Talk:Matilda the Musical

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

Assess[edit]

The article has no plot, and so I beleve that a "stub" class is appropriate.JeanColumbia (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it has a plot, but it is listy and full of stubby paragraphs and fancruft, so I have assessed it as a start-class article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reassessed the article but continue to judge it a "start". It lacks much analysis of the music, script, themes, etc. and has no background about the musical's composition, or why the RSC chose this project, and how the production team and cast were chosen. It continues to be plagued by fancruft, such as a long list of non-notable cast replacements. The references generally leave out the author name. The plot section is much too long. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway.com Audience Choice Award[edit]

(response to User talk postings): I have removed the Broadway.com Audience Choice Award from the table of awards because no WP:RS other than Broadway.com itself seems to document this award. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#Award_enumeration we had lengthy discourse on the award inclusion policy. It was noted that WP:MUSICAL has a very strict policy limiting award lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure#Response. I feel that the policy is ridiculous. I pointed out that WP:FILM documents almost every award that is verifyable. There was no consensus for any special policy regarding inclusion in this debate. Basically, going forward WP:THEATRE will be accepting the inclusion of any widely cited award. Almost all the other awards in the table could document WP:V from a dozen or so WP:RS. Broadway.com Audience Choice Award is only recognized by itself. WP is a tertiary source, summarizing secondary sources. Broadway.com is a WP:PRIMARY source for the Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards. If no secondary sources detail the awards, they are of very dubious encyclopedic merit. Since this award list already includes many things that WP:MUSICAL currently frowns upon, there is no need to stretch the list to include things only supported by primary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are guidelines not policy, they do not need to be followed to the letter at all. Im sorry but that is ridiculous entirely primary sources are reliable depending on what they are backing up and essentially you are trying to dumb down wikipeida by censoring what you feel to be a no mark award. The thousands of fans that voted for it and the productions that went all out to win certainly don't see it that way. This award being listed on musical pages causes 0 harm when sourced to this encyclopaedia. I agree an award having its own page is a different story. Primary sources from both the award and the production are more than what is needed to verify award is given on a page. Primary sources are allowed on wikipedia something you and a few editors seem to want to ignore in order to limit what you see as being second and third tier awards something we should not be doing at all.Blethering Scot 16:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is in no way our job to decide what we consider to be lesser awards but to make Wikipedia as accurate and sourced as we can. By denying the awards exist we certainly are not accurately stating awards that a show has won and in my view harming the reliability of that page. Using Primary sources for entries such as this don't hurt the encyclopaedia as clearly stated in policy unlike the two wikiprojects which are not. You cannot say we are harming the encyclopaedia by including this where as can be argued we are harming accuracy by not. If we go down that line then all awards should be removed so we are not providing an incomplete and inaccurate article. This project should be trying to bring articles up to a far better standard and sourced most of which are in an extremely poor state rather than deciding what awards we approve of which is massively point of view and not helping this encyclopedia at all.Blethering Scot 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your hard work finding all the encyclopedic content that you can for this article. You are right that it is not our job to determine which awards are lesser awards. This is why I am arguing that anything that can be WP:RSed should be included. You should understand that WP has to draw the line somewhere. Drawing it at anything that is RSed is the most easily defensible. I have listened to days of why some awards are more prestigious than others, but our job at WP is to summarize secondary sources. With all the theatre critics and periodicals that cover the industry, it is impossible for me to argue that something that no one writes about anywhere should be included on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source is considered to be reliable in a context like this and thats all that matters and WP:RS does not forbid their use, thats a policy whereas the wikiproject is not. Something that you seem content to ignore. If we were talking about creating a full blown article then i agree with you that there isn't enough there but there really is no reason why we shouldn't be including all main awards especially if we know it to exist and can be sourced whether it be primary or not. In not doing so we are providing a wholly in accurate picture. If we were talking about adding the Broadway show Beauty pageant then you may have a point but not with this award. It seems this project is not properly using reliable sources policy and simply ignoring primary sources. No one is trying to prove GNG on a stand alone article so secondary sources aren't really required in this case. I would rather remove the whole award section so as not to miss lead the readers than not include one award, thats drastic but would be a better situation than this. To me its either no awards or all and i don't believe you can think providing people with an incomplete and therefore inaccurate picture is actually good for this encyclopaedia. There is no policy that backs up the wikiprojects guidelines and thats all they are at present. We should be trying to get these articles up to the best standard we can not going on an award witchunt which it seems is the case here and remember what wikipedia is about. You state having listened to for days and i have no sympathy with that as its the projects own fault, and this may have to continue if this has to go to a request for comment as i don't feel correct for the few to try and exclude things not on policy and ignoring things that are.Blethering Scot 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired of the old excuse "guidelines are not policy" especially when it is followed by arguments that do not hold any water. I support TonyTheTiger's rationale that awards must be properly notable. The plain fact is that there are so many non-notable orgs giving away awards like so much candy, that listing all of them runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which is policy, btw.) We have to draw the line somewhere, so the only question is where should the line be drawn? We can decide that by consensus, but it would take especially strong consensus to override the typical Wikipedia thresholds for inclusion, which is explained in WP:GNG (sorry it's only a guideline). Bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre to establish a consensus in the WikiProject if you want, you are not going to change anyone's minds by warring on a single, isolated article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont appreciate your attitude. Tired of old excuses guidelines are not policy, its fact not an excuse. There is no edit war hence the discussion, however there is disrespect for wikipedia and that coming from users reading policy and ignoring the bits they don't like to eliminate an award they feel below them. This isn't a single issue as you guys are going systematically through a lot of pages removing awards and sourced info placed by many users who were never and have never been invited to discuss this. Instead a very small group of editors who haven't even formed enough for a consensus have taken this decision. There is nothing you are stating here to stop people re adding this info, there is no full consensus and no policy. Blethering Scot 20:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Broadway.com Audience Choice Award is not a sufficiently well-established award and does not add anything of encyclopedic value. It was a good call to remove it. Indeed, as the WP:MUSICALS project's Article Structure page advises, when a show wins highly prestigious awards, you do not need to include the lesser awards, and here we list far to many of the lesser awards. These actually distract from the key information, which is that the show won many prestigious awards, including Olivier Awards and Tony Awards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception"[edit]

I have removed the very long list of pull quotes which made up the vast bulk of this section, because it violates both WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:PROMO. The article can, and should, have a critical reception section, of course, preferably in text, with a few short quotes from the most prestigious or important media outlets (i.e. for Broadway, the New York Times and Variety), but it cannot carry a list of rave review pull-quotes which look more like advertising for the show than a section in an encyclopedia article. Please do not restore the list in the form it was in before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a valid reason to remove. Other than you cant be assed to actually fix it by converting into text, which is very easy. You should know way better than to remove text leaving a line which makes claims such as all received positive reviews with no verifiable source. Im sorry but taking the easy way out is a cop out as you no full we'll how easy that is to fix but you would rather remove content leaving unverifiable info when would easily be fixed or should be simply tagged until a better more equipped editor comes along and does the five minute job for you. Tagging should of been done first not blankly removing. Also there all American sources, suggest the BBC, Telegraph, Times are equally as needed for the British section as they are entirely different productions.Blethering Scot 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not in the best format, it is common and highly relevant to have a critical reception section. This can be easily fixed into text and shouldnt just be randomly removed because it would be too much work to convert into text version, its isnt at all. Also leaving a line of text like all received positive reviews totally unsourced or verified is a major no. This should be fixed but certainly not removed on a whim.Blethering Scot 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at the Musicals' project talk page, I am converting this into narrative prose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done it, and tedious it was. The section is too long, however, and if anyone can think of a way of shortening it more, by all means do so. -- 01:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Karen Aldridge replaced[edit]

This page and the page of Natalie Venetia Belcon both mention that she replaced Karen Aldridge as Mrs. Phelps. However, Karen's who is listed as Mrs. Phelps on the cast page of the website and Belcon's page no longer exists. I'm not sure if Aldridge was temporarily out, but the way it's currently written makes it seem like it was a permanent change. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure of the best way to go about this. --96.235.191.192 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Cast awards[edit]

Can someone move the awards of the Sydney cast from the Australia section into the awards section? I'm not sure how to do it so I just put the info into the general Australian production's section. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom1819 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I am a university student learning to write on Wikipedia. I noticed a few grammar errors on the Matilda the Musical article: "the three girls who would play Matilda in Toronto were announced. Hannah Levinson, Jenna Weir and Jaime MacLean would rotate playing the title role". How would I fix this? Thanks! --Rebeccaldenyer (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Matilda the 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: 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) 17:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Matilda the 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: 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) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National release dates far apart??[edit]

Someone just added:

On June 9, 2021, it was announced that the film is set to be released in the U.K. and Ireland on December 2, 2022.

Name a movie (of any kind) whose American and British releases were at least a year apart. Georgia guy (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film doesn't deserve its own article??[edit]

How come The Color Purple gets its own article despite having a 2023 release, while this film (with a 2022 release) doesn't get its own article?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a draft at Draft:Matilda. I wanted to propose a move to Draft:Matilda (2022 film) (please DO NOT confuse this with trying to submit the draft for the main namespace) but I got a warning saying you don't move drafts. I made an edit to the draft consistent with my knowledge about the film's release. Any comments yet?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Productions.[edit]

The first regional production in the USA was NOT Walnut Street Theatre. It was at Alpine Theatre Project in Whitefish Montana in June/July of 2018. How does someone correct this error in the article? 192.131.43.31 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires[edit]

The addition of the "2023 Buenos Aires" production is confusing to me, as I can't find any informantion on it! 2003:E9:DF1E:F35E:7087:EC33:1293:A088 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Productions[edit]

Since the Korean productions are from the RSC, they should be added to the list of productions on the summary section 2003:E9:DF1E:F35E:7087:EC33:1293:A088 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matilda_the_Musical&oldid=1200661096"