Talk:Company (musical)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Company (musical) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecac1119 (article contribs).

Removing reference tags

Please do not remove reference tags again. There are no references for any of the history, awards, or production information. As examples, who is the editor/publisher of the Sondheim Guide, and what makes it rise to the level of WP:RS ? What is the source for "Shortly after opening night, Jones withdrew from the show, allegedly due to illness, but actually due to stress he was suffering from ongoing divorce proceedings." The reference tags have now been removed twice;[1] [2] please don't do it again without providing citations. Thanks you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link pruning

The geocities.com personal website, Live, Laugh, Love: Company, doesn't appear to meet WP:RS, and should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

An editor removed the Synopsis from this article that I wrote today. Please replace it so that we can edit it. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're referring to? [3] SFTVLGUY2 is claiming it is a direct copyvio; that's a serious charge. SFTV, can you please supply the link or source which you say it copies? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I don't see how *both* can be verbatim, since the first deletion and the second deletion seem to be different. I've also reminded SFTVLGUY2 on his talk page[4][5] to be aware of WP:3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to SFTVLGUY2 post to my talk page:

Making multiple edits to an article is common; the problem occurs when you return to remove edits of other editors more than 3 times, or in fact, multiple times without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second synopsis you removed is different than the first (inserted by an anon IP); are both copyvios? Please provide the source of the second copyvio, as you appear to be accusing Ssilvers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, unless you can demonstrate that the second synopsis—inserted by Ssilvers and tweaked by Broadwaygal—is a copyvio, can you please reinsert it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward is in the eyes of the beholder. Per WP:LEAD, the previous version was incorrect, and I indicated the lead still needed to be expanded. Now it has been expanded, and the article is getting closer to an adequate structure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion of images varies according to browsers: I saw none. At any rate, thanks for correcting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I'm also curious as to why you are deleting infoboxes just because of image distortion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sins"? My, my. SFTV, please remember to WP:AGF, and you have no reason to question my interest in musical theatre (nor do I feel inclined to divulge my extensive interest or family members' professions and involvement in straight plays and MT). Your perusal of my article contributions is clearly incomplete. I look forward to continued collaboration on improving MT articles on Wikipedia; it is quite frustrating to me that, each time a family member is cast, I have never been able to find adequate information on Wikipedia, and have to rely on other Google sources for casting, synopsis, and production information. I look forward to improving articles throughout Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, please do not cut-and-paste a message from your personal talk page and place it here as if it was my handiwork. My message on your talk page was in response to one you left on mine. If I wanted it to be part of this discussion, I would have placed it here. I find it highly unethical that you would choose to put it in a place other than where I intended it to be.

It's not "unethical", although I'm sorry it offended you. If you'll notice, I specifically called your attention to the article talk page in my original message. If you are deleting edits of other editors, it is incumbent upon you to participate in article talk page discussion. I wanted to make sure you are aware of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis Ssilvers claims he wrote today was added by an anonymous editor the other day. And as with all his summaries, it is considerably longer than the 500-750 word length maximum permitted according to what I was told by an administrator soon after I joined Wikipedia. Is this policy no longer in effect? If it is, why does he continue to protest when I shorten his egregiously long synopses? Perhaps someone needs to remind him that a synopsis is supposed to be a brief rundown of the plot, not a blow-by-blow account of everything that happens between curtain up and the curtain calls.

The synopsis added by Ssilvers (and deleted by you) is not the same as your previous deletion. I have never encountered a limit on synopsis; perhaps you can find a guideline for that? I'll ask around, but I've never encountered that guideline (and it's certainly not "policy"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what I've found. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. These are guidelines which apply to films. Musicals could benefit from having such clear guidelines, starting from this suggested structure. They have a guideline of a 900-word limit. Books and other areas may have different guidelines, but neither are "policy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more; basically, they should be in the context of a larger article. The problem we have is that the "larger article" content is being deleted, apparently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis that I inserted today is 911 words. The plot synopsis at Porgy and Bess is 1,171 words, and that is a Featured Article. I believe that the synopsis of many of the plays that are Featured Articles are significantly longer. In any event, there are article guidelines for musicals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure -- Ssilvers 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is there a way to check if one editor is using multiple names? I'm finding remarkable similarities in poor grammatical structure and writing styles of two allegedly different individuals. SFTVLGUY2 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are always wecome to submit a request at Checkuser (WP:RFCU) if you suspect sockpuppetry, but they aren't likely to comply with "fishing expeditions" unless you have very solid evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, deleting synopses from articles is unproductive. If you have an objection to the way a synopsis is written and don't want to edit it yourself to improve it, please put a note on the talk page (and at the WP:MUSICALS talk page, which several people watch) to explain your objection to the section, so that other editors are then alerted to come improve the section. WP works best as a collaborative process. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I do edit a synopsis to make it clear and concise and omit every little detail that doesn't belong in a summary, you scream bloody murder!!! Who assigned you Wikipedia's king of musical theatre? You expect me to follow your rules and regulations but rarely pay any attention to them yourself. SandyGeorgia says if I am deleting edits of other editors, it is necessary to participate in article talk page discussion, but you constantly revert my work without doing what she suggests. I really might pay more attention to your rants if I saw some original contributions from you, but while I've written 400+ articles, most related to theatre (thus filling a tremendous gap in the encyclopedia), all I see from you is frequently unnecessary editing to existing articles, ridiculously long plot summaries, and lots of nitpicking. Your constant harassment is tiresome, and needing to respond to it is a drain on valuable time I could be devoting to more serious work. PLEASE - you kept your distance from me for a few weeks and I greatly would appreciate your adopting that practice again. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stand by and watch you or any other editor destroy useful content added to Wikipedia by other editors. Please stop deleting information called for by Wikipedia guidelines, and I will have no disagreement with you. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, SFTV, and consider civility. I can't comment on your past history, but you are exhibiting some ownership tendencies on the articles I've edited, rather than collaborating with others. What I've seen on this article is that you don't discuss your edits on talk page. For example, you reverted here a plot summary inserted by Ssilvers, and you've not yet justified where you claim the copyvio comes from. (Please reinsert it if you can't explain the copyvio charge, so as to avoid edit warring—then you can discuss having Ssilvers cut it down if you still believe it's too long.) You've also deleted infoboxes without explaining why. Let's please stay focused on issues one at a time, and try to work together, without delving into past perceived issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added another plot synopsis. Let me make it clear that this was not copied verbatim from the liner notes. Thank you -Broadwaygal 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that it could be a bit trimmer—maybe 100 words less? But I'm open to discussion. It doesn't need to cover every scene; just give the overall flavor. (And how about a character list, so the reader knows who's who?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it later, Sandy, unless you can take a whack at it. It is getting better and better (thanks Broadwaygal), except that it has lost many of the blue links that my version had. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I took care of the blue links. - Thanks Broadwaygal 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voila! Character list added! -- Ssilvers 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the information from the WP:NOT link (above), the issue is that we can't have only a synopsis in the absence of the rest of a well-developed article.

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

The problem that we have is that, if other information is being deleted, the plot summaries fall prey to WP:NOT. Entire articles need to be rebuilt, according to a recommended article structure such as at WP:MUSICALS or WP:FILMS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't have only a plot summary section. But a plot summary section is an essential element of an article about a musical, and it's (as Maria would say) "a very good place to start!" We must also add the "real world context and sourced analysis" (that is genesis/background, cast info, character list and productions, and, where warranted, themes in the story/musical analysis), followed by a section on the cultural/historical influence of the work (if any). So, cutting an existing synopsis down to a few sentences or a single paragraph discourages other editors from editing and improving the material that is already there. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. These articles need to be built, not deconstructed. There are no GA or FA MT articles, probably because no structure is being followed in building the articles. It's no wonder I must turn to Google every time I'm looking for info about a production. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Right, except for Porgy and Bess, which has been staged as a musical sometimes and as an opera sometimes. That article is FA. Here is the "Article Assessment" page from the musicals project, but it is the victim of some serious grade inflation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicals/Article_Assessment. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the assessments entered on that page make have no relationship at all with any other WikiProject standard. It lists articles as A-class that aren't even GA. I notice no other Project has those articles listed as A-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on sources

I added some inline notes, but don't have time to check that the recent sources added meet WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why were good sources replaced with shaky ones ? [6] In particular, WP:BLP demands the highest-quality sources for living persons. We can't use JoeSomebody'sPersonalWebsite.com to source information about a divorce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Character List

An editor deleted the character list, which was relatively short and sweet. I think the character list is helpful. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? -- Ssilvers 05:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love character lists, especially when there are a number of characters, such as in this piece. Oh, well, looks like the guy who yells the loudest wins. (I have absolutely no intention of commenting further on the sad state of affairs that has developed. I sincerely hope my comment is not taken as "uncivil", and if so, I apologize in advance.)JeanColumbia 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the character list. It's very helpful in an ensemble piece like this where there are a lot of significant characters. I took the liberty of copying your post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre, where this subject is currently being discussed. That is where your opinion will do the most good. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Company 2006.jpg

Image:Company 2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 很好的[url=http://hyearnbaby.blogspot.com/]blog[/url][reply]

Link rot

Per the link rot template, I intend to provide the needed info for the refs, altho not using "cite" templates or the "reflist" tool (I am not very good at using those automated tools). This may take me a few days, possibly through Aug 18 due to other interests/activities/etc. See also the discussion of this link rot template at "Koavf" ([[7]]) "Resolved:AWB access has been removed pending further discussion; Koavf indicated other editors are free to exercise BRD on this series of edits and that he would be refocusing efforts elsewhere. Further administrative action does not seem necessary; editorial actions may be discussed elsewhere." dated 16August 2011. JeanColumbia (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added to update link to "link rot" template discussion, the discussion has been archived at [[8]]. JeanColumbia (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as hard as I thought, I am finished with my work on supplying appropriate formatting for references (where I could). I just ran the reflist tool and it found nothing that now needs formatting. I will look closely at this article later today or on Aug 18 before I remove the link rot template. (Interested editors, jump in!) JeanColumbia (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at these references, I am not sure all of them are good Reliable Sources. I will have time for an in-depth review/appraisal of these refs sometime between Dec 15, 2011 and roughly Feb 15 (2012).JeanColumbia (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a careful review of the format of the references, it appears that there are no longer "bare urls" and so I have removed the link rot template. (I have not, as noted above, reviewed to assure that each and every reference is a good reliable source, will attend to that task in the future as indicated.) JeanColumbia (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

In the introduction, I feel like the sentence "The original production was nominated for a then-unheard-of and subsequent record-setting fourteen Tony Awards and won six" should read: "The original production was nominated for a then-unheard-of and subsequently record-setting fourteen Tony Awards and won six." Thoughts? 75.84.191.180 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013:The next set of Company revisions from Sondheim

I'm not sure if it merits a section to itself, but there was a Patrick Healey NYT write-up about Sondheim's "test staging" of another updated version of the show that took place 18 October 2013 at the Roundabout. I haven't heard anything about whether or not the Roundabout is considering moving forward with a full production to date, but the rewrite, steering Bobby to being a gay man and gender-reversing more than a few roles (Alan Cumming performed the Joanne analogue) merited enough attention -- as much for the re-gendering as any of the other reworkings -- to get the Times treatment.

That Sondheim, after so many years of beating back discussion of Robert's sexuality, would look to revisiting/reworking/updating the show yet again, is perhaps noteworthy enough for a bried mention, but that's just my two cents. Absurdist1968 (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Company (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206080044/http://www.carlinamerica.com/newsletter/intune2.html to http://www.carlinamerica.com/newsletter/intune2.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Company (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Company (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Company (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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130129064534/http://www.musicorld.com/screen/company/company.htm to http://www.musicorld.com/screen/company/company.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal ranges / voice

I removed the column for vocal ranges/ voice per WP:MT article structure--

"Vocal ranges for musicals articles should generally not be included in character lists unless a consensus of editors working on the article is obtained. Editors may remove the vocal ranges in the absence of such a consensus. For musicals that are similar to operas or operettas, however, such as Candide (operetta), or The Desert Song, it may be useful to include vocal ranges. In these cases, editors working on an article should attempt to reach a consensus and report the consensus on the article talk page."

There is no such consensus for this long-established article. This musical is not, in my opinion, "similar to operas or operettas".Flami72 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) ("voice" added to description above.Flami72 (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

"Getting Married Today"

I see nothing here about this song being based on "The Flight of the Bumblebee" by Rimsky-Korsakov and its resulting difficulty in singing it. Do you have any information on that ---

Why did Sondheim choose to do that?
Did he consult singers before-hand to judge whether it could be done at all?
Verses of 50 to 70-ish words sung in 10 seconds or so is daunting indeed!
Does he have favored singers for the job?

I personally think that Madeline Kahn did a wonderful job with the song. You can clearly hear TFOTB when she starts singing. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRDrz53Q1E

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly belated reply, but I don't think there is any connection between "Getting Married Today" and "Flight of the Bumblebee" apart from both having very quick tempos. SS451 (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]