Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive01-05-08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →

Contents

Project is dormant?

Thanks to everyone for the above spirited discussion. It seems that the project has been very quiet lately, after a period of extremely productive activity over the summer. It seems that when Omtay goes to school, not much happens.  :-) But it is obvious that there is much, much more work to do on the project. MusicMaker, what if we sent out a message to the talkpages of all participants with a request to help out with a collaboration of the month? We need a really focused project to get tangible results, I think? I would also suggest cleaning up the To do list to take off the original 10 musicals that were listed there and have had several months to be worked on. -- Ssilvers 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a roll call, as well? I would also like us to come to some sort of determination about the categories, or do you think that we're in agreement about them? After disregarding Conosco's objections (banned users can't have opinions), if memory serves, I think we were near consensus. Should we take them to WP:CFD?
If I get a chance today, I'll work up some sort of notice in our template sandbox, and hopefully AWB it on some talk pages tonight after work. —  MusicMaker5376 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we set up a page for straw polls? —  MusicMaker5376 15:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The message is in the template sandbox. If you have any changes, feel free to make them. Otherwise, I'll send it out tonight. —  MusicMaker5376 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just saw this and slimmed it down some. Looks OK? -- Ssilvers 12:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll send it out tonite. —  MusicMaker5376 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

October Roll Call

  • Hey! Not doing much, lately. Working a lot. Monitoring. Gnoming. Etc. —  MusicMaker5376 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just joined an arts magnet high school, I read in Musical Theatre, when I have less work, I'll apply more info from the school! Therequiembellishere 05:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Still here, though horribly busy! JellyFish72 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still around. Also busy (who isn't these days?) but I've been poking and tweaking the Jason Robert Brown related articles. Docta247 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just starting my final year at uni, and the workload is getting on top of me! I'm still here, pottering about, tidying and keeping an eye on articles... - Dafyd 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Haven't contibuted much lately, but I continue to monitor articles and plan to expand stubs in the future. Fred Lane 18:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still here, but I've barely been on because I'm incredibly busy. Stormymax 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi! I manage a retail store, and Christmas is coming, so not much from me until January (but I'd like to be kept on the roll, please!).MichaelCaricofe 04:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Still around if you need me, but not doing much work at all because, like everybody else, i'm busy in my non-wiki-life. :-D --omtay38 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Still Here Scoreed 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • At your service Broadwaygal 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been expanding stubs (expanded all of the Victor Herbert works recently), doing some cleanup and adding/helping to add new articles, most recently Gershwin's Primrose (musical), producer Edward Laurillard, Arthur Williams (actor), Florence St. John, Letty Lind, Nellie Farren, Zena Dare and Phyllis Dare. Also working on operettas and WP:G&S. -- Ssilvers 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm around but Gnome Week will be taking up my time over the next few days. (This is definitely not a shameless plug.) Crystallina 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm very busy with RL, but here! María (críticame) 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not being here for awhile been very busy with starting musical theatre at college and have very little time on the internet now. Also just got back from holiday. Still checking several articles now and then but haven't really got time to research and edit. I'll be active again soon though... hopefully - but you know how things can change rapidly. Mark E 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being late to respond, but with school starting up again I haven't been able to get on recently. Yes, I would still like to participate. Thanks, and I apologize again.

Sincerely, Meldshal42 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Still here, but my current place of employment blocks me from Wikipedia, so I won't be participating much for a few more weeks. ChrisStansfield Contribs 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review requested

Merge Articles

There are separate articles for:

They each have rather different information. Can anyone straighten this out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:BigRiverLP.jpg

This "fair use" image is up for deletion, as it has no source info. It was uploaded by a blocked user. Can anyone save it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the source is known only to that guy, we're going to have to see it go. There's one on Amazon, and it would be my assumption that that's it's provenance, but I don't really know. Let it go, and I'll upload the one from Amazon in its place with a proper FUR. —  MusicMaker5376 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's been deleted. Please proceed when you can. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Image:Big River.jpg. —  MusicMaker5376 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thrill Me

The vandal is back under a new name. -- Ssilvers 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wicked synopsis

We've been tidying the article for Wicked and trying to get it ready for GA assessment. The main criticism we received from the assessor chap was that the synopsis was rather long - which is perfectly true, it's about double the 900 words recommended - but we're having trouble shrinking it! Turns out Wicked has a surprisingly complicated plot! If anyone could take a quick look - and by all means, be very drastic - we'd be grateful. - Dafyd 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The synopsis is one of the main things holding it back from GA. I've cut it down once, only to watch it slowly grow back to where it is. I'm heartless when it comes to editing, but I know it'll just grow back. It's like the Green Knight. I might get a chance to do it on Sunday. —  MusicMaker5376 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to have held it back too badly! In its current form, the reviewer described it as "perfect". Now we just need to keep it like that. Happy‑melon 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you did a nice job of cutting it down. Personally, I think it's still a little long, but, hey, it's a GA! I would suggest reverting any and all "improvements" to the plot without prejudice, otherwise the novel'll be up there again.... Congrats! —  MusicMaker5376 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congrats, and thanks for all your hard work. Finally some musicals articles are getting focused attention. See below. -- Ssilvers 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hair - Images needed

The article for Hair is getting close to GA-class, I think, but it is terribly under-illustrated. Can anyone come up with a free image or two for the article? -- Ssilvers 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, my songbook has several images from the movie. I believe they're B/W, and I'm not sure how we could license them. I don't think there were any pictures in the paperbook I mentioned, but I'll check later tonight. —  MusicMaker5376 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, if we can use it under WP rules. What I was hoping, though, was that someone may have a photo that they took from a production that they are willing to contribute to the public domain. -- Ssilvers 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood Brothers (musical)

I don't know if anyone else is watching this page, but it gets its fair share of vandalism. If a couple more people could add it to their watchpages, it would be helpful. —  MusicMaker5376 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hairspray (2007 film) peer review

I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article. Seeing as the film was based on Hairspray (musical), I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome. Also, for a while now I've been trying to determine if the Hairspray (2007 film) article falls under the scope of this WikiProject or not. I know that it's not technically a musical theatre production, but it is a musical film that was based on the musical theatre production of the same name. Anyway, I thought I would ask. Thanks! —Mears man (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Our project's "scope" excludes musical films (see our project's main page under "Scope"), but some of our members are also interested in them. They fall within the scope of the Film project. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant FAC

Ozgod

As User:Ozgod currently has a big "retired" banner on his page, i suggest he be dropped down to the "Inactive members" list. ChrisStansfield Contribs 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he hasn't posted on Wikipedia since August 6. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My Fair Lady

Is the new image that someone added permissible/appropriate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Image:My fair Lady 291158637.jpg, I think it's hideous. However, since we run into copyright problems getting images of professional productions, I have no objection to it. —  MusicMaker5376 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. But having thought about it a little, I'm thinking that this photo of an amateur production with homemade costumes and a bare "stone wall" set hardly illustrates the show. You cannot tell from the photo which characters are onstage and what scene it is from. I'll leave the image alone if you think it's of any value, but I really don't see how it contributes helpfully to the article. I think it's the visual equivalent of a sentence that says "my school did the show," except that it takes up more space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It could just as easily be a scene from Guys and Dolls. Or The Music Man. Or Carousel. Or any musical or play in existence. Meh. Get rid of it. —  MusicMaker5376 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OBCR vs. ibdb vs. Playbill

I don't know if anyone's been watching the discussion over at Legally Blonde (musical), but we're running into some concerns over how things are credited. The recording has one listing for which characters sing which songs, whereas ibdb says something different. Slightly, but enough for there to be some concern about it. I'm just wondering what other editors think about it -- should we blindly trust ibdb over the recording? Does ibdb reflect what was in the Playbill or do they use some other source?
My own feelings are that ibdb is somewhat standardized, whereas CDs are necessarily trying to sell you something. I think that when it comes to titles, characters, song listings, and the like, ibdb should be held inviolate. As to which characters sing which songs, I'm not as sure.
I'm thinking that the hierarchy of sources should be Playbill, ibdb, OBCR. Should we stand by this in the face of discrepancies? Technically, according to WP policies, if sources differ as to the information, both sets should be reflected, but that seems rather silly for something like this. Should we even worry about who gets credited first on which song? —  MusicMaker5376 22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Playbill goes first. I'm not sure how reliable IBDB is. I have found many errors, both typos and substantive errors in it, but mostly with older musicals. Some editor there puts in the info and must rely on a source, but whether he/she transcribes the info correctly is subject to human error. On the other hand, a record publisher probably spends more on proofreading and making sure their product is free of typos than a website like IBDB can spend. However, as you noted, the recording may not faithfully follow the show in who sings what. So, I'd say you are correct, but if there is any other info corroborating the CD cover or sleeve notes, I'd go with that. Feel free to copy this over to the Legally Blonde discussion, if you think it's helpful, but I do not watch that page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the playbill should go first. I did in no way intend to instill some kind of great change when I made the edit. The credits just seemed so random and fan-made that I thought they had been thrown together over the course of time here on Wikipedia. However, while I do respect IBDB for being run by the professionals on Broadway, we must sometimes take the info listed there with a grain of salt. After all, I've found several strange points in their LB(TM) credits. I think the priority should go like this: Playbill --> IBDB --> OCR if the IBDB info is deemed unreliable. ---FallenAngelII 12:19, 12 December 2007 (GMT+)
It wasn't necessarily the edit; it was the subsequent discussion -- a necessary discussion. I think that, unless there are GLARING errors, we should probably take ibdb at its word.
I wonder how we might be able to get that information from Playbill itself. I have a contact there, but he's the ex- of a friend, and I'm not sure how they left things. I don't know if I'm in the position to call in a favor, but I'll look into it. —  MusicMaker5376 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But without the playbill, how can we tell what a glaring error is? Personally, I find it reason enough to be suspicious when two different songs featuring the same two people chronologically singing in the same order is credited in two different ways. ---FallenAngelII 17:17, 14 December 2007 (GMT+)
Well, what I don't want to see happen is "This song isn't on the CD, therefore it doesn't exist," when it's listed in ibdb. This is from ibdb:

Information found in IBDB is derived primarily from theatre programs (in most cases from a production's opening night). Supplemental information was taken from newspaper and magazine reports, theatrical text books, interviews with theatre professionals, and League archives. For consistency's sake, information in the IBDB is not necessarily presented in the exact format as in the original theatrical program, but best efforts have been used not to alter the meaning of any function or billing.

I think that this means that ibdb has their own format for compiling credits which may or may not reflect the format of what was done in the Playbill. If "best efforts have been used not to alter the meaning of any function or billing," they probably would not have changed the order of the billing from what was found in the Playbill. (The website carries the usual legal disclaimer that they make no promises as to content, but that's for legal reasons.) I think that, since LB opened, you know, this year, that they used the opening night program. —  MusicMaker5376 17:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course saying "It's not on the OCR, so the song doesn't exist!" is stupid as there are two glaring omissions from the OST (probably due to CD size restraints) and I would never ever make such a stupid argument. And I fully support using IBDB. However, something's clearly wrong here with the specific case of Legally Blonde. A lot of the songs have very iffy crediting and I just think that the OCR-format is much more consistent (at least with the OCR, the crediting order follows specific patterns and aren't at times quite random) compared to the IBDB-one, which is very iffy in certain spots. It's quite possibly it was equally as iffy on the opening night playbill but if so, it's most probably been revised since then. We need to come in contact with someone with a playbill or who works for IBDB who's connected to the LB-page and ask some questions. Until then, I think the OCR-billing should be used (as the IBDB is, IMHO, clearly unreliable). ---FallenAngelII 18:57, 14 December 2007 (GMT+) —Preceding comment was added at 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
People have made that very argument. Not in those words, but that's what they've implied....
We can't really talk with someone at ibdb, unless we get them to change what's on the site. We can't use our personal coorespondence as a source.
I don't know how willing I am to dragoon my contact at Playbill. I'll put it on the backburner, tho.
At this point, if there are indeed questions with ibdb's listing, I'm inclined to trust what's on the recording. However, there is music that isn't on the recording -- if we're discounting ibdb as a source in this instance, how do we credit those songs that are missing?
I don't know this particular show well enough to really make an argument either way. I'd like to hear what other editors think about this particular situation. —  MusicMaker5376 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been around recently but reading this, my response is meh. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the dispute is over the order in which persons are credited for a certain song. Now, if it were something more major like a missing song or credit given to a performer who did not sing at all in the song, then I'd say we need to figure something specific out. But this is simply about the order in which they are listed. The differences between the OBCR, Playbill, and ibdb could be related to pay scales or billing choices, could be alphabetical, or simply could be arraigned by the whims of the typist. Whatever the case, I think it's really splitting hairs. The average reader isn't going to notice a detail like that, nor will any "incorrect" order detract from the informative nature of the article. As always, feel free to retort :-) Happy Editing! --omtay38 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Fundamentally, I agree completely. However, I've been watching a lot of changes to this particular songlist over the past month or so. I don't know the show well enough to be able to tell what the changes have been -- whether its been in song order, names, or how they've been credited. Looking through the history, I find this diff that looks like it might part of that. If we're using ibdb as "the" source for the songlist, then we also have to use them as to how things are credited. I agree that this particular point is splitting hairs, but we can't say "this source is right here, but wrong there" -- especially when it's in the same list. —  MusicMaker5376 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We know that the two "missing songs" are in the musical because, hey, we've heard and seen them. A source can be right on things and wrong on others. Trusting them on one issue doesn't mean you have to trust them unconditionally. ---FallenAngelII 11:32, 19 December 2007 (GMT+)

I agree: You can rely on a source for the information from that source that is corroborated or otherwise appears reliable and augment it with information from other sources. You don't need to reject a source completely simply because *some* of the information in it is in error -- the best thing to do is to try to compare the various sources and figure out what information is most reliable. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're not supposed to do: we're not supposed to judge our sources. Judging our source invites POV. If two sources have conflicting information, the article is to reflect both -- I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. Again, in this situation the argument is kinda stupid -- I really don't care in which order the names appear -- but we're supposed to be regurgitating information here. We can't cherrypick.
To me we're like a jury at trial and the sources are like testimony: if you find an error in one aspect of someone's testimony, you have to discount all of it. (And, truly, my entire knowledge of juries and whatnot comes from playing Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men a couple of years ago....) Either a source is reliable or it's unreliable. Ibdb can't be right on the left side of the screen but wrong on the right.
Again, I'm just basing this on my interpretation of what I think policy is. I haven't read up on the policies in awhile and I could be wrong. I don't really have the time to read up until WELL into January. I'm definitely inclined to let things stay the way they are, either until someone can point me to something that says I'm wrong, or I have the time to find the stuff that says otherwise. Or, you know, I forget about it completely.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the situation here is similar to that of a jury weighing evidence, but your premise is 180 degrees wrong (I'm a lawyer). A jury must consider all the evidence and then *weigh* its probity. A jury can give weight to some parts of a witness's testimony and not others, unless the judge instructs the jury that a piece of evidence is not admissible. If a source is generally reliable, then WP:V says that you can use it. If there appears to be an error, it does not mean that you have to throw out the entire source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DAMN REGINALD ROSE!!!
I'm talking less about this situation than a general question: Should we note when sources differ with the information? I think that if songs aren't on the recording that are in the show, that should definitely be noted, but cast lists can differ from the actual original cast on opening night and who was still doing the show during the recording. In this situation, should we note that there are differences in billing? —  MusicMaker5376 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. If the cast album is notable in itself apart from the show, I guess if it sold really well, then the differences should be noted; but in general, I'd say that we should be trying to describe the show and using all the evidence available to try to figure out the facts. I thought that the issue, though, was what to do if one thinks that IBDB may have contained an error? Sorry, I've lost track of what we're discussing. Please ignore any of my ruminations above that are irrelevant to the actual issue, whatever it is. Best regards, and happy holidays. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember what we were discussing, either. I think it's discrepancies between ibdb and the recording. We'd need a tiebreaker. Someone, somewhere must have a Playbill.... —  MusicMaker5376 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of roles in musicals

There's been a revamp of the voice articles: Soprano, Mezzo-soprano, Contralto, Tenor, Baritone, Bass-baritone, and Bass.

One problem we encountered was embedded lists, i.e. lists of varying relevance added on to the articles. Some of these were related to musicals. The solution adopted - I think consistent with WP policy - was to split off some of the lists into separate articles.

These are the ones created for musicals:

  • List of soprano roles in musicals
  • List of mezzo-soprano roles in musicals
  • List of contralto roles in musicals
  • List of tenor roles in musicals
  • List of baritone roles in musicals
  • List of bass-baritone roles in musicals
  • List of bass roles in musicals

Will these turn into viable articles? Should they be merged? Should they be deleted? Maybe that's for the project here to decide! I'm sure you will know best!

So enjoy the new articles and have a great Xmas/holiday! Festively yours. -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no consistency whatsoever in the various articles for the musicals themselves. To my knowledge, no one publishes a source saying "So-and-so" is a bass-baritone. It's my opinion that these articles will become unstable OR crap-fests. Voice parts in musicals aren't as clear-cut as in opera. I say we delete them. —  MusicMaker5376 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They are unnecessary, and I think they will become OR sinks. I see that Bill Sykes from Oliver! is listed both in the Baritone article and the bass-baritone article. How do you draw the line between bass and bass-baritone? Vocal ranges in musicals often don't fall very neatly into one or another category, and keys are often changed from one production to another. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another vote to delete. The only accurate way to list a voicing of a musical theatre part is by note and I don't think the 5,000 plus List of A-sharp to G-flat roles in musicals style articles would be such a great idea. Anybody up to go through the bureaucracy that is WP:AFD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtay38 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD them. You never know, maybe no one will notice :D Happy‑melon 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD

They've all been nominated. Weigh in here. Happy editing! --omtay38 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

...and deleted. Merry Winter! --omtay38 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

Porgy and Bess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rent (albums)

This article is nominated for deletion. I forked this article from the main article, and would rather not see the information creep back to the main article. Any assistance in punching up the article would be appreciated. —  MusicMaker5376 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think it should be deleted because it is basically just a list of songs in the show. And also it only has info on 2 cast recordings. If the article was to stay i think it should be done like the 3 hairspray album articles and have more information than just listings.Mark E (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda the idea. It should have more info than just the track listing. There's definitely enough information out there for a complete article; why delete it when we can add it? —  MusicMaker5376 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think i'm for the delete also, a week delete (so no vot-ey on the AfD for me). But now, when deleting the album info you can say "Hey, this info was forked and the article was later deleted, it must not be important" and then revert. Happy merry! --omtay38 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, weigh in at the AfD. —  MusicMaker5376 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of Edwin Drood (musical)

An editor deleted a reference to the current production of this show at the Warehouse Theatre in Croydon, London. Should this production be listed under the productions section? That is, is it notable enough? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a professional production. Works for me. —  MusicMaker5376 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)