Talk:Flower Drum Song

message: A couple of observations — thought I'd share them because it feels too big for one person (at least, too big for this one):
*(1) The information doesn't seem all that well organized. I kept thinking the article was over, then I'd read another major section, then another ... It also jumps around back and forth among versions. Is it time, perhaps, to split the article into separate ones about the book, the stage musicals (both in one), and the film? That approach doesn't seem to fit this topic, but I'm trying to think how to make the reading flow better.
*(2) There is a considerable amount of seeming original research here. Also, the information about the cast members' other work doesn't seem well integrated; at present it seems users would be served better by simply following the wikilinks to read all about each cast member. The exception would be information such as the claim that Jack Soo was encouraged to change his name specifically for this show (if we can source that).
*(3) The synopsis suffers a bit from the in-universe problem, such as the item that says "____, who enjoys being a girl." That doesn't make sense to someone who doesn't know the song, and to such a person, the link could seem odd as well. Other articles make a more straightforward mention, along the lines of "___ sings a soliloquy about femininity ('I Enjoy Being a Girl')." Lawikitejana 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran across source information about Jack Soo's name change. It doesn't say here that he changed it specifically for Flower Drum Song however.  - Anon
Moved recent discussion to the bottom of the page, where it belongs.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other changes needed 

message: I agree with the observations (above) by Lawikitejana. Taking this step by step, here is what I think might--hopefully--make this article more understandable and clear: (NOTE: I am not telling anyone what to do, this is just my way of figuring out things)
# remove "Novel" section and place in the author's article; DONE JeanColumbia 11:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I agree, with just a brief mention and relevant dates in the WP:LEAD.  2. Yes, move to a Background section, with just a brief mention and relevant dates in the WP:LEAD.  3. I generally think that the film articles should be split off if there is sufficient information about them to justify an article.  4. Agreed.  The actors listed who had their own articles only need to be linked.  But in some cases, it doesn't even say what characters they played.  We need a character list or at least a Broadway cast list that names the significant singing/speaking roles and just lists out the minor roles next to an asterisk.  5. Yup.  6. Let me know if you need help with this.  Thanks for working on the R&H musicals.  They were in pretty sorry shape, considering how important they are!  You're doing a wonderful job on upgrading the musicals articles on WP!  -- Ssilvers 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a spare hour so I started working on this article. I tried to preserve evrything that seemed useful, and informative, but really moved things around quite a bit. If I left out an important piece of data, it may be because there are large movements of material, and not deliberate, however I think nothing significant (to me) has been lost. The synopsis --not sure if that's also for the original Broadway, 2002 revival or just the movie. It's a startJeanColumbia 11:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 1) split film -- I left the 1961 synopsis for temporary reference, you can use it or delete it, whatever suits 2) looking at pronouns-seem ok to me. JeanColumbia 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I fixed the synopsis.  -- Ssilvers 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Article

message: :Image:TimePatSuzukiDec22-1958.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --BetacommandBot (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TimePatSuzukiDec22-1958.jpg

message: With Wehwalt's recent improvements, I have changed the assessment to C-class.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Hi.  I'm not sure why all the ELs were deleted.  I agree that there are too many of them now, but many of them contain information that should be mined for the article, and then the link will become a footnote.  So, for now, I consider these links a list of research.  Feel free to disagree and say why. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, keep them there until the end.  But then most should go.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on the article, by the way.  It's really filling out nicely.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I might have to depart a bit from the WP:MUSICALS way of doing things to really make it work.  But you can caution me if you see anything out of line.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Here's a treasure trove of stuff about this musical from the now-defunct American Musical Theatre of San Jose  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Fifelfoo for his view of whether it is a reliable source, he says no, see here.  It's all about the 2002 revival anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I want this as my next FAC, with you as conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

text: By cleaning up my mistakes, you save me lots of time.  And your comments on the text have been most useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive source on the musical

message: Can we put them in the infobox if they have to be anywhere.  If they don't play a role in the story, then they are just names to the reader, and why have them in the text?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The choreographer is "just a name to the reader"; so are the cast members.  No, the designers shouldn't go in the infobox: the infobox should contain mostly stuff that does not change from production to production.  The designers for the original production are usually considered important information by the WP:MUSICALS editors.  Even in revivals, if they are bluelinked people, I would include them.  I agree that they are usually very important to the success of a theatre production and should go in the production section.  Funnily enough, we do not normally consider the music director to be important, since he/she is just a hired conductor - anyone could do that, really.  In this case, though, he won awards.  I would certainly list them in any article above the level of C-class....  I would be very surprised if your book does not mention them?  Up to you, though:  I've made my pitch, and if you really want to omit them, I'm not going to argue.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you want them, you have more experience with musicals than I do.  However, my book (the encyclopedia) does not mention them.  It mentions Bennett, but not the others you have added.  Hwang mentions for the 2002 down to hair and wig design, which may be a bit much for our article.  I am going to be on the road the next few days but I will attempt to finish this up in the evening.  I think it is going well.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, actually, that is from the old version of the article.  I will leave it in, sourcing is not a problem as I said, though I may rephrase.  I could use help sourcing the awards.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for Ovation Awards: []; there are other articles, but they require a subscription (for example: []). For the Tony Awards, I usually use ibdb; I find the official Tony Awards site difficult to use (http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/pastwinners/index.html), although this link looks good: []. For Theatre World Award: [see 1958-59]. JeanColumbia (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is not a reliable source, neither is IMBB.  As this article has Featured aspirations, we have to use only reliable sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I will get to that tonight, if I am not too worn out.   You are catching a lot of the mistakes that I often make in the "rough draft" and then excise during a period of relentless copyediting of the article.  Once it is done, and in reasonable shape, I think I will ask Brianboulton to look it over in lieu of a formal peer review, and then we'll see where we stand.  I still have to finish the 2002 stuff.  By the way, the Lewis quote at the end, I think that should be a blockquote.  It is going to end the text of the article, and it should stand out a bit in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set, costumes and lighting 

message: OK.  I gave it a read.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Article_Structure for ideas on what else is needed.  See also Hair (musical) for more ideas.  You need a musical analysis section, for one thing, including a brief discussion of recordings. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should pull out the mention of the eastern influence on the music.  "A Hundred Million Miracles" also has an Eastern theme.  I'll see what I can dig up.  I think the social themes are interwoven into the text throughout and perhaps do not need a separate section.  There are only four recordings, I believe, New York, Londone, film, and remake.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a music section.  Do you see anything else that should be added?  I was wondering whether to integrate the song names into the plot descriptions.  I do not own a copy of the 1958 libretto and am uncertain of the exact locations of some of the songs (like many, I've seen the movie, but that's a bit different)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Wehwalt, I left a couple of hidden comments for you to consider.  Note that if you change the capitalization or punctuation of a name, you need to use it consistently throughout or else footnote/comment on the reason for the change.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I caught one, I will have to look for the other.  As for the name, mea culpa and all that.  I was able to put in the songs in their proper places, and I've ordered a copy of the original libretto just in case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps

message: I think we have our wires crossed.  Mei Li is only "Mei-li" when we are talking about the 2002 production.  In the book and previous versions, she is "Mei Li".  Also, we need to keep our citation formats consistent.  As the bulk of them seem to be cite format, I suggest that when either of us adds a reference, that it be in cite format if a template is used.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, but If we are going to change her name from Mei Li to Mei-li mid-article, we need to add a footnote or comment or something.  What do you mean "the bulk of them seem to be cite format"?  I hate the templates.  They just make it impossible for most users to edit the encyclopedia.  I just add the bibliographic information per WP:CITE.  If a template is already there, I may have modified it, but it made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.  Let me know what format I used that you did not like, but I'm not going to add cites using the templates, except for book cites at the bottom.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add (as her name was spelled in the revision).  All the cites have to have the same format.  I don't question each cite complies with policy, but for featured articles, they all have to have the same format, so we will have to figure a way to keep them consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: We'd still need to decide on a consistent format.  The two I changed were not similar to each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  As I said, if you want to use the cite templates, go ahead, but I'm not going to proofread them or care about them and will, as Hammerstein said, "...Look Away".  Except that I like the book cite template for the books list at the bottom.  If you want to use non-template cites in the body, I prefer the following: Last, first. [url "Title"]. Publisher, date, accessed November 5, 2010  If you prefer another, that's OK with me.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mei Li and cite format

message: Can we get a public domain sound clip?  Maybe the defunct American Musical Theatre of San Jose will let us use a clip.  I'll e-mail a San Jose-based accompanist I know.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they put on the musical?  I don't recall seeing a mention of them, but I do not think Lewis meant to be comprehensive with his discussion of productions.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Illustrations: Can we use the non-free DVD cover for the film? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User: Jappalang or User: Fasach Nua are my experts on image policy, but I'm thinking no, because this article is not about the film.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps rides again

message: Do we want a list showing that, or is that too much?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's the same, with a few changes.  We just need to annotate the original song list clearly.  We could also change the name of the section to simply "Musical numbers", then put in an introductory sentence saying, "The following is a list of the musical numbers included in the 1958 version, and changes for the Hwang version are noted below the list.", or something like that. Ssilvers (talk)
Well, if the idea is just to identify the songs included/excluded from the revision, we've done that now.  If the idea is to list all the changes, that is where they occur in the musical and who sings them, possibly best to just redo the whole thing, because it is entirely different, as a glance at the 2002 synopsis shows.  Incidentally, I agree with the Broadway critics, I did not go to see it in 2002, but the script utterly sucks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: You could take a look at Ruddigore for how one might deal with the two versions.  There are also some other musicals that had a major rewrite.  It doesn't make sense to me to make a new list of musical numbers that has nearly all the same songs, but in a different order.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Ruddigore!  Ruddigore's changes were relatively minor compared with Flower Drum Song's.  I think between the new synopsis, containing many of the songs, that is enough for summary style.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical numbers (2002 version) 

message: I've ordered copies of the script and of Lee's book, but they may take a week or more to arrive.  Brianboulton has begun a review which I asked him to post here when he is done, but he is not feeling well at present.  One question he did have which I am unable to answer other than with the obvious:  what is a flower drum song?  Or perhaps, what is it's significance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I googled "Flower drum".  It appears that the flower drum , also called a "Double-struck Drum" is used in Chinese Opera or Chinese folk songs and dances, or can refer to a style of folk song or chinese opera.  I think a "flower drum song" simply refers to a song sung while playing a flower drum in a Chinese folk song, folk dance or Chinese opera.  See: , , , ,  and  .  Flower Drum Song could be thought of "Story of a flower drum", like Brian's Song is the story of Brian Piccolo.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: It's rather unfortunate that the source chooses the Pirate King's song as an example, when the Major General's is not only perhaps the ultimate "I am" song, but is far better known, I am sure to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the whole thing dubious.  I doubt that "I am" songs began with G&S (though G&S loved them), and I find it dubious that "I am" songs were considerably more popular in shows after R&H than between G&S and R&H.  They are used in opera, too (Mimi's introduction in La boheme).  It's not a very important point, and much as I like to publicize G&S, it seems very tangential to me.  What evidence does the source give?  Just sayin'.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is Figaro's song, after all?  Largo al factotum, I mean.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly: that has nothing to do with R&H's use of this type of song.  I think you should consider killing the two little sentences (the one about G&S and the following one about how they were widely used because of R&H).  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Axed.  It was hard to find stuff about the music, so I happily jumped on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry!  I know it hurts when that happened.   But I think your music section is really good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Hope the critics think so!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am" songs 

message: This is a great source from the EL section: http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/2002/drum.cfm  I'm not done using it, but I'll have to resume sometime later in the next days, as I have to run now.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Interrupted

message: The order of the table doesn't make sense to me.  Shouldn't it go Wang, Ta, Mei Li, Linda (or maybe Mei Li first) then the others in whatever order?  If you agree, can you fix it?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why that is so.  Yes, I can fix it, though it will be a pain and possibly not the highest priority.  The cast list in the published script (1958) is, as you would probably expect, in order of appearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast table

message: Really, the sources don't say much about it.  All Nolan says is "Altering the staging of one song, "She Is Beautiful", consumed a good deal of time.  Only when Oscar hit on the idea of reshaping it to make it "You Are Beautiful" could director Gene Kelly make it work."  Lewis says the Boston critics liked "She Is Beautiful".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I guess we've said it.  They "reshaped" it.  Transform seems fine.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence as it stands is fairly meaningless.  They changed the song.  Other than the title, we don't know details.  Is it worth mentioning at all?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I will not act in haste.  My thought is that it is almost certain to draw puzzled comments at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "She Is Beautiful" 

message: Why capitalize oriental?  It's not part of a proper noun.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it like "Eastern"?  Frankly, I'm not certain, but it was capped in one use and not capped three lines away.  I would cap but if you feel not, then we'll uncap all of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked User:Tony1 for his opinion on his talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: That is good.  I don't particularly care either way, but with FAC upcoming—Lincoln cent could pass next time there are promotions—pays to be correct and bring in the experts.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Tony did reply on his talk, here, so I guess we go lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oriental

message: The [Talkin' Broadway] review reminded me that we need more information about the London production.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of information?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I will get on this today.  We may go to FAC tonight.  I think it will be well received.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: London

message: We describe Hall as an African American; we describe Patrick Adiarte as a Filipino-American.  I guess we should be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be hyphenated.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenated Americans 

message: What line is this about?:  "Rodgers later recalled that one of the actors sang the same line incorrectly for seven consecutive performances. Hammerstein, whom Rodgers described as the most self-controlled individual he had ever known, said only, "I'm not very good-natured about this anymore."   I must say that this is not a very interesting story, unless they fired the guy, or the line he substituted was very funny....   Less is more, IMO.  You've done a good job of putting in the info; I'd resist the urge to pad it with this sort of fluffy stuff, unless it's a really great story.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Bennett is in the right place now.  You've got him before mentioning the choreographer.  Orchestration is the last thing done, like a week or two before the show begins tryouts.  I thought he was OK before, right after changes to the score; he then would have orchestrated only the final version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the sentence to clarify why it goes there and moved it back.  Take another look, and if you still don't like it there, then move it higher.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine now.  Rodgers gave no further details about the incident, I thought it was good human interest but if you disagree, I will relentlessly slash it in the true R&H tradition (who were noted for extensive cuts as needed in tryouts, most notably in Carousel (which I wouldn't mind doing next, if you have an interest).  Your theatre knowledge has shaped this article, and you well deserve the conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Re: the Rodgers quote of Hammerstein, I'm just one opinion.  After we get some FA comments, we could ask a few of the commenters to look at the sentence and tell us if they think, on balance, it's worth putting in.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc issues

message: The other articles are gone and we are ready for launch.  Any objection?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let 'er rip.  I assume you will add some more London info as discussed above, but you can do that in the next couple of days.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in Lewis.  He basically ignores the London production.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, gives me a page number.  I've nommed it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it is page 130.  All it says is "Both Flower Drum Song and The Sound of Music left the West End judges competing for sarcasm awards."  However, their view was much the same for the other R&H musicals, they never really liked any of them at opening.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: No, we have all the cast albums generated by the major productions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Sure, why not.  When you finish up, I'll give your changes a once over.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC ready to go 

message: I'm finished.  Chita Rivera did FDS in 1966 in Milwaukee.  See this.  Would you kindly add this to the Subsequent prods. section?  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm uncertain that would be considered a reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It is nice, but I think we should let the article sit for a bit and see what people think of it.  The critics are watching, let's wait a bit to make adjustments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Items to reconsider later

message: I don't think we're going to get away with using that as an infobox image.  NFCC #8.  I know Fasach Nua and if he responds at all if we put in a fair use rationale, he will say that it doesn't expand his understanding of the article.  If this article was Flower Drum Song (cast recording) then maybe we could.  Not seeing it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that NFCC #8 covers this.  I know that it is a common misconception on WP, but I think the real image experts understand that this is not what NFCC #8 means.  In this case, the argument for keeping it is even stronger: The illustration on this cast album shows an upbeat Chinatown in front of the Golden Gate bridge, with details showing the East meets West theme.  This is an excellent illustration of what the R&H musical is all about.  If we can't use it here, we should at least be able to use it next to the description of the 1958 production.  The London album shows Mei Li playing a drum (presumably a flower drum).  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Damn, cheaper to see it than to buy the program.  Why don't you post to Fasach Nua's talk page and discuss it with him?  I've got it on my watchlist.  I think your view of NFCC is perhaps a bit broader than what usually passes muster around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Think it is very good so far. I think a media file in the music section is needed, and potentially a slightly more detailed plot summary, and more on critical analysis. Was a very nice read though.Mark E (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Flower Drum Song remains within copyright, I don't think a media file is going to happen.  I'll look at the other two, though.  Which plot summary, 1958 or 2002?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Having trouble with the Grammy ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a reference for the Grammy nomination (I can't use the "cite" referencing that the article uses, I leave it to you to add): . (Back later tonight /or tomorrow night.)JeanColumbia (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Great work here. I had been doing a little editing to the author article, and there's a whole section i tagged as needing citations, around critical reception, modern views on the book/play/film. If anyone has any energy left from their FA work, could they look over the author article and see if any of that section can stand or just be deleted? i may do it as well, but im much less familiar at this point with the subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speek for Ssilvers, my co-editor, but I really know little about Lee other than his connection to Flower Drum Song, so I don't know how much good we're in a position to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[C. Y. Lee (author)]] improvements needed 

message: I can't find http://www.rnh.com/show_history.asp?id=FD in archive.org ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This indicates it was a 404 back in 2008, but if I'm reading the page right, that may be an error from wayback?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the link.  Thanks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Well, we should probably get with the program, so to speak, and add some images.  I was looking through the program for FDS on line with the NYPL here and first it might be wise if we identified the scenes
*Page 2: I'm guessing that's the wedding scene.
*Page 10: Top seems to be the wedding scene as well. The middle two images seem easy enough to identify the actors, if not the precise moment in the play when they happened.  The lower right, after studying it a bit, I think is more likely to be an outdoor scene, possibly "Grant Avenue" than to be at the nightclub.
*Page 11:Top seems also part of the wedding scene, possibly we can get someone better at images than me to merge the two. Middle left I'm not sure.  Middle right is fairly obvious, Helen and Ta.  Bottom is Helen Chao a-seamstressing, but that can also be found .
*Page 17:  My, just dig the Sharaff one!
*Page 18:  Pretty clearly the "flower drum song" in Master Wang's house.
*Page 19:  The various dances I'm not sure of.  I think the bottom one is The Other Generation (reprise).  I know I've seen that scene in the movie but have to find my DVD.
*Page 20: Given that these are all of Linda Low, I'm guessing it's "I Enjoy Being a Girl".
*Opening night Playbill is here.  Probably best to use it as a cover, because there are problems with the illustration that might be hard to fix, blotches and such.
Thoughts on which ones to use?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see which page is which?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages are numbered by the library, right below the image, except they call page 1, Front Cover.  Use the faint arrows within the image box to navigate, or to move faster, use the arrows in the grouped image box in the upper right. Incidentally, I think we should replace the fair use CD cover in the infobox with either the program cover.  I confess I like this bumper sticker just because I've never seen a bumper sticker for a musical before.  Even for the newer ones, where they have a very well-stocked merch stand. Also, given the sheer scope of this collection, it might be wise to mention its availability at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

text: If you're going to replace the image in the infobox, can you use this? or, otherwise, this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The various photographs you asked about:  If we can show that the photograph was published without a copyright notice, then we're OK, but the published is the key thing.  It had to be used in something available to the public.  The souvenir program is PD as there is no copyright notice and the public could buy it.  Since we are not 70 years from the death of the photographer, obviously, I don't see how else we get there.  So my answer on the photographs is "more evidence needed".  Just my opinion, and I tend to take a strict view of it because I'm allergic to having to change images!  The program cover is fine, but I may run it through the Graphics Lab at Commons to try to get the handwritten 10 on it removed.  Yes, I agree, the souvenir program is a gold mine for the images for cast and others connected with the production.  If I see a cheap copy of this on eBay, I may grab it, just to get some better scans.  I'm fairly indifferent about the playbill, if you don't like it, no need for it.  I regret not seeing the 2002 production, Salonga must have been awesome.  Probably carried the play on her shoulders.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: In 1958, the jazz vocalist and Broadway veteran Adelaide Hall was cast and signed up to appear in the show and share the lead with Pat Suzuki. Newspaper reference from the Washington Afro American 12 August 1958  -  http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8zsmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u_4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6535,2933764&dq=adelaide+hall&hl=en 
I have tried to include this relevant piece of information on the actual Flower Drum Song Wikipedia page. Unfortunately it has been deleted twice by a reader who goes by the name of Wehwalt who appears to feel the information is not relevant. I totally disagree with their opinion, as without this piece of information it is rewriting history, and I believe that is something Wikipedia does not wish to encourage. Surely, by adding this information, it may prompt another reader to expand on the reason why Miss Hall left the cast to return to the UK. I would therefore like to bring this to the attention of WIKIPEDIA. At the moment, the CASTING section in this article does not give a true reflection of all the actors who were originally cast in the roles, thereby I believe it is rewriting history and gives a false impression.   I find it strange that Wehwalt felt the need to edit the heading to my explanation about including this relevant piece of information above. Is it now practice to edit the TALK sections as well? 
I have brought this matter to the attention of WIKIPEDIA regarding the omitted mention of Adelaide Hall from the Wikipedia article as it does not give a true reflection of who was originally cast and signed for the production. The matter of Miss Hall leaving the cast could be cited as unknown e.g Adelaide Hall left the cast before the production was staged, reason unknown. Surely that would not confuse any reader who reads the article! The fact that the producer and the director of the show and Rogers and Hammerstein cast Miss Hall in the role is I believe extremely significant. I rest my case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovisa (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eurovisa, please sign your talk page messages by adding four tildes to the end of the message like this:~~~~.  That will automatically add your name and a date/time stamp.  I will comment on your proposal at the bottom of the page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Regarding the format my colleague Ssilvers can speak to this better than I thought I believe it's dictated by convention at WP:MUSICALS. However some variation had to be made due to the fact that we have two different plots over 40 years apart. This article is about the play; the film has its own.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see moving the critical reception section to the end, we've done that for some of the other R&H musicals.Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it was unintentional please feel free to put it back. I am editing from my iPhone.Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it.  It looks like I did it somehow but I have no idea how I did.  Please accept my apologies.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wehwalt, I think you were responding (with respect to synopsis, format, critical reception), to some old comments above that were not made by Eurovisa.  Now that I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the page it should be clearer and easier for us to have a discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that.  Yes, welcome as well and sorry we've started off perhaps not as we would wish, which is my fault.  I am currently away, but will be home Monday night and will check my references for any information on this subject, which there may not be of course.  I do not agree it is a good idea to leave something dangling in the hope someone will be inspired to fix it.  Too often no one is.  Glad to have you aboard.Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Original Casting Omission?