Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive9-10-07

message: I just posted a whole bunch of new navboxes on the template page.  , , , , , , etc.  Mostly composers, but I did make one for .  I wanted to do one for Jerome Kern, but so many of the links are red.  Irving Berlin, too, was kinda hard to figure out, so I haven't done him, yet, either.  I also alphabetized that table....  I'm going to start putting them on articles now.—  MusicMaker 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty new navboxes 

message: Created it to help us fill out the redlinks on all the pretty new navboxes. I'll fill out the rest sometime later tonight after dinner :-) --omtay38 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that redundant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Red Links?  —  MusicMaker5376 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much, these are articles in (to put it appetizingly) "In desperate need of creation". Red links was a page i created a long time ago of every reference to any musical i could find on wikipedia. For a long while it has just sat there, because it is overwhelming. The new page exists as a sort of "Okay, we should really make these articles. They're redlinked in a bunch of places, or they really are notable and should be, at the very least, stub-iffied." It's basically the tiny Wikipedia:Articles for creation of our project. Lots of projects have them, i thought we should to :-). --omtay38 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Articles Needing Creation]]

message: The guy who reverted MusicMaker's edits a couple weeks ago is back, now posting as User:209.247.22.170.  I reverted his edits on Saturday, but he undid my edits.  Can someone else please revert him this time?  -- Ssilvers 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted and warned. If there are any further problems. They can be taken to WP:AIV. --omtay38 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous troll is back - help, please

message: I've tidied up the code a bit and, more importantly, added some new class options. Take a look at the  page. The new options are for categories, images, portals, and templates. Cheers! --omtay38 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to {{tl|Musicals-project}} 

message: I've nominated :Category:London West End musicals to be renamed :Category:West End musicals as "London West End" is redundant when talking about theatre.  You can weigh in here.  —  MusicMaker5376 00:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should just be London musicals, since there are some major theatres in the East End too?  -- Ssilvers 00:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sure I don't know.  But the collective adjective for London theatre is "West End".  I think it's like Broadway -- Off-Broadway theatres can be on Broadway and Broadway theatres can be on a different street.  —  MusicMaker5376 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any theatres in the East End that a) are not subsidised and b) regularly mount musicals with a full-size band, chorus etc. Johnbod 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Inevitably, this has provoked a suggestion to delete this category entirely, and the on & off Broadway categories as well. I have opposed this but been asked for references as to the use of the term "West End musical" etc. Not my field, so please help out. Johnbod 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rename 

message: I don't want to beat a dead horse (nor would I really want to beat a live horse....), but I think I'm going to start implementing the infobox in the sandbox.  I left a message over at WikiProject Theatre, but there doesn't really seem to be any activity over there.  I think it's pretty good, but let me know if anything is drastically incorrect or I'm forgetting something that should be on there.  —  MusicMaker5376 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you do London theatres, please check with this guy, who has done mega work on them over the past year: User:Kbthompson. -- Ssilvers 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre infobox 

message: I added a Category Tree page.  It's an easy way for us to keep track of the ridiculous number of categories that we have.  On the talk page, I'm going to add some ideas.  —  MusicMaker5376 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category tree 

message: An editor made an elaborate template for The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee‎ that doesn't seem to be a good idea.  It largely duplicates information presented perfectly well elsewhere in the article and doesn't add anything, I think.  I believe that the same editor is creating similar templates for other shows.  If we have a consensus on this, can we please let him know?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is pretty unnecessary.  It didn't seem that it actually does anything, it just reiterates what's in the article.  —  MusicMaker5376 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates out of control?

message: Just wanted to let everyone know that  has been implemented. It's actually pretty cool -- it has fields for longitude and latitude, so the coordinates show up in the upper right hand corner of the page.  The whole thing is coded with hCard so, theoretically, you can download the contact to your address book, as well as plot it on a map and get directions to it.  Pretty cool.  —  MusicMaker5376 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent stuff - sorry I never got back to you about this, I've been stupid busy over the last couple of months. I know that some of the London theatres are still missing the infobox, so I'd be more than happy to look at those over the weekend. Great work! - Dafyd 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, man, no sweat.  I was starting to feel a little neglected, but I was able to rustle some help from another editor who had some good ideas.  As with anything on WP, it's a work in progress, so if you have any suggestions to improve it, I'm all ears!  —  MusicMaker5376 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damnable dead horse.... 

message: I've nominated  for deletion.  You can weigh in on this page.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  25th Annual TfD 

message: I've created a welcome template for new members; you can see it on the template page.  It's much wider than that in practice, so it's not really that freaky looking.  When using it, don't forget to use "subst" or your signature won't show:  —  MusicMaker5376 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New welcome template 

message: And honestly, in the current state they're in, I don't blame the nominators. We need to turn them from original research pastiche into sourced articles and maybe they'll have a chance. I've done some work on Angel Dumott Schunard but I'm afraid it may not be enough. Crystallina 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been debating for about a month about whether or not I was going to nominate them.  I think they're unnecessary.  —  MusicMaker5376 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, most of them can indeed be merged - you'll notice I haven't done anything to, say, Mimi's article, for instance, but I think Angel passes the line of notability in this case. Crystallina 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job at getting it encyclopedic and referenced.  However, it's still almost entirely information that's found in the main article.  That's my main problem with characters and songs having their own articles: there's just no need.  Anything that can be said about them can (and should) be in the main article.  —  MusicMaker5376 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every single Rent character page is up for AfD 

message: Well, kids, how should we name them?  I would think that keeping them in line with the rest of WP naming conventions would be a good idea, which is why I called that article "Rent (albums)".  I don't think this affects too many articles, but it may down the road (and it's a good way to cut down the size of existing articles, which is what happened with Rent).  As I said above, I think "Soundtrack" is a no-no, "Cast Recording" isn't a bad idea, but my own thought is to maintain naming conventions as strictly as we can.  Maybe some input from WikiProject Albums?  Thoughts?  —  MusicMaker5376 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cast Revording sounds ridiculous to me. I think Albums is best. Therequiembellishere 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit apprehensive about (cast recording) because many CD's of musicals are actually titled things like "original cast recording" or "broadway cast recording" or "Semi-New Reviewing Off-Broadway Junior Cast Recording" and i think using (cast recording) might encourage the introduction of those descriptors. I'm all for (album). --omtay38 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, but along the same lines, if those other recordings are charting on Billboard (or an equivalent, as Billboard is a little US-centric), there's no reason not to have articles for them.  I mean, I hope this link stays forever red, but there's no reason not to allow for the creation of those articles.  I think you're referring to one article on one recording not being called Avenue Q (2001 Original New York Broadway Cast Recording), but something like Chess (musical) could, right now, benefit from about three daughter articles on the several recordings.  Too, I'm thinking about something like Grey Gardens that had both a successful Off-Broadway recording and a Broadway recording.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think (album) would work. In the case of multiple cast recordings, (1998 album) or the like would suffice. Crystallina 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Albums

message: Someone keeps deleting images from this article.  Can anyone help restore them, please?  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the user that keeps deleting images is Videmus Omnia; he keeps claming that the use of those images is violating some copyright restirctions in Wikipedia. I've talked to him and if we put the fair use rationale for all the musical theatre posters or images he will stop deleting those images. I've restored a couple of images but please help with other images because this guy is hard. -- (Hapmt 19:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also put some more specific rationales on some images, but he continues to dispute the use.  Can anyone help, please?  Best regards -- Ssilvers 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I get a chance today, I'll see what I can do.  But I have to be honest, the first time I looked at that article and saw the Fantasticks logo so prominently placed, I had the same reaction.  —  MusicMaker5376 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I have to agree with Videmus Omnia. Per WP:NFCC#8, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Does an image of the poster or logo of a show "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Would its omission be "detrimental to that understanding"? In both cases, I think the answer is clearly "no," which means that we do not have fair use justification for using ANY of these images, ever. A photo of a production could be justified as demonstrating "how it looks," but there's nothing about the poster or the logo which contributes to the educational value of the article. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  I think these images help explain to readers what musical theatre is about and gives significant information about the shows and history/development of the genre that cannot be explained by text alone.   I believe that it would definitely be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject of musical theatre to delete all these fair use images.  I also don't believe that free images exist that can give the same information.  This is a question of interpreting the Policy, and I don't see any reason to interpret it as saying that you can't illustrate this article (or the parts of it that cover history subsequent to 1923).  -- Ssilvers 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, exactly, would the reader fail to understand by not seeing the logo to "A Chorus Line"?  —  MusicMaker5376 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images in the [[Musical Theatre]] article - Help, please! 

message: The poster for The Full Monty (musical) (see: :Image:FullMonty.jpg) is marked for deletion.  It needs source info and fair use summary.  Can anyone add it?  Or, is there a better image for the article?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That image doesn't even look that good.  I'm sure we'll be able to find something better, sourced, and rationaled.  —  MusicMaker5376 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Full Monty

message: Hi there, I just received my welcome message so I thought I'd say hi and make people aware I've made significant changes to the Parade (musical) page.  If they're totally awful please let me know!  :-) Docta247 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work.  This is much clearer.  The article needs more referencing, though.  Can you cite to any more sources that you used?  I restored a sentence that you had deleted - Did you think it was wrong, or just unreferenced?  Also, have there been no US revivals at all?  Also, you have numbered the songs using a #.  However, unless the score is actually numbered this way, it would be better to simply bullet them using * asterisks.  Thanks for joining the project, and happy editing!!  -- Ssilvers 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go searching for references but apart from the synopsis it's all old material reworked so I don't necessarily know where it came from.  I thought that sentence you replaced was unreferenced and not necessarily good for an article about the show in particular, but I respect your replacement.  I will replace the numbers with asterisks as suggested, it's a good point. Docta247 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be that the sentence I replaced should be removed, but I am not sure what it is talking about, and I thought that we should figure out what it is getting at - do you know anything about the fraud and bankruptcy issues mentioned?  Maybe a google search would clear up the issue.  -- Ssilvers 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I know nothing about these issues!  I have no reason to doubt their veracity, but neither do I have information to support them... Docta247 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greetings

message: Someone completely changed the starlight express article and added info on EVERY production on songs and characters and it was just useless. Ive taken out most of them, but left the main 3 versions in. However I know I haven't done a very good job of it and simply haven't got time to edit it more as im preparing for staring college next week and just everything seems to be happening.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
:Everything got readded. Reverted again. The character list looks pretty bad and stuff. I mean everything that was there is already noted enough in the productions section. Mark E 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I don't think that the editor was "slapped down".  Wikipedia pages can simply be edited, and it is the perogative of subsequent editors to remove or edit down information as they see fit.  Wikipedia isn't simply about contributing, it's about editing.  It's about making the information concise and accessible.  We aren't just creating a database of every imaginable piece of information: we're creating an encyclopedia.  The editor in question had a wealth of information, but that information has to fit certain parameters.  He seems very willing to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and the unfortunate thing about the Wikipedia society is that newer members end up getting turned off by the policies, etc.  I admire his enthusiasm, and hope that he stays around long enough to learn how to do it in an encyclopedic manner.  —  MusicMaker5376 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand i might have been abit harsh, but to remove the information from the article and putting a reason for editing, and then having everything put straight back into the article is what annoyed me. Im sorry if he was hurt by the way I did it, but by looking at any musical theatre article on wikipedia he would know that not every production needs a full song/character list with lots of repeated information.Mark E 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Starlight Express]] Mess

message: Musical films are included in our scope.  —  MusicMaker5376 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have suspected that of something called WikiProject Musical Theatre. Thank you for the clarification, although I personally don't think musical films should be included in a project labeled musical theatre. ConoscoTutto 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Amended:] ...we defer to the Film project regarding film article structure, however, and musical films use the film infobox.  -- Ssilvers 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that musical films should not be included in our scope.  I don't know why they are.  —  MusicMaker5376 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have no objection to removing them from our "scope" statement.  In general, I don't think we tag them anyway.  Of course, many of us are interested in musical films, but that doesn't mean they have to be part of the project. -- Ssilvers 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I corrected the scope note.  -- Ssilvers 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical films

message: * 28 August Edit:undo (PROD by User:207.162.58.3; "...a new musical comedy for the digital age, is a full length student-written musical about high school.")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this peccadillo when I was infoboxing and was torn as to whether or not to delete it.  It is a show written by high school students, for high school students, but it premiered at the Kennedy Center.  To me, that was enough to establish notability, so I left it alone.  I am fundamentally torn about it, so I'm inclined to leave the PROD, at least for now.  If another member of the project feels strongly about its inclusion, they can remove the tag.  Personally, I don't think this is a candidate for PROD, as it does assert notability.  An AfD should be required to determine if it actually is notable, but I will leave that for future editors to determine.  —  MusicMaker5376 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another similar article at Senioritis (musical).  —  MusicMaker5376 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the Senioritis is fine because of the references and its also being made into a film Mark E 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: After reading the article above, I found High school musicals, which I don't actually think is anything.  I've AfD'd it here.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported! What a pointless article. Nice find!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd 

message: We have three votes for a COTM.  How shall we get it started?  -- Ssilvers 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the Month

message: I just got finished creating a stub for the Lippa Wild Party and a somewhat fleshier stub for the LaChiusa version, based on forks from the poem article. I also fixed the disambig page to reflect the change. I am ready, willing, and eager to get to work on the LaChiusa, which I actually saw back in 2000 and which I have a lot of reference material for. I'll be doing that in the next couple of days.  The Lippa version, however, is very unknown to me, so anyone who can work on that would be greatly appreciated. Also, both pages need images and people to figure out which categories and addt'l templates need to be added (I'm a writer and editor, but formatting is definitely not my strongsuit.) Of course, I'm not claiming ownership either way, but if anyone has an equal affinity for both projects, it would be less duplication of effort if he/she focused on Lippa while I flesh out LaChiusa. ChrisStansfield Contribs 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NIIICE!  One of my major pet peeves has been this very issue!  Both articles look good, bear in mind that stub tags go at the bottoms of articles (but I wouldn't classify either as stubs).  I'm not sure what the alphabet is doing down there, but I'll check it out.... —  MusicMaker5376 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Wild Party'' and ''The Wild Party''