Talk:Wicked (musical)/Archive 1

message: There is a new WikiProject about Oz and Wicked: WikiProject Oz. I hope to create a community to help guide the continued development of the articles about the series and its authors, characters, etc. toward even more quality articles. If you are interested, please add your name under the "Participants section" and please leave any comments or questions on the project's talk page or my user talk page. — —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz]] 

message: I recall hearing somewhere that Miramax has the rights to a movie version of Wicked. I don't believe anything official has been announced yet, though. Should this speculative information be posted?
No, wait until you have confirmation that this is a fact. --Tati 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicago may well have most of the same numbers in the same order, but several other aspects are horribly softened to make the characters 'nicer'. Commercially successful, it certainly was, but I wouldn't hold it up as an artistically successful adaptation. Lovingboth 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Version 

message: Does anyone else think the plot summary is way too long? It doesn't need to include every single detail of the show; it just needs to summarize the plot. Chris 18:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: The synopsis appears to be copied from .
I totally agree that it is to long. It says may be "SOME plot spoilers" but it seems like they give an entire look at the play. The only thing not there is the lyrics and sheet music to the songs.
I agree, someone needs to change this. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic description of the play, not the sparknotes for it. --Ringwraith10 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is too long, and should be slimmed down.  However, I disagree that "spoilers" should be removed.  This is an encyclopedia, not a teaser for the show.  It should summarize all the important parts of the plot.   The spoiler tags are there to let anyone know that if they don't want to know how it ends, they should not read this section.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Several people have edited section 8.2 (Pre-Broadway Run/Musical Numbers) to change the song "Which Way is the Party" to "Dancing Through Life." I just want to make sure that everyone is aware that in the previews in San Francisco, Fiyero had a different song, called "Which Way is the Party." The song between Nessarose and Boq was called "We Deserve Each Other." The former was scrapped and replaced by "Dancing Through Life," but that wasn't until the show reached Broadway, so the previous version of the San Fracisco list is actually correct and does not need to be edited. Apster 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Which Way is the Party" vs. "Dancing Through Life" 

message: I removed what appeared to be an old unref tag on the article that said it doesn't cite its references or sources.  The current version of the article has a bunch of reference links at the end, so clearly it does not completely lack verifiable references.
If there's still a specific statement within the article that requires further citation, then mark that part with the  tag.  But at this point there's no need for a general label saying the entire article is uncited. Dugwiki 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Unreferenced flag 

message: There has recently been massive amounts of edit traffic in the cast sections. Much of it is anonymous or by users without edit history, and it is hard to tell what is legitimate and what is vandalism. My most recent revert (August 3 2006) is because the changes appeared to contradict the official page; if someone has better information, please include an appropriate citation when making changes. --ArthurDenture 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Broadway Cast 

message: I removed the last lines of the show from the summary of Act II; they seemed irrelevant and they were needlessly bolded and italicized.
- What's with the jibberish in Act 3? could someone take care of that... please!!?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.246.250 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last lines of the show 

message: There have been several edits lately involving the replacement information for different casts, with news on casting that has not been officially announced. A little bit of it is clearly vandalism but in most cases it turns out to be speculation (common among the Wicked fanbase) being misinterpreted as fact. While some of these rumors do in fact turn out to be true, I think it should be a guideline that until it's coming from a source that can be properly cited (as in something more than "I heard it from so-and-so"), it's still a rumor, and for the sake of the article's integrity, should not be added. On top of that, the article is becoming quite cluttered with excessive casting information, and to have the rumors on top of it would just make it a mess. JMHO. Alex 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting rumors 

message: This article is clearly too long. I don't think that we need all the casting information - it dosn't really contribute to the article and wikipedia is the not the place for it. If you really think we should keep the info, lets move it to more pages like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flutefluteflute/Wicked_Production:_Broadway --Flutefluteflute 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wicked (musical) cast lists. Otto4711 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length - Remove casting information 

message: It's my understanding that we don't typically link to fan sites per the external links guidelines, and have reverted accordingly.  If (a) that's incorrect or (b) the person who keeps adding one thinks there's a reason to make an exception in this case - this is the place to talk about it. --TheOtherBob 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the IP user who keeps adding the link to a fansite, and recently requested that whoever removed it place an explanation in the fansite's guestbook: sorry, but your fansite is not the place to discuss whether something belongs in Wikipedia.  If you want further explanation beyond the above, post here.  That's what this page is for.  There are a lot of friendly people here, and we're glad to talk about it. --TheOtherBob 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Site 

message: In the London Production section...it states that only "Elphaba" and "The Wizard" had American accents, but I checked with videos and plus researched on Nigel Planner (the wizard) and he seems to actually have a British accent.  Was this a mistake?  Small5th 05:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha, someone else is of the same opinion: http://www.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2006/10/spinning_the_grosses_and_spinning_t.php Claim removed. As no-one publishes audited figures in London, this claim can never be more than PR puffery. Lovingboth 09:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: LovingBoth, I think you're absolutely right - I remember Mary Poppins last year claiming to have broken box office records, but have never seen any real figures... I've added a reference to a recent press release about audience figures and gross, with the caveat that it is the producers' own figures. Small5th - the Wizard in the original novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was from Omaha, in the USA, so really should speak with a US accent, which is why Planer, a proper British actor with a proper British accent, plays him as American. Dafyd 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that. I'm avoiding mentioning the main problem with the production: the book is an 'A', the set 'B', the lyrics 'C', the music 'D' and the sound engineering at the current production an 'E'. It's a huge pity the music/sound don't come anywhere near the quality of the book. Lovingboth 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The London Production 

message: I looked at the page earlier today and just a few minutes ago, and couldn't help but notice that someone had added the script to Wicked. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, but it seems like a copyright violation. Does it need to be removed? 63.239.240.1 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script? 

message: There are two lists of musical numbers.  We shouldn't repeat the list.  The description of the various production should just describe which songs were different from the main list.  -- Ssilvers 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical numbers 

message: I have moved the awards the show recieved to a new page as I felt they didn't really belong here.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also removed the cities the US tour is visiting and put the different locations under one heading.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The plot outline is way too long.  I feel that the whole section should be deleted, since a small summary of the plot is just as effective.  Any thoughts? --Conor 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are completely wrong.  This isn't supposed to be like an advertisement not giving away the plot's details.  It's an encyclopedia entry and it should include all things WICKED. Yankee fan907 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: If there is anyone reading this page who is good at writing "fair use" rationales, for images, there are a number of images in danger of being deleted, including Wizard of Oz images.  Please see the warnings at User talk:SFTVLGUY2.  Can anyone save them?  I'm a bit technologically challenged.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I don't think fair use applies in these cases.  It's not like using a CD cover as an illustration, the photos themselves are copyrighted.  —  MusicMaker 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save the Images, Please! 

message: I've just done some copyediting. I got rid of one of the lists of musical numbers, we only need one here, and I put that one in columns, so it doesn't take up as much space.  I moved some of the box office information out of the lead paragraph (it doesn't really belong there), and separated some things into a history section.  I've done some work on cutting down the synopsis of Act I, and am about to get started on Act II.  —  MusicMaker 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good start.  I agree that it's still too long.  Let me know when you're done, and I'll see if I can help.  -- Ssilvers 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits 

message: Please cut down the image captions.  They contain POV and captioncruft.  -- Ssilvers 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As far as the fair use of the images, the images say that they are "promotional" images.  Weren't they released by Disney with permission for anyone to use them?  If we don't provide some explanation soon, they'll all go bye-bye.  A shame!  -- Ssilvers 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, definitely not by Disney ;-) - but yes, I think they have been released in press kits and so on. I'm not sure about the reuse provisions on them, though... - Dafyd 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not Disney, Universal, but I would be surprised if these were ACTUALLY released in a press kit.  I'm more inclined to think that they were appropriated from various places off the internet.  I can write fair-use rationales, but I'm not going to in this case.  I really don't think they qualify as fair-use.  —  MusicMaker 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captions 

message: I've seen other articles in Wikipedia incorporate a section for comparing and contrasting plot details between the plot of one media and the media it was based upon. I think it is worthy to note that Fiyero never reappears as the scarecrow, Elphaba dies, Nessa was armless and not wheel-chair bound, Doctor Dillamond was murdered, etc. etc.
:I Deffinately think this is a good idea since there are such large differences, although I must note that the wikipedia page on the novel only mentions the stage musical in passing.Mark E 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare and Contrast the book? 

message: I'd like to see a sub-section detailing the references within Wicked the musical to the 1939 film. Is anyone interested in starting work on this? I'd be interested in contributing too. Ackgan 09:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to the musical 

message: Can we have a reference to Schwartz earlier attempts to write Elphaba's character song? MMetro 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Good 

message: I've removed an unsourced section from the front page (yet again) that talks about a movie version, set for 2009, starring Anne Hathaway and Mandy Moore. I have never seen any concrete confirmation of this, nor any reports in "authoritative" publications (Playbill, for example), so until there are some hard facts to report, let's leave this out. In fact, the only proper article about a Wicked movie I could find quoted Schwartz saying "But at this point it's still kind of early in the game for us. We're just starting to launch some of the foreign productions and it remains to be seen the extent to which this will translate outside of he United States. We're going to learn that over next couple of years." 
See also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
- Dafyd 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Movie, Part II 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
Additional Explanation
* On the MoS fail: The article's "synopsis" section is far, far too long. A synopsis is a "brief summary or outline of the plot" not a complete reiteration of every plot point. Also, per the guidelines of WP:LEAD, the introductory section is too short in relation to the article's length. An adequate lead is a concise overview of the entire article. 
* On the verification fail: 90% of Other productions is without sufficient inline citations, and other sections suffer as well. The bare minimum of sourcing is a cite at the end of each paragraph and for direct quotations. There is also  tag present in the article. The formatting of most of the references cited is also completely inappropriate. A simple url is not enough information to verify that information is attributed to a reliable source. Title, publication, author and retrieval date information is all desirable. You are never required to use them, but taking a look at some applicable citation templates might give you a good idea of the basic information desired in references. 
Overall, a hold period is to provide for minor changes to what is already basically a good article. This article requires a major amount of rewriting and sourcing to achieve GA status, so it is my imperative to fail it. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I failed to make the one exception to my comment on citations above clear. According to WP:LEAD, and good common sense, introductions don't really need inline citations. This is because they speak in generalities, and any potentially controversial facts are usually cited further within the body of the article. If it's just an overview of content that is well-cited elsewhere, it doesn't need additional cites. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion, VanTucky Talk 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

message: To those of you adding citations, first let me say good work.  This article is looking much better cited.
Let me point out, however, that one of the main problems with the GA failure was the fact that things aren't being cited properly.  It's not enough to simply place a url between two ref tags.  Please read Template:Cite web/doc to see how to properly cite things.  They should take the form , at the very least.  
*url: URL of online item. 
*title: Title of online item
*accessdate: Full date when item was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, for example "accessdate = 2007-11-08". Must not be wikilinked
*format: Format, e.g. PDF. HTML implied if not specified. 
*work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, name of that work. 
Doing it as you place the citation will save much work in the future.  Thanks.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh don't worry, I know how to use cite templates and fully intend to ensure they're implemented.  I also recognise and employ Henry Ford's preferred method of production: assembly line and division of labour.  In more general terms, you'll note that I go through phases: for a time I'll just work on throwing references into the article as quickly as possible while still ensuring quality.  Then I'll take a break, grab a cup of tea, and come back and format all the refs I just added en masse.  I find this method much more efficient than the method you espouse, for articles where large numbers of refs must be added (such as this one).  In this case User:Dafyd has beaten me to it on most of the formatting issues.  All the references I've added will be formatted in time, but right now my priority one is in replacing all the  tags with something inside ref tags.  Of course any assistance you can give would be warmly welcomed, particularly on the tag after "More recent reviews, of the productions all over the world, have praised the show for its ability to resonate with a number of demographics with its central themes regarding women, camaraderie, and societal standards", which is proving to be a particular pig.  Happy‑melon 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sentence is really giving you trouble, get rid of it.  I don't think anyone will think that the show is any less... popular... without that line.  Conversely, it doesn't really say anything that the rest of the article doesn't already make clear.  —  MusicMaker5376 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding citations 

message: In order that we not lose any images that are temporarily removed from the article, here is a list:
*thumb|left|220px|Glinda (Kristin Chenoweth) in the original Broadway company
*thumb|right|220px|Elphaba (Kerry Ellis) & Glinda (Dianne Pilkington) in the London company
*thumb|left|220px|Elphaba (Stephanie J. Block) singing "Defying Gravity"; original national touring company
*thumb|left|220px|Elphaba (Eden Espinosa) and Nessarose (Jenna Leigh Green); Broadway company
*left|thumb|Joey McIntyre as Fiyero and Idina Menzel as Elphaba; Broadway Company
*thumb|220px|Glinda (Kate Reinders) and Elphaba (Ana Gasteyer) part; original Chicago company  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of images 

message: I don't think the first sentence should say "Tony-award winning".  The Tony awards are discussed in the third paragraph.  The opening sentence should also not discuss the producer.  It should only discuss the show, creators and basis material.  The original production information should go in the third paragraph all together.  Remember, the show will have many productions, so the first paragraph should discuss the show as a work of drama, and then the production notability info can follow in the LEAD.  Also, I don't think the "Other Productions" section should be broken down with === headings.  Just bolded with ";" at the beginning of the line.  That will make the TOC more manageable.  I'll fix that now.  --  Ssilvers 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge, Universal is the producer everywhere, not just Bway.  I think it can stay.  —  MusicMaker5376 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am copyediting the article as I write this, and I have moved the musical analysis section.  I disagree with all your other comments.  The "other productions" section is large and cumbersome and would disrupt the flow of prose above.  Breaking it up serves no purpose that I can see.  With knowledge of the parenthetical comma, I consider that sentence to be precisely the tone and structure that an encyclopaedia should strive for.  Of course this will reach the LOCE before it gets to FA, so fortunately the prose need only be "clear" and the grammar "correct" for the time being.  Happy‑melon 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Two other items: The punctuation should go before the ref tags throughout, never after the ref.  Also, the development section says that the show is different from the novel, hinting that it has something to do with the relationship between the witches, but there should be at least a paragraph discussing the specific respects in which the show's libretto differs from the novel.  -- Ssilvers 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions re: article improvement 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail:  Closing comments: I can see you really took my suggestions to heart. In actuality, you've gone above and beyond GA standards of referencing. The synopsis is now of perfect length as well. I assume your next step is moving towards FA, let me know when you nominate so I can support! Thank you for your hard work, VanTucky Talk 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed "good article" nomination 

message: Why was Toronto struck out already when it says performances until December 31st?  Should this be fixed?
Actually the theatrical production previewed in San Francisco (while it was fine-tuned
and when the "Wizard" actor was replaced.  That should be in the history
of "Wicked".  Bay Area folks saw it first! 76.102.120.185 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important 

message: So, she isn't exactly claearing Elphaba's name. . . but instead telinjg the story and leaving it to the Ozians to decide for themselves, correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uses Wikipedia Alot (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now, the entire musical except the begining is supposed to be Glinda's telling of the story, right? 

message: The  tag is forcing the word "Development" in the heading to shift slightly to the right.  I have the TOCs shut off when I view WP, so I'm not sure, but isn't that tag unnecessary?  Isn't that where the TOC would be, anyway?  —  MusicMaker5376 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ToC would otherwise float, forcing the "Development" section to begin underneath the bottom of the ToC, displaying a large amount of ugly whitespace on high-resolution browsers. Happy‑melon 09:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whitespace was being caused by the image.  Since the image was the first line in the paragraph and it was being forced on the right, it put the image after the infobox and put all of the text under that.  I think I fixed it.  —  MusicMaker5376 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: I've had issue with this line for awhile: "Schwartz further obscured the motif's origins by transposing it into a minor key...."  Strictly speaking, changing a melody from a major mode to a minor mode isn't a transposition -- a transposition occurs when the tonic (the harmonic center -- the POSITION) is changed.  If you change a melody from A-major to A-minor, that doesn't happen.  I'd refer to it as a "modification" as a non-techincal alternative, but I'm sure there's a technical term for it that I don't know.  I'll leave the term for now, but if anyone happens to find out what the correct term is, please change it.  —  MusicMaker5376 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the modality?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking "transmodulate" as a congruent word.  Usually, when musicians talk about it in shorthand, they refer to "majoring" or "minoring" a melody, or something along those lines.  That won't work for an encyclopedia article, tho.  —  MusicMaker5376 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well....  The passage makes sense, but it doesn't make sense in context.  We say that he changed the theme from major to minor, then say that the example in which it's used is in a major key.  Are we trying to say that the theme in the middle of "Defying Gravity" is minor while the rest of the song is major?  Or that it's major that time, but other times it's minor?  And I'm not sure if the ref referencing the sheet music does us any good -- you have to download software to see it.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that works.  I wasn't sure if the theme was always minor.  The section in "Defying Gravity" is definitely minor, but I wasn't sure if it was minor at each statement.  —  MusicMaker5376 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language issue 

message: Thanks for adding the recordings section.  Isn't there a London cast recording?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, no London cast recording. It was planned, apparently (Martin Ball - Dr Dillamond in the original London cast - discusses it here), but never got past that stage. - Dafyd (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that's worthy of note, imho.  —  MusicMaker5376 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings 

message: I reorganized this section to make it flow better.  The old third paragraph provided a better introduction to the section, and then the two recurring themes are described in paragraphs 2 and 3.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music section 

message: It seems a bit OR, but even if not, is it really "synopsis", or is it textual analysis that should go somewere else?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a brief overview of the synopsis.  I think it's fine and I think it's something we should encourage on other articles, actually.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's the synopses sections that come under fire, it's the synopses themselves.  For someone who doesn't want to read a lengthy synopsis -- and many people don't -- the paragraph is very useful.  I think that if it passes FAC with the paragraph, we should consider adding it to our article structure; my reasoning being that the WP community at large has put their rubber stamp on it, rather than just our WikiProject.  Based on some of the GAs that have passed, I've been thinking about tinkering slightly with our structure, anyway.  (Mainly in the milieu of placement of sections, but I'll go into it more when I do it....)  —  MusicMaker5376 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, let's see what happens with this FAC and we'll go from there.  —  MusicMaker5376 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis - intro paragraph 

message: Leaving a note here: the category in question now has its own seperate CfD (after being removed from its original by Tony). The CfD can be found here. Cheers! --omtay38 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also leaving a note here: I've reinstated the cat to the original Cfd.  One editor can't circumvent a deletion discussion in progress because he doesn't want the subject deleted.  —  MusicMaker5376 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CfD

message: If you want to improve the article on your own, I would suggest the following:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
**The lead is entirely appropriate length for a 50kb article (3 substantial paragraphs, summarising the article concisely). Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I have always found this script to be of minimal utility, and it appears particularly so in this instance.  Thankyou nonetheless, Tony.  Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony has suggested that the autopeer review has been "ineptly" treated, so I have had another look through the article, and clarified that all of its suggestions have been taken into account and fixed where appropriate. It should also be noted, I think, that this is the third (ish) autopeer review to be carried out on the article in the last 3 months. It has also gone through a LOCE review, so is up-to-scratch style-wise. The only changes that need making to the article, really, are in the realms of content and layout, with which an autopeer cannot help. If you have more suggestions for changes, Tony, please feel free to edit the article! - Dafyd (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer reveiw 

message: I think the development section is a little slight for an FA article:  Is there more information about the writing of the book and/or music?  
*Also, more information is needed about the Broadway production team, especially as many of them were nominated or won awards.  Was the production team new for Broadway, or had they been involved in the pre-B'way production?  
*Also, is there any other information about what "retooling" was done for the production for broadway, after the pre-B'way production?  
*Also, what are the major differences between the novel and the show?  The article says that there were major differences, but it does not describe them in any detail.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development/original production section(s) 

message: Glinda is listed as a mezzo, but doesn't the role really require a soprano with a couple of good low notes?  It seems pretty broad in range though....  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the page linked as a reference lists Glinda as a soprano - so we should probably reflect that here. I've changed it. For some reason, the voice parts seem to get the most changes... - Dafyd (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glinda a mezzo or a soprano? 

message: One sentence says: "This also creates contrast to the songs it interrupts...."  What does this mean?  -- Ssilvers (talk)
:It means that the music either side of it (the theme) are markedly different to it. Doesn't it? I'm not in any way a music expert, but I don't think it's that difficult to understand... - Dafyd (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then there is simply a minor grammar problem: it should be contrast "in" the songs it interrupts, not "to" the songs it interrupts.  Also, according to the edit summaries, there is an exception, where the theme appears in major, so why not say so?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dafyd, that's exactly what it means.  The theme is an interlude, meaning it's a marked break from the rest of the song.  Listen to the Defying Gravity interlude: occurs at about 3:00 in this version.  I'm not sure whether the theme should be considered a part of the song (in which case "in" applies), or apart from it, in which case "to" is better.  Why not say about the exception? Because it's said in the very next sentence!! Happy‑melon 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, the sentences were not well written and remained unclear.  I have made another attempt to clarify.  See if you prefer it.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music section 

message: Now that the article has failed the FA review, I looked at the December comments in the Peer review and see that many of them were not responded to adequately.  I suggest that these be reviewed again.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA review 

message: Is there a proper place in this article to put interesting trivia about Schwartz' composition of the show, such as that the "Unlimited" theme is the first seven notes of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"? []
:See WP:TRIVIA.  This information is now in the Music section.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room for a Trivia / Interesting Facts Section? 

message: I saw Wicked a few months ago and was impressed. I don't normally go to musicals, so I don't know what happens to them after they are shown on Broadway. Do they release them on DVD like they do normal films?
:Very rarely, you will need to wait for a movie version if it ever happens.
::After they play on Broadway, they often tour, and successful musicals like Wicked are usually produced on stage in other places.  They usually release a cast album on CD, but they do not usually release a video of the stage performance.  As the person above mentioned, very successful musicals are sometimes made into a movie musical, but sometimes the movie changes the stage version.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD 

message: This content did not get implemented into the main article. If you can somehow implement it then go ahead and try it, although it may be fairly difficult:
Every actress who has played Elphaba on Broadway has performed the role in at least two productions of Wicked.
:So what?  Also, what is your source for this?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but where is your source for this, and where in the article would you put it?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So what?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So how is the lover voiced when the Wizard remembers it later in the play? also to the "so what"er, get a life  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.204.241 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: So what?  What is your source?  Wikipedia articles, especially good ones like this, contain information that is verifiable (see WP:V), cites reliable sources (see WP:RS) and is of importance to general readers (see WP:NOTE).  So, if you want to "implement" any of this info, please offer reliable sources and explain how the information is notable and adds to the article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Trivia 

message: Can someone create a section highlighting the departures of the musical from the plot of the book? Protective1 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this (or at least a separate paragraph) would be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: It seems to me that the recent changes to the article are merely to create WP:OVERLINK.  Many of the links added have already been linked and others are dates or other information that I don't think should be linked.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: The Synopsis keeps getting longer and longer.  Can anyone try to reduce it back to its essentials?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED YET. READ THE ARTICLE! It said that Anthony Callea will be releasing an album by Christmas, not the cast of "Wicked". I am going to delete where it says Melbourne recording and that link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.10.141 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne Cast Recording 

message: We can keep the cast lists as long as there is no nonsense added to them such as saying celebrities like Bill Clinton, Cher, or David Letterman are joining the casts. In order to make an addition to the cast lists, there must be confirmation from a news source or this website: . It has been accurate many times because of the members HAVE spoken to cast members about replacements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by And1987 (talk • contribs) 
* I disagree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked cast lists was quite clear: we do not want these lists, neither in a separate article nor here.
: Suggestion. Why don't you list merchants go over to Wikia and create you own wiki with a separate article for each production? Believe it or not, no-one will come trying to delete them! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an Oz Wiki.  — MusicMaker5376 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: To add... the article, without cast lists, is currently about 60kb. This is already a big article according to WP:LENGTH. Adding the cast lists pushes the article past 100kb, which is far too big. Usually, I would suggest that the cast lists could have their own article, but clearly the community has decided that they don't deserve one. If they don't get their own article, they don't go here either. Please. -- Dafyd (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * Since no-one else would do it, I have now posted the sact lists to wikia:oz:Wicked cast lists. Watch that space. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast lists rules 

message: I was wondering why all of sudden this has been added back to the article? Well I know why but I do recall that a while back there was something similar on here regarding wicked to be turned into a film but was deleted I think because the references that were used were not very legit and I understand that. I did have a look at the references for this new one that was put on and I am a little bit skepitcal as to how reliable they really are. So can anyone confirm that they are actually legit and not just gossip sites cause it is a little hard me to tell if the information is correct. I just thought I would bring it up and if it turns out to be true being a huge wicked fan myself I am really excited for this to start going. Headstrong 345 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Film Adaptation