Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive10-19-07

message: I could use some help over at Thrill Me.  One editor insists on adding a paragraph that is a copyvio (from where I don't remember) and adding an EXTRAORDINARY amount of external links.  If everyone could keep their eyes on it and note Thrillmecd's edits, I would appreciate it.  —  MusicMaker5376 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through the article and cleaned it up a bit, as well as deleting some non-notable stuff.  A lot of the article was written like the musical's promotional info.  Many of the links should be references to text in the article.  I left suggestions on the talk page.  There is enough information out there to write a really good article.  -- Ssilvers 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from the user's name, I think its not unreasonable to assume that he's somehow involved with the production.  —  MusicMaker5376 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've weighed in as I thought his reversion was rather thoughtless and certainly not to the benefit of the article.  Hope that's okay! Docta247 17:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  Much appreciated.  —  MusicMaker5376 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's still going, and I'll need some help to keep the article sane but avoid a 3RR violation. Docta247 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've used my three reverts and he's still going so I'll need some help if we're still trying to keep this article up to standard. Docta247 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got one in.  If he reverts again, I'll report him at 3RR.  —  MusicMaker5376 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article as it stands now is a disaster and reads like the vanity piece it is. Does it remain as is or can something be done to stop Thrillmecd from ignoring Wikipedia policies and formats? ConoscoTutto 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion at the article's talk page  about the notability of the numerous productions listed in the text of the article. If you have time, please read it and feel free to express your opinion. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverting copyvios doesn't fall under the three-revert rule. WP:3RR's list of exceptions covers, among other things, "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies". So if it's a clear copyvio then it should be fine. Crystallina 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just copyvio -- there's also an UNGODLY list of ELs he keeps reverting in and some other unencyclopedic material.  I don't think the exemptions would qualify the entire reverted text.  —  MusicMaker5376 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: The synopsis in this musical needs to be converted to narrative paragraphs.  Does anyone have the time to give it a look?  -- Ssilvers 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I kinda like it that way.  It's a little different and unconventional, but for a show that eschews dialogue and is a true rock opera in that it's just rock song after rock song, I think it works.  It sort of conveys that.  It could use a little cleanup, tho.  However, if there are other editors who object to its format, I'd be happy to rewrite the synopsis.  —  MusicMaker5376 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted, too, the addition of the word "narrative" in the article structure.  It was never discussed and, IMO, you're assuming a little too much.  Let's see what others think, first.  —  MusicMaker5376 01:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evita (musical)

message: What happened to this article?  -- Ssilvers 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  It seems fine.  The diff between your last edit and the current version wasn't all that different.  What's your beef with it?  —  MusicMaker5376 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Little Mary Sunshine]]

message: According to , Wonderworld was an hour-long show presented at the 1964-65 New York World's Fair. Other than that, I can't find anything about it. I'm wondering if this should be included in the template if it's not a full-fledged musical. ConoscoTutto 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that a composition by Jule Styne, choreographed by Michael Kidd, and presented at the New York World's Fair is notable.  —  MusicMaker5376 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the book (ref. at end) Chita Rivera was in it, along with 250 performers. (And, I think I saw it.<---ignore that) JeanColumbia 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wrote a short article about this, it really didn't last very long, just May-June 1964. Couldn't find a song list, I'll check Thursday. JeanColumbia 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Jule Styne]]

message: I think we need to take this to WP:RFC - this is getting out of hand. Crystallina 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, forget RFC. I've requested it to be protected. Blocking isn't working since he's on his third account (one username, two IPs). Crystallina 03:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think requesting protection is an excellent idea. Docta247 09:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And protection didn't work. I suspect he'll just go to another IP address after this one gets blocked. If he keeps this up I'm going to re-request protection, but this isn't really a solution; it's just buying time. Does anyone have any other/better ideas? Crystallina 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all we can do at this point is desperately try to reason with him, which I admit sounds unlikely.  He claims to have some problems with the accuracy and completeness, which I actually doubt is true.  In fact, I think his main problem is that it's not enough of a promo piece for his work.  Either way, we need to assume good faith, try to work with him up to the point where he breaks the rules again and then use the systems available to us to ensure that he can't just railroad the article into a state that suits him and only him.  Docta247 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image he uploaded was deleted and he's uploaded it again.  If he keeps it up, they'll block him for that.  —  MusicMaker5376 01:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thrill Me]], again 

message: Checked the Archieve where it said the cast recording articles would be in the style of - Musical Name (album). I changed the hairspray cast recording to fit with this awhile ago, but it has now been changed back. I know if I changed it to just Hairspray (album) people might get confused with the other two, so should i re-change it only this time to Hairspray (2002 album) ?? Mark E 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest contacting whomever changed it back and explaining to them that it was moved after discussion with WP:ALBUMS and that it's the accepted naming convention.  —  MusicMaker5376 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone has made it hard for me (someone crap at using wikipedia) by redirecting the previous page it was on to a disambig page and I cant figure it out. Can someone else possibly do this since i dont want to completely screw it up.Mark E 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post links to the pages and I'll see what I can do.  —  MusicMaker5376 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly certain that Hairspray soundtrack should redirect to Hairspray (album) which would be the disambig page currently at HPST.  The three album titles should be titled Hairspray (YYYY album).  If you want, I'll handle it when I get home from work.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums Revisited 

message: After discussion with several other editors, I had split the Merrily We Roll Along (play) and Merrily We Roll Along (musical) Into two articles.  Now, User:ConoscoTutto has recombined them without any discussion and begun an AFD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrily We Roll Along (musical), without notifying me that he was doing so, or even leaving a message on the article's talk page.  I believe that by combining the two articles, it discourages editors from expanding the article about the play.  What is the consensus?  -- Ssilvers 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If such discussions "with several other editors" really took place, why isn't there a record of them on the article's talk page? Isn't that where they belong? And I DID leave a message at Talk:Merrily We Roll Along (musical), so what are you talking about? You made the same accusation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrily We Roll Along (musical) and made it again here even AFTER I told you I posted a message on the talk page. I don't think that's fair at all. As far as notifying you about what I was doing, several people have pointed out to me that you watch what every other musical theatre project editor does like a hawk, so I assumed you'd know I put the article up for deletion before long. ConoscoTutto 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you should be sure of what you're talking about before you make rash accusations. You state "You can't just go destroying other editors' work without discussion" but before you divided the Merrily article you yourself had no discussion about doing so that's documented on the talk page. Why was I supposed to have a discussion but you weren't? Furthermore, I did not "destroy" anyone's work, everything in Merrily We Roll Along is EXACTLY the same as it was before you divided it. I just combined the two articles again, I didn't "destroy" anything. Please stop exaggerating or lying outright about circumstances to bolster your position. It's not fair and very unethical. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merrily We Roll Along

message: Please review the changes made in the last couple of days to our flagship article, musical theatre.  IMO, most of the changes are OR.  In addition, it was agreed, over a year ago, to limit the list of "Famous musicals" in the intro to just a few examples, and now the list is very R&H heavy.  Can we get a consensus, please?  -- Ssilvers 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support undoing or reverting almost every one of those edits.  Perhaps the editor is Oscar Hammerstein IV?  —  MusicMaker5376 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ive changed the list of musicals back to how it was before. I do however think that The producers looks out of place on that list and something else should take it's place.Mark E 11:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the article, but Mark's changes were not there, so I made them,; don't know what happened to his changes. I don't have time to look at each of the recent edits, this one just caught my eye. (Since "The Producers" was in the list previously, I left it. I think it's ok to leave it, it's recent, won a lot of Tonys, what else could take its place?? I'll answer my own question by looking at the playbill article on long runs: A Chorus Line? Beauty/Beast? Lion King? Not suggesting any in particular, but at least there is some rational basis for picking any of these: a very long run on B'way; otherwise we're getting into "my favorite musical/composer/diva" stuff--and here come my personal favorites for this list: "Hello Dolly" or "Into the Woods".)JeanColumbia 13:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I personally hate The Lion King but I think that is alot more notable than The Producers (which i actually quite like). Also how about The Fantasticks. I dont know much about it apart from its the longest running musical ever.Mark E 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Fantasticks is the longest-running musical in the world, not Les Mis.  I say we add it.  Keep Les Mis, tho.  Adds some international flare.... —  MusicMaker5376 01:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Musical Theatre]]

message: Someone with some more intestinal fortitude than myself needs to take a look at that article.  When I was infoboxing, I came across it and, in a bout of indignation, refused to put an infobox on it -- look at that damn list of "composers"!  I don't even know how to handle that!  It's crying out for a blue pencil, but I would end up cutting it down to nothing.  —  MusicMaker5376 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[High School Musical on Stage!]] 

message: There are only 4 days to go in our first Collaboration of the Month, which is to improve stub-class articles to at least start-class articles, beginning with those categorized under the letter "A".  We have made much progress, but please help us by choosing a stub class article beginning with the letter A and improving it by expanding its plot synopsis, background information, critical reception, etc.  Also, go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/COTM page and vote on next month's Collaboration of the Month.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/COTM|Collaboration of the Month]] - Last 4 days!!

message: It looks like the vandal is back.  Everyone please watch this article. -- Ssilvers 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thrill Me]], again

message: This article is entirely unreferenced.  Can anyone add any references?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Man of La Mancha]]

message: There are separate articles for:
*High School Musical on Stage!; and
*High School Musical On Stage!.
They each have rather different information.  Can anyone straighten this out?  Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Articles

message: Someone is vandalizing the talk page.  A little help, please?  -- Ssilvers 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Also reported the latest sockpuppet. Crystallina 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thrill Me]]