessarily mean that there's a gap. The article at gapless albums is crap, I'll give you that. It should probably be moved to List of gapless albums. —  MusicMaker5376 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know there's a better page on the subject. I was using the gapless albums page as my sole reference. You're right -- there were gapless LPs for many years. A few of them actually were able to leave visual gaps in the vinyl even though the needle moved directly to the next track (especially in radio transcriptions), but it wasn't a common practice. Hope you get a chance to review my changes on the album musical page. I think it addresses a few of your issues. Rarmin (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards lists and succession boxes: Need Consensus

Can we agree on a rule limiting what goes in Awards list sections? I think that if the show has been nominated for a Tony or an Oliver Award, you don't also need all the regional awards and lesser awards. If there is no Tony or Olivier, then Drama Desk, etc. would be OK. I do agree that the sections should list grammys and pulitzers. As for succession boxes, do we need them at all? We already have the Tony navigation box. Today someone added succession boxes for the Drama Desk Award to Evita. Isn't this overkill? I suggest that we add more specificity to the article structure guidlines so that we could have consistency among the articles and not have too much less-notable stuff building up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Tony navigation box should be done away with. Every other award handles it by succession boxes, and that's how we should do it. There should be succession boxes for all the awards. If they're in place and correct, we can (and should) do away with the "Awards" section entirely.
I think Tony, Drama Desk, Obie, Olivier, Evening Standard. Pulitzer. That's it. Get rid of the Theatre World award -- it seems like everyone on God's green earth gets one. Regional awards should be mentioned with the specific production. If it's an award that only your mother would care about, it shouldn't be in the article. —  MusicMaker5376 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musical theatre as a category

I was exploring and "playing" with Wikipedia's categories, going to the top level. At that point, Wikipedia calls them portals. I can not access the musical theatre genre either through the theatre catagories or the music categories. Wikipedia does list this project on one of its main portal pages, but as far as I can see, one can't navigate to the musical theatre category through other categories. Shouldn't this be amended? -- kosboot (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are both Category:Musical theatre and Portal:Musical Theatre. Not sure what you mean. —  MusicMaker5376 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Category:Theatre is subcategory Category:Theatrical genres. Under Theatrical genres is subcategory Musical Theatre. Should it be added somewhere else too? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Kosboot, I see that it is all a bit confusing with the various category heirarchies going through Theatre, Drama, Performing Arts, etc. If you have some solutions, please suggest them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I assumed the "musical theatre" was a bigger genre (i.e. deserving of a higher hierarchy) than it is. Thanks to you, MusicMaker5376, I've been able to find it -- both under Portal:Music and Portal:Theatre within sub-genres. Back to The Cocoanuts (musical) and I think I'm going to start working on Rio Rita (musical)-- kosboot (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's category system has always been a bit haphazard, but at the top end it just gets ugly - there are or have been at least three systems of 'supercategory' structure fighting for supremacy and to be direct subcategories of Category:Categories, so IIRC the tree splits into two or three complete duplications and merges back together further down. Add in the portal: namespace and as you noticed, you have a complete mess with no guarrantee that it can actually be easily or sensibly navigated. I think it is true that you can get to any page in the Category: namespace as a distant subcategory of Category:Categories, but the route you need to take to get there is by no means always obvious. Happy‑melon 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The inherent drawbacks of attempting to categorize everything known to man.... If Dewey could do it, you think WP editors could handle it.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dewey didn't have six million facets to his personality :D Happy‑melon 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we ought to just use the Dewey or LoC systems... :) -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth (musical)

Anyone feel like trying to clean up this article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoochie Mama, that's a mess! I came across that in its infancy; I should have kept my eye on it.... —  MusicMaker5376 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

[edit] Might interested theatre-related editors have a look at this?

I've posted a topic here [[1]] and was wondering what you all thoughtSmatprt (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character lists in plays/ musicals articles

There is currently a discussion on the inclusion of character lists on articles relating to plays, musicals, etc. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. I would encourage you all to join the discussion. All opinions are welcome.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drama Desk Awards

I am currently working on cataloging the winners and nominees of the Drama Desk Award. Unfortunately, the actual Drama Desk Awards website is not always complete or accurate so it takes quite a lot of double checking among multiple resources. I have currently come across a bit of a snag. Neither the IBDB or the Drama Desk Awards websites lists the winners/nominations of the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actor in a Musical for 1982 and 1983. The winners/nominees for the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical in 1995 and 1996 are also missing. If anyone can help I would appriciate it.Broadweighbabe (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times nytimes.com has recently made searchable their entire archives -- all the way back to 18whatever. You can search by year, by specific date, etc. Unfortunately, to see an entire article, you have to pay a fee, but if you can't find any other way, that might be it. —  MusicMaker5376 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical, 1996= Rachel York [2]. I checked the NY Times for Jan 1982-June 1982 but found no articles on the Drama Desk. I checked google books--nothing. Can anyone find those Theater World books in their library; they might have the complete lists. I'll keep looking around, back to the NY Times. (I suspect, as probably you all do, that the missing award was simply not given. Odd.)JeanColumbia (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for Rachel York. As for the others, I think it must have been given because the other 3 acting awards for musicals were: Outstanding Featured Actor and Actress in a musical and the award for Outstanding Actress in a musical were all given in 1982 and 1983.Broadweighbabe (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1995--just finished reading articles about the DD for 1995 (held May 22 (?), 1995. No mention of the "Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical", not even nominees. But then from the "The Hollywood Reporter" article (5/23/95), this very interesting sentence: "Reflecting the scarcity of new musical productions, the Drama Desk this year eliminated a number of categories that recognize the genre." That's it! I'm still digging, not much more to look at. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If memory serves, 1995 was the year of Sunset. The Tonys only nominated two actresses that year for Leading Actress -- Glenn Close and someone no one remembers. (Actually, I think it was Debra Luker....) Not much else opened that year, because of the juggernaut of Sunset. It's definitely possible that they didn't give the award.... —  MusicMaker5376 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, MM5376, you're right, only Glenn Close & Rebecca Luker were nom'd for 1995 Tony Actress Musical, and, interesting, 3 of the ladies from Smokey Joe... were nom'd, with Gretha Boston, for Tony Featured Actress Musical. Ah, well, I'm done, searched as much as Lexis-Nexis/google/NY Times would give. Found nothing further. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol -- Rebecca Luker! I do that all the time -- I went to high school with Debra Luker! (Who, to my knowledge, has not been nominated for anything....) —  MusicMaker5376 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to the producer of the Drama Desk Awards (I freelance for him) to tell him the info was missing from his website, perhaps he will find the info and have it added. Besprayed (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC) christina

[edit] Never Forget (Musical) Controversy

An editor involved the show is trying to keep a well-reported controversy from being discussed in the article, and the page has been protected from editing until the edit war is resolved. See this diff. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Never Forget (Musical). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everyone. After discussion, it seems that the parties are now content with the recent edits, which reflect the publicly available information at present. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here baby, there mama, everywhere, daddy, daddy!

Hair (musical) is up for GA!! It should sail through.... —  MusicMaker5376 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

She asks me why,/I'm just a hairy guy.
I'm hairy noon and night,/Hair, that's a fright.
....I let it fly in the breeze and get caught in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas in my hair,
A home for fleas (yeah)/A hive for bees (yeah)/A nest for birds,
There ain't no words for the beauty, the splendor,/The wonder of my Hair....

-- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Shop of Horrors (musical)

I know several people said that they wanted to work on this article. Lately, anonymous editors have been adding details to the plot synopsis, and now it is very long. Can anyone slim it down, particularly the second act? I took a swipe at it, but it needs more trimming. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total performances template

I've been mulling over the idea of a template that will calculate the number of performances of a currently-running show. I don't think it would be particularly difficult, but we may need several different ones depending on differing performance schedules for different shows. I don't know if it would be feasible to compile all of that information, but it could also have a parameter for an offset that would bring it in line with any official tallys. I'm thinking it would produce the text NNNN performances as of June 12, 2008, using {{yesterday}} to produce yesterday's date, just so we don't have to deal with time zone variances and whatnot. Any thoughts? —  MusicMaker5376 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How will you handle times when the theatre is dark due to strikes, special performances and other unusual situations? Nearly every show misses a performance now and then for one reason or another. For long-running Broadway and Off-Broadway shows, Playbill keeps weekly track (see http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html), although this includes plays as well as musicals. But I don't think there is a similar counter for shows elsewhere in the world. There is this list, but it is only updated from time to time, and the curator told me that the off-broadway runs are often merely approximations: http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html#longruns.london.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would really have to look into it; I'm just throwing the idea out there before I start seeing what's possible and what's im- in terms of the code. If they miss a show, we could have a parameter like offset=-1. I'm not sure if special performances go into an overall tally, but if they do, the offset can be adjusted as necessary. Say they cancel four shows and have one special performance: offset=-3. For strikes, I'd say that there can be a stop parameter, as, usually, strikes affect all running shows. Or, we can always just remove the template if there's a strike, and leave "NNNN performances before the strike". OR we can find a way to make the template do that. I'm thinking we could have startdate= and starttotal= -- that would allow us to start from the most recent Playbill tally. Please understand that I don't think that this is something that could be implemented immediately: we can run some test tallys for a month or two to see if they jive. If they do, great, if it seems like it's about the same amount of upkeep (or more) with the template as without, then we don't use them. Generally speaking, though, it should be relatively straightforward -- for the most part, the show always goes on.... —  MusicMaker5376 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just introducing myself...

Got a nice welcome from MusicMaker who said I should come here and introduce myself. My name is Christina and I make websites and graphics for a living, usually for people in the theatre industry. I have been obsessing over the Hairspray Wikipedia page for several days now as an anonymous user, which I've found to be quite inaccurate with references specific to the movie and misquoted sources, as well as just generally missing information. Having worked for several people associated with this show, I've seen it way too many times and probably know more than I should about it. Ssilvers encouraged me to get a screenname so I did. Now if I can just wrap my head around this coding format and remember where I can cite references, I'd be in good business... and then I won't ask Ssilvers so many questions! One would think a person who makes websites for a living could find this Wikipedia coding easy but it's beginning to give me a headache. I do know other shows just as well as I know Hairspray, but my really strong knowledge is limited to the musicals which have come out in the past fifteen years or so. I hope I can put it to good use. Besprayed (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) christina

Good, keep it up! You'll catch onto the coding -- if I can figure it out, anyone can! I would assume, however, that it can get a little confusing because some of it is very similar to html, and some of it is COMPLETELY different. You'll get it, tho! —  MusicMaker5376 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and don't be afraid to ask questions. And don't worry too much about the wiki formatting at first: if you fix the content, you can always get one of us to help you with formatting. As MM says, the wiki coding comes over time. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! we are the nicest kids in town! --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, some of us, anyway.... ;-) —  MusicMaker5376 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Hi everyone, I'm MearsMan and I've just joined the project, so I thought I would introduce myself. I'm a soon-to-be junior year undergraduate student at the moment, double majoring in psychology and sociology, and I like to spend a good deal of my free time helping out on Wikipedia. I've had a passion for musicals for a while now, so much of my time spent on Wikipedia has been devoted to editing musical theatre and musical theatre related article (I'm probably most proud of my work at Hairspray (2007 film), even though that doesn't technically fall under the scope of this project). I feel most comfortable helping with shows that have either come out or had a major revival within the past decade or so, but I can and do help with some older ones from time to time. I should also mention that summer vacation is coming up for me within the next week, and when I'm at home I won't have regular internet access. As such, I may not be too active here at first, but I fully look forward to helping out when I get back from the break. I'm sure it's going to be great getting to know all of you! —MearsMan talk 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. It's nice to have new recruits to the project. Watch this page, because we discuss work-in-progress here from time to time. Currently, a few of us have been working on Hair (musical), and another editor has been updating articles with the Drama Desk Award nominations. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome! group hug!--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POTO

This new section has been added: Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)#Digital Sound Upgrade. In addition to being ENTIRELY too long, it seems rather copyvio-y to me. Can anyone else take a look? —  MusicMaker5376 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's almost verbatim from the press release. I'd say rephrase an cut cut cut.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it even worthy of a section? I mean, it's newsworthy, but is it encyclopedic? —  MusicMaker5376 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as not notable. All major theatres must upgrade their sound systems from time to time. Unless this is the first digital sound system, it's no big deal. Maybe one sentence would be appropriate in the "Her Majesty's Theatre" article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orchestrations

Have we had this discussion?
What are everyone's thoughts re: Orchestrations? My own philosophy -- which may have changed -- is that, technically, they're production-specific. The licensed orchestrations from MTI and whatnot are more or less set in stone, but the professional productions change orchestrations from one prod to the next. Are they even encyclopedic? As a musician, I like reading about them, but I think they would cater to too small a percentage of our readership. I think that, unless they contained several out of the ordinary instruments -- like The Secret Garden (musical) -- it's probably unnecessary. —  MusicMaker5376 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The information is not really encyclopedic, except where the score calls for accompaniment by a rock band instead of a pit orchestra; or in the cases where the actors also play the instruments, like the recent Sweeney and Company; or all harps and nothing else; or a particularly large or small orchestra is prescribed in the score, or something that's really unusual. It really doesn't matter to the average reader if there is one synth instead of two in the pit, or that there are 3 horns but only one flute and no clarinet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with what's been said. I recently requested a source for the number of musicians in the pit of Legally Blonde (musical) (someone else added the info), and even though one was provided I think it might be best to just remove the whole thing. It's pretty production specific, and I doubt the average reader would really care all that much. Unless it's something out of the ordinary I don't see reason to draw attention to it. —MearsMan talk 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Songs

Quick question: do articles on songs from musicals, such as Summer Nights or Superstar (Jesus Christ Superstar song) fall under the scope of this project? While I'm asking, what about articles on soundtracks to musicals, such as Jesus Christ Superstar (album)? I couldn't tell one way or the other from the project page. These are just a few that I've come across that aren't listed as part of the project, and I can understand why they might not be part of it, but I can also see where they would be. —MearsMan talk 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Are they covered by an albums project? MM, over to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Were you addressing MusicMaker? It read to me like you were, but I could have been mistaken (I've been called MM in the past). I'd say the song articles definitely belong in WP:SONG and the albums in WP:ALBUM, but I just didn't know if they belonged in this project as well. BTW, Beethoven Day is another song article I came across that may need to be added. —MearsMan talk 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say yes, as they are directly linked to the plays, so they would fall under the scope of this project in a second level. REMEMBER, if a new article is tagged as being under our scope, it has to be added to THE LIST. PS/can I call MerasMan MM2? maybe MMβ? or MMα?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Uh oh.... There's another MM about! (post ec:) Perhaps "MM2 -- Electric Boogaloo"?!?
I'd say that if it was written to be a song in a musical, that it would fall under our purview, as well as WP:SONG. Because, you know, without the songs, musical theatre is just... theatre. Songs from jukebox musicals can probably go either way -- I personally wouldn't fight to include them, and, frankly, those individual songs would probably be better served by WP:SONG. (Frankly, Beethoven Day should be deleted. It's not a notable song by any stretch of the imagination....)
Albums would fall under us, as well as WP:ALBUM. Cast albums -- albums sung by a specifically-assembled cast -- would be ours. Concept albums -- albums where the cast is an already-extant entity like a band -- would not. This is probably still a matter of some contention, but that's where my opinion lies.... —  MusicMaker5376 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that list! So we just manually add any pages we've added to the project to the "New entries" section, right? Also, MM2 (or any of the others suggested) would be fine for me, just as long as we can distinguish between the two of us.
I agree that Beethoven Day should probably be deleted, but I've always been one to give an article a chance and see if anything comes of it, so I seldom nominate one for deletion unless it's obvious that said article is entirely unencyclopedic in nature (patent nonsense, attack pages, autobiographies of non-notable individuals, etc.). Unless anyone objects, I'll go and add the articles I mentioned above to the project. —MearsMan talk 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't we add something about this to the "Scope" section of the main project page, just for future reference and new members? —MearsMan talk 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new Tony record?

South Pacific got 11 nominations. Is that a record for a revival? (of course, one is for sound design, which is a new category, I think). -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but close! From the Tony Awards site: "Reproductions

The revival that garnered the most nominations was Kiss Me, Kate (2000), with 12. It won five Tonys. In second place are Anything Goes (1988), Show Boat (1995), Cabaret (1998), and Into the Woods (2002), each of which received 10 nominations." Gotta love trivia!. JeanColumbia (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw that Kiss Me, Kate, and it sure was great. I went back to see it twice more, which may be a record for my watching a revival.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like the most interesting Tony season in a while. There are a number of good new shows and also a number of good revivals. In fact, it seems to me that there are more new musicals than in recent years, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Gemignani

Hello all. Can anyone start an article on Paul Gemignani? He just won a Drama League Award, and he has been music director of about 40 Broadway and West End shows, plus movies, cast albums, etc. See http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=69716. He won a Tony Award in 2001 for Lifetime Achievement in the Theatre and a special Drama Desk Award in 1989. In 2006, he received a Prime Time Emmy award for "best musical direction" for the PBS/Great Performances presentation of South Pacific in concert from Carnegie Hall. See http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/music/artist_detail.cfm?id=2260 and http://www.sondheimguide.com/people.html#Gemignani and http://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=26593. He just conducted Camelot at Lincoln Center and the Sweeney Todd movie. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um.... It looks like you just did....
(But I agree -- he definitely needs an article....) —  MusicMaker5376 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We also need an article on Drama Desk award winner/Tony nominee Danny Burstein. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afd

Matt Doyle has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors can remark here. —  MusicMaker5376 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Thespian Cast of Hairspray

Speedy delete? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, spam. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI/WP:OWN

I think we're going to run into a Thrill Me redux with bare: a pop opera. Please keep your eyes on it. —  MusicMaker5376 17:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hair (musical)

... is a GA! It's a phenomenal article and needs just a little more work to bring it to FA! Stop by and check it out! —  MusicMaker5376 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Saigon, The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) and librettos...

Forgive my ignorance and the tangle of related questions, but:

  1. There's a word for musicals which are entirely sung and don't have any spoken lines, isn't there?
  2. If I'm not mistaken, The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) is a musical of this type, isn't it? If so, should that be mentioned somewhere in the article (using aforementioned technical word :D)
  3. Is Miss Saigon a musical of this type?

Forgive me if I'm making a fool out of myself here :D Happy‑melon 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, is there any reason why The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) needs the extra disambiguation of the "1968"? I'm not aware of any other musical adaptations of the book.... Happy‑melon 13:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Melon. Some people call this " entirely Sung-through" or "through-composed", but these are dubious terms, not technical terms that everyone in the industry accepts. Note that the linked articles are completely unreferenced. I believe that Phantom is sung through, but I can't swear to it. But why not just say in plain English, that there is no dialogue? There is, however, another major musical adaptation of the book called Phantom (musical). This has had over 1,000 productions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also The Phantom of the Opera (1976 musical), which was Webber's inspiration for POTO. Webber's Phantom has a few spoken lines in the first few scenes, and there's an entire scene in the second act completely without music. However, sung-through doesn't necessarily mean that there's NO spoken dialogue -- it's basically a differentiation from a book musical which would have scene-song-scene-song. The article, admittedly, does a craptastic job at explaining the concept. And, yes, Miss Saigon would be considered sung-through. —  MusicMaker5376 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Bloody hell, I didn't realise the book had quite so many different adaptations! I see why the extra disambiguation is needed; although it's nice to see The Phantom of the Opera (musical) a redirect to the most popular production. It looks like The Phantom of the Opera (disambiguation) is sorely needed. Thanks for the answers to the rest. Happy‑melon 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of stage actors

Interested parties may want to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Stage actors. — MusicMaker5376 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cubby Bernstein's 2008 Tony campaign

I really, really want to make him an article. I would say he has the minimum notability requirementes ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) but I would like a group hug before proceeding.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 07:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just a joke? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, it's a joke, but with the support of the third-party sources, I'd say he's notable. However, the article will need to separate fact from fiction, and, thinks I, that might be a little difficult. If you can find some sources about who he actually is, that might be helpful.... — MusicMaker5376 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a publicity stunt by the Xanadu team, similar to Avenue Q's "Rod's Dilemma". I know his name (kid with orange shirt, see caption) but I can't back it up with a WP:RS.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps he should be in the article for Xanadu (musical). — MusicMaker5376 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, there's not enough to write more than a stub, I'll do that. cheeriooo.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Socha

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Socha. Weigh in if you'd like. — MusicMaker5376 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musical Theatre-related FAC

Creatures of Impulse, a minor 1871 bit of musical theatre, is currently up for FAC. All reviews are welcome.

Also, the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Trial by Jury is moving towards FAC, if anyone here has any opinions on it =)

Forgive me for jumping over here, but Wikiproject Gilbert and Sullivan has only two really active participants, me and Ssilvers, so it's not like advertising there is that useful =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Spring Awakening cruft

What should be done with this information added to Spring Awakening? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)