Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Templates/Archive 1

message: If anyone can get this to work, go crazy.  —  MusicMaker 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite sure what I did to make it work, the problem was with the example not the code. I think it was in the title, added "Wikiproject:" to the template title and it all worked. Also, put the " | " at the beginning of the lines in both the usage and the sample to create for easier data entry. omtay38 05:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking we should take off the imdb, playbill, and website as they are almost all production-specific.  —  MusicMaker 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound's like a good idea, feel free to do so. I'm still working on some formating issues (i'm not as experienced on the whole infobox/template/everything else code as I should be but I do know HTML). I gotta go to bed now (it's 1:12 AM where I live) but i'll work on it again in the moring. My goal is to get it to display like the infobox on the Into the Woods page where all the names and titles fit on their own lines. This will allow for the best and easiest display but, as I said, I'm still having trouble getting it to do what I want. I'll see ya in the morning. --omtay38 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta be honest -- no idea what I just did.  —  MusicMaker 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial setup 

message: Single field, section with individual fields and a miscellaneous, or leave out altogether?
*Single. --Usgnus 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards final decision

message: Should the city be added?  We link to the theater which typically states the city in the first paragraph, but we may not have articles on obscure theaters in Berlin.
We've been operating under a basic assumption of a major New York production and a major London production, but what about something like Les Mis?  Surely we'd want the original Paris production in the infobox, as well, as it was the premiere. 
Should the info box have all major professional productions, or should we limit it in some way?  Should a film be listed?
I think the city should be listed, but I think we should limit ourselves to New York and London, unless the premiere was somewhere else.  I think mentioning the film might not be a bad idea.
—  MusicMaker 07:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The big franchise musicals (and oft-mounted classics such as Oklahoma!) will have literally dozens of productions worldwide in hundreds of venues. Sometimes a show will even change venue during a run, as in fact Les Miz did a couple of times in London. (It started out at the Barbican, moved to the Palace and is now playing at the Queens, all as part of its 20+ year run.) Factor in national tours (covering many, many cities/venues) this could get very convoluted. Maybe the infobox could just list major productions/tours, eg "1988 Chicago (premiere), 1989-1995 Broadway, 1989-1995 West End, 1992 Tokyo, 1990-1993 UK national tour, 1991-1995 US tour, 1992-1997 US/international tour, 1995-1998 Australasian tour plus other productions worldwide" with more detail (including venue) in the Productions section. Films could go in an Adaptations section in the main body of the article, but yeah - could also be mentioned in the infobox. There'll come a question about whether or not taped productions (eg the Les Miz anniversary concert or the Cats video vs the Rent or Sound of Music films) should qualify as an "important" production worthy of inclusion in the infobox, but again I reckon these could be handled on a case by case basis. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 07:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great, Malfourmed. – warpedmirror (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should just link to the city and not the venue?  Just keep the name of the theater in the article?  —  MusicMaker 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I don't feel like looking up all the national tours and such for H2$ since I'm sure there are a million, so here's an example for Throughly Modern Millie. – warpedmirror (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Throughly works for me.  —  MusicMaker 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what something like Chess would look like; it's a show (it could be argued) that had more success outside of the English-speaking world.  There are more productions than this (Sacremento and Atlanta are mentioned in the article).  Is this what we're looking for?  We could, conceivably, not include concert versions (tho the 2003 Broadway concert had the likes of Josh Groban....), but I think for shows like this one, Evita, JCS, etc., that existed first as a concept album, it should be mentioned.  IE: Tommy should mention The Who's 1969 recording.  —  MusicMaker 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we leave out the word "production", but keep tour, concert, etc.? See third box. --Usgnus 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Should we include the closing year or not? – warpedmirror (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do, we would have to have some manner of denoting that a show is still in production.  Personally, I like the one year.  —  MusicMaker 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily agree with including so many tours/productions in the first place, but I personally prefer the one year as well. Is this separate to the parts for opening and closing dates of the original though? Because I like those. Daydream believer2 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there won't be the separate opening/closing dates.  We're creating a generic template that covers the show itself — not a specific production. – warpedmirror (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the one year is a good idea because when you refer to a production, you typically say "the 2001 London production" not the "2001-2003 London production".  —  MusicMaker 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Erm.  I feel like I'm complaining but we really need to get this done everyone!  I want to add infoboxes to pages but I'm afraid to since they'll change!  Let's wrap everything up soon, shall we? – warpedmirror (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  I think we're done, tho.  Productions: one year, city (or Broadway or West End), line breaks.  Awards: year, award, category, line break.  Right?  —  MusicMaker 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Productions 

message: Should the new infobox be  or something new like ?  It might be easier to give it a new name: we'll be able to see what pages still have the old box.  Furthermore, this new box bears very little resemblance to the old one.
I know we're chomping at the bit to get this thing implemented, but I think we need to do it in the most logical possible way.  For expediency's sake, just vote New for a new name, Old for the old name.  In the meantime, I think someone could finalize the infobox — I think we have a consensus, there.  —  MusicMaker 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Name? 

message: I apologize if this has been discussed previously but I'm pressed for time. If you'll notice with the current template that is being used for articles on shows such as The Pajama Game, Annie and The Phantom of the Opera. For some reason the template creates an extra space between the title and the first text to appear on the article. I was hoping that this could be corrected in this new version. Thank you. The Filmaker 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from the old template. We'll make sure the new one is okay as well. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Usgnus 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra spaces between the title and the article

message: Discussion seems to have died down on this page. If there are no other points to be discussed, I propose we move this template from the sandbox to the project's template page and begin adding it to articles. Please vote below either with Finished or Unfinished. If your vote is Unfinshed please state why you feel it is unfinished.
*Finished omtay38 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to the roll call we only five active members (strangely, not entirely the same five that have voted to finalize).  It's been over two weeks, though.  Are we ready yet? — warpedmirror (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed finalization

message: As the unanamous decision has been that this infobox is finished, I have copied the template to Template:Infobox Musical 2. I think it's time we start using it. --omtay38 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for Action 

message: Since the new userbox omits production-specific info that used to be in the old userbox (e.g. choreographer, scenic design, lighting, etc.), with regards to article structure, are we incorporating this information into the "Productions" section of the article, leaving its inclusion optional, or just leaving it out entirely? Also, I was wondering about giving more fleshed out instruction regarding usage of the new infobox here at the new template discussion page.--Drenched 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old infobox information