Talk:The Wizard of Oz (2011 musical)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sophie Evans[edit]

Please do not delete/edit anything in this discussion that is not your own work, per WP:TPO. Also, please do not delete/edit your own comments after someone has already replied to them, per WP:REDACT.

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth on whether to include Sophie Evans (alternate Dorothy) in the cast list, so I just thought I'd bring the discussion here, instead. Personally, I don't see why she isn't included. I can see why, normally, an alternate wouldn't be included, but due to the Over the Rainbow connection, Evans is also quite notable, no? --jayunderscorezero (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evans is an actual alternate, not just a cover, so she must be listed, unless there has been some new announcement that she is not the alternate. I put her back in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie is famous, yes, but there's no need to include her in the cast list because she's not exactly part of the main cast; she's only Danielle's understudy. She's not who the show's focusing on; the show's focusing on Danielle because she's the leading lady. We all know that Sophie's the understudy, but I don't think it's necessary to include her in the cast list because she's not the main focus of the show. So no, we don't need to write down in the cast list that she's the alternate because we all know she is, but the alternates are not who we all focus on. DarkDancer06 (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC) -[reply]

No, she's not just an understudy. She is a scheduled principal, performing the role each week. People are buying tickets to her performances knowing that she will be the lead. She will be performing the role dozens or hundreds of times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article: Sophie Evans cast as alternate Dorothy, Sophie Evans is not an understudy. She "takes on the role for selected performances". That makes her one of the principal cast members, and, as such, should be listed in the cast list. The musical theatre guidelines for showing cast members are quite clear on this: "Only the actors playing principal (significant speaking and singing) roles should be mentioned." JeanColumbia (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, according to this article ("The Wizard of Oz - Sophie Evans joins cast"), Evans schedule is: "on Tuesday evenings (from March 8, 2011) and during Hope’s holidays (the weeks beginning May 2, September 5 and September 12, 2011)."JeanColumbia (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternates and understudies are the same thing; Sophie has been cast as the alternate for Danielle's role, not the leading lady so of course she's the understudy. Alternates are substitute actors and actresses who step in for the leading man or leading lady when necessary and they're actually part of the ensemble; they're not part of the principal cast. So she's not really part of the principal cast, nor is she the star of the show just because she steps in for Danielle on selected dates; she's covering for the leading lady on those dates and that makes her the understudy. DarkDancer06 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one agrees with you. Please stop making edits in violation of the WP:CONSENSUS here. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making such a big fuss over this? Are you not happy that Sophie didn't win Over the Rainbow? Well if you are upset about that, I'm sorry, but the nation chose Danielle to be the leading lady. And actually, only you don't agree with me because you're the one who keeps complaining and it's getting really silly; there's nothing wrong with my edits. I've put Sophie back in the article and I've just stated that she is in the show, but she's just not the leading lady; why should that upset you so much? DarkDancer06 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite obvious that Sophie Evans is a principal cast member and should therefore stay in the article. Please observe the consensus regarding her inclusion. Jack1956 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes don't worry, she will stay in the article but can we at least give her, her own space on the cast list rather than have her in brackets beside Danielle? Because it just looks a little bit messy that way. DarkDancer06 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Crawford and Toto citations are incomplete, and others are missing date information. Would someone please show DarkDancer how to provide adequate information per WP:CITE? I've edited too much here today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

The plot added today (December 19, 2010) is very close to this: [[1]], but I hesitate to call it an outright copy violation. Opinions? I also think it premature to include a plot at this stage but that is another issue.JeanColumbia (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, I do know it is a bit early to include the plot, but sure we all know what the basic plot outline is don't we? That's all I put in really, just what the outline of the plot is because it is more or less the same as the 1939 film.

Oh and thank you for your correction on terms - I wasn't sure what term to use for Michael Crawford; so cheers! DarkDancer06 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "we all know", that means you don't have a WP:Reliable source, and the information is prohibited by our guideline on WP:Original research. Please read these guidelines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness though, this is "The Wizard of Oz". The story will be the same as the film, apart from with new musical numbers to enhance it. Most MT Plots don't have sources anyway? I plan on seeing the show within a few weeks of it opening though so will be able to help with the article expansion etc. Mark E (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Has anybody got the logo to put into the info box? DarkDancer06 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard of Oz navbox[edit]

Can anyone get the huge navbox to collapse? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could try adding other templates if that'll help, but other ones could we add? DarkDancer06 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

The cast list has been confirmed and updated on the show's official website, so I've made some edits to the cast list section so it will look almost exactly like the cast list on the website. The link to the website page is now a new reference. DarkDancer06 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also ask why people are making such a fuss over where Sophie should be placed in the cast list? She's not placed directly under Danielle in the cast list on the website, which is why I moved her, and presumably, she won't be directly under Danielle in the show's official program. So what exactly is the problem? DarkDancer06 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a fuss" is what experienced editors call "trying to make the article the best we know how". Impuning other editors by calling it a fuss will get you nowhere. I stand by my edits, they make sense. Perhaps you might want to read some other musical theatre articles, to see how cast lists are presented (and also be an editor for a while before casually passing off real concerns of experienced editors). (I am aware that I am walking a very thin line and do not wish to be uncivil.)JeanColumbia (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No believe me, I'm not trying to be uncivil either but it's just, you really seem to be taking any changes made to where Sophie is placed personally. I do go to musical theatre as often as I can and I do know how cast lists are presented; the alternates are never placed directly under the leading actor/actress, in fact they're never placed anywhere among the principal cast apart from the original role they play of course - when they're listed as the understudys, they have their own section below the lead cast. Like I said, I moved Sophie away from Danielle because she's not listed beside her on the cast list on the website and that is probably how the cast list will be presented in the show's official program, so why not have it that way for this article? I don't see anything wrong with it; I stand by my edits as well and are you only unhappy with them because you're a Sophie fan? DarkDancer06 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who Sophie is, I live in the United States and have neither seen her nor heard of her before this article. I am trying for a reasonable, neutral approach to this article with no WP:POV. I suggest that we await a WP:CONSENSUS before proceeding. I will not edit the article further, nor will I have further comments on this issue, as I look forward to the comments of interested editors. (By the way, accusing me of being a "fan" is clearly very close to a "personal attack"; you might want to read up on the principles of Wikipedia here WP:CIVIL and here WP:POV and here WP:CONSENSUS.)JeanColumbia (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JeanColumbia. BTW, I have never seen the TV show and don't know anything about these actors, except what I read in the references given and the other news articles that I have seen; in fact, it is only you who is having an emotional response to the cast list here. We are just presenting the information according to the editorial policies of Wikipedia and according to the customary presentation style used in musical theatre articles on Wikipedia. It is misleading and illogical to separate the role the way you want to do it. You also may not suppress important information that is reported in the news sources. We must present the information in a neutral, balanced way, and our articles are not intended to be promotional. So it doesn't matter how the show's website presents the information - we must present it in an encyclopedic way. Normally, when we have alternates in a role (and it happens reasonably often), we list both names on one line. We should also note the information available, which is that Evans performs the role on Tuesdays and has been scheduled to perform it during certain other weeks, but it is already given above. Also, please do not change the headings. The list of roles and cast should say "Roles and original cast". This allows us to conveniently add the names of cast members from subsequent important productions. I appreciate that you are helping to add available information to this article, and I hope we can work together more constructively in the future. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that, once the show opens officially and the newspaper reviews are available, there will be more to say about the actors who are mentioned in the reviews and the other aspects of the show commented upon by the reviews. The show's website must be viewed with skepticism, because they have a financial interest in the show (see WP:COI and WP:RS for more information), so it is better to cite independent sources of information, such as major newspapers and other independent theatre writers. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I didn't realise the two of you never saw Over the Rainbow - I did and I'm actually going to see the show in March. I didn't think presenting the leading actor/actress and their understudies on one line was the right way to present the information, so I just presented it the way they do in the show's programs; every principal cast member has an alternate obviously and the only reason it was publicly announced that Sophie is Danielle's understudy is because she was the runner-up on Over the Rainbow and so because of that fact, the nation knows who she is. The show will be opening soon; it's not too long before the previews begin so hopefully, everything about this article can be sorted. And believe me, you can work constructively with me; I am sorry, I didn't know you hadn't seen Over the Rainbow. Best regards to you too. DarkDancer06 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm afraid that you still don't understand: no other cast member has an alternate who is regularly scheduled to perform the role. They may have understudies and/or covers. Evans is the only person scheduled to play a role on alternate performances. Also, please follow Wikipedia's editorial policies, not the editorial policies of the producers of the show. Your most recent edit is misleading. Please stop trying to suppress the fact that Evans is regularly scheduled to appear in this musical. Also, the fact that you used a misleading edit summary is very troubling. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot again[edit]

This new version of the plot seems a tiny bit too long. Can it be cut down somewhat? --jayunderscorezero (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot (as of the date and time I write this) is approximately 860 words, which is within the WP:MUSICALS guidelines (at [[2]]) of "between 800 and 1100 words". Do you object to its length, because, since it is within the guidelines, I think it is acceptable. Do you object to too much detail, or do you see substantive problems with it? If so, it would be helpful to let the community know.JeanColumbia (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just used to seeing film summaries, which are about 400-700 words, so it seemed a bit long to me and like it could have been more concise. If this is the usual then that's fine, although I always err on the side of getting these things as trim as possible. --jayunderscorezero (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything the plot summary may need a bit more information. By comparison, the plot in the article for the film is actually more than 1000 words, and this stage show has a lot of extra material.Mark E (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just proofread this, and I agree that it is not too long per WP:MUSICAL project's guidelines. Mark E did a very nice job with it. I left a few hidden questions that you can see on the edit screen that perhaps someone can answer. I would try, if possible, to be clear about what the changes were from the film. After the reviews come out, we can add a short section discussing the major differences with the film as noted by the critics. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to ?'s.

How does the Wizard appear in this version? His face is projected onto a giant circular screen with a fan going round. It is black and white and quite distorted. Is Toto with them, or did he go with Dorothy? Toto is with Dorothy in the Witch's castle Does Toto reveal him, as in the film? Yes! Mark E (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I made some changes. Jean added a new question: what happened to the Tin-Man & Lion (after the Wizard gives them their heart and courage)? (I assumed that the Scarecrow is to rule Oz, as in the film, right?) Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Scare-crow becomes prime minister, Lion War Minister and Tin-man becomes the minister for something else which I just can't seem to remember.Mark E (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed. Another question, sorry! Does Toto distract Dorothy by running into the crowd so that she misses her baloon ride to Kansas, or something else? Also, we don't say anything about the gatekeeper at the Emerald City. Does he give them a hard time, like in the movie? I love the line from the movie: "Well ... why didn't you SAY so?!" LOL. Also, you say that the Witch descends into the Emerald City. That seems different from the film. What happens? Anything else that struck you as quite different from the film? Also, BTW, how did you like it? :-) Thanks, and all the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Toto distract Dorothy by running into the crowd so that she misses her baloon ride to Kansas < THIS!

The Doorman - Yes, they ring bell, he brings sign bell out of order please knock, they know, and there is the Well ... why didn't you SAY so? The witch LITERALLY descends into the audience from the heights of the Palladium. It is a remarkable sight! She has a big megaphone. The show was good, not amazing, was only a first preview though. Quite rough at some points (the witch didn't melt first night!) Witch's song/Hannah Waddingham = AMAZING. I'm sure it will get better though.Mark E (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I gave it another proofread. Please check it to see if I misinterpreted anything. Now, I guess we wait for opening night and the reviews. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Wizard of Oz (2011 musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wizard of Oz (2011 musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250H VL1[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 4 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kalabasasss332 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bluemarker06, Redlamp99.

— Assignment last updated by Mgferris13 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wizard_of_Oz_(2011_musical)&oldid=1210953308"