Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive7-21-07

message: ...has been nominated for deletion.  You can weigh in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Musical 3.  —  MusicMaker 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been deleted.  —  MusicMaker 15:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Musical 3 

message: A number of images at Wicked (musical) are slated for deletion.   The images say that they are "promotional" images.  Weren't they released by Disney with permission for people to use them in a non-commercial site like Wikipedia?  If we don't provide some explanation soon, they'll all go bye-bye.  Does anyone know whether these images can be justified, or whether they really ought to be deleted?  -- Ssilvers 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all promotional, in that they've been used to illustrate newspaper articles and on posters and whatnot. So in that sense, I suppose we could justifiably use them to illustrate the article. I don't know if they were ever released as one specific press kit or whatever, and therefore their reuse limitations... Universal does Wicked, mind, not Disney... - Dafyd 22:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. "This image has been used in the press and various other media outlets to promote Wicked. It is a low resolution image of a scene from the musical, and is used specifically to illustrate unique elements of the production. The only available images of Wicked in performance are those taken by 'official' photographers, and for which the various productions own the copyright." Or there abouts... - Dafyd 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images at Wicked

message: Everyone, please take a look at the newest edits to our flagship article.  Is this bad listifying, or good formatting?  I'm on the fence, but maybe I just need some sleep.  -- Ssilvers 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay -- you're talking about that list of differences between musicals and opera.  Yeah, that's crap.  I tried to undo the edit, but couldn't.  I'd say feel free to rewrite.  —  MusicMaker 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Musical theatre]]

message: Can someone please put in the infobox at Guys and Dolls.  Thanks! --Ssilvers 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going through right now and infoboxing everything in any of the categories, as well as assessing.  If there's anything (like G & D) that seriously needs one, lmk, but I'll get to it eventually....  —  MusicMaker 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox needed

message: The collaboration of the month page has yet to receive any nominations. But then again, that's understandable with all the work we've been doing around here. If it dosen't get any by the first, I'll just roll the selection date too next month (when things may have settled down a bit). Cheers! --omtay38 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/COTM|Collaboration of the Month]] 

message: (If this note belongs better on a different Talk page, feel free to move it.) 
There is at present no article for Michael Mayer (director). There was a single article named "Michael Mayer," but that was an article about a well-known electronica musician; I think most theater and film people were simply wikilinking "Michael Mayer" and assuming it was the man most of us consider the Michael Mayer, without realizing that other arenas have their own "the" Michael Mayer. So I created a disambiguation page for the name (there was a third Michael Mayer who sometimes goes by Mike) and just now finished going back and making the links about the theatrical MM direct to the not-yet-created article. I thought I'd post a message here, as I suspect once people realize that the Tony-winning MM has no article after all, there will be one tout suite. Lawikitejana 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No article for (the correct) Michael Mayer 

message: Why is there a redirect to Stagecraft for a search for Theatrical Production? They are NOT the same thing. Also there should be a page for Stage show as well since not all stage shows are theatrical productions. Come on, we do want a full and comprehensive listing don't we?--Amadscientist 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, write an article on Theatrical production to replace the redirect, and one for Stage show, using WP:RS, and then other people can contribute to it.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have begun both stubs and will add neccesary citations, catagories and project links shortly, but encourage everyone to contribute PLEASE untill I do or unless someone else gets to it! Thanks!--Amadscientist 06:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects gone crazy and lack of pages 

message: Just a random thought as I go through these articles: I think we should advise against numbering the musical numbers, and, instead, just bulleting them.  It's nitpicking, I know, but, as I'm sure we all know, the musical pieces in the score are usually numbered, and, if we're not going to use the numbers from the score (which would create difficulty), we probably should just leave them unnumbered.  —  MusicMaker 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical numbers... numbers 

message: If anyone is looking for articles to create, Michael Gore and Dean Pitchford are both conspicuous redlinks.  They're the guys who wrote  Fame, Carrie, the screenplay for Footloose and some of the songs, and about a zillion other things.  If someone gets to them, great, if not, I can do it when I'm done infoboxing....  —  MusicMaker 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles needed 

message: I don't think film versions should be listed as productions in the infobox for the musical.  Can we add that to the guidelines?  What about the TV recordings of a musical?  Shouldn't we limit infobox productions to major stage productions?  See, e.g., Carousel (musical) -- Ssilvers 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Again, as representing the musical as a literary work, I think the film and television productions are important in the infobox.   There's no reason it should only represent stage productions. —  MusicMaker 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Productions in the Infobox

message: This guy is undoing MusicMaker's edits!:  [See User:209.247.22.164  -- Ssilvers 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know what to do about that... —  MusicMaker 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing what is being done - reverting the edits and leaving a message on the IP users talk page seems the best way to deal with. Perhaps it might help to point them in the direction of this project, and try to get them to talk about any possible changes on here rather than doing what they are doing? Just a thought? (And excuse my barging in, I only joined the project this week) ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a complaint, first at WP:AIV; they told me to bring it up at WP:AN/I, which I've done.  It doesn't seem to have been attended to, yet.  But, thank you for your quick work undoing those edits, Tangerines.  Much thanks.  —  MusicMaker 18:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help re: Vandal!! 

message: Came across a dupe article of one that was deleted previously for Menopause The Musical.  You can weigh in here. —  MusicMaker 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AfD 

message: Hi, have just joined this project after lurking for awhile. I have been rating a load of articles this afternoon and hope ive been doing alright. I have tried to stick to guidelines the best I can.
Found a problem with the "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" page. It linked to the book which had a small bit of info on the musical. I deleted the project tag on this page and put it into the article about the musical version. Not sure if this was right so just checking, and the book page will probs need to be changed.
Also added the "List" tag to all of the list articles. Was wondering whether the tony award specific awards should also go in this catagory as there is not much to talk about individual awards rather than who has won them right?
Also the page "Zuleika" (Yeah, trust me to browse the very last page :P) needs disambiguating or more information on it but I thought id leave that to someone else as id probably mess it up.
Hope you guys can keep me right but been having fun so far :D.  --  Mark E 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Mark.  It looks to me like you're doing a good job with the assessments.  In any event, if someone disagrees with an assessment, they can always change it (although I hope people will give their reasoning if they change assessments).  Yes, you're right that the project tag should go on the talk page for the musicals article rather than the article for the related source book.  I'm not sure what your question is about the Tony awards.  Glad you're participating in the project!  -- Ssilvers 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The way I understand the list rating is that it should be saved for articles that are entirely lists and have no hope of becoming articles.  So, I dunno....  I think those Tony Award articles could conceivably become full articles, so, personally, I'd consider them stub class.  —  MusicMaker 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WHA?!?  That's craz-E....  —  MusicMaker 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Joined - Rating Articles 

message: Can we add Reality Musical Tv Shows to the project. I mean programmes like How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?. Any thoughts? Mark E 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a musical?  I think it is not simply any entertainment that includes songs from a musical.  Were the Carol Burnett Show, or the Sonny and Cher show musicals?  No, I don't think so.  Even a revue is a show that tries to bring the songs into an overall structure that relates them to each other somehow.  I'd say No, a reality show about a musical, or featuring some numbers from musicals is not under the rubrick of musical theatre.  -- Ssilvers 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, I'm not so sure. Take a look at that program. It's not really comparable to the Carol Burnett Show or the Sonny and Cher show. Its a reality show, American Idol style, to find a person to play the character Maria in an upcoming production of The Sound of Music. Whether or not we include this show, and others like it is something to consider. These shows are becoming more popular (Grease: You're the One that I Want!). Honestly, if we truly are "Wikiproject Musical Theatre" then these articles about TV shows, about musical theatre are under our umbrella. Honestly, I don't see much of a problem in putting our project tag on them. Having an article with our project tag on it does little more than attract other users to this project. It doesn't mean we have to pay special attention to it or write up new style guidelines to edit it. But if somebody checks the talk page for the show and sees that this awesome wikiproject exists, all the better. --omtay38 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I see your point and have no problem with this.  But I note that it is very annoying to people who have worked on an article when a project comes along and sticks a tag on their article and then doesn't work on it.  So I disagree with the concept that we should just go putting our tag on articles, unless they have a real connection to musical theatre and are not covered by other projects that are working actively on them.  The Biography project is, IMO, one of the biggest offenders in this respect.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Reality Musical Tv Shows 

message: Just wanted to let everyone know that I just revised the stub tag slightly.  It said "See Wikiproject Musical Theatre," and I'm not sure why.  I wouldn't want to imply that someone would have to check in with us before they expand a stub, so I took it out.  If anyone disagrees, they can revert.  —  MusicMaker 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was meant to point to the article structure guidelines to give people an idea of ways to expand the article?  -- Ssilvers 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, other stub tags don't do that.  To me, it felt like "Don't do anything until you check in here, first," which is definitely against WikiPhilosophy....  —  MusicMaker 00:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub fix 

message: I thought we deserved one so I got it up and running. I'm still doing a few tweaks here and there, but feel free to take a look. All comments are well apprecieated. I plan on adding it to the active list of portals before the end of the night. Cheers! --omtay38 01:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So i've pretty much finished up the portal. Take a look, I'd love some feedback (or feel free to change things for yourself). Most of the articles up I picked at random but I think it's a pretty good set. Also, if nobody objects, I was gonna place a small, unobtrusive link to the portal on . That's all. Cheers! --omtay38 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great so far, the only thing I'd change is the fact that the layout seems cluttered. (I have no idea how to fix this though - layout was never my strong point.) Crystallina 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by cluttered? I know that sometimes there is random whitespace depending on which articles are displayed... might that be it? --omtay38 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of sidestacked and pinched. But otherwise it's great. Crystallina 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Musical Theatre]]

message: A load of information has been added to the Avenue Q article (I follow it closely as it is one of my fave shows) and its about a Manila production, Tel Aviv production, Licensing and school editions etc and it has messed up the article and now has TWENTY sections to it. Anyone want to attempt to clean it up? I would but im still only just starting to get used to wikipedia editing and don't want to mess it up lol.  Mark E 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK to list the international professional productions, although all those redlinked names should be unlinked.  I deleted the commercial information about MTI, and the school production information was not notable, so I deleted it.  I reorganized the headings in the section.  This article in particular tends to accumulate fancruft, so it's good that you're watching it.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions to the [[Avenue Q]] article 

message: Hey kids -- Having worked with this infobox more or less nonstop for the past week or two, I think there's something we should change.  There's no way to make the Drama Desk awards fit on their own line, and it's been bothering me.  I could just change the name of the award from "outstanding" to "best", but, frankly, I can't bring myself to do it.  I've been piping "Drama Desk Award" to simply "Drama Desk", but the award for Outstanding New Musical (even when "New" is left out) still takes up two lines.  I was thinking that if we put the word "Awards" centered on its own line, and allowed the awards to center as well beneath it, those award names would fit and it would still look okay.  I'll try to work on a mock-up when I'm less half-asleep (or more half-awake for you optimists out there....).  If anyone has any other ideas (like fiddling with the current code), I'm certainly open to them. —  MusicMaker 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just "Musical" or "New Musical".  The award must mean "best" or "outstanding" musical.  You certainly don't need the word Award - it's already there as a heading.  Plus, lower down in the article we have more room to use the exact names of the awards.   Or, we could make the box a little wider....  Just some ideas.  -- Ssilvers 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm pretty sure it's a standard size.  I don't think we should make it too radically different from the other boxes out there.  Just using "Drama Desk Musical"?  Hmmm....  —  MusicMaker 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You know what, "Drama Desk Outstanding Musical" seems to fit.  —  MusicMaker 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox change 

message: If anyone has a recording of Sweet Smell of Success (musical), could you go over to that article and see if the synopsis is lifted directly from the liner notes?  It seems a little spurious....  —  MusicMaker 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have them, but the synopsis is bloated anyhow.  May as well rewrite it in any case.  I you edit it while looking at a different summary from MTI or somewhere, you'll end up with something original no matter what.  -- Ssilvers 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweet Smell of Success possible copyvio 

message: If you're looking for untagged musical theatre actors, :Category:American musical theatre actors is a great place to start. Crystallina 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact, all the subcategories under :Category:Musical theatre have links to a zillion untagged articles.  -- Ssilvers 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to say if you tag an article with the template PLEASE also rate it, the assessment page keeps getting more articles appearing.Mark E 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the project expand as far as notable showtunes, such as Defying Gravity (song) and My Favorite Things (song)?Mark E 11:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, however, chances are any article about a song in a musical is not notable. There guidelines are being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Notability (music) but from the looks of the current AfD for Dear Old Shiz, unless a song is truly notable, it should simply be redirected to the musical page. --omtay38 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, quite a few songs in musicals could be notable. If major recording artists often perform the song, it's notable - things like Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Send in the Clowns, etc. If it gets a lot of press for some aspect, it's notable. Crystallina 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that the current guidelines at WP:MUSIC state that "if a song has a life outside the musical", then it is notable.  So, yeah, Rainbow, Clowns, definitely.  Gravity, not-so-much.  (At least, not yet.)  Which means that all of the songs created at Rent have to go, all of the ones at Phantom have to go, and the ridiculous notion that every Sherman Brothers song ever written deserves an article needs to be nipped in the bud.  Maybe I'll do that today....   —  MusicMaker 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hmm id say delete all the "Wicked" songs apart from DG as that song is evidently well know in music theatre. Id say the same for phantom keeping Music of the night, and for rent, all but Seasons of Love.Mark E 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Well-known in musical theatre" is quite different from "having a life outside of the show".  "Music of the Night" is just this side of having a life outside of the show, and "Seasons of Love"....  Meh....  I mean, it was recorded by Stevie Wonder... for the cast recording.  Something like "One Night in Bangkok" had a life outside the show.  "Let the Sunshine In".  "Somewhere".  These have had a life outside the show.  (And I'm not even sure that any of them have articles....) —  MusicMaker 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you think redirects are a bad idea?  If someone searches for the song, they'll be brought to the page for the musical.  It'll cut down on people making articles for the songs that shouldn't have them.  Just last year, we AfD'd all of the songs in Phantom, they were deleted, and they're being recreated again.  —  MusicMaker 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh.  Okay.  Well, yeah....  —  MusicMaker 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging Actors, composers, librettists, lyricists, directors, etc.