Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure/Archive 2

message: I tried to keep the format away from lists as much as possible. All examples (except for the Godspell one) were made up by me on the spot and could use some help or even complete replacement. This document would become not only the basis of all new articles on musicals, but also the go-to for any disputes or analysis of current musical articles. Therefore, it should have some aggressive analysis. To keep this organized, please do not edit the main page, but rather place your suggestions on this page, with an appropriate heading. The comments will then be reviewed and placed on the main page. Let the analysis begin. --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes from [[User:Omtay38|omtay38]]

message: For the Intro section, why not add an example on how you think a good intro should look, and then we can discuss it.  Right now, the description of what should be in the intro is very vague.  --Ssilvers 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure exactally how to write it, anybody got an idea (or a page with a good one that we can copy right now?) --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Where should the spoiler tags go?  I don't think the whole Synopsis should need spoiler tags.  Perhaps just the denoument?  Otherwise, The word "Synopis" would always mean the same thing as "Warning: this contains the plot."  Also, do we really need spoiler tags on the Sound of Music, or Phantom of the Opera?  --Ssilvers 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, i've been looking around and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera states "The use of spoiler tags before synopsis/plot summaries is regarded as unnecessary and distracting." I think we could follow their example. Or perhaps just around the truly secretive parts of the plot (i.e. the very ending of Wicked). --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggested it before, but what if we only had spoiler tags for musicals that are currently playing in theatres?  Then we could leave the vast majority of articles untagged and we wouldn't have to debate every single case & worry about gray areas etc. After all, there's generally nothing to spoil in a closed musical. --Drenched 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of only using spoiler tags for Musicals currently playing. I'll add it in if there are no objections. --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler Tags

message: These should not overlap.  Cultural impact should include all references in other works of literature, not Trivia.  Personally, I think that Trivia is a bad idea, because it encourages editors to stick in stuff that is not notable, NPOV and unreferenced, or not substantially related to the article.   Probably, anything notable and necessary to the article would fit in another category.  --Ssilvers 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true and I agree wholeheartedly. However, many articles already have pure trivia sections (Fiddler on the Roof). What should be done with those? --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia and Cultural Impact 

message: I noticed you left out categorization in the guidelines.  I'd suggest adding a short section outlining which basic categories a musical should be placed into.  Something like:
#Determine the first verified year "YYYY" the musical was produced, and place the article in Category:YYYY musicals.
#Look at the nationalities of the musical's composers and book authors.  If they're all from the same country, place the article in that country category found under :Category:Musicals by nationality.  For example, if the musical's creators were all American, then place it under :Category:American musicals.
#If the article mentions the musical ever appeared on Broadway, include it in :Category:Broadway musicals.  If the article says it was an Off-Broadway production and never played Broadway, instead include it in :Category:Off-Broadway musicals.  A musical normally should not appear in both these categories simultaneously.
#If the musical ever appeared in London's West End, include it in :Category:London West End musicals
#If the musical was made into a musical film, include it in :Category:Musical films.  If the musical is a stage production adaptation of what was originally a film, place it in :Category:Musicals based on films.  If the musical was adapted for a musical on television, include it in :Category:Musical television specials.
#Lastly, if the musical doesn't clearly fit into ANY of those subcategories, place in in the overall category :Category:Musicals.  Only articles which do not fit in any subcategory should appear here (which means that most of the articles still in this category are probably stubs that need additional information or which haven't yet been sub-categorized).
Just a suggestion. Dugwiki 12:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: suggestion tanken. (sorry for the late response too) --omtay38 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  Sorry, I made some minor copy edits and added a paragraph  before I read the above, but I think the changes are not too controversial.  Check the history and delete or move down here if you disagree.  Also, I added my comments on the discussion page.  Can we move all this discussion to the discussion page, which is the more standard way to do it?  Finally, I thought we decided that the nationality of a musical for Category purposes depended on where the main premiere was, not on the nationality of the authors.  If Sondheim writes a musical for a West End theatre, or if Lloyd Weber writes one for a Broadway theatre, which is it?  --Ssilvers 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, and the discussion has been moved. As for the Categories, I'm not really sure. Anybody know? --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I was thinking the same thing as Ssilvers, but then I started thinking of exceptions that would make the current method more acceptable.  For example Bombay Dreams premiered in London and then opened in New York (thus making one think it would belong in :Category:British musicals).  However, the entire show takes place in Bombay, India, was written by A. R. Rahman (an Indian composer), and several of the songs are in Hindi.  But since (as far as I know), it has never played in India — so does it belong in :Category:Indian musicals?  Miss Saigon features only Vietnamese and American characters, but originally opened in London.  What to do...what to do...? — warpedmirror (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this method could be the most preferable. In the case of Musical Theatre productions, I feel that the categories are more helpful with the discovery of an article than when a user is trying to find information about an article. If, for example, I know that Into the Woods was staged on the West End, I might look in "British Musicals". I could then read the article and then find all the information about the various premiers and countries of origin. Thoughts? --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: I noticed our current plan is very anti-lists.  So just a question: what's wrong with having some lists?  I realize that having every castlist ever, a list of awards, and then a list of musical numbers would be cumbersome and I know we're worried about featured status, but I think having some lists is all right/unavoidable.  I mean I agree it'd be good to have some narrative regarding awards to contextualize, but would you really go through 5 Tony awards saying "____ won best actress...because she was the best actress.  ____ won best featured actor...because he was fucking awesome.  ___ won lighting design because he had the prettiest lights of them all.  ___ won best director because his direction was better than everyone else's"?  Also I think an OBC list is okay for the major roles.  Just my two cents :) --Drenched 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I have incorporated some language that basicaly states "if you must use a list, please do so". --omtay38 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In omtay's defense, while lists can be informative, they are not considered "good prose" — a requirement for WP:GA and especially WP:FA.  They really should be avoided at all cost unless the prose is overly redundant.  And there's no need at all to have a new sentence for each award either.  Ex.: The Drowsy Chaperone walked away with five Tony Awards under its belt, including Best Musical, Best Original Score, Best Scenic Design, Best Costume Design, and Best Featured Actress in a Musical for Beth Leavel as the Chaperone.  Just my $.02. — warpedmirror (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About Lists

message: One concern about bolding the musical numbers in the synopsis: Doesn't WP:MOS say that they should be in quotes?  I could very well be wrong and I'll go check right now, but I thought that might be a concern worth worrying about (?). — warpedmirror (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a concern, we should stick to the WP:MOS as much a possible. According to the Manual of Style, for popular music "album titles should be in italics, and song titles should be in quotes". Also in Manual of Style it mentions that song titles should be in quotes. However, because we are writing the article structure guide for articles about Musical Theater, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we would have the license to add to the manual of style something like "when listing the musical numbers from a musical theater show, do this..". What makes me think this was the popular music section of the music MOS. There it says, "Main article: Wikiproject Music. Thus I think if we form consensus on how the numbers should be listed when they are listed within a synopsis, we can put that into the manual of style. --omtay38 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding Musical Numbers in the Synopsis

message: All this is good; if we can do all this and cite sources it'd be great. Crystallina 21:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Notes

message: I am going to add in a last section with advice on using the proposed article structure when an article already has been written (and, thus, probably dosen't conform). Anything that should be added? --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some edits to the last note section.  Feel free to revert if you disagree, but I think you should keep it upbeat and simple.  I want to add my thanks to those of Drenched about the fine job you have done of moving this forward.  --Ssilvers 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Double thank you! Your edits look fine and thanks for the thanks! --omtay38 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Last Section

message: Hello, I'm not officially part of the Wikiproject, but this is as good a place to ask a question to those more in the know. I've participated in quite a bit of editing on the Mary Poppins (musical) page, and someone suggested that the article list out the differences between the stage version and the Disney film. It would be a long list since there are many differences, so I was thinking of starting a new article maybe titled Differences between Mary Poppins (musical) and Mary Poppins (film). Would this be irrelevant to wikipedia's needs? -- Annie D 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Question

message: This page could be significantly beefed up, per the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines.  Most of the Musical information on Wiki is woefully inadequate, and employing a structure that expands upon Films might be helpful.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work to this page 

message: Often the story of a musical is told through the songs within it. Thus in the synopsis it is highly encouraged to incorporate the names of the musical numbers into the prose. The titles of the musical numbers should be "in quotes"  per MOS:MUSIC. Musical numbers can be incorporated like this in two ways:
*Using the title of the number in a sentence. - ...then, Horace Vandergelder informs his two employees that "It Takes a Woman" to make a household complete. (From the musical Hello Dolly)
*In parentheses when the song title cannot be incorporated easily. - After the curtain call, the entire cast joins in sending the audience on their way ("Goodbye!"). (From the musical The Producers)
Note that either method can be used interchangeably. When considering both options, remember to choose the one that sounds the most "encyclopedic". For example, do not include a sentence just to incorporate a song into it if the sentence contains no other useful information. (i.e. Then the cast bids the entire audience "Goodbye!"). Also, it is encouraged to incorporate as many song numbers as possible into the synopsis.
:I agree with the first paragraph above, but not with the "all or nothing" approach.  I think the synopsis should name the songs that illustrate a plot point, and that for any other songs, reference to the list of musical numbers can be made, which would contain any footnotes or information about songs included or omitted in various versions.  -- Ssilvers 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, point taken :-D --omtay38 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporating musical numbers in narrative

message: I was just thinking that we should probably say to use present tense in the lead section, or at least the first sentence.  IE: "Oklahoma is a musical...." rather than "Oklahoma was a musical...."  —  MusicMaker 19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, done, and I used your example :-D --omtay38 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  -- Ssilvers 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section