Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 8 |

Archive 9

| Archive 10 →

1 Categories
2 Categories revisited
3 Musicals Categories: By Nationality or Language?
4 Categories.... again....
- 4.1 So, let's propose these for deletion?

Categories revisited

I just archived (obviously), but I left the discussion on categories, because I feel it was unresolved. With the influx of new articles being created, this is really something we should decide. There are two questions that remain unanswered:

Should we get rid of the categories for musicals by nationality?
Should musicals be categorized as the year of their first production or in the year they were written?

There were several arguments given above that should be considered. New arguments can be presented below.
— Music Maker 5376 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since nearly every musical theatre article already categorizes the production by nationality, I would leave things as is. Why create a change that will necessitate going back to every article and removing the category? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work, doesn't it?

As far as the year of creation, I think the year it was written should be acknowledged. Is He Dead? is an 1898 play by Mark Twain that is being produced for the first time ever this year. When I expanded the article about it, I categorized it as an 1898 play, because that's when Twain wrote it. Describing it as a 2007 play seemed silly, given Twain's been dead for years. Arthur Miller wrote The Man Who Had All the Luck in 1940 but it wasn't produced until 1944, and I categorized it as a 1940 play. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing the categories by nationality will actually be pretty easy with AWB (which I have). Will probably take all of 20 minutes -- you just use the category to populate a list, then tell it which category to remove. Very, very quick.

Regardless of the amount of work or the time involved and considering my argument above, do you think the nationalities are a viable and logical way of categorizing things? — Music Maker 5376 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that maybe categories for "British Musicals" or "US Musicals" may be a bit pointless and overwhelmingly large, but categories for "Israeli Musicals" or "Congolese Musicals" (for example, if there are any) would be fascinating, and pretty useful for grouping a fairly niche selection of content - which is the whole point of categories. If we have some nationalities, then, we should have them all, really. It does create some problems, though: out of interest, how would you categorise, say, Whistle Down the Wind]? English composer (Lloyd Webber), American lyricist (Jim Steinman), first produced in Washington, D. C., after a workshop at Sydmonton in the UK... - Dafyd 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. In some cases, it's clear-cut, but other times, it's a judgment call. Perhaps a better idea would be to categorize them by the language of first production? Category:English-language musicals, Category:Hebrew musicals, Category:Japanese-language musicals and the like? It's a little more cut-and-dried. — Music Maker 5376 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the nationalities are a viable and logical way of categorizing musicals. For those that appear to straddle the border, so to speak, such as Whistle Down the Wind, I think its primary lineage needs to be the deciding factor. I'm sure most people think of Whistle as an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, making it a British musical, as well. I recently created an article for Pieces of Eight, which has been produced once, in Edmonton, Canada. However, it's entire creative team was American, so I categorized it as such. Similarly, Jean Seberg was staged only in London, but since Julian Barry and Marvin Hamlisch are American, and at the time of its production there was controversy re: the RNT mounting the world premiere of what was considered an American musical, I categorized it as such. I think over all these gray areas would be few and far between. ConoscoTutto 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one - Rudolf, with an all-American creative team, produced only in Hungary in a Hungarian translation. I categorized it as American but I'm curious what others think. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 16:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my point. There are too many articles that require a judgment call. In arguing for the categories, you've mentioned three articles that aren't easily categorized -- three is too many. One is too many. Categories have to be cut-and-dried along easily-understandable and intuitive guidelines; otherwise, we're inviting edit wars. With the first two you mentioned, it's relatively obvious that they'd be classified as Category:English-language musicals and the second as Category:Hungarian-language musicals. There are scores of musicals (no pun intended) that don't follow an easy nationality categorization. Mary Poppins (musical) -- British and American creators of a British story about Britons first played in the West End... yet produced by Disney, an obviously American company. What about Chess (musical) -- written by two Swedes and a Brit, first played in London but has had considerably more success in the Scandanivian countries? I'm sorry, but I get REALLY angry about this: when I was infoboxing, I was recategorizing as well, and I just ended up getting waaaay too angry. (Mind you, the anger isn't directed at any editors, but at the situation.) We can't define what makes something one nationality or another, so asking the Wikipedia community at large to conform to something we can't even define is absolutely ridiculous. — Music Maker 5376 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Here's a question to muddle the issue even more - in the case of Rudolf, it was written in English but so far has been performed only in Hungarian. How do we categorize it? Do we look at a project in its original form or as it's ultimately produced? If we label Rudolf a Hungarian-language musical, do we change that if and when it finally is produced in its original language? Maybe categorizing according to nationality or language should be eliminated completely. ConoscoTutto 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

100% OK by me. Anyone else have any opinions? — Music Maker 5376 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I always wonder, when we have these discussions: What is wrong with putting something in more than one category, e.g. American and French (or, if you prefer, both English and French language) for Les Mis? I don't feel very strongly about this, but I thought that Wiki guidelines suggest that nationality is the best way to do it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing that puts it in the parent category (Category:Musicals by nationality) twice. Categorizing it by nat and by year does the same thing to Category:Musicals, but I guess that's okay. I'm not real sure what the answer is, to be honest, but I know we're supposed to refrain. — Music Maker 5376 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Musicals Categories: By Nationality or Language?

Sorry, I don't remember where we were on categories. Frankly, they don't seem too broke to me, and it's not a subject that interestes me, but I'm listening. Also, I don't think we need more pages. People can't watch so many pages. I think it's better to keep discussions here, in one place. Or am I not understanding your question? -- Ssilvers 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussions on categories are still above. We're (or, at least, I'm) trying to eliminate the judgement call involved in deciding whether or not something is American or British when you have creators of both nationalities. I'm thinking that a straw poll will allow us to ascertain concensus a little easier. We have a couple of options (keep them the same, get rid of them entirely, or rename them to language of first production), and I think that seeing it broken down by who supports what will make it easier. Also, the decision of the categories by year still needs to be decided -- are they by the year they were "Tony-eligible" or by the year they were first written? I know that the more Gnomish tasks around here don't necessarily interest you -- which is fine -- but they still need to be addressed. Adding another page, I don't think, will overwhelm anyone's watchlist; there's not much going on at some of the others. I'll mock up a straw poll page in one of my sandboxes, and you can tell me what you think. — Music Maker 5376 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the summary. I would not eliminate these cats, but I have no major objection to changing them from nationality to language. I only have two minor concerns about it: First, I thought that WP rules said that nationality was the way to go, but if you think it's permissible, and you want to do the work, then I wouldn't object. Also, by combining the Brit and US musicals into one big fat category, you will make the vast majority of the articles fall into a huge category of English-language musicals that seems less useful to me. The current system, while creating some difficulty in a number of cases, at least let's someone search for Canadian musicals, Australian musicals and British musicals, etc. separately from the American musicals. I don't see why a straw poll is needed. Only a few editors care about this issue. I think a straw poll with just get a lot of opinions from people who don't care about the issue, haven't thought about it and haven't really worked with categorization. A better plan, if you need more input, would be to float the idea to the category hounds at other projects and see if they have considered the issue. Probably, though, if you sought an opinion from the most active editors on the project, you would have enough information to make a decision. As I said, if you decide to make the changes, I'll trust you. -- Ssilvers 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask: you're trying to address the problem of categorizing a musical that is created by a Brit and an American, for example? I think changing to language-based musicals is a very bad idea. The American musical is a different tradition and subject to very different influences. If there are multiple nationalities in the creators, why not include in both categories? The tradition for dates in the critical literature tends to be the date of first production, rather than written or nominated for an award. To base the dating system for all musicals on eligibility for Toni would be, perhaps it ought to be pointed out, a slightly skewed perspective. For plays, the categories tend to be first production, expect when there's a huge gap (like for Büchner's plays, eg), in which case the written date plus first production date has been used. Is toni-nominated/awarded a category broken down into years? if so, that could parallel musicals by year. DionysosProteus 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I fundamentally agree that the notion of the "American Musical" is a long-held tradition, but that distinction has become blurred in recent years. Nowadays, musicals are less the product of two people working together out of spatial and temporal necessity, they're corporate (especially these Disney shows). They're getting increasingly more difficult to classify.

As for the years, I think that if a musical was written in 2005 and gets produced in 2006, that classifying it as a 2006 musical makes sense. But for a show written in 1968 and produced in 1993, it makes sense to classify it as a 1968 musical, as the music itself will reflect the trends of 60s music and not 90s music. (The Who's Tommy)

I'm not entirely certain -- it was mentioned when this was being discussed a couple of years ago -- but it was mentioned that putting it in both categories was to be avoided. (And I used the phrase "Tony-eligible" as a convention, not as the determining factor -- i.e. using the rules that the Tony Awards use to determine what year to use, not using Tony eligibility as the sole determining factor.)

Should we take these up at WP:CFD? It's not just for deletion, it's for discussion, too. — Music Maker 5376 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Maybe bring it up on the talk page there and ask for comment here? Or we can go to RFC. — Music Maker 5376 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any critical literature you know of that addresses these 'authorship' issues? The multinational/transnational corporation as 'author' might deserve its own 'nationality' category if there is? The date thing is trickier. Are the categories exclusively stage musicals? DionysosProteus 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no one has ever said "This is what makes a musical an American musical." "This is what makes a musical a British musical." Wouldn't creating a separate category for corporate musicals defeat the purpose of musicals by nationality?

I don't think they're exclusively stage musicals. I think there are a fair number of film musicals, as well. (Something with which I don't entirely agree....) — Music Maker 5376 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a category tree here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Category Tree, but it's a little out of date, because we decided to remove the film categories from our category tree, since films are outside the scope of this project. -- Ssilvers 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They're still part of the tree, if not part of the project.... — Music Maker 5376 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I also wonder why we can't list multiple categories if a musical was written by, say, Brits, but opened on B'way, or the music was composed by an American but the book is by a Canadian.... -- Ssilvers 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: the corporate thing. It's clear what makes a national musical belong, I think. Where it opens, who made it. A German working on Broadway is clearly making an American musical. Just as having a brit director of a hollywood movie doesn't make it a british film. but its a threshold thing, clearly. I though MM was describing a type of production where the transnational collaboration get so hopelessly complicated that the categories really lose all meaning. If that's so, I would be surprised if no one has written about it. I meant a category for it as a supplement to the nationality ones that are straightforward. It'd be interesting to hear what the objections you mentioned were against putting a musical in two nation categories when appropriate. DionysosProteus 00:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But where does that end? What if it's a German composer, an Australian lyricist and a British lyricist, a Canadian bookwriter, an American producer and it opens in Zimbabwe? In Urdu? Starring an all-Egyptian cast? It's unlikely, true, but that would require A MULTITUDE of categories. It really defeats the purpose.

The original discussions took place in the second archived talk above.

I'm going to ask over at the help desk. Everyone has good points -- I think we need an outside opinion, and I don't know where else to go. — Music Maker 5376 04:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to simply set out the various options and arguments, and leave the editors of each article to make a judgement call about each one? We're clearly having problems coming to a global agreement (there will always be exceptions, no matter what we decide) - so I'd suggest setting out a few guidelines, and deciding on a case-by-case basis. If we disagree about one, then that article can be discussed... instead of trying to shoehorn every article into the same rule. - Dafyd 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be easier. However, even setting up a guideline is going to require a judgment call. Who says that the composer's nationality makes the musical that nationality? Or the country of first production? Or any of the solutions that have been presented?

I'm relatively sure that, SOMEWHERE (I've read more than is necessary on categories...), it said that cats should be intuitive.

Also, if you look at the archived conversations from the original talk about categories, the guy who created them didn't know what to do about this, either, and left it unaddressed. We're just going to keep running into this.

I'm going to leave a note at WP:CAT. That's where the help desk said to ask.... — Music Maker 5376 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have a solution:
Why don't we categorize them by language of first production? We have Category:Broadway musicals and Category:London West End musicals -- why don't we restrict those cats to ONLY the shows that had their first main production in those locations? We can make Category:Canadian musicals and Category:Australian musicals do the same thing (perhaps renaming them if anyone has an acceptable name...), and they can all be subcats of Category:English-language musicals.
This way, yes, one or two "American" musicals may show up as a "London West End musical", but only by nature of that's where they first opened; we're not applying a nationality.
It seems to me that, by doing it this way, we'll still have a need for Category:American musicals and Category:British musicals, just as catch-alls for shows that opened in, say, Chicago or York and never made it to Broadway or the West End. However, shows would not be in both categories: it's either American or Broadway, not both.
And, we keep (or create) the interesting cats of Category:Hebrew musicals and whatnot....
I think that, this way, there's no guesswork at all. No judgment calls. Thoughts? — Music Maker 5376 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories.... again....

I think we should get rid of all "Musicals by Ethnicity" categories. We've been trying to figure out what to do with them for awhile, and the existance of Category:Chicago musicals is being used to justify adding Wicked (musical) to WikiProject Chicago -- during its FA review. Can we just get rid of them? — Music Maker 5376 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote yes. They seem to be much more of a problem of both too much labor and blurry definitions. Plus, I doubt that many "readers" use these categories as a means of navigation. Also, a side note: there are two (that's right two) articles in Category:Chicago musicals. Hardly a benefit to organization or navigation. --omtay 38 07:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping Category: Broadway musicals and Category:London West End musicals, simply because they are well-known, broadly definable concepts. Clearly, the user adding WP:CHICAGO to Wicked is trying to do the same thing with Chicago musicals, but calling something a "Chicago musical" has no meaning outside of this context. Wicked, for one, has no connection with Chicago other than as (basically) an extended stop on its tour ([1]). I'm loathe to lose all the "ethnicity" tags - the American musical, for example, is of huge importance beyond this project, in the wider world, and examples of it should be tagged as such. But maybe we limit it to just a few - Broadway, West End, American, British, European? I know we've talked about what these actually mean, but if we treat it with some common sense on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure we can come to some consensus for the trickier ones.

Definitely lose Category:Chicago musicals, though!

- Dafyd (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See, but the justification for Category:Chicago musicals will be "If we have Broadway and West End, we should have Chicago," and, frankly, I would agree. Chicago is becoming a major theatre town. The definitions of what makes a B'way musical or a WE musical don't even exist. The historical concept of the "American Musical" has no relevance in the new millennium. We live in an extremely global society. Yadda yadda yadda. I don't want to seem like I'm not acknowledging your objections, but I've been making this same argument for 6 months! These things have to go.... — Music Maker 5376 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tricky, i would also say keep Category: Broadway musicals and Category:London West End musicals, and if nominated for deletion they will probably be kept. Talking about nominating for deletion...are we going to nominate the Chicago cat and others for deletion? Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated Category:London West End musicals to be renamed to simply "West End musicals" awhile back and it nearly got deleted.... — Music Maker 5376 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Category:Chicago musicals, Chicago is not a major theatre town. It lists two musicals, neither of which originated there. According to West End theatre, "Along with New York's Broadway theatre, West End theatre is usually considered to represent the highest level of commercial theatre in the English speaking world" - seems quite a straightforward definition. Mary Poppins (musical) is a West End musical (and, later, a Broadway musical), but The Dreaming isn't. If it has played on B'way or in the West End, it goes in those cats. Not complicated. We make a decision to keep only those cats because they represent "the highest level of commercial theatre". At the moment, Chicago (or elsewhere) does not.

"American Musical" may not be a valid definition for new shows, but it certainly is for earlier musicals. We can't lose it just because Wicked or Spamalot don't neatly fit into it. Plenty of historically significant musicals are easily defined as an "American Musical" (in capitals)... There was a great PBS/BBC documentary series a few years ago ("Broadway: The American Musical") that analysed exactly this conundrum - the bigger Broadway gets, the less significant the concept of the "American Musical".

Likewise, I agree that there is no easy answer, MusicMaker, but I'm not sure that getting rid of everything is the answer. - Dafyd (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to keep Broadway, Off-Broadway, and WE -- simply as a mechanism to organize things by where they got their first production. But, by your own admission above, the definition of the "American Musical" is becoming less and less relevant. We can't keep it just to house historical musicals. WP is not paper: if the "American Musical" no longer has any meaning, we shouldn't cling to anachronisms. — Music Maker 5376 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey everybody, take a look at what we're talking about. Namely our very own Category Tree. Broadway, Off-Broadway, and West End are not under Category:Musicals by nationality. (Admittedly, neither is Category:Chicago musicals). If we say "we're deleting nationality categories" none of the ones we have specifically debated are under that category. :-D --omtay 38 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the by, if you must know, any "large scale production" that happens in Chicago is most likely a part of a venture called Broadway In Chicago. Basically, if it's playing in Chicago, it's already played on broadway (thus the name). Yes, it may be a pre-broadway try-out spot for many "destined for broadway shows" but there is no category for musical theatre in Boston or L.A. Just something that might come in handy later. --omtay 38 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be fairly easy to argue for. We keep Broadway and the West End categories because they have objective entry criteria and they're useful groupings, and productions on either of those stages represent the highest level of the art. We ditch all the others (and I mean all of them) because they do not have objective criteria and their utility is minimal. Unfortunately, you can't form a coherent argument if you try and keep "American musical", because there's no particular reason (other than US-centrism) that that category is any more useful/important/objective than any of the others. Happy‑melon 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, should we keep Off-Broadway, as well? If we're keeping Broadway and WE as being the pinnacle of English-language theatre, then it doesn't make much sense to keep it. And, I assume that the criteria for inclusion in the categories is by where it FIRST appeared, not whether or not it EVER appeared there? — Music Maker 5376 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Off Broadway is slightly outside the box in this regard, so you might be able to keep it if you tried hard enough. On the contrary, however, the inclusion criterion should be having ever played there. Otherwise it completely invalidates the purpose of the category - to collect musicals that have reached the pinnacle of English-language theatre. Let's be honest, any criterion which does not place Wicked, Cats and Phantom of the Opera in the group "Pinnacle of English-language theatre" has some awkward questions to answer :D. Happy‑melon 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let's propose these for deletion?

I'll do it, but will wait for consensus and such.

Category:Musicals by nationality
- Category:American musicals
- Category:Argentine musicals
- Category:Australian musicals
- Category:Austrian musicals
- Category:Belgian musicals
- Category:British musicals
- Category:Canadian musicals
- Category:Chicago musicals
- Category:Dutch musicals
- Category:French musicals
- Category:German musicals
- Category:Indian musicals
- Category:Irish musicals
- Category:Japanese musicals
- Category:Latvian musicals
- Category:Mexican musicals
- Category:Norwegian musicals
- Category:Russian musicals
- Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis musicals
- Category:Singaporean musicals
- Category:South African musicals
- Category:South Korean musicals
- Category:Spanish musicals
- Category:Swedish musicals

--omtay 38 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

that looks like a good start to me. <manic glint>BURN THEM!!</manic glint> :D. Happy‑melon 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BRING IT! I'm wondering, though, if we should consider Chicago separately from the rest of the nomination? — Music Maker 5376 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, they're all being deleted for the same reason. My text will read something to the likes of "These templates are too general and do not assist in navigation. Is a musical classified by the nationality of its authors? Where its played? Where its about? There are too many variables bla bla bla". For chicago musicals, I could make the argument "should the musical Chicago be included there? It's based on chicago but did not play there originally? " I bet the CfDers will be alright with all of them together.

I'll wait till sometime later tonight, probably around 1:00 wikipedia time (i always forget what zone it is) and then I'll put up the CfD.--omtay 38 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but the last time I looked at Chicago (musical) it had the WP Chicago tag on it. I think that's what pissed me off so much about Wicked.... — Music Maker 5376 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to set up a subpage with all of our discussion on categories here. You might want to link to it in the CfD. — Music Maker 5376 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)