Talk:Rosalie (musical)

message: I am concerned about Special:WhatLinksHere/Rosalie. The great weight of these links appear to be related to the musical. I think the move discussion was closed prematurely and I would like it re-opened. And certainly no-one should even think about moving Rosalie (disambiguation) → Rosalie until the vast majority of the incoming links have been fixed. Sorry, I accept I have been heavy handed. I did the move back before I saw the above discussion but having done it, I see no reason to revert it. — RHaworth  00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the closing of the above discussion is premature.  RHaworth, do you have any advice here?  If Rosalie is moved to Rosalie (musical), then the disambig page should be moved to Rosalie.  But I have no view on whether the first move should be done.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When a page is moved it is normal for the person doing the move to fix the redirects. The administrator who closed the page presumably saw the good reasons for moving the page in the move discussion. I think that it is the links that should have been fixed rather than unilaterally overriding the move discussion. The current unlimited protection is over the top. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I have fixed most of the links - some going to the film and some to the musical play. There are some left that I was not sure if it was about the film or the musical play. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The new page "Rosalie (film)" was made while the move discussion was in progress, so I think the best plan is to wait 2 or 3 weeks and then decide by consensus if there is a primary page at a formal page move discussion. Meanwhile, I do not see the need for the page to be protected. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note that may influence what people do here.  The above close was not made by an administartor or even an "experienced" editor (as is allowed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions).  I have queried several of there closes and ask them to stop doing closes as they clearly don't understand how requested moves work (e.g. the above only seems to have been open a day) or how to determine consensus (e.g. there clearly wasn't one above).  I'm not an admin either but come across this as I have been closing RMs as an "experienced" editor in an attempt to get rid of the backlog. Dpmuk (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I believe that the requirement to unprotect this page is in the guidelines. It is against the spirit of the wiki to protect pages unnecessarily, and so in this spirit and without any clear reasons for protection this page should be unprotected. If there is any persistent move vandalism following page unprotected, then the page can be protected.  The current unlimited protection is over the top, and may actually enhance the disruption caused be the early closure of the above move discussion.  Snowman (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good point that you made about the person who closed this discussion is not an administrator, because I did not realise this at first. It seems to me that the early closure of the discussion has turned out to be quite disruptive. I do not see any message given to the editor at User talk:Macr86 about their closing of the above move discussion. May I suggest that you leave a polite message for this user explaining that you reversed his page move and so on. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be grateful if you would address the topic of unnecessary page protection raised above. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To me User Macr86 seemed a bit confused about what the discussion was about. To me this makes it even less likely that there was any page move vandalism, and the current page protection even less justifiable. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you would do that. My request was to remove page protection with immediate effect; nevertheless, page move protection now ending 30 January 2011 seems reasonable. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: This work might already by public domain due to a lack of copyright notices that I can find, but it will definitively be public domain in America in 2024. Included are the songs. Here I am adding a link to sheet music cover for one such song, Oh Gee Oh Joy, which was copyrighted. Other things might be added later. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On the left is Marilyn Miller who starred in the production in 1928. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2024 in public domain