Talk:Carousel (musical)

message: The "plot synopsis" included as the main part of this article looks to me as though it was lifted from the liner notes of a cast recording, which I believe would be copyright infringement.  I don't know which recording, however.  It would certainly be easy enough to rewrite.
:I wrote it.  I used the liner notes from my CD (the 1994 revival version) for reference, together with my knowledge of the musical, but the language is all mine.  <Men's Wearhouse guy voice>I guarantee it.</mwgv>  Naturally, anyone who wishes to may rewrite whatever they wish!  It is Wikipedia, after all...  But thanks for the compliment!  -- Nightsky 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: Someone has started a new Wikipedia article for the 1956 version of "Carousel". I am going to incorporate section on the film version in this article be into the new one. That might involve removing the photo, and I don't know how to transfer photos on Wikipedia.AlbertSM 18:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the image and most of the links over, but you need to check all the links under "what links here" on the left side of the article to make sure that I moved all the links that belong to the movie and TV versions rather than the musical.  Thanks.  -- Ssilvers 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film version

message: I don't think the film version goes in the infobox for the musical.  It has its own article.  What about the TV production?  Shouldn't we just list major stage productions?  -- Ssilvers 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I have made extensive edits (editorial corrections and improvements) in this article without altering the substance, except to remove occasional ambiguity and "say what you mean" errors.  I have also made two minor substantive additions.
Before this editing, the article's substance was excellent and comprehensive, but the writing would rate a C+ or B- at best in a freshman English class. The errors and infelicities included verbosity (wordy phrasing); overuse of passive voice, "stuffed sentences" ( overly long sentences with too many ideas in one sentence), and compound sentences; midsentence and midparagraph switches in tense; not-the-best choices of words; and numerous errors of grammar, syntax, style, usage, and punctuation.
In the plot synopsis, the parenthetical song titles in appropriate places in the text were too bulky--and conflicted with the streamlined form used in other Broadway musical articles.  The song references read like this: (Song: "You'll Never Walk Alone," reprise of song).  In these references I deleted "Song:" and, for reprises, deleted all words except "reprise," which I changed to the following form: (reprise: "You'll Never Walk Alone").
Under "History," I added a new fact, shown in bold face in the following revised sentence: "The final anthem 'You'll Never Walk Alone' has assumed a life of its own as a funeral and graduation standard.  The song is often sung at funerals.
Under "Themes and Issues" I added this sentence: "The later Rogers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific returns to social themes by attacking racial prejudice."
Saul Tillich 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Revisions

message: :Image:Carousel 1945 Bdwy.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 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Carousel 1945 Bdwy.jpg

message: The link to the reference for the 1949 Atkinson review was the same link as that for the 1945 review by Nichols. I changed the link to the 1949 Atkinson review.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Since the 1996 tour material is no longer in the article, should that be deleted from the infobox? JeanColumbia (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to wait on that one, I might yet mention there was a US/Japan tour.  Let's just keep it there for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I will try to give this article a very thorough read over the next few days.  I would have liked to help out more, but I'm crazed with rl and stuff.  Sorry!  Great work on the article so far!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  It is not done yet, it needs beefing up in a few areas.  But I think it will be well received.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  There needs to be another sentence or two about the film; e.g., how did it do.  If true, it could be said that the film version was fairly faithful to the show's storyline and included most of the songs.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry I'm late

message: Should be a level 2 heading here, as is normal in all stage works.  FDS was an unusual situation, since there were two plot summaries to deal with.  The level 2 heading will also help readers find it in the TOC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you might consider putting reception after music and recordings, although I'd do musical analysis, then reception, then recordings (or maybe recordings and films?).  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: According to the guidetomsicaltheatre, Nettie runs a "snack bar on the beach", not a "spa"; I really don't know if it makes any difference, but, would you check?JeanColumbia (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, which is their published work up through Me and Juliet, page 111, Act 1, Scene 3 of Carousel has a setting described as "Nettie Fowler's Spa on the oceanfront, June.  Up right is Nettie's establishment (and residence combined) ...".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nettie's shop

message: I don't think you should link Hungarian language.  You don't want people clicking away from this article.  It is general knowledge per WP:OVERLINK.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it out but don't be too surprised if it winds up being put back in.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I guess it is a question of whether "major" modifies language and whether Hungarian qualifies.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that we are called upon to do too many links, catering to most unlikely trains of thought.  The article's more or less done though I hope to add more critical reaction.  I'm thinking it's a good thing Billy went invisible to the graduation, Louise did not have an extra ticket for him.  Julie got leaned on for all but one by Mr. Snow (all those kids you know).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlink?

message: Wehwalt deleted the information that stated, for the 1996 tour: Other cast members included Sarah Uriarte Berry and Jennifer Laura Thompson.  The review we show certainly does state that Sarah Uriarte was in the cast.  Jean, do you have a cite that shows both names?  I see one, but I don't know if we can cite it: .  The ref also give other interesting information.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's borderline.  I am not convinced it is the most accurate site ever.  Carousel was certainly Rodgers's favorite, but I would hate to assert on the basis of this that it was Hammerstein's favorite, for example.  I think they are going up on their lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Because I think that listing most of the cast in text clogs up the text needlessly.  I would suggest a table as with FDS but I think they'd creep in anyway.  My criteria for inserting a cast member's name are three:  either a lead, or someone whose performance is particularly notable, or someone well-known to the reader (i.e., Florence Henderson).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Certainly for the largest productions.  Not sure about all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Can we get the text of that Providence article?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May 11 Providence article, as requested in my sandbox. (I also will now take a short break.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast table needed

message: I'm on Lexis/Nexis, will add a few complete articles in my sandbox, I can't link to them. The ones from Sarasota and San Diego show Thompson as Julie (appears to be later in the tour), while Sarah Uriarte is still Julie in Vancouver in September.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get the text of that Providence article?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May 11 Providence article, as requested in my sandbox. (I also will now take a short break.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: tour cast

message: I'm finished proofreading.  I'll step back now and let you guys work, but I'll keep an eye out and do a quick proofread of new materials as you add them.  I assume you'll fix the London 1994 closing date.  The Variety article noted above is a reliable source.  Good luck with the article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be comprehensive, the article must describe all the major recordings, including the 1993 London cast recording and the 1994 Broadway cast recording. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what information is wanted?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, Jean, do you have any information on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it will take a while to check (probably tomorrow, depends on the weather). However, in the meantime, the material on the Japanese tour and then US tour in 1996 probably came from the rnh official site: [] (" A Japanese production played extended engagements in Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka in 1995, and a U.S. National Tour visited over 40 cities from February of 1996 through May of 1997, and starred Broadway stars to be Patrick Wilson, Sarah Uriarte Berry and Jennifer Laura Thompson".) I do not know if this meets the GA/FA standards, but there it is.JeanColumbia (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It's a reliable source, taken with a grain of salt for self-interest not really applicable here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: And it's always great to have a scholar: John Kenrick puts it together: Comparative CD Reviews, Carousel.JeanColumbia (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good.  I'm not sure I'm up to it tonight, but I'll expand it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded it, though I do not cover every recording in detail, that would be tedious and better reserved for a sub article.  I find that there is a 2009 version out, apparently from that 2008 revival.  I listened to bits of it on iTunes, and if that's the best Nettie they could find, I'm very sorry for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good.  I filled in the info on the 2009 Savoy Theatre closing.  Waiting for the info re: the the Japanese and U.S. 1996 tour, for which Jean gave you the cites in her sandbox.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Today would be a good time to make suggestions, as I am away tomorrow for a week and will not have my sources with me (book ones anyway).  Could someone go over the synopsis?  I fear it is overlong but am uncertain of what more to cut.  This is turning into quite a long article, one reason I am getting a little leery about additions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Finished proofreading; recordings

message: Here's a start: a lengthy paragraph from The Rodgers and Hammerstein encyclopedia, Hischak, pp. 42-43:
Recordings.JeanColumbia (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's always great to have a scholar: John Kenrick puts it together: Comparative CD Reviews, Carousel.JeanColumbia (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good.  I'm not sure I'm up to it tonight, but I'll expand it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded it, though I do not cover every recording in detail, that would be tedious and better reserved for a sub article.  I find that there is a 2009 version out, apparently from that 2008 revival.  I listened to bits of it on iTunes, and if that's the best Nettie they could find, I'm very sorry for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good.  I filled in the info on the 2009 Savoy Theatre closing.  Waiting for the info re: the the Japanese and U.S. 1996 tour, for which Jean gave you the cites in her sandbox.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Today would be a good time to make suggestions, as I am away tomorrow for a week and will not have my sources with me (book ones anyway).  Could someone go over the synopsis?  I fear it is overlong but am uncertain of what more to cut.  This is turning into quite a long article, one reason I am getting a little leery about additions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recordings

message: Hi.  I do not agree that, in general, the article is too long.  If you do not put in adequate information about the productions, I would not be able to support the nomination.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state what you would like.  I do not agree that we need four performers for each production.  I am willing to put two, plus any other performer whose name would be readily familiar or else whose performance is in some way specially significant.  Those are my criteria, leads, famous, or stunt.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: (ec x 2)Not at all.  If I wanted to "push it through FA" as you say, I wouldn't have it at GAN where it is languishing due to a large number of other articles in its category.  I think you misunderstand.  Once I have an article well-sourced, anything that goes into it, whether added by me or someone else, must be sourced.  Period.  That way I don't have to worry about what is sourced and what may not be sourced, and it is not written on the forehead of the words, so to speak.  If you toss in the name of an extra actor, not listed in the source, and I leave it, thinking you will source it later, and you don't, I may not remember that that little bit was left unsourced.  And when someone checks the sources, as routinely happens at any level of review here, I do not want to hear the comment "that's not in the source".  I am grateful for your assistance, but please insert your cite at the same time you insert your new information.  That way we are both sure.  If you would like to do something to help this article, you'd make sure all the footnotes are consistent in style.  I did what you suggested and avoided templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Scrolling through the article now, my impression is that the production sections are, if anything, too short, especially the original production and 1994 production, which are, I think, the two most famous productions.  What do you think, Jean? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going through the article, not through diffs.  It's OK to wait to add stuff until you have a cite in place, we are better off in the long run.  You could have been interrupted and it slipped your mind and we have a booby trap in place in the article just waiting for someone to check the refs.  Guess who gets to answer for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And labeling everything as "ce" destroys the edit summary to the point of uselessness.  I'm not always perfect about using them, but please try to give some indication of what you've done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: We should make as little use of websites like whatsonstage.com, whose primary purpose is to pretty up a ticket sales site.  I've tried to keep to high quality reliable sources.  The sites being added are dubious.  Convenience does not equal excellence.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I only saw similar websites that reported the early closing.  Do you prefer this?  Jean, do you see a better source for this?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, they are all online theatre guides whose fact checking and editorial review are questionable.  I'd rather have a newspaper.  Did this version of Carousel have a website?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Early closing of the 2008 Savoy Theatre production

message: This sentence is wrong; "The plots of Liliom and the later work based on it, Carousel closely track each other...."   Liliom does not track Carousel.  The plot of Carousel tracks Liliom.  How about: "Rodgers and Hammerstein would closely track the plot of Liliom, except for the ending." -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that?  I reversed it and took R&H out of the mix but I don't think it's too far off.  At some point in the review process, they are going to get me for calling Ficsur a lowlife, but I think it is the best term for him (Jigger-analogue, but without the sense of humor, and he doesn't get to deflate Mr. Snow's ego a couple of times in the play, alas).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic sentence

message: Note that Sarah Uriarte Berry is called Sarah Uriarte in the review.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did manage to fire up enough synapses to get that one.  However, I'm concerned about the Thompson reference.  All the SD paper seems to say is that she replaced Sarah whozits about a year before after being her understudy.  I suggest changing what is written to say that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1996 tour

message: As I will only notice them if I happen to be editing that section of the article or happen to look at that diff, it seems better to leave a note here.  Or on my talk page if you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more hidden comments, please 

message: I am trying to shorten the plot summary, as you requested yesterday, but I am not sure about a couple of things: you say that the girls go to the town's carousel.  Is it just a carousel, or an amusement park or carnival?  It says that Billy thinks about "the fun he will have with Bill Jr., until he realizes the child might be a girl."  This implies that Billy does not want a girl.  Is that right?
:If you were reading the published script, which I do not have before me at the moment, you'd see mention of other attractions.  I would term it a carnival.  The setup makes more sense for Budapest than Maine, frankly, you are not going to find many (non-moving!) carnivals in a small Maine coastal town in April, where it is cold at night.  As for the other thing, I'm guessing you are as familiar with the lyrics for "Soliloquay" as I am, so something must be wrong with the synopsis.  I'll look at it.  Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind, but I hope she works from an accurate plot synospis, if she doesn't happen to have a copy of the out of print script, which was not easy to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary questions

message: There is nothing in the stage directions to support the word "little" before carousel.  God knows the one on the Hytner production wasn't!.  At this point, why don't we let the article sit for a bit?  Can we get a GA reviewer from your serried ranks assembled, Ssilvers?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask one and see if she can do it expeditiously.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: On Soliloquy, you now have "realize" twice in that sentence, it is much longer, and I still don't know what it means.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to have it inscrutable than incorrect, as it was before.  I'm still trying to regrow my hair after learning that the Starkeeper told BIlly he would have to spend 15 years in purgatory before going to earth.  Anyone for some hanks of hair violently torn from head?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have simply substituted a line from the song that sums it up.  I will check the script before FAC to ensure the word "father" is italicized.  It is certainly sung that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Good.  I took out the first half of the quote, since it's the same as what you've already got there.  The rest of the quote finishes it off perfectly.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Maine is linked only in the WP:LEAD.  I think it should be linked once also in the body of the article, since it's a state that is probably unfamiliar to Non-norteamericanos, and its location is important to the article.c  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it needs to be linked a second time, it is just the other side of Liliom from the lede.  We credit the reader with some elementary memory.  As far as we can tell by the text, Billy has nothing to do with ANYTHING else but the carousel.  He works for Mrs. Mullin, who is the CAROUSEL's owner.  He gives off with that line I quoted as an edit summary.  There are other places (see Julie's comments in the scene with Carrie at Nettie's later in Act I, it is the music of the CAROUSEL which disturbs Billy) but I don't think there is any doubt that Billy works at getting people to ride the carousel.  Why, that is how he is described in the pantomime's stage directions.  Also see Carrie's lines "Did you like it when he looked at you that way/when he put you on the carousel that way".  Do not describe him as the carnival's barker.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: That might need additional sourcing.  I will have to find something that describes them as instrumental.  Actually, that's going to require a reassessment of how the musical numbers are sourced.  If I have to put in specific sources for the instrumental numbers, that will make the other numbers look unsourced.  I'm not sure what the benefit is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, then, you could simply take it out of the plot summary.  We can generally source the musical numbers to a theater program or vocal score.  Up to you.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me put it on hold.  I've gone away for a few days so don't have my books with me.  Since there are instrumental numbers that are key to the plot, I'd rather put them where they are.  Perhaps I can find a source that has all of this in the same place.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I think this article would benefit from views outside our little hothouse, so I look forward to seeing the GAN comments.  I do not expect to take this to FAC for a couple of weeks yet, I will probably nom C. D. Howe which has had a peer review and is FAC ready once I implement the PR comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Odds and ends

message: I will read the plot. I will make NO changes, unless for spelling or punctuation. I have no sources (no script, most importantly), so I can not make any substantive changes. If I see anything that I think shoud be changed substantively, I will note that on this talk page. Your plot is safe! (Although I also think that Mrs. Mullin owns the CAROUSEL, not the carnival, and that should be changed.) Happy New Year!JeanColumbia (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make that change.  I did not write the plot and feel no writer's pride in it; I merely insist that it be utterly accurate.  Nothing would be more embarrassing in review ... thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: I've just made a change to the plot of Liliom.  As it reversed a change made by Ssilvers, I want to explain.  Liliom is not being judged by the Police Court Magistrate for his involvement in the robbery, the magistrate is uninterested in that, what he cares about is the circumstances Liliom has left Julie and his unborn child in.  In fact, when Liliom asks "Should I have stolen for her?" the magistrate responds (emphatically) "Yes".  This was greatly toned down by Hammerstein but it is still there, the Starkeeper never says a word about the robbery.  That's why I made that change.  I cannot expect others to read through Liliom, which is a brilliant work though slightly dated.  With that understood, please feel free to modify my phrasing.  I regret that the discussion has become a bit testy, but I think the result will be worth it.  This is already a better article than Flower Drum Song.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but the three words "as in life" do not seem to add anything, and the sentence seems clearer without it.  OK now?   -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I know.  Technically I am correct, Liliom is dead at that point.  However, it reads oddly.  I'd like to get other views on the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You did it exactly right, but I notice in your citations that you usually need a space after the author's name and also after the ending bracket, like this: Columbia, Jean. [url "See Spot Run"]. Playbill....  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liliom 

message: I converted footnoe 87 (Coslet, Paul) into the usual piped cite, but I had not read the GA reviewer's comment about this cite. If I did not do it right, apologies.JeanColumbia (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You did it exactly right, but I notice in your citations that you usually need a space after the author's name and also after the ending bracket, like this: Columbia, Jean. [url "See Spot Run"]. Playbill....  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review, footnote 87

message: Congratulations, Wehwalt and Jean, for bringing this article through GA.  It is unquestionably the most important 20th century musical yet promoted this far.  Thanks, Tim, for the review.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It is likely to be a few days until Royal Maundy passes FAC and I'm allowed to do another nomination.  Jean has done a fine job and I'm content to see it move forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA promotion

message: With three supports, Royal Maundy looks like a good bet for promotion, which would free up a slot at FAC for me to use.  I am going through it closely, I saw an extra comma or two when reading on my iPhone but did not take any notes.  I will list Jean as a conom.  I honestly think this should sail through, it is much better than Flower Drum Song, though that is a reflection on no one, we simply have a better defined path to follow now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I think we need.  I think we need a brief mention of exactly how Oklahoma! advanced the musical, perhaps simply mention the concept of an "integrated musical".  We dance around the point all night but we never actually reach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not arguing with you, being very familiar with many of those.  I guess I'll put it off until I get to Oklahoma! then.  Which won't be soon, I do not really like either Oklahoma! or "The Sound of Music" and will leave them for last.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt we had to say something about Oklahoma!  Take a look at it, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a slight modification, as the word "claim" would leap out at reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to slow down, but I like to get things finished.  At any rate,  I agree with you.  That is why I said innovative for its time.  To avoid the argument on a point which is there for the sake of continuity and complete background more than anything else.  I'm trying to continue to bounce around the point, but to give the reader a closer view of it.  It needs to be dealt with, as you noted, when Oklahoma! hits top of the list.  I think it is possible, btw, to be both good and placate the FAC reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Can't argue with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: I think the IP is right: one n.  See ,  , , , , etc.  I think a google search will convince you, even though her name has sometimes been misspelled.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it you read it in the Times, it is so, at least in this case.  Surprised there is no article on her, or Mervyn Vye for that matter.  I will have to write some stubs when I get a chance.  Thank you for catching that the books misspell her name.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Trude Rittman

message: Please see my edit summary for my last edit.  Please do not remove this info (or substantially the same info that gives a brief summary of the entire plot) from the Lead without a consensus here.  I consider this essential to this article and to my support of the FAC.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Essential

message: I disagree with this change to the Lead.  I think it gives WP:UNDUE weight to Enoch's "large fishing fleet" but doesn't even mention Billy's death and the second act story line concerning Billy and his daughter.  Does anyone else agree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As Billy's death occurs in Act 2, I believe it is too deep into the story to be given to the reader in the lede.  As I pointed out in discussion with FAC delegate Laser Brain, that, in combination with the "more hopeful ending", gives away the entire plot to the reader.  I am happy to discuss this, and alternative descriptions of the setting, but I do not think we should mention anything that happens in Act 2.  I know the plot of Carousel backwards and forwards, so do most people likely to comment here.  Yet there are always youngsters and newcomers who approach this for the first time.  If they voluntarily choose to read the plot section, that's fine, but the understanding under which we got rid of spoilers some years ago is that "plot" or "synopsis" was itself a spoiler warning.  I do not want to give the ending away to readers unless they choose to have it so.  I would love to see Carousel myself with the innocence of not knowing what is going to happen, instead of knowing exactly what Billy or Carrie or Enoch is going to say, and hoping there will be differences from the Carousel I am used to ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Given that I noticed you on your talk page, that seems one of the sillier accusations of bad faith I've seen recently.  Does Flower Drum Song, on which you were given credit as conom, contain any mention of either couple's marriage?  Does it mention any specific plot element at all?  You were very happy with FDS, you were talking about it on noticeboards all over the wiki as the first Broadway musical to make it, so you must have liked it.  I suggest that you are not being consistent, and that this dispute has more to do with our personal disagreement than any wiki guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: What revelation struck you since Flower Drum Song?  Like it or not, that is our benchmark in this matter, as the sole previous FA on the subject, and you can hardly object to what is in Flower Drum Song, since you copyedited it.  Shall we explain all of Ta's romances and say that he gets married to Mei Li in the end, as does Sammy to Linda?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Very well, but Ssilvers needs to come forward with something a little more convincing than reciting the plot deep into the second act when he saw no such need when he was conom on the only benchmark we have, Flower Drum Song, a FA.  I say again:  Saying that Billy is given one chance to return to Earth, and saying that R&H makes the ending "more hopeful" gives everything away, and I think that is unfair to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As to process, I concur with Jack, but as to the merits of the content before and after the changes, I'd like to look at all the relevant versions carefully before expressing a judgment. I'll do this by this time tomorrow, if that's OK. Meanwhile, deep breaths and sweetness and light all round, gentlemen, for the good of Wikipedia and everyone's blood-pressure! Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to make up at any time, please check what Ssilvers deleted from his talk page.  I'm also open to compromise langauge, which is what I tried to put in there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: You attempted a compromise?  You put what you wanted in there with threats if it was not left alone.  I made a change, many hours after the FAC cleared, and after leaving word on your talk page I was doing it, and inviting a discussion.  Your implications of bad faith are repudiated.  You said that you " I feel very strongly about this and will withdraw my support and oppose the nomination (of all your musicals FA noms) if you change this again."  Given a blanket threat like that to oppose all the musical articles I will ever write without regard to their content (obviously, I have ceased involvement in writing any further musical or G&S articles, I don't need this).  I have explained at considerable length why I believe that your version is a bad idea.  You have said nothing to defend it.  Why do we have to give away most of the second act to the reader in the first two paragraphs, and not even give him a chance to pull his eyes away?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: "You apologize?""Your Majesty, I didn't--""Good!  I accept".  Now that we've gotten that out of our way, OK, is there any way we can get out of telling about Billy's death?  It would look odd coupled with the hopeful ending phrasing.  What if we were to go back to mentioning the robbery to provide for the unborn child?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: As do I, at least it wasn't over a carpet.  Still, never say never.  Very well, we will wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not certain your reasoning holds.  You are taking more distant FAs while ignoring Flower Drum Song.  And I cannot say that Ssilver's version had consensus, as you are aware he prevented the removal by threatening what he did, thus I was in a poor position to say anything..  And let's get down to brass tacks.  I wrote the damned thing.  That gives me no special rights, of course, but how does there become a consensus version when I've opposed the inclusion of material?  I'm really feeling hard done by here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a change that has one sentence on the primary romance and one on the second.  I ask that this change be accepted.  This is a unnecessary distraction for me and I have no intention of letting this happen twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: First of all, unless they said "Gee I like the little plot summary that Ssilvers has inserted in the lede," I don't think you can count that way.  Your change lacked consensus, period, as shown by the fact that I removed it and you restored it complete with threats.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, if others feel strongly that much of the plot should be in there, I will yield to it.  However, I would like to discuss alternatives.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the show about Enoch's "large fishing fleet"?

message: A possible compromise occurred to me: How about adding to what we have now: "He attempts a robbery to provide for Julie and their unborn child, but when it goes wrong he is given one chance to make things right." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What the Starkeeper says is ambiguous.  He never actually says that if Billy fails, he cannot not have another chance, and there's the whole line about "as long as there's someone left on earth who remembers you ..." which should be by my calculations at least another 50 years.    The Police Court Magistrate in Liliom makes it clearer, though there is ambiguity even there ... I would suggest "He attempts a robbery to provide for Julie and their unborn child; when it goes wrong he has a chance to make things right."--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: In the bibliography, "The Rodgers and Hammerstein Encyclopedia" links here, which is a search in that book for "Flower drum song london". I'm assuming that the FA reviewers missed this. Focus (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it gets you to the right book?, which assures verifiability?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, I'm not questioning the verifiability. Just that it seems illogical to have a search for a different musical as the link. I'd recommend that you fix this, either by replacing the link with a search for this musical, or just linking to the cover page. Focus (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: A new editor has doubled the length of the plot section, and I have reverted.  An overdetailed plot section is not favored, first it is inelegant and fannish to explain every little plot point at length, second, there is the risk that by discussing the work in such detail we create a derivative work which is a violation of the copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reverted another very large addition (or the same one again?). I think it adds undue length and weight to the section. --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Andy, all this was happening as I went to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: My correction of the spelling (not grammar) to British is a matter of courtesy. Grammar may be the prerogative of North Americans in an article about a musical written by two of its citizens, but the BBC is British and its radio and television programmes are just that.Roger Arguile 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I disagree.  We use home country usages.  Similarly, that is why we refer to Liverpool F.C. as a soccer team, not a football club.  It's all in WP:MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wehwalt.  This article uses US spelling, grammar and dates consistently throughout, even when describing British productions of the work.  It goes both ways: In the H.M.S. Pinafore article, for example, when we describe American productions, we use UK date format, spelling and usage.  This is very clear in the MOS, which says: "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation [throughout]", except in direct quotation, proper names and the titles of works.  It also notes: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation".  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Kaiserkarl13's expansion of the plot is unquestionably correct.  However it is much too long.  We are not trying to get every plot detail in, we're trying to give the reader something usable if he has tickets to Carousel tonight and has never seen it.  The changes are a bit of overdetail, I'm afraid.  Also, what's the justification for "Stonecutters Cut It on Stone"?  The original cast CD is in my view fairly determinative as R & H would have looked at it themselves.  I am away from home until Saturday so can't look at my references but as I recall, Hischak agrees.  I'm not trying to discourage Kaiserkarl13, who is obviously a knowledgeable editor and clueful.  However, we can't put everything in and still have a useable article.  There is a lot to be said about Carousel, but we can't say it all.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wehwalt; when this article went through the FA process, we tried to focus on the most important information.  If you believe that any further details are really necessary, let's discuss.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I state above, Jigger's song is "Stonecutters Cut It on Stone."  Page II-1-75 of the script:
   MUSIC 20:  GERANIUMS IN THE WINDER/STONECUTTERS CUT IT ON STONE
Remember:  every performance is different, and just about every production has to make a cut or two.  People cut songs, shorten them, and give them new names.  I found it difficult to leave some changes and dispense with others, so I reverted everything.  If you think some parts are too long, by all means edit them, but it pains me when I correct something only to have it deleted a few minutes later for the wrong reasons.Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly we put both, but one in parentheses.  It's an ongoing issue.  You might want to look at WP:PLOT for our guidelines on this.  As for the "wrong reason" and so forth, keep in mind that Ssilers and myself have been at this for a while and each of us has managed to put together decent-quality articles on the musical theatre.  We respected you, though we disagreed with you ... anyhow, I'll look it over later.  Keep in mind there's not always just one answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted some of Keiserkarl13's changes and kept others by just copyediting the whole thing.  I did revert the song title thing, per here p. 38.  I am willing to discuss putting (Stonecutters Cut it on Stone) in parentheses after the song title.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some day you theater buffs will have to explain to me why an encyclopedia (The Rodgers and Hammerstein Encyclopedia) is a better reference than a primary source (the script to Carousel).  Being a science/engineering type, I have always been taught the opposite.  To me, the script of a work (or its score, for musical questions) is the definitive, primary source; everything else is some third-party's adaptation, subject to the usual mistakes and edits.  Please consider my contributions to this page over.  It is not worth my time to fight with the likes of Wehwalt; what such editors are actually looking for is a soapbox.  Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Right.  See also WP:Secondary source.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of plot section

message: User:98.248.10.236  has made a number of edits to the above section recently and I would like to discuss them here.  As this issue is becoming more and more troublesome, I believe we can get a clear consensus about either including the edits or keeping the section as it is. Additional thoughts on the matter are appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should return the "Musical numbers" section to Wehwalt's version of this FA article (which was reviewed by numerous reviewers).  He used Hischak, p. 38 as his reference, which is a very high quality reference; it also agrees with the IBDB listing.  The IP is WP:edit warring to add unencyclopedic details.  For example, everyone knows that the overture is played by the Orchestra.  He also keep adding capital letters to the word "reprise".  There is no reason why that word should have an initial cap.  He also erroneously keeps changing the ndashes to hyphens.  In short, his changes are simply wrong.  He has also violated the 3rr rule, even though I suggested on his talk page that he should stop edit warring and use the talk page here instead.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted a note on the user's talk page inviting them to take part. -- CassiantoTalk 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the edits going across my watchlist but haven't felt like getting into it one way or the other.  The IP seemed to know more or less what he was doing, even if I think he's wrong (he may not be; my opinions have changed in the past), I'm hoping to engage with him.  He's not completely wrong, the numbers he put in clearly exist (the Girls' Dance in the first act for one) but Hischak hasn't included them.  It all goes, I suppose, to what level of detail you want to get into.  I'd be curious to know what he's working from.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there divergence between these edits and those proposed by Kaiserkarl13?  This is not a particularly high-traffic article, though it gets a fair number of hits, and it strikes me as odd we are getting successive disputes on the numbers list.  Yes, there's no "Stonecutters", but not everyone's stupid.  Not saying it is KK13 in particular, just thinking out loud.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Since IPs are often shared (i.e., library or school computers), they are not blocked for long.  You may want to ask for page protection at WP:RFPP.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to do it later, but I will happily oblige.  Could you check my revert please?  I'm not sure I reverted all of it successfully.  -- CassiantoTalk 11:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take a look once I have more coffee.  Even Billy liked his coffee.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassianto, I fixed it.  Wehwalt, Hischak and IBDB agree.  The changes this IP was suggesting were mostly different from what Kaiserkarl was doing.  If you look at my comment at the top of this section, I explain what he was doing wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in agreement is Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, which is what I worked from.  I have the published scripts from the first eight, all but The Sound of Music (oh, and State Fair).  I cited to Hischak after I compared the two to avoid claims of primary sources, which I got anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Page protection requested -- CassiantoTalk 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  This person is using multiple addresses to make troublesome edits on several articles, like a COPYVIO yesterday at Celebration (musical), previous edit warring at The Fantasticks and this rather strange edit!  Paul Eric blocked the sock (User:198.228.216.146) as well as the original edit warrior.  He noted that the sock had previously been blocked for block evasion related to a previous series of edits  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts on Musical numbers section 

message: This section becomes much too technical. Wikipedia editors should remember that there will be those who read this article and know nothing about dotted rhythms, eighteenth notes, or sixteenth notes. Leonard Bernstein explained music more clearly on his Young People's Concerts. AlbertSM (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  A blue-link is given explaining these rhythms, and this analysis of the music in the show is cited to reliable sources.  There is no reason to dumb down the discussion.  If you have a suggestion, however, on how to explain it better, and can cite reliable sources, I'd love to hear it.  As to the other changes you made, they contradict the sources given, so I have reverted them (except for one spelling correction - thanks!).  If you have reliable sources to back up those changes, however, present them, and we can do further research.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ssilvers.  If you don't understand the technical terms you can pass by those.  What is the alternative?  To delete the passage entirely?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical treatment section

message: I must say that I strongly disagree with capitalizing the word reprise.  That is a typographical choice made by some publishers, but it is better to use the lower case word to distinguish it from part of the title, and that is what we have done throughout the musical theatre project (at least with respect to the musicals that I have contributed to).  I also don't think that the quotes should go around the words Ballet or Finale, as they are descriptive, rather than titles.  Also, the word "prologue" was not used in the original production.  It was added later, and so I don't think it is authentic here, when we are basically using the original production materials.  Wehwalt, what did you conclude about the Act I finale and the Entr'acte?  Also, I think that lots of people reviewed this article before and at FAC, and I think that we should be very cautious about adding entirely new items to the list of musical numbers that was reviewed by so many people at that time.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Hischak nor the libretto I have mentions either.  The Act I finale is a very brief number, really just long enough to cover the townsfolk heading towards the boats and Julie acting all shocked that Billy has a knife, which she had just discovered.  I've heard the Entr'acte, it is a short version of what would have been the overture, had there been an overture.  Neither one, IMHO, is musically significant.  I'm also concerned about putting material in which is not contained in the sources, as you can see, the article is fully cited and I hate to send the reader to the wrong place if he checks up on us, which is his right.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will note also that the libretto begins (after the dramatis personae, first night cast, other credits, and synopsis of scenes"  
ACT ONE|Scene One
WALTZ PRELUDE: Carousel
SCENE: An amusement park on the New England Coast.
TIME: Late afternoon.
It then goes on to give a detailed description of the stage action during the waltz.  
I'm not sure when the name "The Carousel Waltz", as such, originated.  That could be our point of difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: As an outsider looking in at this FA, I would expect the sources to be backing up the text 100%.  An Artistic license should not be adopted when writing or referring to the text within the sources. I do not see the need to capitalise "reprise", as I too find it's capitalisation misleading. To me, it would look like it is part of the title when it is not.  I would strongly oppose any major changes to the article as, IMO, it is a fantastic piece of work. I would be worried that any major changes could void it's previous FAC and therefore, render it liable for another review.  -- CassiantoTalk 21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned the article to the last agreed-upon state.  Please obtain a consensus before making any further changes.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article reads fine as it is and does not need any major reworking, which, as stated above, could invalidate its previous FAC status. I also do not see a need to capitalise the word 'reprise'. Jack1956 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: There is a 3-week long production in Chicago at the Lyric Opera currently, starring Laura Osnes and Steven Pasquale and features Denyce Graves as Nettie, Jennifer Gambatese as Carrie, Charlotte d'Amboise as Mrs. Mullin, Jarrod Emick as Jigger and Tony Roberts as the Starkeeper.  http://www.lyricopera.org/carousel/  .   We have not described the many other regional productions of this musical, so, notwithstanding this production's starry cast, I am not sure that we should add this one.  What do you think, User:Wehwalt and others? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really all it is, a limited run, certainly by a fine opera company, but no different than many other stagings of Carousel put on for a short period by opera or theatre companies across the nation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the circumstances, it seems inappropriate to add it.Somambulant1 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago 2015

message: Someone made two kinds of changes to the article today seen here.  First is a technical change concerning the table.  This change does not seem to change the appearance of the table. It uses longer coding, but it seems to me that shorter is better.  Second, they added a short paragraph about domestic violence.  One from the British critic Michael Billington in 2012, and another from a 2013 BroadwayWorld.com article.  I object to the placement of this paragraph within the section, but the idea seems worth mentioning.  There is some discussion of this in the Productions section regarding the Hytner production.  There is also some discussion in the musical themes section.  Also, is BroadwayWorld the best source to discuss how this theme has been viewed in recent years?  User:Wehwalt, did you see more on this when you were researching the show?  Do you have a suggestion on how best to integrate this?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to what seems to be a decent spot, although I don't consider the points made on domestic violence very profound, in fact not too different from what the characters say, that Billy is very wrong to have done that and that Julie should leave him. But I agree, it should stand, at least for now.  I am looking for further analysis of Carousel, I'm not as happy with it as I was in view of better efforts we've put forth later. But I'm not aware of anything better on the violence issue recently; possibly there might be something in a review, but the reviewer might not know more than broadwayworld.com--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I restored the simpler table format, unless the editor can explain why they changed it.  I like the new location, and I did some formatting and grabbed a short quote from Kelli O'Hara from the same BWW article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When I have a bit of time, I'm going to go through the various reviews of the Hytner and other modern productions and see if I can find a bit more on the themes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic violence

message: Jean Darling was replaced by Margot Moser during the original run, as the article states, citing footnotes 53 and 54. Moser went on to play Carrie in the London production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I imaged the souvenir book that image is from (Mr. Snow arriving) at the Performing Arts Library at Lincoln Center.  I conclude I based it on the cast list in there. If I had tried to research it, I would remember that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Margot Moser

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Carousel (musical) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I think we might as well wait for the 75th anniversary in 2020. Possibly there will be news and scholarly coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carousel (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ibdb.com/production-songs.php?ShowNo=2419&ProdNo=1694
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122081559/http://stageagent.com:80/Shows/View/708 to http://stageagent.com/Shows/View/708
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this solid enough to keep, or is it predicting the future? ?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed it and thought I would leave it to the regulars, however, it fails WP:CRYSTAL IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's close, because the producer, director and all involved have the horsepower to get it done, and it has instantly attracted quite a bit of entertainment press.  If it is actually produced, the dancing should be spectacular.  Still, I'd suggest removing it and waiting *at least* until a theater has been engaged. Broadway productions are so often cancelled (especially prior to rehearsals beginning), that WP:CRYSTAL is a very good guideline in this area.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given all the press regarding Fleming's participation, and since a specific opening date was announced, on review, I don't mind leaving it up for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned 2018 Broadway production? 

message: We've generally tried to keep the mentions of subsequent productions to the most important.  It's not obvious to me that this production meets that standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. According to the sources offered, the production played only 17 performances in total, and only one of the players is a blue-linked person. Google shows two negative reviews of the show in German sources here and here, with the director and music both coming in for some sharp criticism. I do not believe that this was not a noteworthy production. This musical is played regularly in professional theatres all over the world, so revivals listed should be particularly long-running, of unusual scale, involve major stars and directors, or have some other indicia of noteworthiness as compared with other regional and international productions. Compare the previous discussion of the 2105 Chicago production, which had a far more notable cast. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

text: We already discussed it above.  We agreed not to add it, mostly because it only ran for three weeks. Despite the starry cast, such a short run in a regional theatre does not seem to clear the bar for a musical with so many regional and international productions over the decades. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basel production 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carousel (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080704130706/http://www.dramadesk.com/1993_1994dd.html to http://www.dramadesk.com/1993_1994dd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Fleming did a play on Broadway in 2015: Living on Love. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Renee Fleming: not her Broadway debut