Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

WikiProject Musical Theatre

Main Talk Page

Notable cast replacements

Hello all,

It was recently pointed out to me that WP Musical Theatre's policy with cast replacements is to only list them if they are notable, meaning bluelinked. For the past week or so, there has been persistent attempts to add Beetlejuice the Musical cast replacements to the page; however, the actors in question do not have their own Wikipedia pages and thus, I believe according to the project standards, should not be listed in the Cast section of the article.

In an attempt to compromise, I did mention the replacements in the prose section of Productions. I put a note on the talk page and an invisible comment reminding editors to not put in the cast replacements unless they are bluelinked. Nevertheless, anonymous editors continue to attempt to add the new cast members to the Cast list. Is there anything else I can do? Should I talk to someone about getting the page semi-protected? Or just continue to undo the edits and hope that it dies down soon? I would appreciate any advice. Apathyash (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good work. I think it will die down some over time, but I would not object to semi-protection. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Falsettos audio files

Hey there! I'm a big fan of the musical Falsettos and I have been working on the article for the past few days. I think it could greatly benefit from some music samples (I'm thinking 3-4 of them). I don't have my computer that has music downloaded on it. Would anyone be willing to upload some samples for me? Cheers, Basilisk4u (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Looking quickly at the article it appears that you added a lot of good content. I notice a couple of things. First, the "Themes" section is in a weird position. I would probably put it below the Reception section, or at least below the Productions section. Some of the photos are awkwardly placed to interfere with headings and/or tables and, in any case, would probably not make it through a peer review or a FAC. Most importantly, the plot summary is way too long. It should be cut down by about 50%. Can you try to slim it down to the most essential plot points? If you can cut down the plot summary significantly and want me to review the article more closely and give you my impressions, I am willing to do that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much for lending a hand! Yes, the article is definitely not ready for FAC or anything like that. I am going to create a background/history section that details how the musical came to be, challenges in its promotion, etc. I also think that other themes in the musical, such as masculinity, could be explored in the "Themes" section. I've trimmed down the plot summary fairly significantly and I think the length is comparable to articles of other musicals that have been listed as good/featured articles. If you get a chance, let me know what you think! Again, I really appreciate your help. Basilisk4u (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a start. The plot section is now probably an acceptable length, or close to it. Yeah, the background section is currently totally unreferenced, so I hope you get to that sooner rather than later. Let me know what you think of my copy edits so far; if I made any factual errors, please correct. I left you some hidden questions that you can see on the article's edit screen; please see if you can resolve them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your copyedits look great! I've added a background/history section now. There are still many of your questions unaddressed, so I will work on them in the coming days. Thanks so much! Basilisk4u (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a little more progress and left you some comments in the edit summaries. Note that the 1993 national tour is entirely missing from the productions section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, and yes I agree that we need something about why he decided to combine the shows as well as information about the 1993 tour. I'm a little confused about some of the rephrasing such as "Each musical was developed during rehearsals, particularly as Finn is a disorganized writer and composer" - I'm not sure if that can be stated as a fact if it was just the opinion of one cast member. I think the quote is needed here. Also, the source doesn't mention that Lapine and Bogardus were actually racquetball partners, just that they were two people working on the musical that happened to know about the sport. Basilisk4u (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Finn confirmed it himself in the other source, that he relied on Lapine, who was more organized. We could say, "according to Bogardus", but I think it's common knowledge about Finn and an essential part of the development of the show. I agree that it would be better to add another source to bolster this, but I have no doubt that we are, if anything, soft-selling it. What Bogardus really said is that Finn was such a mess that the shows would surely not have gotten done without Lapine. The source most certainly does say that Lapine and Bogardus played racquetball together for years. Please look again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've finished giving it a once-over. I'd say that Themes should go after Reception, as analysis-type sections usually go further down. You've definitely kicked the article up a notch. I think it's close to B-class now; and I'd say that after you finish with it, it probably will be. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Variety, Billboard and The Stage

For those of us into older musicals (say pre-1960), the periodicals Variety, Billboard and the London-based The Stage provide an enormous amount of information. Full runs of these periodicals have been scanned and are available through a ProQuest package, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. Normally one has to view this valuable database (which contains scanned issues of over 40 periodicals, many of them having to do with film and popular music) on an institution's premises. But because of the Covid-19 crisis, many institutions have allowed off-site access to this database. There are only about 50 institutions that pay for this database (no individual access allowed). If you are currently registered or are an alumnus, you might be able to gain access offsite (I am a New York Public Library card holder so I can get access):

• American University
• Brown University
• Coastal Carolina University
• Colgate University
• Colorado College
• Cornell University
• Emory University
• Harding University
• Illinois State University
• Indiana University
• Koninklijke Bibliotheek
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

• Libris (Stockholm)
• McGill University
• Michigan State University
• New York Public Library
• Ohio State University
• Pennsylvani State University
• Princeton University
• Radford University
• Reed College
• Stanford University
• Syracuse University
• Texas A&M University

• Texas State University-San Marcos
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• University of Arizona
• University of Califorani-San Diego
• University of California-Berkeley
• University of California-Davis
• University of California-Irvine
• University of California-Los Angeles
• University of California-Santa Barbara
• University of California-Santa Cruz
• University of Denver
• University of Edinburgh

• University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
• University of Iowa
• University of Kansa
• University of Michigan
• University of North Carolina-Wilmington
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oregon
• University of Washington (Seattle)
• University of Colorado-Boulder
• Washington University (St. Louis)
• Wesleyan University
• Western University
• Wilfrid Laurier University
• Wolford College

Being a fan of pre-war musicals and performers, I have heavily used database. Apologies for not sharing this information sooner - and good luck! - kosboot (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if your institution doesn't offer direct access, you can search for a ProQuest product such as "Academic Search Premier." Once you have entered that database, on the search screen you should see and select an option "Change Databases." Once you do that, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive Should be one of the options. - kosboot (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Awards - Can we get a consensus, please?

The awards tables for popular musicals are too long. I would like to gather a consensus to remove from them everything except Tony Awards, Olivier Awards, Drama Desk and, if the show never ran on B'way or West End, the highest award it was eligible for. Also, if the album won (not nominated) for a Grammy it should be noted, and a Pulitzer should be noted. I would remove Drama League, Critics Circle, etc. If editors want a "complete" table, they can create a subarticle with a complete table and leave a summary in the main article. What does everyone think? If people agree, I think we should clarify out Article Structure page about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we do exactly that a while ago? It's just that articles haven't been edited to comply with the guidance.Boneymau (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Cast tables

Alright folks, I think we need to come to an agreement of what cast members should be included in cast table, and which casts. In my view, I think we should be including opening night casts to major productions (first production, B'way, WE, major region tours w/ notable cast members). This would mean not including amateur, regional, or small tour productions, tours that did not have a notable cast member, shows that have not had an opening night. Can anyone else weigh in on this? The article stemming this is Be More Chill (musical), whether or not to include the Chicago cast (which has not yet openend.) BOVINEBOY2008 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer that the cast tables included ONLY Broadway and West End opening night casts, unless the show has never played on either B'way or WE, in which case, it should contain the cast from the first significant professional production (or the most significant early production). The only exception, I think, is if the show has an exceptionally successful other production -- I mean a 10-year run off-Broadway, or a massive tour with millions of tickets sold. It appears that people insist on including US/UK national tour casts, but frankly they are rarely important to the history of the musical. I can live with them, as long as it is a significant national tour, not just a short tour or bus and truck production. However, I think it is important that we do NOT include extra international productions, like an Australian production mounted after the original West End production. Likewise, no Chicago or Toronto productions that follow a B'way opening. Also, *notable* (bluelinked) B'way and WE cast replacements can be noted below the table. And, OBVIOUSLY, per WP:CRYSTAL, I think it is important NEVER to include in the table any cast where the production has not opened yet! If people want to spend their time making massive tables of every silly cast, then they can create a sub-article for them, but the main article should not be cluttered up with this trivia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly agree it should be a production's opening cast, not replacements. It also shouldn't include workshops (that can be covered in the Development section). However, what constitutes a production worthy of being in a cast table I think should be more criteria-based than strict rules, because it is situation-dependent. The notability of cast members in the production might be one criteria. The notability of the production in the history and profile of the musical might be another. Happy to have a maximum 5-6 casts though, which would force decisions of what is most notable for a particular musical. Boneymau (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The criteria I listed are "criteria-based", because B'way and the West End are the only major markets for theatre (plays and musicals). In both markets, significantly more than 10 million tickets and $1 billion box office grosses are realized. There is no other market that comes anywhere close, except the US and UK national tour markets. Other theatre markets -- Paris, Tokyo, Chicago, Sydney, anywhere, are dwarfed by the B'way and WE markets. Therefore, once a show has played on either B'way or the WE, you can remove any lesser productions from the table. The starry Chicago production should be described in the Productions section, but should not go in the table, IMO. If a show has numerous important productions, you can do a much more compact table the way we do it in The King and I, which is a Featured Article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We have different views. I happen to think there's a case for more than two columns in a cast table, but not more than 5-6 to keep it manageable. It could well be 5 Broadway productions (original production and 4 Broadway revivals) if that happened and is the best reflection of the significance of the work to all parts of the world. I see the King and I table of what actors played what roles as a complement to what is being discussed here, not a substitute. Boneymau (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd plump for w/end and b/way only unless there is a good reason to include any others (i.e. on a case-by-case basis). I shudder to think of a five column list for casts - where does one draw the line on which productions are notable enough for the addition of another column. We're not here to act as a directory of every performance. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I don't think anyone disagrees that the OBC and OWEC should be listed, assuming it has opened. I guess the question is should we include the following

• Workshop/reading casts
• Original opening cast (try-outs/smaller venues)
• Tours (Equity or otherwise)
• Other significant productions (e.g. New York City Center, Hollywood Bowl, Off-B'Way, Off-West End)
• B'way or WE revivals
• Film adaptations (whether filmed live, like Newsies, or adapted like Hairspray (musical))

And then, at what point do we convert tables into something like The King and I? Like, should Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street#Casts or Into_the_Woods#Casting_history be converted? BOVINEBOY2008 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that we are only talking about the casting table. The Productions section, on the other hand, should note all of these except for workshops or readings that are, in context, not noteworthy. Here is my opinion:

• Workshop/reading casts: Resounding NO. In fact, I would say workshop/reading casts should NEVER be included.
• Tryout cast: NO, if the show has gone on to a longrunning full production elsewhere.
• Tours -- only longrunning major US/UK national tours
• Other significant productions: No, not in the table, unless the production is the most significant production that the show ever had.
• B'way and WE revivals: Yes, unless they are limited runs/flops with few notable cast members
• Film adapatatons: No. These should be mentioned in the Adaptations section, and they may have their own article.
• For shows that have a lot of major productions, the treatment at The King and I is a much more compact treatment. Then, if someone wants to make a sub-article with a bigger casting table, be my guest. Would I do it this way for Sweeney Todd? Yes. For Into the Woods? No, I would just delete the columns for the parks, Australia and Hollywood Bowl. All of those casts (or at least the stars and notable principals) should be named in the Productions section, and for each show, there could be a sub article with all this crap and the "concert productions" table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did leave it a few days for others to chime in, and would say:

• Workshop/reading casts: No
• Tryout cast: No to tryout productions with essentially the same cast as a subsequent commercial run, but I think acceptable if a stand-alone production that wasn't primarily produced as a tryout. For example, original regional productions in the US often are 'tryouts' for Broadway, but in the UK they are often productions on their own terms.
• Film adaptations: No, as per the logic above.

For shows that have had a lot of productions, maybe the King and I approach is the only one to use and we just scrap the cast table. However, I think there's a case to keep a cast table for shows that had had only a few productions, in part because that makes the cast of these productions inherently more significant in the context of the show. Boneymau (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Dream Ballet vs. Dream ballet

Please comment if you have an opinion: Talk:Dream Ballet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Georgia Stitt

I've done a little editing on her page and, since a new interview came out in Forbes, I've proposed that the notability banner could be removed. What does everyone else think? (I have in my notes that I'd like to rewrite the article too, at some point.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

One problem is that the article is so badly written, with stubby little paragraphs and all the name dropping (removing most of the names of the people who merely sing a song on her album would help a lot) and promotional statements "she is a champion of women artists...", that it looks like a collection of random junk. The article keeps saying: "She composed for..." What does this mean? Did she actually compose those things, or just write bits and pieces for them, not the songs? If you make the article read more clearly, so one can see what her most important accomplishments are, that would help a lot. For example, it lists shows that she has been the conductor or music director for in NY, but it doesn't say whether or not they were Broadway productions or community theatre. After you clarify these points, drop me a note, and I'll review the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ssilvers. It is dreadful, isn't it? It's hardly an article, really. I'd like to have a go at making it be an decent piece about her, which will take me a little while. I'll ping you when I'm done. (And since this is the first time I will have significantly altered or added to an article about theatre, I'm going to make a general theatre COI declaration on my user page, because it is a surprisingly small world and I have no idea how to figure out where the line is.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I am advised to steer well clear of any possible COI for a while, since I'm new around here - so I am leaving this one alone, but I see that you and User:KidAd have done excellent tidying already. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Titles: Plays, Musicals, Operas

Have re-ignited the discussion about whether plays, musicals, operas can be regarded as books ref titling articles, in case any of you want to feed into it. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think each project has its own policies that take into consideration same title by different authors, as well as titles in foreign languages. Where's the problem that this is trying to solve? - kosboot (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)