Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive8-8-06

message: *Talk Archive as of June 30, 2006 this project seems to have been restored to life, and thus, old talk has been archived 
--omtay38 02:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Talk Pages

message: When an infobox is added (namely the  infobox) what production should be used to fill in the information if the musical has had more than one production? Should the Infobox be tweaked to exclude information that would require such a choice? How So?
:I feel that the information from the first "predominant venue" the musical was staged at could be used with the current infobox (i.e. Broadway, West End), however am very open to any infobox changes. omtay38 05:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're currently revising the template to be a little more generic, so as not to show bias toward one production or another.  It may include something like a list of productions, but put the main thrust on the work itself, rather than any one production.  —  MusicMaker 05:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a sample of a possible generic version of the template with basic information  that should hold true for any production.  When using the current infobox however, I agree, that the first predominant production should be used. – warpedmirror (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a template sandbox, but can't get the damn thing to work.  —  MusicMaker 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's not working? I have experience with templates (I wikified Template:Infobox University and significantly expanded Template:Infobox Education in Canada). --Usgnus 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it has been fixed.  —  MusicMaker 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I like warpedmirror's more generic infobox, but with regard to the current infobox, is there a clear understanding of what first "predominant" production/venue means? The above implies that it's automatically either Broadway or West End, but what about shows which premiered somewhere other than those two locations? Eg even though both of these shows had Broadway runs, The Boy From Oz premiered in Sydney, Australia and Assassins off-Broadway at Playwrights Horizons. I'd consider these original runs to be predominant (even if the Hugh Jackman-led Broadway run of the former might be better known now). On the other hand, I assume out-of-town tryouts (eg as for Wicked and a lot of older shows) and works-in-development, even if open to the public (eg, arguably, Sunday in the Park with George at Playwrights Horizons) should not be considered "predominant". Malfourmed 04:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at the Template Sandbox you'll find that the in-progress infobox does not have production specific secions. -omtay38 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Information

message: What stub should be applied to what musical articles that are stub worthy (many seem to be in use currently):
*
*
*
others?
Should articles be standardized to remove one stub type?
:I'd say that  be moved to  or the like.  —  MusicMaker 06:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those you'd want to propose suggestions at WikiProject Stub Sorting. They should be receptive to it - theat-stub is oversized with 6 pages and that's a good "selling point". Crystallina 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stub Sorting would be an excellent place to go with this, once we figure out what we're doing. If  becomes , then the information in it about "film" should be removed and on those articles,  should be used. omtay38 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. —  MusicMaker 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor note - it'd be  since stub names are usually singular. Oh, and I've seen some with  also. Crystallina 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub Style

message: How should other stage art forms sometimes meshed with Musicals (operas, operettas, dance productions, musical revues) be handled?
:Well, there is already a WikiProject Opera, so I think we should keep our hands off those.  I don't know if that project includes operettas or not, but we should probably find out.  There's also a WikiProject Dance.  I don't what they cover, but I would think that we should probably let them handle any dance productions.  However, I think musical revues are definitely our purview.  —  MusicMaker 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked with Opera and we were right.  They've been involved with a few musicals (Show Boat, Porgy and Bess, etc.), but are going to let us take them.  —  MusicMaker 03:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There'll be some instances where the line between musical theatre and opera/operetta is going to be blurry (Porgy & Bess being one of these), but assume we shouldn't get caught up in these boundary conditions right now but handle them on a case by case instance. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the mitigating factors will be when and by whom it was written.  The earlier operettas (Offenbach, Gilbert & Sullivan, and the like) belong to them.  If it was written by a composer mainly known for Broadway (ie Gershwin), it's ours.  This, of course, leaves Candide in a bit of a lurch.  However, the name of the article is Candide (operetta), which makes me think it would be theirs.  The Candide article is DEFINITELY not up to their standards; I really don't think they'd mind if we put a tag on it.  —  MusicMaker 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot: Candide existed first as a musical.  This brings up the point of naming conventions, but I'll start that discussion somewhere else.  —  MusicMaker 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would assume that Dance would have it pretty much covered, but that's something we should find out.  —  MusicMaker 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for musicals vs opera/operetta, I think there'll be instances where there'll be some overlap between musical theatre works and dance pieces, such as Contact (musical), but again figure these can be addressed as they arise. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Stage Music Forms

message: Should theaters themselves be under our umbrella?
:I think they should be handled by WikiProject Theatre, but I don't know if they currently are.  —  MusicMaker 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah WP Theatre should definitely cover theaters...I think.  Now we're only covering shows (not Broadway itself) and the people in them so we should leave theaters to our parent project. – warpedmirror (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theaters

message: It seems that the thrust of the project is on all of musical theatre and not just musicals themselves.  Should this be reflected by a name change for the project?  —  MusicMaker 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections against the change! :) – warpedmirror (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither --omtay38 06:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Malfourmed 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  There are some double-redirects that need fixing.  —  MusicMaker 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musicals vs. Musical Theatre

message: It's a well-documented fact that the Americans and the Brits use different spellings.  Should we be using "theater" or "theatre"?
Personally, I think that when referring to the art, we should use "theatre".  When we're referring to a building, we should use the convention germane to the location of the building.  —  MusicMaker 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the convention I have been taught by everybody I know who does theatre (all americans though). I say as long as we're consistant, nobody should have too much of a problem with it. --omtay38 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely agree.  "Theatre" for the art.  "Theatre" for a generic British performing arts building.  "Theater" for a generic American performing arts building - however make sure you're using the exact form if referring to the actual title of the theater.  Even though it's in America, the Richard Rodgers Theatre is still spelled in the British form. – warpedmirror (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that.  That's what I was refering to, actually.  —  MusicMaker 06:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I agree that Americans "usually" spell the word for the art "theatre", but I have no objection to our choosing the British spelling, since it is at least an acceptable usage in both places, and most of the musicals are either American or British. Ssilvers 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the usenet group hierarchy is named rec.arts.theatre.* (see FAQ 1.3 at ). --Usgnus 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of that important word

message: Have made some specific inclusions and exclusions in the Scope section based on previous discussions (eg theatre buildings are out) and a personal feel for how the project is evolving (eg operattas are out, film musicals and revues such as the Zigfield Follies or Side by Side by Sondheim are in). Happy to revert of course. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I haven't yet heard from Dance regarding dance productions, but I think it's safe to say tht they're theirs.  —  MusicMaker 03:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd think that the awards pertaining to musical theatre are under our scope, but I think the awards themselves probably belong to New York Theatre  —  MusicMaker 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Regarding the discussion of sections of articles, you might want to take a look at WikiProject Opera's guidelines just to see how they have them set up.  I don't think we should identically copy what they have, but it's as similar a concept that we might find.  —  MusicMaker 03:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have a section for Roles/Characters which might be worth incorporating as an optional subsection in the Synopsis, especially for shows with large numbers of major characters. For musical theatre we probably wouldn't be as hung up on the voice type (tenor etc) as much as we'd want to include a very brief description of the part (eg "Meg Giry, ballerina friend of Christine"). -- Malfourmed (user talk) 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be okay with that, but we would really have to guard against people putting actors in the list, as well.  —  MusicMaker 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Often, the book actually says, "Sid, Bob's son", so that's a good enough description, I think.  If there are no descriptions right in the book, I don't see any reason why the editor can't add something short and sweet.  I agree that voice types don't help much.  First of all, people are usually happy to change keys for a particular artist, and second, the vocal ranges are often pretty flexible, or people sing a note down an octave, or sing in falsetto, or whatever, regardless of how it is written in the score.  Ssilvers 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Opera

message: I've been doing some looking around, replacing instances of , and I found that WikiProject New York Theatre is "active".  It's been one editor since January, and he's only made one edit (anywhere) in the last two months.  I left him a message on his talk page when I was doing that, and he hasn't responded.  It looked like he was focusing on Broadway, but had been adding some musical pages.  I replaced  with  on anything that was for a musical (as it was redirecting there, anyway), and left the others -- mainly articles for the specific theaters.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Broadway now redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Theatre, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicals redirects to WikiProject Musical Theatre.
Apparently, when the three projects (WikiProject Broadway, WikiProject New York Theatre, and WikiProject Off-Broadway) were created, the same template, , was used for all three.  As were all the other templates.
The  template had found its way on to several non-category, non-talk page pages.  Unless I'm mistaken, right now it is only on :Category:Musicals and WikiProject New York Theatre and Off-Broadway.   was redirecting to Musicals-category, but I've created a template there directing people to WikiProject New York Theatre.  The only category it is found on is :Category:Broadway theatres.
If anyone feels that these were not the right moves can certainly revert them or change them.
I've been toying with moving the templates to something using the phrase "Musical Theatre":  or the like.  I would just as soon continue using "Musicals-project" as it is simply more concise.  (And as "Musicals-project" is on 500+ pages....)
—  MusicMaker 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject New York Theatre

message: While re-categorizing, I came across this little gem: A Christmas Held Captive.  This was a show that ran for two months in Beverly Hills twenty years ago and yielded no results on Google.  The lyricist was Robert J. Sherman (also Afd'ed), who was 16 at the time, and son of the Sherman mini-dynasty.  It seems blatantly autobio.  If you'd like to join the AfD discussion, here and here.  —  MusicMaker 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: I'm relatively sure we all consider this to be a talk page, and as such it should probably be moved into the Wikipedia talk namespace.  I think the main page associated with this talk page would be a good place to list all of the current proposals.  I didn't want to just move this without letting everyone know, first.  (Furthermore, I'm not even sure how one would do that....)  —  MusicMaker 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page

message: Hi everyone. I just discovered this project. In the last 24 hours I've added some templates: Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lerner and Loewe, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Gilbert and Sullivan and Stephen Sondheim, allowing easy access to all of the works of these great composers.
I just thought I'd note this here, if anyone has questions or projects relating to these composers or their musicals (I suppose Gilbert & Sullivan belong in the Opera Project), feel free to ask me! Daydream believer2 07:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  I hope you don't mind if we add them to our eventual Template page.  —  MusicMaker 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great plan. Until that page exists, I'll report any progress on templates back here. Daydream believer2 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added Template:Rodgers and Hart and Template:Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein. For the former, there are several with no links because a lot of their works are outdated and forgotten (some rightly so). With regard to Bernstein, I've included his operettas, such as Candide. However this is a matter to which I don't know the official rules. My personal - uneducated - opinion is that the templates don't fall under our purview, but are more about aiding the layperson in navigating the site, so I have no problem with including these works. Similarly, I would think any Gershwin template would include Porgy and Bess for example. But if you prefer to eliminate operas, no probs.
Meanwhile, I'm going to have a go at adding a few Infoboxes. Daydream believer2 07:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops. I'm too hasty and not thoughtful enough. There's a discussion on Infoboxes before they can be implemented. Apologies. Daydream believer2 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the feeling that we're pretty close to a consensus on that and should probably be initiating the infobox quite soon.  —  MusicMaker 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I feel that the template for someone like Leonard Bernstein shouldn't be limited to just musicals.  As well-known as he is in the Musical Theatre realm, he's equally well-known in the modern classical music genre.  And while Mass is slightly ambiguous when it comes to genre, it is considered a "theatre piece" and, as such, can be considered a Musical for as far as we're concerned.  —  MusicMaker 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added  into the mix.  —  MusicMaker 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MusicMaker, feel free to update the Bernstein template - I just don't know enough about his other works personally to do it. :) Daydream believer2 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: These lists exist:
*List of male theater actors
*List of female theater actors
Should there be a list of musical theatre actors?  I think I would vote Yes on that.   Ssilvers 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather see a category. Lists are notoriously difficult to maintain. --Usgnus 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with Usgnus. Although I see the merits of a list, it may end up being more trouble than it's worth. But I think there should be something, either way! Daydream believer2 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Lists are difficult to maintain and update. A category would be a better option here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a category it is.   What categories are out there now regarding performers in musicals?  Here's what I see:   "Category:Musical_theatre" has a subcategory: "Musical theatre actors".  There is also List of famous performers of musicals
Ssilvers 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of musical theatre actors? 

message: I nominated :Category:Musicals based on movies to :Category:Musicals based on films.  Please express your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 7#Category:Musicals based on movies to Category:Musicals based on films. --Usgnus 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for renaming 

message: I'm thinking of proposing :Category:Source material for musicals or something along those lines for such things as Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera or Doctorow's Ragtime or even The Wedding Singer.  Any thoughts?  —  MusicMaker 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you clicked on it, you would get a list of all the books or films from which musicals have been made, but I can't see the utility of it.  Wouldn't it be more useful just to put a link on the book's or film's page saying to click here for the entry on a musical based on that book/film and also a link on the musical's page saying that this link will take you to the book/film on which this musical is based?  Ssilvers 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful for someone doing research on the sources of musicals.  For instance, I once taught a unit based on works of literature or other art that had been adapted into either film or play or musical, coorelating Harlem (A Dream Deferred) with Raisin in the Sun and Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte and Sunday in the Park with George amongst others.  We can and should link the two works in their respective articles, but I think this gives someone looking into the broader sources a good starting point.  —  MusicMaker 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good.  Anything that is helpful to researchers is fine by me.  I don't think you need to propose it anywhere, I think you can just create the category, no?  Ssilvers 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another category 

message: I was tagging various musical theater actor/actress pages with the {Musicals-project} box. But there seemed to be some grey area to me, and I just wanted to clarify the scope of our project: which actors are included in this project?  Are we tagging/editing the pages of every single person who has ever appeared in a Broadway musical or any musical theater production ever?  (Deborah Cox has been on Broadway once...are we tagging her page too?  Same for Melanie Brown, Joey McIntire, Stephen Lynch etc etc.)  Or are we only tagging people who are primarily or very significantly musical theater actors?  Drenched 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we start with people who are primarily musicals stars who have won Tonys and then we can discuss the tough cases individually where, say, someone is a well-know movie or TV star who has done some work in musicals, like, e.g., Brooke Shields or John Lithgow.  If someone has only one reference to a musical in an otherwise major film career, like, say, Julia Roberts, I would *not* tag her.  Ssilvers 16:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I was actually thinking along those lines and tagging people linked from the Tonys Wikipedia page under best actor noms/awards, but John Lithgow, Stephen Lynch, Antonio Banderas and other complicated folk like that were actually nominated for their work despite their fame in other areas.  So I guess I'd have to agree with you guys in terms of just using judgment and dealing with the complex people later...it doesn't seem like there's any hard criteria we can use for inclusion/exclusion. Thanks! Drenched 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which actors are included? 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Musical Theatre WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This post has kind of been sitting here for awhile, and I think it's a good idea for our project.  Our Article Assessment page as of now is formatted awkwardly and I think it would be nice if we had a good, clean one that could also help with other aspects of Wikipedia.  If no one else is for it, then I guess let's not worry about it, but is anyone else interested in this? – warpedmirror (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/July#.7B.7BMusical-stub.7D.7D_or_.7B.7BMusical-play-stub.7D.7D --Usgnus 00:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs! 

message: Please see the talk page there, regarding criteria for inclusion.  -- Ssilvers 08:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of notable musical theatre productions]]

message: Not a member of the project, but I recently split Steel Pier into another article, Steel Pier (musical), about the musical.  I also removed the link from your project's red link page.  Just thought I'd let you guys know so you can work on the page and sort it however you sort articles in this project --Phantom784 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel Pier 

message: A consensus needs to be reached as to whether the listed years in the list of musicals should link to a specific year (i.e. 1972) or to the article regarding the year in music (i.e. 1972 in music). The page in its current state contains a variety of links. I personally would prefer the year, as opposed to the year in music; linking to the year in music suggests that the musical made a VERY important contribution to the music scene at the time. MG, 22:35, 19 Jul 2006
:Actually, it looks like they should link to the "in music" articles.  The reason is the the in-music pages include a subsection "Musical Theatre" which lists all the musicals for that year.  For example, if you look at 1972 in music, it had a subsection that lists all the 1972 musicals.  Therefore it would make sense for the years in the List of Musicals to point to the year-in-music articles that likewise already have those musicals listed in a subsection. Dugwiki 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then I'm going to get started fixing this. Thanks. MG 17:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed years for List of musicals? 

message: When the title of the musical is mentioned throughout the article about the musical, should it just appear Capitalized, Italicized, Bolded, "In quotes", or what?  I've noticed that many articles have been lacking in consistency and often jump around all these options at whim.  I know this is such a stupid insignificant little matter, but I have OCD and it's driving me batty and I want to settle the matter once and for all.  I'm leaning towards Italicized or maybe even just Capitalized, but that's just my ungrounded preference.  What do you all think? --Drenched 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistent style is not insignificant, nor is your question stupid :)  For a question like this, I refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, aka MOS, and in this case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).  I believe that musicals fall within the more general group of plays, for which the guideline is to use italics, not bold, (except for the use of bold for the subject of an article in the opening sentence of the article.  That's the general Wikipedia guideline.  I'll leave it to others to answer whether there is a different guideline within the Musical Theatre project.  Cheers, and kudos to you for jumping in with serious editing and serious questions after such a short time as an editor.  --Lini 03:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you both for your super-fast clear responses.  That MOS will definitely come in handy. :)  Happy editing! Take care, --Drenched 04:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Correction: It should be: The Fantasticks is a musical by.... And then formatted as The Fantasticks for the rest of the article, as you said. – warpedmirror (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor minor stupid question about referencing musical title in article 

message: Just a suggestion, guys.  If you spot a Broadway musical article lacking references, try looking it up at The Internet Broadway Database (www.ibdb.com). You can then cut-and-paste a link to the show's database entry as an citation to verify some of the info about the musical.  IBDB is a decent, reliable quick reference if the article needs one for basic info.
Likewise, if you spot a film or TV show article with no references, try The Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com).  Good sites to keep in mind for Broadway/Film/TV references. Dugwiki 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBDB.com as a reference for Broadway musicals 

message: Looks like we've got the pages for musicals, at least, somewhat full. I assume we start assessing now? Any particular guidelines, or should we start brainstorming them? Crystallina 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think once we should now reach a conclusion about the format of the articles. This will create easier assessment because each article can be compared to what it should have according to our format. --omtay38 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think we should put the list of musical numbers INTO the plot synopsis, unless there are not that many musical numbers.  It makes for bad prose.  If the musical has a long list of numbers (let's say more than 10), I think they can be listed out.  Or we could leave the choice up to the writer of the article whether to list them out or integrate them into the synopsis.  Secondly, I think the list of roles should be required rather than optional.  Other than that, I like the format.  --Ssilvers 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an awsome discussion to have, but, let's have it here. (Sslivers, i'll post your comment there too so it will not be overlooked). --omtay38 07:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Assessment 

message: There have been two propositions made about the finalization of both the infobox template and the Article Structure page. Each of the Propositions has been made on the respective talk page but I've decided to post links to them here as they are both very important decisions and discussions. Please read each of them thoroughly and add your comments or votes.
*The Infobox proposal: Proposed finalization
*Article Structure proposal: Proposed Article Structure Page
--omtay38 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've posted a message in my sandbox with suggestions about the article structure page, please check back there as I have added it. If you haven't posted a message in my sandbox with your opinions on the structure of articles, shame on you! :-D ---omtay38 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Propositions

message: Nothing will draw more attention to this project than getting a Featured Article. Of course, that takes time and dedicated effort. Both of which we're capable of providing. Let's choose a few articles to seriously work on, improve, expand. The first goal is Good Article status.
Any suggestions? I have a few in mind but won't push them until I get group input. Crystallina 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be pessimistic, but this article almost seems beyond repair.  We may need a whole sub-project to fix this one up! :P But you're right, it is the most popular show on Broadway as of now, and would get a lot of hits. – warpedmirror (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's pick a few articles to seriously work on 

message: *Wicked (musical) - gets around 20 or so edits a day (mostly by IP addresses). It's also outrageously long and predominated by lists. If we got this one to FA status, it would be seen by 20 or so people a day! (However, it's also part of WikiProject Oz and I'm not sure if they've done any work for it.) --omtay38 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be pessimistic, but this article almost seems beyond repair.  We may need a whole sub-project to fix this one up! :P But you're right, it is the most popular show on Broadway as of now, and would get a lot of hits. – warpedmirror (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions