Talk:Musical theatre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Musical Theatre/Musical Comedy/Physical Theatre/Brecht and Opera

I would edit this myself but I know I'd just end up buggering it up but there's stuff in this article that, as a performance arts student I feel it is pointing out.

Firstly: correct my if I'm wrong but isn't the difference between musical theatre and musical comedy the sourcing of music? I thought that musical comedies used non-original popular music of the era it was written. Musical Theatre had original music.

Secondly, I think it's worth pointing out that there's a distinction, though perhaps not a clear one, between musical theatre and other forms of theatre that include acting, singing and dancing. For example, Brecht used song and to a lesser extent dance, along side acting, but not many people would call them musicals neccesarily. Also physical theatre, again, uses singing, acting and dancing, but without being considered, by most musical theatre.

Thirdly: If musical theatre's origins are in Musical Comedy, then wouldn't it's roots be predominantly seperate from Opera; seeing as Musical Comedy was a popular American form and Opera was a classical European one. This is not to say that the two never met; take Phantom for example; I just think that the article suggests that Musical Theatre was born, reasonably directly out of Opera, and though there were, inevitably some influences, I was under the impression it was born more out of popular American movement of the time. Sebbi 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Broadway Database

I just wanted to make my fellow Wikipedians aware of a wonderful new web-site on the theatre, the Internet Broadway Database. There have been full page ads in "The New York Times" in recent days touting it and I finally tried it today in writing an article; very useful site--like the Internet Movie Database, but appears more professionally done. It's here. PedanticallySpeaking 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • ????? It's not new. A very useful site, but not new. I've been using it for at least a year... and http://www.archive.org 's wayback machine shows it's been around since late 2001. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I had been unaware of it until the ads this month in the Times. PedanticallySpeaking 19:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

History

I wanted to get something written for the history section so that at least there would be a framework of sorts for anyone else who wants to contribute. I'd love to see a much more complete development, whether in this article or in a separate "History of musical theater" article. I feel somewhat confident writing about the modern stuff, but the farther back the history goes the less knowledge I have. It'd be great if someone could flesh out the early history (pre-1940) much more fully.--Kevin Marshall

Page Organization

I added a section describing some things about the production and writing process. I'm really not sure what the best way to organize the page is. Right now it's mostly comprised of a history section with other stuff tacked on before and after. The stuff afterwards is fine, but we need a way to get all the information that needs to come before the history section well-organized and make sure all the proper information is there. Hopefully I've at least laid the foundation for that. I think most of the information we should have is up there. Kevin M Marshall 15:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images

Note: this page currently has many images uploaded by User:SFTVLGUY2 from the period when he was labeling everything as a "screenshot", although many are clearly not screenshots. (Earlier this user dubiously claimed everything was "PD"). If anyone can identify the sources of these images and change the image tags as appropriate on the image description tags, this would be very helpful if we want to keep these images. (For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia image use and tagging policies, see Wikipedia:Images and associated pages). Thanks, -- Infrogmation 18:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirection from "Musical Comedy"

I don't think that Musical Comedy should redirect to Musical Theater. Musical comedy should be more specific about comedy music. Normally songs that are humerous. Sometimes you get people who do stand-up with music / songs. This is not musical theatre.

That, I fear, would involve redefining terms for our own ends. Comic Songs would be a better term for such things. That said, Musical theatre and Musical comedies aren't *quite* the same thing - musical theatre is a broader term. Adam Cuerden 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so

Musical Comedy in the way it is used is musical theatre. this is the way that the musical genre was described in the 1st half of the 20th century. The word "musical" itself derives from it.

  • This may be so, but musical comedy has split off into a different category now. We write in the present, and musical comedy should be an article about that category of Musical Theatre. --Driken 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is way too long. I feel it needs to be shortened and have the information in redirected within the article. When I first came to the page, I almost exited thinking it was a Stub--not being able to see the contents.

"Theater"? Not "theatre"?

I'm American, but I've only ever seen theatre spelled theatre when referencing theatre. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 01:57

  • This is definatly an issue in this article. Please use the "re" spelling in an article spelled with "re". --Driken 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
On Feb 2, 2011, an editor changed "theatre" to "theater" in many places; I reverted because of this discussion, also because of this footnote (in the Broadway theatre article): "Although theater is the preferred spelling in the U.S.A. (see further at American and British English Spelling Differences), the majority of venues, performers, and trade groups for live dramatic presentations use the spelling theatre." JeanColumbia (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
An interesting discussion on this very subject is at [Spelling differences.JeanColumbia (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Music theatre vs Musical theatre

There is a difference, but when you try and find the article for music theatre you get redirected to this pag MikeyB! 14:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited the following sentence for clarity: "sometimes, although less often than not, spelled theater rather than theatre" to "sometimes spelled theater". UrbaneLegend 23:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Crediting Casts

I'm not quite certain that this is the best place to ask this, but It'll do

Is it alright to post the Original Broadway Cast of a show on the show's page?

For example, IBDB has the Original Broadway Cast listed for Arthur Miller's The Crucible, but it's not listed on the show's page. Is it appropriate to provide the list there?

-Swiftblade21

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.67.14 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical comedy again

I was looking up a work called The Geisha, clicked the musical comedy link, and found myself here, in an article almost entirely devoted to the Broadway musical. It seems to me that there ought to be a Musical comedy article which deals with works written between about the 1880s and WWII (and perhaps beyond) by composers such as Sidney Jones, Lionel Monckton, Ivor Novello, Noel Coward, Montague Phillips, Vivian Ellis, maybe Julian Slade, Sandy Wilson, and, in the USA, perhaps Victor Herbert, plus later composers such as Gershwin who called some of their works musical comedies. I am far from being an expert in this field, but I could cobble something up from stuff on the Internet. It would fill a gap created by the unsatisfactory current musical comedy redirect - just look at the list that links to that redirect page! Of course there should be links to this Musical theatre page (where a short para on musical comedy could be inserted), as well as to the operetta page (where, quite correctly, operetta is dealt with at greater length than here). --GuillaumeTell 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a little bit about Jones and Monckton, but it would be great if you could do a more thorough job. The British musical is not adequately covered until the more recent era stuff. Ssilvers 06:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Introduction

Is it just me or does that last paragraph seem like a hidden jab at musicals? It's well written to be sure, but its bias for straight theatre, and I think it should be removed, any objections?

Merge

Bring the content of this article into Broadway Musical and remove this article. Living large 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

instrumentation: musicals/opera

I disagree that instrumentation is an important difference between musicals and opera. Most big-stage musicals have an orchestra that is very similar to many operas' orchestration, except with fewer strings, and all bets are off with modern operas, as their orchestras could be anything. Plus, there are chamber operas and varying kinds of opera orchestras, so there is no one kind of instrumentation used in opera. Similarly, Show Boat uses a different orchestra from Bat Boy, The Fantasticks or Little Shop of Horrors. So I suggest deleting the reference to intrumentation. I think bigger differences include (1) The importance of dancing by the principal cast; (2) the use of microphones; (3) the style of singing (in general). Of course, the line is blurry, no matter how you try to separate the two forms. Ssilvers 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has disagreed, I went ahead and made changes along these lines. --Ssilvers 06:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

limitedgeographicscope

I don't see why we need this tag. The vast majority of musicals are either American or British. The intention of the Project is to put up good articles for all notable musicals, and I don't see what good the tag will do anyone. Ssilvers 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"The vast majority of musicals are either American or British." <--- Yup. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Austria, Germany, France, and Japan all have active musical scenes. As so Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. --Kunzite 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wrote a good deal about those other musical scenes (as well as Bollywood), and I created numerous articles and stubs for Austrian, German and French musicals, as well as adding numerous names of Austrian, German and French musicals to the List of musicals. Therefore, I have removed the geographic tag. Having done all this research, I feel more confident that I was mostly right, originally. The vast majority of musicals over the last 150 years have been American and British musicals. Although the Austrian, German, French, Japanese, Canadian, etc. musicals scenes have become more active in the last decade or so, they have a lot of catching up to do. Plus, in the US, there are numerous musicals being created Off-Broadway, off-off Broadway and regionally, as well as on Broadway. The number of notable musicals from those places is particularly small compared to the number of notable American and British musicals. The Bollywood movie musicals and Japanese anime with music, are very vibrant scenes, but they're mostly films. So: I did more work on foreign musicals than I ever dreamed of doing! Your turn to do Eastern Europe and expand the description of the foreign musicals in the main article. -- Ssilvers 03:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Theater/Theatre

I finally took out this parenthetical: (generally spelled "theater" in the USA, though often spelled "theatre" by people involved in theatre).

We have been arguing about it forever. First of all, Theater is the normal spelling in the USA EXCEPT for usage by people connected with the theater. Second of all, it is stupid to keep arguing about spelling and has nothing to do with the article. It certainly does not need to be the first thing that readers see, as if it's the most important topic related to musicals. If someone wants to drop a footnote or something fine, but let's put the most important information in the intro. Since people everywhere except the US spell it Theatre, and most people in the USA who like musicals will have seen this spelling, let's use the Brit. spelling. --Ssilvers 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Musicals/Opera, etc

An anonymous editor added more to the intro about what is a musical and how to distinguish it from opera. I don't think that it helps the article to begin with this rather long discussion of what a musical is or isn't and the difficulty of defining it. Why not start out with a relatively short and snappy definition, and put the discussion of the difficulty of defining exactly what a musical is lower down under the table of contents? Opinions? --Ssilvers 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Usgnus 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. --Drenched 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have moved the info into two paragraphs in the "Introduction" under the TOC and copy edited it. See what you think. --Ssilvers 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

British musical theatre, 1875 to 1920

I have spent that last couple of months adding info to Wikipedia on early British musicals and operettas from the 1870s to about 1920. There is now an article or stub on every musical and operetta from that period that ran for at least 400 performances in London (except for a few revues). BTW, London was a much hotter venue for musicals than NY during that period. See the introduction to this list of longest running plays in London and New York. I also added articles on most of the important British composers, writers and lyricists for musicals of the period (and some Americans) and on a number of producers. I am tired now, and my job is in jeopardy, so if anyone is interested in going into the articles and stubs for these musicals and beefing them up, please do so. In many cases, I have put links at the bottom of the articles that should lead you to more online information, such as links to song lists, cast lists and synopses. This site also has a heap of information about these works. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of representative musicals in intro

The list of musicals named as examples in the article's intro was agreed to by members of the musicals project. Obviously, others could have been chosen, but this seems like a reasonable short list. Please do not change it without discussion here. -- Ssilvers 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think that Wicked should be added to the list. It is the most popular musical right now on broadway and continually makes the most money every week. Everyone knows this musical and it has been very influential in pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.100.109 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support adding The Fantasticks!, by some measures the most successful or popular musical of the last century. [Unsigned comment added by: User:66.171.197.58]

First of all, please sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~ ~. Second, there is a big fat picture of the cover art for the Fantasticks album right there, that says that it was the longest-running musical in history. So, I don't think it's being left out! Note, however, that The Fantasticks played to half-empty houses much of the time in a tiny 200 seat theatre. Les Mis probably is seen by more people every year than the Fantasticks was in its entire run (just as a measure of popularity). I happen to LOVE the Fantasticks. -- Ssilvers 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleae could you tell me if it's OK to include Cats and The Sound of Music in this list of musicals? I know they may not be representative examples, but The Sound of Music seems to be a universally loved musical, and Cats, in the words of Jessica Sternfeld in her book The Megamusical, "established the megamusical as a dominant style." 09:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Yip1982 (talk)

Chinese/Indian and other non-western traditions

Look at the last several edits that introduced the non-European tradition heading and Chinese Opera info. Is this the right way to go with the article? -- Ssilvers 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

videos

do they generally release a video version of musicals?

Theater/Theatre

This spelling issue was discussed at length previously on this page, and the agreement was to use "theatre". Even though "theater" is a correct spelling in some countries, notably here in the U.S., "theatre" is the spelling preferred by theatre professionals, even in the U.S. U.S. dictionaries also confirm that "theatre" is a correct alternate spelling in the U.S. "Theater" is absolutely incorrect in most other English-speaking countries, so we agreed to use "theatre". Regards, -- Ssilvers 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Seattle Times use "theater". In the United States, theater is spelled with an "er".

West End?

This article might as well by about Broadway there is very little about the West End on here... - Posted by 82.18.73.237 on April 26

By all means, edit the article to improve it. If you look at the early section about the 19th Century and up through WWI, it's mostly about London. Also, the last couple of decades of the 20th Century were very strongly influenced by Lloyd Webber and other British composers/writers. However, the "Golden Age of Musicals" was dominated by American musicals, and the article reflects this. The article could certainly use attention from more people with knowledge about British theatre. The other problem is that one of the biggest online sources of information about musicals is the IBDB database, and unfortunately, there is no equivalent online source about British musicals. But if you can help us balance the article, please do! -- Ssilvers 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

8-mile, etc

Someone added this:

There are also some precedents for 'musicals' that are based around contemporary styles such as hip-hop. Recent examples include the Oscar-winning 8 Mile (1999), starring eminem, the MTV-produced Carmen - A Hip Hopera starring Beyonce Knowles and Mos Def and, more in line with musical tradition, the 2006 film Idlewild, which while set in the prohibition era, uses hip-hop songs, performed on camera by the characters (but outside of the internal reality of the film), rather than as background, to advance the narrative.

I think this is interesting, but it doesn't add to the musical theatre article. People rapping in a film may be interesting in some kind of film article, but it does not make those films "musicals". Similarly, "Austin Powers" films and "The Blues Brothers" have music, but they're not "movie musicals", they just have some musical numbers in a comedy film. -- Ssilvers 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Idlewild is certainly a musical film, with songs (including rap) as part of the narrative, and certainly represents something in the film musical tradition (following on from Moulin Rouge). I added this section, as there isn't an obvious article to record these developments. Think this text does belong in this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.154.29 (talk) 20:47, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg

Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free images

I have opened a discussion at WP:FUR regarding the use of the copyrighted images in this article. Please make inputs there, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I know this has been a hotbutton over the past week or two, but now the article seems "top heavy" with images. —  MusicMaker5376 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty mad. I can't understand why people who have no interest in musical theatre want to remove these perfectly legal images. This is just a very bad policy, and WP is poorer for it. Please leave it alone for now, unless you can figure out a way to put in some images in the bottom half that are acceptable to the image Nazis. I will think about this and come up with something. I think this just sucks majorly. -- Ssilvers 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But, unfortunately, as the discussion at WP:FUR has shown, the consensus of Wikipedia editors -- with whom I FULLY agree -- believe that the use of non-free images in this article is to be avoided. It's not one editor here, another editor there: its EVERYONE UNCONNECTED TO THE ARTICLE. You are clearly in the wrong here, and, frankly, you're making the entire WikiProject look bad. Is the health and future of the entirety of Wikipedia really worth the inclusion of a couple of copyrighted logos? Now, I'm going to respectfully request that you cease and desist from adding ANY unfree images to this article. Your repeated insistence to the inclusion of these images and the disregard of Wikipedia policies and rules is only going to result in your being banned from the project, something that would, frankly, be to the detriment of our WikiProject and Wikipedia at large. This losing fight isn't worth it, man. You are going to lose and lose big. Concentrate your energies elsewhere. Please. —  MusicMaker5376 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. At least four other editors who are not contributors to the article agreed with me at the FUR. Also, I do not disregard Wikipedia policies. I am simply criticizing Wikipedia policy in this instance. Not only that, but the policy is open to some interpretation, as the other editors pointed out at the FUR. So please don't make wild accusations. Anyhow, it appears I have already lost this argument for now, so you don't need to rub it in. -- Ssilvers 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't rubbing it in. I just noticed that the Fantasticks logo is back in the article with an over-written and faulty FUR. This policy is not open to interpretation: either something is legal or it is not. It is not for you or for me to determine what the Wikimedia Foundation decides is its best course of action in avoiding lawsuits. It is up to you as an editor to conform to those decisions, no matter how much you may disagree. This isn't like wikilinking in headings or the use of a list -- this is a little bigger than that. —  MusicMaker5376 14:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not particulary connected to the article, but I share Ssilvers' sentiments. I don't understand how User:MusicMaker5376 can conclude that this discussion has reached a consensus. That user then asserts: "you're making the entire WikiProject look bad. Is the health and future of the entirety of Wikipedia really worth the inclusion of a couple of copyrighted logos?" I fail to see how it would. In fact, from a reader's point, the article would clearly be worse if all the images were removed. (But I suspect the readers are not exactly the main concern of many editors.) As to copyright: the way I understand it, Wikipedia's own logo doesn't seem to adhere to its own policies and guidelines - it's not free. Michael Bednarek 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please try to stay cool, everyone. I was unaware of the FUR, and reviewed the disputed fair use rationale of the tagged images, while I was clearing out an old speedy deletion category. I have no connection to this wikiproject, and I believe I came to an unbiased decision to remove the images. Having now looked over the FUR debate and the test case of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19#Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg, I stand by my decision. My main justification was that I do not feel that I understand the topic significantly less without the images. You have given good text descriptions of the shows, and seeing their posters adds no useful information for me. I believe that the same would apply to the majority of readers. The use of the images therefore fails NFCC#8. The removal of non-free media from the article isn't an entirely bad thing anyway: remember that one of the aims of Wikipedia is for content to be free for anyone to use. Papa November 09:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is consensus. Weak consensus, perhaps, but consensus. By my count, disregarding editors who were mainly assisting in "points of order" and didn't appear to have an opinion, in the FUR there were 6 editors arguing for removal and 4 arguing for retention. When you add Papa (who obviously supports removal), myself, and another editor arguing for removal in our WikiProject, consensus seems clear.
The editors arguing for retention need to keep in mind something: no one is arguing that the article will be better with the removal of the images. It doesn't matter how one article fares in the long run, it matters how Wikipedia as a whole fares. "The kingdom was lost all for the loss of a horseshoe nail."
The argument about Wikipedia's logo doesn't even make sense. In the article Wikipedia, the logo is used and used correctly. It's not used wantonly throughout other articles.
What set me off was the re-inclusion of the Fantasticks logo. Three sentences on the show does not warrant the inclusion of copyrighted material. This is akin to having three sentences on the show, and quoting all of "Try to Remember". All I see is one user's continued disregard of policies and its detriment to our mission, not an honest desire to improve the article. —  MusicMaker5376 14:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

We have three votes for a COTM. How shall we get it started? -- Ssilvers 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to post that here or on our project talk page? —  MusicMaker5376 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Relevance" paragraph

There is some information about London attendance/grosses, etc, but I'm out of time right now, will try to get to it Monday (or in mid-October). [1]. (That is, if anyone thinks this info would be useful.)JeanColumbia 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, Jean, that would be helpful. -- Ssilvers 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Famous Musicals in the intro; other recent changes

Generally speaking, I have removed some recent unreferenced WP:OR information added. Also, consensus was reached to keep this list short. Please do not add to the list of musicals in the intro without discussion. A discussion is now taking place on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. -- Ssilvers 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add Aida to it? I think it's a pretty famous musical.
I would vote against that. Aida is a great piece, but we already have too many recent musicals on this list. We have discussed this list before, and the current list attempts to give a representative list of the most famous and enduring musicals worldwide and of all times. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre for the discussion on this subject. -- Ssilvers 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

..."also spelled"

The Manual of Style is clear on the importance of noting alt. spellings. Ssilvers, stop reverting me. Thanks for your cooperation. PeterH2 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE cut out this silly recert war - if you want to seriously discuss this one do it here. Repeating this edit over and over does NOT make it right, and there are a number of us watching this article who will revert you on the spot, not just Ssilvers. This is basically NOT a matter of "alternate" spelling anyway. Outside the United States "theater" is simply wrong, in any context. Within the United States "theatre" is widely used, especially in this context. It is therefore a VERY old consensus on this one that we use "theatre" in this article. (Life might well be simpler if we stuck to either British or American spellings here - the fact is we don't). If this change of yours were allowed to stand it would add absolutely nothing whatever to the understandability or content of the article - as might be the case in some instances of "alternate spelling". It would also open the door to those who want to re-raise the argument for having "theater" replace "theatre" throughout the article. In any case, haven't you anything better to do? I labelled your last edit as "childish vandalism" before I saw that you had gone to discussion - which is the proper place to argue for change in a long-standing consensus like this one - but it is still a fair summing up of your behaviour here. Soundofmusicals 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style strongly suggests -- if not requires -- noting alt. spellings. See color, humour, etc. "It is therefore a VERY old consensus on this one that we use "theatre" in this article," you write. No one is arguing that the article's spelling be changed, just that the alt. spelling is noted, as is done in virtually aLL cases where alt. spellings are accepted. Put it in a footnote if you prefer. But it's got to be there. I'll keep adding it back unless you show me where, in any WP guidelines, it is suggested that alt. spellings should NOT be noted. Thanks, --PeterH2 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
See color theory, color constancy, color vision. etc -- they do not mention the alternate spelling. The fact that the alternate spelling is noted on the main article, theatre is enough. This was just discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive10-19-07#Theatre vs. Theater. I held your argument and was incorrect. —  MusicMaker5376 04:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the alt sp should be on the theatre page, but not here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Musical theatre vs. Theatre with music

The "definitions" section effectively covers the fuzzy boundary between "musical theatre" and "opera", but doesn't say whether there's a clear distinction drawn between a musical and a play-that-has-some-songs-in-it. Is there? - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's an article on incidental music, but I am not sure what it would add to this article to try to define the dividing line between musical theatre and plays that have some music. Indeed, a very large number of plays have music of some kind. Do you have a source that attempts to make a distinction? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Corporate musicals

The link to the page on corporate musicals is currently in the 1970s section, but actually that's when they were on the wane. Ideally it should be mentioned as a growing phenomenon of the late 1950s. Would it be possible to move it back to the 1950s paragraphs? I don't feel comfortable making the edit myself, as that whole historical section has a narrative flow that someone else has put a lot of work into, and when I try a test edit to figure out a good way of wording it in there, it just feels like it sticks out like a sore thumb. Tomt 13:55, 3 Apr 2008 (CST)

Done! Thanks for pointing this out. Let me know if you think it reads smoothly enough where I put it. This article was put together piecemeal by many editors over a period of several years, although I admit to doing quite a bit of work on it. If you think it reads OK, then thanks, I'll take credit for some of that (with a lot of help from John Kenrick's amazing website), but any further suggestions would be most gratefully accepted. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Toronto

I have noticed that many pages on Wikipedia, including this one, mention London and New York as the two big theatre centres of the western world, yet when reading on world theatre elsewhere, many sources expand the list to London, New York, and Toronto. Is there a consensus in Wikipedia not to mention Toronto in theatre articles or, can I add the city to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.159.197 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I have never heard that, certainly with respect to musical theatre. What are your sources for that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

List of "famous musicals" in the lede

I don't want to open a can of worms, but it looks like we skip about twenty years between Hair and Les Mis. I suggest the addition of A Chorus Line, as it won both the Pulitzer and the Tony in the mid 70s. I'd also suggest that we add Show Boat to the beginning of the list, as it's generally considered the first "modern" musical. — MusicMaker5376 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and will make it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, everyone: Now that The Producers is becoming old news, should we replace it with, say Wicked or Spring Awakening? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you weren't able to read my post above, please could you tell me if it's OK to add Cats and The Sound of Music to this list? They may not exactly be worthy specimens of famous musicals but they are special in their own ways. Yip1982 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No. The list already includes Oklahoma! (R&H) and Phantom (Lloyd-Webber). There are plenty of famous musicals that are not on the list. The list is just supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE list of one very famous musical from each ERA or genre of the modern musical. One could go further back in history and add The Geisha, Chu Chin Chow and maybe a Cole Porter, Ivan Novello, Noel Coward or early Rodgers and Hart musical, but the point of the list is to include only names that would be instantly recognizable to the general reader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Very disorganized

For instance, the 80's/90's block talks about the staged productions of Mary Poppins and The Little Mermaid. I understand this was all related to Disney on Broadway, but those shows didn't open until the 2000's. Another example: in the 1960's, there is a listing of Sondheim's 1970's shows: Company, Follies, A Little Night Music, etc. etc. As these shows defined the 70's, shouldn't they be talked about there? Also, there is a point about Sondheim making a huge name for himself in the 1960's. I would say that he didn't quite dominate the 1960's as did, say, Bock and Harnick. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmewku (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Some changes made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Isn't"theatER" the building or place for the projection of a celuloid feature and theatRE the entire ....."thing" that is live stage performance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.89.217 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Response

(Item moved to end of section) See this footnote, taken from the article on Broadway theatre: "Although theater is the preferred spelling in the U.S.A. (see further at American and British English spelling differences), the majority of venues, performers, and trade groups for live dramatic presentations use the spelling theatre."

Also see the discussions on this page about the spelling: (""Theater"? Not "theatre"?"; "Spelling of Theater/Theatre"). I think the issue has been settled. JeanColumbia (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I tremble at sticking my oar in here, and I note the consensus for "theatre", but the article really is a conspicuous hybrid, with, e.g. "humor" and "humour" both to be found in it. It can be a bit distracting when spelling veers from para to para between UK and U.S. Is it quite out of the question to standardise on one or the other? Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article basically uses American spelling. "Humour" is from a direct quote from an Indian author, so there is no inconsistency there. We can't change the spelling in direct quotes, but otherwise, the spelling should be U.S. The reason we spell "theatre" thus is that it is correct on both sides of the Atlantic. See the extensive discussions above about it, as noted by Jean Columbia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but there are "travelling", "libellous", "equalled" etc, which are UK. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In U.S. spelling, double l's in these instances are acceptable. I'll run it by my US spellchecker and see what it says. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Having raised the matter, I beat a strategic retreat and leave matters to the experts.Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you don't! :-) I've run a spell-check and changed all the UK spellings that it caught (and it did indeed catch a few). Please let us know what else you see, or that this has solved the question. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have just been through the article again, and if you assure me, and Dr Webster, and H. L. Mencken that "equalled" is good American usage I have no more to say. All else seems impeccable. This, let me add, is a delicious lucky-dip of an article, with something for everyone - and a Good Thing. Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right: "equaled" is preferred in U.S. spelling - I had caught one of them but missed the other. Now they all say "equaled". Thanks for your eagle-eyed proofreading! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Great pleasure! I hope this little flurry will reassure any future editors that the spelling is now 100% correct. Tim riley (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Minimusical

Is this a real genre, or just a description of a shortened form of a musical? This article seems dubious to me. Note that an editor also recently added a paragraph about it to our flagship article, which I streamlined. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Influence?

Would it be worth noting in the article the considerable Jewish influence on musical theatre, especially in America? If you look at the famous playwrights & composers of musical theater in the twentieth century a great majority of them are Jewish (examples: Sondheim, Rodgers, Hammerstein, the Gershwins, Lerner, Loewe, Bernstein, Schwartz, Menken, Kander, Ebb). Even among European composers & playwrights, Schönberg is Jewish (among others). In fact, the great majority of the musicals listed in the examples at the top of the page were written & composed by Jews wholly or partially. Holly (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You would need to support your discussion with WP:Reliable sources. Do you have books that have a discussion of this to support your argument? You'll need to give full bibliographic details. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've read books on this before, mainly http://www.amazon.com/Making-Americans-Jews-Broadway-Musical/dp/0674011651 & http://www.amazon.com/Funny-Doesnt-Sound-Jewish-Influenced/dp/0844411302 , neither of which I have in my possession currently (unfortunately). So I guess I'll have to wait. Holly (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No rush. Don't forget Al Jolson, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Harold Prince...: See List of Jewish American musicals writers, List of Jewish Americans in theatre, List of Jewish American playwrights, List of musicals written by Jews, List of Jewish winners of Tony Awards for Best Musical. See also American Musical Theatre and Jewish Social Responsibility. This dissertation requires you to register on the site. In Spamalot, King Arthur and Sir Robin sing a song called "You won't succeed on Broadway (If you don't have any Jews)". As soon as you can get the books, go ahead and write up the argument, giving full citations, including page numbers. See WP:CITE for information on how to add the citation details, or just put in all the bibliographic information, and we'll help you format it. Of course, you would need to keep it short, in the context of this article. It seems to me, though, that you could write an entire new Wikipedia article on the subject, which could be briefly summarized and cross-referenced in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

I realized that the Definitions section was quite long and also that the opera stuff was sort of stuck in the middle. I added a new heading (a shorter version would be better if anyone can think of a more efficient heading) and consolidated the opera explanation with the "other forms" paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

External links

I believe this article is good enough that there's little need to have a long list of external links. The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. I propose something like this, though even those links are overly specific for this article. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I disagree: The ELs that are currently in the article seem to me to be important resources for anyone interested in learning more about musical theatre. I have found them extremely helpful, and I believe that other people have also found them of practical use. If you object to any of them, please let us know what your objection is. We have already culled this list quite a bit, and I see no advantage to taking these links away from researchers. Until this discussion is resolved, please remove the ugly tag, which I believe to be incorrect, as there is no violation of policy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Please take a look at WP:ELBURDEN.
Basically, I don't see anything here that passes WP:ELNO #1 and #13, and there are also some that have more promotional content than I'd like (#4 & #5) as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they most certainly pass WP:ELNO #1 and #13, etc. Tell us why you think they don't, if you object to any specific ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
So WP:THIRD, or directly to WP:ELN? --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre#External_links_at_our_flagship_article was a good choice. Let's what response we get. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the external links need to be retained for the reasons outlined above by Ssilvers, namely that they are an important point of reference for researchers who wish to read more about the topic. Jack1956 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Can anyone explain why there are external links in the Further reading section? --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Removed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Can anyone explain why there are external links to "Producers and Unions" and how such links are appropriate? --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Can anyone explain the difference between the links in the "General" and the "News and information" sub-sections? --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed the heading to separate out the sites that focus on theatre reviews and analytical articles about musicals from the General links to musical theatre information, such as synopses and cast lists. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Here because I was asked to weigh in.) I definitely think it's a good idea to have some external links, but I don't think all the ones here are necessary. "Stacy's Musical Village," for example, is a poor choice. "Stage Agent" seems relatively comprehensive, but on the other hand we have no reason to trust its information (vocal ranges?) and moreover it's a business page that we shouldn't be promoting if we don't have to. The only ones I would actively advocate keeping are TIME and IBDB, although I also lean towards keeping the cast album database and the Edwardian page (because it seems like it's a good collection of information that it might be hard to find elsewhere, even though it's a personal page). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed Stacy's and Stage Agent. I agree that they were the weakest two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not for the first time, one wishes we had a reporting tool that showed how much use is made of each existing external link. In the absence of that I should say that to anyone familiar with the subject the links chosen for this article fall for the most part into the "of course" category. This may not be obvious to a newcomer to the subject, but it seems plain to me, as one who labours regularly in the vineyard of musical theatre, that the existing links are very much ad rem. I should be sorry to seem them tampered with. Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing all of the links is too drastic, but maybe some of them should go. I don't know which should stay or go, but some, if not all, should stay. JDDJS (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, thanks for asking for my comments. When I added the Actors Equity, etc links, I had no other motive than to match this article's links with those of the article on Broadway theatre; should anyone think they do not meet the requirements of the relevant wiki policies, by all means delete them. (Note, however, that Broadway League is also used as an in-line cite, that seems to me to be entirely relevant). As to the other links:

  • I would delete The Broadway Musical Home, because: it is a personal website (no offense to the actress who runs it), and does not supply any unique information that can not be obtained elsewhere;
  • I would delete broadway.com-at one time this had many news articles, it seems to be mostly advertising now (I believe that the stated "about us" tells it all:"Broadway.com features online theater ticketing and phone sales through 1.800.BROADWAY for every Broadway show, most off-Broadway shows and shows in London 's West End. The website also offers hotel and restaurant packaging...Key Brand Entertainment Inc, the leading developer, producer, and distributor of live theatre in North America and is focused on building a platform dedicated to all types of theatrical business..."). There is nothing on this site that is unique, since playbill.com and ibdb provide the same/better information.
  • Keep the rest, all very useful. Someone new coming to this subject might like more information, and those links provide it. I agree that it would be nice, and would make this article even more useful, to find a site that had some general info on musical theatre, (as mentioned in ELMAYBE) but, until someone discovers that site, these links will do nicely, in my opinion (and of course this article will do nicely as well--I did not write this article, so I feel safe in offering that praise.)
  • Finale-yes, I am on a wikibreak but I do monitor a few articles and subjects, will pop in if I'm needed.JeanColumbia (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to help. Yes, I noticed that there are similar sets of external links in related articles. I'm hoping when we come to a consensus here, we won't have trouble applying it to the related articles.--Ronz (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jean. I have deleted The Broadway Musical Home and broadway.com, as suggested by Jean above. I also deleted Broadway League, because it is used as an in-line cite above. I agree with Jean and the others above that the remaining links are all useful. We have now deleted 10 out of 19 ELs, leaving nine. So, that's a fairly draconian culling. I have deleted the ugly EL tag, and I would appreciate it, Ronz]] if you would refrain from tagging the article, and instead discuss any further concerns that you have here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making progress.
There's wide consensus that while a dispute is ongoing, related tags identifying the dispute should not be removed.
I hope you appreciating my overlooking WP:ELBURDEN during this dispute.
Are we ready for WP:ELN? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

External links tag

Where is such a consensus? I don't think that's right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Such templates are designed to identify disputed problems and to attract other editors to participate in the resolution of the dispute. Removing such templates therefore hinders the regular dispute resolution process. See {{uw-tdel1}}, {{uw-tdel2}}, {{uw-tdel3}}, {{uw-tdel4}} --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Since there's no disagreement beyond not linking a tag in the article, I'll be restoring the tag if no one does first. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved for discussion

I removed the links per WP:ELBURDEN. Here they are as of 18:52, 25 February 2011: --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

General
Reviews and articles
  • Playbill.com
    This is already used as a reference, so it shouldn't be an external link as well. I've also added an internal link to Playbill. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    That's not true. One article from that extensive publisher is used as a ref. But the website itself is of general interest to any musical theatre researcher, and the link is needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    Good point, but I think a researcher can find it easily when it's in this article both as a link and an internal link, and it's linked over 4,000 times within Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "TIME Magazine" collection of Broadway's evolution
    This is the second of the two links I thought was worth keeping. Since we don't have an article that it fits in better, like one specifically about Broadway musicals, I can see why it might be best left here rather than in Broadway theatre. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Aussietheatre.com – Australia's leading musical theatre website
    This link belongs in (and is linked from) Theatre of Australia and other articles that are specific to the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    We are often accused of being too US/UK-centric, so this link helps our readers from another important theatre market who might not know about the Theatre of Australia page, which I didn't know about until just now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    Make sure to follow WP:NPOV, and address the problem in the article, not in the external links. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    While I think it's a good idea to try to use it as a reference, the main www.aussietheatre.com is clearly not a reference and I've tagged it as WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Victorian British musical theatre publication The Gaiety and related publications, available articles
    Unless I'm missing something, this is an incomplete archive of an old Geocities page for The Gaiety, that gives an image of the cover plus a table of contents for each issue. Is there a better link that gives more information? Why should this external link remain? --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    The contents list lists substantive articles on older musicals, and it is a unique resource that would be unlikely to be found except here on Wikipedia. When I started working on older musicals, I found this extremely useful and wrote to the publisher to order copies of relevant articles. User:Ssilvers 07:11, 26 February 2011
    So there is nothing else to the link? Then we have a webpage with little information at all and none directly relevant to the article topic beyond letting people know that the publication existed and what it covered. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    The publication exists, and this is a resource listing articles that one can get from that publisher that are listed nowhere else. A unique resource. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    There are a couple of comments below on what might be done with this. I'm sure there are multiple articles that are more relevant where it should be instead, if kept at all. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

;Unions and Guilds

Response to ELN request

Hello, I came to this discussion through WP:ELN. With the exception of the "Unions and guilds" section and The Gaiety which does not appear to be very current and "List of long-running plays" which is in the See also prior to the ELs, I think all the links are acceptable. Every link appears related or very helpful to readers and a good "fruitful" site. It is tough with this article as it relates to a lot of other articles. I am not an expert on theatre so let me know if there is a good reason to have Unions and guilds or any other links I thought should be removed. Regarding ELNO #13, several of the links are not directly related, and being links normally to be avoided, I think consensus in this case can help determine what stays.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I also found this discussion via WP:ELN. The "Unions and Guilds" links should be removed. Also, I would argue that some items may be more appropriate in a new article for Musical Theatre publications, linked via a see-also entry - I'm specifically thinking of the links for Playbill (which already has an article and could be moved to the see-also section now), as well as The Gaiety (which I would suspect has enough material out there to build an article about it) and Aussietheatre.com. Although, until such expansions can be done, it seems reasonable to leave those links here. I also agree that the EL for List of long-running plays is redundant to the see-also entry (the EL is more appropriate as a link in that article). Lastly, I think links to the Edwardian theatre site would be more appropriate within individual articles about specific plays rather than here - although the last one I would qualify as a "weak remove" comment ... the others I mentioned I feel much more strongly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw the note at ELN.
I would keep the Edwardian theatre website, because it's not necessary for an external link to cover 100% of the subject, and it provides more detail about the early forms than than this article should. I would also keep the TIME magazine link, because I think the link to historical reviews is interesting and a unique feature.
I would probably drop the long-running plays, because there's no way for readers to identify which of the plays are musicals and because it is redundant to the ==See also== to Long-running musical theatre productions.
I would drop both PlayBill and Aussietheatre, because they're basically just free advertisements for online magazines. If there's some page that is useful there, then link directly to that. As a 'general reader' rather than a professional, I found nothing useful or interesting when I clicked on the links to the main page. Also, Aussietheatre is country-specific, which seems less valuable to me. I'd lose The Gaiety because it's on an Internet archive site, and I personally don't think we should place those in the External links section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you boths for the detailed comments! I'll try to respond soon. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Responding to Barek: "Unions and Guilds" is removed.
I like the suggestion of the additional internal link to Playbill as an alternative, and will go ahead with that.
I was also wondering if there might be enough material to make an article for The Gaiety. It's been incorporated as a reference, so I don't see the need to temporarily park it as an external link as well.
There is an article Theatre of Australia with the Aussietheatre.com link, so it no longer needs to be parked here.
I agree with the recommendation to remove world-theatres.com/longruns.html and halhkmusic.com/victorian.html --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Responding to WhatamIdoing:
I'm not sure of the value of Edwardian link for this specific article. The exact url is in a dozen other articles, and the main url in almost 100 others. ELNO#13 directs us to find relevant links partially in order for us to prevent the external links sections of articles on more general topics from becoming lengthy directories of links related to the many subtopics that articles might touch upon.
I agree with your comments on keeping the Time link, while removing the links to long-running plays, PlayBill, Aussietheatre, and The Gaiety. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No other responses? Then should we try to summarize? --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary

We've made good progress. Of the external links still in the article, there are three that editors besides myself have brought up for removal:

  • Aussietheatre is country-specific, not specific to musical theatre, is linked in more relevant articles such as Theatre of Australia, and is promotional. (ELNO #1, #4, #5, and #13) --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Playbill would be better as an internal link in "See also". It's already wikilinked and linked as a reference. It is not not specific to musical theatre. It is well-linked across Wikipedia, over 4,000 times as an external link or reference. (ELNO #1, #4, #5, and #13) --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • halhkmusic.com (Edwardian theatre, Early musical theatre site) It's about a specific era, more suitable to articles like Edwardian musical comedies. It's included in Edwardian musical comedies, which is wikilinked twice in the article, including the lede. (ELNO #1 and #13) --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ELMAYBE

I've been looking for some good WP:ELMAYBE options. http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Performing_Arts/Theatre/ seems too broad, http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Performing_Arts/Theatre/Musicals/ too narrow. Maybe there's a arts- or theatre- related directory we could use? --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is even interested in responding to my initial attempts to find better external links? The silence is deafening. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/performing_arts/theater/musicals/ isn't too bad. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I added it to External links as "Musicals", though I wouldn't object to changing it to "Musical Theatre." --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked very hard for additional directories, and assume that the ones valuable enough to include would be easy to find. Still, I encourage others to try and continue the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of disputed external links

Resolved
 – This discussion was continued at Talk:Musical_theatre#ELBURDEN, which is resolved. Ronz (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ronz has removed the EL section. This is disruptive editing. Please replace it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ELBURDEN. The section has been moved above for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You do not understand WP:ELBURDEN. That section clearly states: "..Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process ... Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." In this case, there is a clear consensus to include these links, and, in the opinion of the editors of this article, the remaining links are justifiable. Please stop your disruptive editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No there is not clear consensus. I've overlooked the canvassing, but no longer. Time for ELN. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
ELN discussion here --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not right - the ELN board says to see this discussion, which is fine. Let's keep all of the discussion together here, where a half dozen editors have already commented. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll manage if editors choose to follow up at WP:ELN rather than here. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ssilvers, Ronz is right about ELBURDEN: If there is a dispute, any link can be removed unless and until there is a consensus to include it. So long as you're the only person saying that there's a consensus, then you don't actually have a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
He isn't the only one saying there's a consensus - I for one agree with him. Jack1956 (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

From the discussions so far, I'm proposing keeping three links [2]. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the nine links remaining, and in my judgment as a regular contributor to the musical theatre field (though not to this article), each of them adds a useful and sui generis resource that satisfies EL criterion no. 1. Each is plainly "directly related to the subject of the article" and satisfies EL criterion no. 13. I have this morning re-read the criteria (I am not a specialist in citing WP rules and regulations) and I judge each of the links to satisfy all the EL criteria and to be of interest to anyone who wants to find out more about musical theatre. The other regular musical theatre contributors, above, also agree that by and large the links should be retained. We seem to have just one dissenting voice. Tim riley (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not a WP:VOTE. Multiple editors have provided detailed arguments as to how WP:ELNO applies. Editors should reply in kind if they want to form a consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Talk:Musical_theatre#ELBURDEN discussion is just a continuation of this. Can all further responses be made there? --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Do we really need a cleanup tag on this article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed inconsistencies in the use of what's showing up in the Notes and References sections, duplicate internal links, and redundant information. All minor problems that typically occur when editors make local changes without reviewing the entire article. I expect there's lots more, but I could be wrong.
I've been meaning to look at what reviewing has been done of this article. It looks like it wouldn't take too much work to get it to GA status. Most of what I see, including all the external links work we've been doing, is simply polish. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the clean up tag as I believe it is not needed. I can't help feeling that Ronz is pushing his/her POV in this article. Jack1956 (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment--I am not sure what purpose the cleanup tag served, since initially it was not made clear just what the problem(s) was. However, I have spent some time this morning trying to fix wikilinks--both deleting overlinking and adding a few where needed. As far as "redundant information", I see nothing that stands out as such, but then I am not an historian or a polished editor, just basically a consumer; perhaps I missed something and someone (perhaps Ronz) could point out the "redundant information"? One problem I did notice (which is really obvious) is the discussion of works by, for example, Sondheim, starting in the 60s but his work as listed as examples goes beyond the section subject. I tried to finesse that but not sure what else can/should be done. (But, I am now done, till late next week.)JeanColumbia (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup work.
I've given my reason for the tag, and had made an edit immediately after adding the tag demonstrating the problem [3]. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If Ronz would be good as to identify any more of the references etc to which she/he takes exception I will volunteer to address them, unless a more expert volunteer comes forth. I am bound to say, as one who has steered half a dozen or so articles to FA, that nothing calling for a clean-up tag leapt out at me here, but if Ronz will kindly substantiate her/his broad statement above with some details it would be helpful. Tim riley (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC, thanks!
I'd totally forgot about the reference vs notes issues. As far as the presentation is concerned, about half the citations follow WP:CITESHORT, the other half WP:CITEFOOT. I've always wished CITESHORT citations were as easy to add as CITEFOOT. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If no one is going to respond, then the tag should be restored to attract others' help with the problems identified here and here and here. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jean Columbia, Tim riley and Jack1956 have already responded above. I agree with them: No tag is needed; you have not demonstrated that there is a cleanup problem. Specifically, we disagree with your statement about the list of famous musicals and your general and confused statements about referencing. The book cites have a short form reference in-line and the complete reference below, while the other references are complete in the footnotes. Suggest any specific clean-ups that you feel are needed, in English, please, without using abbreviations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixing CITESHORT and CITEFOOT citation styles

Resolved

-- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above (18:07, 27 February 2011), the citations are partially presented in WP:CITESHORT format and partially in WP:CITEFOOT. Maybe others simply don't see this as a problem? --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ssilvers writes, "Only books go below in the "References" section. All other refs go in-line."[4] Is there a guideline that recommends this, or is it something decided on a smaller scale? --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes: ...book references may be under the heading "References" or "Further Reading", with page number references under "Notes". This is a quote from our article structure guidelines at WP:MUSICALS. Also, it is typical in Featured Articles. See, e.g., Flower Drum Song. If you really have any interest in working with us to improve this article, please remove the remaining tags that you have slapped on this article. They are disruptive, and your insistence on putting them on over and over again show that you are not acting in good faith. If you make a demonstration of good faith by removing them, I think you will find more people willing to work with you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content and stop harassing others.
Thanks for the explanation.
I'm unable to find where you're quoting from.
Thanks for the example.
I've found numerous errors with the article from a simple, cursory examination. From this, I think it would be helpful to get others to examine to article for other problems. I hope everyone will be open to such help, and will not accuse those who try of being vandals, meatpuppets, etc. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for changing your comment to include the link.
I don't know why books are given special treatment, and no explanation is offered, but I think efforts would be better spent on improving the article in other ways. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the number and types of problems I've found, further review by other editors would certainly be helpful. This suggests either tagging the article or waiting for all the other disputes to be resolved and then asking for a formal review. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, when the problem is an editor's behavior—say, WP:Tag bombing an article, or WP:Edit warring to remove appropriate tags—then it is actually appropriate and permissible to discuss editor behavior. It's not really useful to "focus on content" when the content is not the primary problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I'll stick to doing my best to work around the WP:OWN problems here, the harassment, etc. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Review instead?

Anyone opposed to getting outside reviews once the other disputes are resolved? --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to my offer

Stale
 – Ronz (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have had rather a disturbing message about this article on my talk page, on which I should be grateful for colleagues' comments. It refers, evidently, to my offer, above, to correct any errors on this article that the editor in question likes to identify. This was a sincerely-meant offer, and I am mystified to find myself accused of making a personal attack. Does anyone else think my message, above, could be so interpreted? If so, I shall, naturally withdraw it. In five years as a Wikipedia editor I have never been accused of making an ad hominem attack (or indeed an ad feminam one) and I am distressed to find myself so accused now. Colleagues' advice would be greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim riley, I have stated already that I believe that what Ronz is doing is disgraceful. He/she seems to know little or nothing about musical theatre, yet he/she has sought to impose his/her editorial style on the article Musical theatre. She/he has repeatedly deleted useful links and slapped numerous useless tags on the article. Her/his extensive wikilawyering at that article's talk page, and on the talk pages of the editors working on the article is further evidence that he/she has no legitimate interest in working on the article. He/she is a wikibully of the worst kind and it is hard to imagine why he/she is wasting everyone's time. Additionally, the comments of other editors that he/she has attracted to the article are mysterious in that they comment on text that did not exist in the article at the time they commented on it. This makes me suspect that they are meatpuppets, if not sockpuppets. His/her arguments are pure sophistry and terribly offensive to those of us who have done extensive work in this area. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Tim riley, you've been accused of nothing at all. I'm happy to refactor anything that suggests otherwise.
Please follow WP:FOC, please.
Ssilvers, take the harassment and disruption somewhere else. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Resolved
 – Ronz (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the extent of material in this article, it might be helpful to have a slightly larger and more detailed lede per WP:LEDE. Additionally, the famous examples in the lede seem a bit out of place. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The famous examples are needed to give unfamiliar readers an idea of the scope of the subject, as has been discussed before on this talk page. What would you like to add to the Lead? If you have constructive suggestions, by all means make them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm simply suggesting expanding the lede, giving more detail and following WP:LEDE more closely. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that most of the article is about its history, a bit more historical information would seem appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I have added a brief overview of the history per WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. After looking at Kleinzach's comments, I think it partially addresses some of those concerns as well.
From what I've seen, featured articles that are histories tend to have rather large ledes because of the large amount of information contained in the article itself. As this article evolves, editors shouldn't be hesitant to expand the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Wikilinks

Resolved

-- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a sentence that had two wikilinks to the same article in the same sentence. This is what led me to adding the cleanup tag to the article. Because this is a lengthy article, I can see the need to have multiple wikilinks to the same article per WP:REPEATLINK, "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." However, I'm not if the article has been reviewed for such problems given the one I found. I wish there was a tool to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please read the above - JeanColumbia reviewed the text for repeated wikilinks and all clean-up items, and I reviewed the references and am satisfied that they meet the requirements of WP:CITE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So the problem I found was a fluke. Let's move on then.
I think it would be helpful to make it clear how we're applying WP:REPEATLINK for this article. From what I see, wikilinks are duplicated in separate sections, or in very large sections. Is this intended? --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Please be specific. What wikilinks are duplicated, and where? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to discuss how we're applying WP:REPEATLINK within this article. What are you discussing? --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to determine the extent of the problem if no one is going to bother to respond to my concerns. Seems like it a cleanup tag is in order then. I'll be adding it. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no further cleanup items that we are aware of. If you are aware of any, please identify them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're not interested in addressing the topic, simply don't respond rather than cluttering a discussion and taking it off topic.
My concern is that we should have a consistent application of WP:REPEATLINK within this article. I'm judging by the non-response, that editors haven't thought about it. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you: Do you see any instances of a repeated link in the article that you believe should not be there? If so, where are they? Point them out and we can fix or discuss them. I am offering to help you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer, because I don't know how frequent repeated links should be within the article.
If you'd like to look yourself, pick a notable person or work mentioned in the article that you know will span multiple sections chronologically. For example, Oklahoma! seems a bit underlinked compared to Show Boat. Should Ethel Merman be linked in 1950s? --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed each of these carefully and adjusted them a little, but they seem about right to me per WP:REPEATLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice for someone to go through the article thoroughly. Tagging an article is a common way to indicate such a need... --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been through the article in the past looking at the links, and I did not see a problem. Your examples have made me very comfortable that there is no issue with repeat links, as the number of repeat links was either optimal or nearly optimal in each case you mentioned. Note that if, as we continue working on the article, we see that a name that is linked too many or too few times, it is very easy to fix. Feel free to raise anything that you see, and I will promptly review it. FYI, if a name is in a photo caption, I often give it an extra link in the caption, because if someone is interested in the photo and wants to know who is depicted, it is a convenience for the reader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Great!
On a side note, is it intentional that the image of the score cover for The Geisha doesn't have a caption? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems redundant. It says "The Geisha" in big letters. If the reader wants more information about the image itself, you can click on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ELBURDEN

Resolved
 – Ronz (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
User Ronz, please do not remove disputed items from the External links section. Most of the editors commenting above have requested its inclusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. Editors should follow WP:ELBURDEN, and appreciate that there are some disputed links still in the article where they do not belong while under dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Is anyone other than the above editor disputing them? Tim riley (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides the editors that have already responded? --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not disputing them and they should be left where they are until a consensus is reached to remove them. Ronz, you do not get to dictate who gets to comment here. It is open to all. Jack1956 (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like us to overlook WP:ELBURDEN, please establish consensus to do so. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User Ronz, stop removing links from the article. Jack, JeanColumbia, Tim riley and I have clearly stated that all remaining links under the External links section are needed. There is a very clear consensus among ALL of the editors who have regularly worked on this article. Even the three other editors that you brought in to comment above (but who commented on some links that were not even in the article at the time they commented!) agreed that we should keep some some or all of these links. Stop putting tags on this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take your repeated accusations of vandalism to a proper forum, or are you going to withdraw them? --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

An ip has joined in the edit-warring. I restored the section tag and ordered the links with the ones still in dispute at the bottom. Sorry if my edit summary was a bit confusing. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If no one is going to make a convincing argument for not following WP:ELBURDEN, then the disputed links should be removed. I'll go ahead and do so. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that action helps us resolve the dispute. It would IMO be more effective if you would focus on resolving the dispute, instead of standing on ELBURDEN to insist that everything be done your way until the dispute is resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. When WP:OWN matters get this out of hand, best to focus the discussions and avoid tangents. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks

Resolved

-- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see two redlinks in the article: William A. Everett and Leave It to Jane. Anyone interested in starting stubs for them? Any problem with them being left as redlinks? --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove them then. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove these redlinks. They are for important topics relating to musical theatre that have not been written about yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Isn't there a list of articles to create somewhere? --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

By leaving it redlinked, it comes up on the requested articles list. I will do the Leave It to Jane article myself eventually, if not sooner. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Conversations with Sondheim"

Resolved
 – Ronz (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Conversations with Sondheim" references in the 1950s section was not displaying properly. It was missing <ref> tags. Doh! --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blank 2009 reference?

Resolved
 – Ronz (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know what this is? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Looks like a mistake made during cleanup [5] of the references. I fixed it, with the update of the article that's online. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove, maybe original research as well

As I review this article, I can't help but notice the scarcity of references. I'd add a refimprove tag, but I think it would only worsen the WP:OWN problems here. The many internal links partially make up for the few references, and the chronological format doesn't necessarily require a great deal of sourcing. However, it's unclear if we're straying into WP:SYNTH problems when summarizing information for each time period.

Of the non-chronological sections, the "Relevance" section is the only one that appears well-referenced. Both sections under "Definitions" as well as "International musicals" all appear to need more references. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Refimprove. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If no one is going to respond, then I'll be restoring the tag. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested full protection

I've requested the article be protected from any edits so editors will better focus on resolving the disputes here. Hopefully, this will get us past the WP:OWN problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to have it protected at any version at all. Again, I want to get editors focused on resolving the disputes. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, as a regular contributor to the musical theatre articles of Wikipedia, there are no disputes here except for the User:Ronz's recent incursions. Tim riley (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tim riley. There is no dispute here except for the pointless WP:OVERTAGGING by Ronz. Look, Ronz, if you know of any *specific* cleanup issues, just point them out, and we will be glad to address them. If a statement needs a reference then, by all means, look it up and add a reference. We will be happy to work with you and merely ask that you stop slapping tags on the article. JeanColumbia, Tim riley, Jack1956 and I are all experienced Wikipedia editors who have worked on GA and FA-class Wikipedia articles about musicals, and we would be happy to continue to improve this article and are happy to collaborate with anyone who is willing to focus on content with us. Unfortunately, Jean is on a wikibreak right now (or a partial wikibreak), and so you may need to be a little bit patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Request denied. Consider this a general warning to all parties to cease edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad. I've already agreed to not editing the article for the next 24 hours. I'll keep my editing after to WP:1RR until the multiple disputes are resolved. I hope other editors will consider changing their behavior in a like manner. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a great relief, however temporary. Thank you, Beeblebrox! Tim riley (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I think full protection is the only solution to the WP:OWN problems here. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no basis for that at all, and I fear that you are focusing unduly on the desirability of a couple of links, to the point of losing your perspective on more significant matters such as contributing content and additional references. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll continue to WP:FOC, and follow Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. Sad that others cannot do the same. If we need to take special measures to de-escalate the WP:OWN problems here, best to qualify them as such. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Start again, please

Ronz, please stop writing so voluminously. No one has time to read all that stuff, and you are cluttering up the talk page beyond usefulness. Please try to come up with one or two *specific* things that you think are the most important for us to work on first, so we can address or discuss them. Please do not spread your comments out among a million headings - put your most important items here, and we can treat it as a "to do" list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is preventing anyone else from trying to further summarize the discussions and otherwise distinguishing open vs closed concerns as I've already done. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll be a bit bold then with identifying issues I think are resolved. If anyone disagrees, please just remove the notice. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging disputes

My attention has been drawn to the dispute about editorial tags on this article. I've read the article (I have some background in the subject though I would not say I'm an expert) and I think it is in sufficiently good condition that adding "warning tags" is not justified or appropriate. Of course, this does not mean that the article is perfect of finished or anything like that—on this wiki we never say that about any article—and editors should continue working on and improving it, by adding information and adding references and I'm sure in other ways. But bickering about whether the tags are needed—they are not—is an unproductive use of everyone's time, and I hope that will stop.

I also agree with the suggestion that if an editor believes an article has multiple issues, it is often helpful to focus on one issue first in order to make progress. I hope that future discussions on this talkpage will be more collegial and productive than some of the previous ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is a dispute under discussion, a maintenance template identifying that dispute should be expected. Such templates are helpful and encourage others to help improve our articles. If editors hadn't removed them, you'd see that there is at least one serious problem that's being summarily dismissed. It's sad that editors are more concerned here about maintenance templates in their article, rather than working to resolve the disputes. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Maintenance templates are for significant problems, not for routine editing disagreements or improvement suggestions. There are many ways to improve articles, but the best way to do it is to make, or propose, concrete improvements (such as adding content, or references, or whatever), rather to discuss the desire for improvement in the abstract. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That's your personal interpretation of the use of maintenance templates, that's appropriate at certain times. This is not one of those times.
There's nothing routine here. What should have been a simple external links cleanup has become a major dispute due to WP:OWN problems.
Still, I'm happy to do more to de-escalate the harassment and disruption around all that's been going on here.
As I said, there's one serious problem that's being summarily dismissed. Maybe when cooler heads prevail, editors will try to resolve it rather than hide it. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I've read this talkpage, and I'm having trouble identifying which is the (what you perceive as) serious problem with the article, among the other less serious issues you've raised. Perhaps you can succinctly describe what the problem is and how you propose to address it, and editors can work from there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, if the template hadn't been removed, you'd find it easily. It needs a new discussion, which I don't have time to start atm.
It's the aussietheatre.com link. As the discussion at (00:02, 26 February 2011), indicates, editors wanted it to be included to address NPOV issues in the article itself, somehow. It was moved into the article body, but didn't actually verify anything. Given the nature of the link, I don't know how it could even be considered as something used for verification. It would be nice to use some of their articles as references instead, maybe for the poorly sourced "International musicals" section which I pointed out above.
Thanks for your help and patience. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, Newyorkbrad's "personal interpretation" is also my understanding of normal practice. Tag bombing does not help. It irritates and embarrasses editors, which makes them focus on your behavior in edit warring over dubiously placed and vague tags, rather than on solving the problems that you allege are present.
I'm aware of no policy that permits you to insist that vague tags like {{Cleanup}} be spammed into an article over the objections of other editors. As Ronz routinely does this, and justifies it on the grounds of "following policy", then I'd be happy to have Ronz point out any such policy, if the error is simply my ignorance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aussietheatre.com as a ref

Resolved
 – It's better to have it in the External links section than the article body. Ronz (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[left] The aussietheatre.com ref is currently footnote 47. The site's "About us" page shows that it is edited by professional editors. It has a Theatre History page with articles about Australian Theatre history, an excellent list of relevant links, an extensive news page following the Australian theatre scene, current reviews, features about Australian theatre, etc. The reason it is cited there in the "International musicals" section of the article is twofold: 1) Ronz did not want it in the External links section; and 2) the site's comprehensive reviews, news and feature articles on the Australian theatre scene show the importance of Australia in world musical theatre, which helps to explain why we are singling it out for discussion in this section as a particularly important and active musical theatre scene. I started and wrote most of the article on J. C. Williamson, so I know something about Australian musical theatre. The "International musicals" section is important, because the article has been accused occasionally over the years for focusing too much on British and American musical theatre. I agree with Ronz that this section needs more references, and I invite her/him to help out with the research on this to help us add more references. It is difficult to do with respect to the non-English speaking countries, as many of the references are in foreign languages. Any help here would be much appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's WP:REFSPAM. Should it be removed or tagged while we work on resolving this?
Yes, as I indicated (03:20, 3 March 2011), I would think editors could find Aussietheatre.com articles to use as references. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not refspam. Please do not start edit warring again. If you don't believe me, get NewyorkBrad's input. And yes, please do add relevant refs if you can. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with this link. Ronz, can you briefly elaborate on what you think the problem is? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Besides it being refspam? As I said (03:20, 3 March 2011), "It was moved into the article body, but didn't actually verify anything. Given the nature of the link, I don't know how it could even be considered as something used for verification." Ssilvers has agreed that it was moved to get around it being a external link. In this case it's an external link that multiple editors thought inappropriate.
Let's pretend for a moment that it is a reference and apply WP:BURDEN: Please quote from http://www.aussietheatre.com exactly what is being used to verify something in this article. Not that I'm asking any content to be removed, only the link if no one can demonstrate it's there to verify anything. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The link is not WP:REFSPAM. That guideline is designed to prevent "search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation...." "Numerous articles" are not involved here. If you want to pretend something, pretend that you are a musical theatre fan from Australia or New Zealand reading this article. Somewhere in it, you would like a link this resource. You should not have to search around in other articles to find it. If you don't like the link here, we can put it back in the EL section - whichever you prefer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've been clear why I think the link doesn't belong. We all agree that it's not a reference, so it shouldn't be formatted as a reference, nor should it be in the body of the article. We simply treat it as an external link. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers on this issue. The link is a reasonable one, and I don't see anyone contending that the same information can be readily linked to at any other source. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. It's not a reference, right? It's an external link, right? External links belong in the external links section, right? --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
For those that think it is an appropriate reference, please provide a quote from the source that verifies the information in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course, Ssilvers says he simply moved it and formatted it, but that it's still an external link. He doesn't like it being classified as WP:REFSPAM, but that's what it is, though we agree it's not intended for search engine optimization, only promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I just visited the link and I think the site is informational, not promotional. Its stated purpose is "online theatre content, delivering...news, reviews and features". The content and advertising on the site don't seem to be promoting any particular business, organization, or product, but seem to be in line with what I'd expect for an online magazine-style site covering theatre in the Australia region. In my judgment, it's not refspam. If you feel it's refspam, please point out what you think it's promoting and how it's doing so. alanyst /talk/ 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't realize this was no longer a disputed link. alanyst /talk/ 06:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[left] The site has been redesigned to make it less useful for this article, and so I have now removed this EL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

I've just read through the article - much of which is excellent - however I can see there are two, closely-related, questions which need addressing in the first part of the article:

  • 1. Distinguishing between 'Musical theatre' (in its modern West End/Broadway sense) and 'Music theatre' (in its 'Greeks, Chinese and everybody' sense).
  • 2. Clarifying whether the article is about England/America (recently) or worldwide (longterm).

See the lead:

"Musical theatre is a form of theatre combining music, songs, spoken dialogue and dance. The emotional content . . . . integrated whole. Since the early 20th century, musical theatre stage works have generally been called simply, "musicals"."

So, musical theatre is defined broadly (as broadly as opera, or for that matter Chinese opera) in the first sentence, but then as narrowly as the West End/Broadway entertainment (in the third sentence).

The equivalent article by Andrew Lamb in the Grove Opera (on Musical [musical comedy, musical play]) is more narrowly defined, concentrating on developments since the 1890s. That more circumspect, less 'empire-building', approach seems better. (Incidentally, I see Musical comedy is a redirect to this article. Why is that?)

As an example of a problem area, we have this passage in the 'Renaissance to the 1700s' section that says:

"By the 18th century, two forms of musical theatre were popular in Britain, France and Germany: ballad operas, like John Gay's The Beggar's Opera (1728), that included lyrics written to the tunes of popular songs of the day (often spoofing opera), and comic operas, with original scores and mostly romantic plot lines, like Michael Balfe's The Bohemian Girl (1845)'

This gives a misleading impression of the European stage, actually dominated by dramma per musica (opera seria) in the first three-quarters of the 18th century, in which ballad opera was a minor genre etc. The problem could be fixed by deleting 'France and Germany'.

I am not a fan of blanket tagging, and I agree with Newyorkbrad, that it's better to concentrate on concrete improvements. {{Fact}} tags are almost always preferably to banner tags. I expect this will be my only contribution here as I know there are OWN and TAG issues here, and I don't have a lot of time. --Kleinzach 04:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While Tenimyu can be included here, is it reasonable to include Kiki's Delivery Service? I would say not. It is one of many Studio Ghibli animations which have a musical score which stand on their own, and which have been given independent theatrical performances, not as musical theatre, but as concerts, often involving full orchestras. It is a very different form which does not fit with the definition given at the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.109.161 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links updated

I've updated the external links per the discussions and WP:ELBURDEN which we've also discussed at some length. I made my edit in steps to show how I addressed the improper moving and formatting of the aussietheatre.com external link that was inside the article body. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm Sorry to see that you have decided to resume your edit war. As I, and several editors have stated before, the links that you deleted with this edit should remain in the article. They all contain information of interest to our readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Please focus on content. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a brief recap of some of the reasons that have been given above for keeping each:

  1. Castalbum.com: this exensive site has hyperlinked cast lists and other information about recordings of musical theatre in all the major markets.
  2. Halhkmusic.com is a unique resource that gives links to midi files and cast lists for over 200 early musicals by such composers as Jerome Kern, Victor Herbert, John Philip Sousa, Franz Lehár, Charles Lecocq, and all the Edwardian musical comedy composers. The site is growing rapidly as more shows are being added.
  3. Playbill.com is the most reliable and complete source for American musical theatre news and information about Broadway and other American musical theatre markets.
  4. Aussietheatre.com is the Australian/New Zealand equivalent of Playbill.

Conversely, what do people think about the Yahoo directory link? Is this of any use? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have your opinions on what links belong. That discussion is still open. The dispute is not resolved.
If you only object to one diff, why were the other changes I made reverted as well?
What appears resolved are Talk:Musical_theatre#Aussietheatre.com_as_a_ref and Talk:Musical_theatre#ELBURDEN. My edits were a result of those discussions. If anyone disagrees, please respond to those discussions. I hope when editors do so, they'll refrain from making accusations of disruption and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
These links look generally fine to me. I don't quite understand why there is such a bitter dispute over relatively routine links on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. We follow ELBURDEN to determine how to resolve disputes over links. --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no one but you in favor of excluding them. I'm also concerned you are a bit excessively worked up over this relatively unimportant issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Musical_theatre#Response_to_ELN_request.
I'm concerned about the clear WP:OWN problems here, but that's not keeping me from focusing on proper dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a vote, but we work by consensus here, and you Ronz are out of consensus. The links you dispute should remain in the article; I have reviewed them carefully and I believe they are each of significant interest to the readers of this article. Jack1956 (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I entirely concur with Jack1956. I too have (again) examined each link, as carefully and objectively as I am able, and I agree that each is of significant interest to readers of this article. It is the reader whom we ought to have in our minds, and we must put any personal doctrinaire views behind us. Tim riley (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We got the exact same responses before we removed nine of the links. Such responses simply weren't helpful then, certainly not now, especially in light of the WP:OWN and TAG problems demonstrated since. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Several editors are in agreement with retaining the links, and only Ronz appears to be in favor of deleting them, and I don't see any policy issue such that the view of one editor should outweigh the consensus. I suggest that Ronz drop this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is an open ELN request, and multiple editors have responded, all agreeing that at least some of the links should be deleted. See Talk:Musical_theatre#Response_to_ELN_request. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I find your obsession with removing useful links on this page to be bizarre and disruptive; I am considering banning you from the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're so upset. Perhaps a break from this article would be helpful?
I request you WP:FOC and not threaten other editors for proper user of a talk page, proper efforts to resolve a dispute, and properly apply Wikipedia's policies/guidelines to improve the encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Observations from a totally uninvolved outsider, who became aware of this via User:Newyorkbrad's talk page:
  1. WP:FOC does not preclude objecting to behavior that prevents content disputes from being resolved. Ronz should not continue to use that as a means of ignoring other editors' good faith concerns.
  2. The question of which external links should be kept and which should be omitted is a matter of editorial judgment informed by the guidelines at WP:EL. There will be links that are obviously suitable or unsuitable, and there will be links that editors can disagree on in good faith. Having read the discussions above, I believe that the links that are still in dispute are those that fall into the latter category.
  3. Although consensus is not a vote, neither should an editor dismiss a numerical consensus in matters of editorial judgment, writing style, interpretation of sources, etc. as invalid. When all editors' voices are on equal ground policy- and guideline-wise, the number of voices on each side of the question can be a strong determining factor in settling consensus.
  4. Ronz needs to recognize that her or his position is no stronger than those of other editors involved in the debate over external links, and accordingly should concede that the weight of consensus is against him or her.
I hope this neutral outside opinion can help in resolving this dispute. alanyst /talk/ 18:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments.
If someone thinks I'm ignoring anything here, please indicate it (perhaps on my talk page), and I'll be sure to address the concern.
Let's not let the focus on any individual or group of editors be used as a means of ignoring other editors' good faith concerns, especially when those concerns have been specifically pointed out multiple times.
I believe the position to remove the links is far stronger that that of keeping them. Specific sections of applicable policies/guidelines have been identified showing why they don't belong, and detailed comments have been made in response to all comments to the contrary. Sad that some editors would rather vote while ignoring discussions.
When addressing concerns about external links, there's a strong consensus that it is best to error on the side of exclusion. External links are easily abused, and of diminishing value as article quality improves. After all, we're here to write an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The nature of a guideline such as WP:EL is that a local consensus can override it. See, for example, the BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate at Jesus: despite the wikipedia-wide style guideline, the local consensus at that article is to use a combined format to avoid endless edit wars. Here, despite the general consensus at the guideline level to exclude links that are in dispute, the local consensus is to include the links. Various editors have justified their opinions on the basis of relevance to the article subject and usefulness to the reader. Your good faith concerns have not been ignored; they have been rebutted—perhaps not to your satisfaction, but consensus does not equal unanimity. alanyst /talk/ 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. There's acceptable ways to override WP:EL and unacceptable ways, and we error on the side of exclusion. The justification is lacking and the rebuttals are votes at best, when there are any at all. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've summarized the responses that we have from ELN here. Three links still in the article were specifically mentioned to remove. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the musical cast album database. I've looked at it. It looks valuable and relevant to me. I can't imagine why anyone interested in musical comedies wouldn't want to know about it. It didn't look spammy or commercial. This external link should be retained. Am I missing some obvious problem with it? Ronz, what is your objection to it? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with it (23:10, 25 Feb). It's included in the Yahoo directory, so it would be very likely removed in a thorough cleanup. None of the other editors commented beyond that one discussion and Ssilvers' summary. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Aside - Ronz didn't mean WP:TAG
Ronz, WP:TAG redirects to Wikipedia:File copyright tags. I have seen no problems with file copyrights alleged. What is your statement above supposed to mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Doh! I was referring to Kleinzach's comments. Fixed. It's to WP:TAGTEAM. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we focus on Aussietheatre.com as a ref?

While I'll continue to respond to others' comments and assist in summarizing the discussions, I'm going to focus my attention on Talk:Musical_theatre#Aussietheatre.com_as_a_ref. I hope others will assist in resolving this dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to the External Links section and removing the *elno* tags from all remaining members of that list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the suggestion by Ssilvers. As I wrote on Feb. 25--"Keep the rest, all very useful." (short version) To say it again, as clearly and simply as I can: they are all useful. Aussietheatre.com seems more appropriate as an external link than as a specific reference, because it does not seem to reference any particluar statement or fact.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(out)(Not to muddy the waters, but editors might also consider adding to the See also section this link to the Wikipedia article on Australian theatre: Theatre of Australia. I do mean consider, the article is an overview and contains more than musical theatre in Australia. Then, also for consideration in the See also section are the Wikipedia articles on the history of theatre, at History of theatre and general theatre at Theatre--consider only, these are general overviews, not tightly focused on musicals. Feel free to not comment/disregard these See also suggestions, they are just that--I do not take offense easily.)JeanColumbia (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you again.
We've agreed to remove still more links since Feb. 25. There's a detailed analysis of the remaining links, as well as an WP:ELN response (with a summary of those responses).
I agree that the internal link to Theatre of Australia would be helpful, as well as links to corresponding theatre articles for other countries. This would be at least a partial step in resolving the NPOV problems discussed earlier. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
A lifetime spent arguing against perfectly reasonable external links on articles like this one does not strike me as the best use of wikitime. I implore you to go somewhere else and do something more useful. If there really is any issue with these links then someone else will follow up on it. Honestly, you seem to be overly focused on something trivial and are acting in a highly unproductive fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather follow up with the concerns discussed on this talk page. While I'm going to continue to focus on the Aussietheatre.com-ref dispute, I think JeanColumbia's made some good comments here about internal links that shouldn't be overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I support moving this to the External Links section and removing the *elno* tags from all remaining members of that list. Jack1956 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    I agree on getting the Aussietheatre.com out of the body of the article.
    I agree that placing it back in the External links section is an improvement.
    Why remove the elno tags? --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the elno tags are entirely superfluous. Jack1956 (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How about someone remove the link from the article body, and add it back to External links? We appear to agree that's it would be an improvement. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, and I added the "See also" links suggested by Jean, although Im dubious about including Theatre in "See also", because it's already linked prominently right at the beginning of the article. Also, the "See also" section might look better in 2 columns. My only remaining disagreement here is the elno tags after the end of three of the ELs, which I think should be removed. I agree with NewyorkBrad that the most important next step for this article is for someone to add in-line references to verify the thinly referenced sections. When parts of this article was first written several years ago, many editors were not using in-line cites, which are pretty standard now. So, I believe that nearly all of the information in these sections is actually contained in the references and footnotes already contained in this artice, they just need to be brought in-line. The most difficult section to verify may be the International section, some of which refers to the musical theatre scene in non-English speaking countries, so the references for that are mostly in foreign languages. Comments, please, particularly on the elno tags. Thanks to all who are commenting here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have so far responded to our ELN request

I think we've done a good job cleaning up the external links. I'd like to think we're close to finished, but I don't want to impose any timetable on others. If we simply remove the remaining "elno?" templates as proposed by Ssilvers (18:17, 4 Mar) and Jack1956 (23:00, 4 Mar), I wouldn't object.

However, three editors have responded to our ELN request. Their comments are here and I've created a summary here on only those external links remaining that these editors brought up for removal.

I believe I'm the only editor that has responded to their comments. Anyone else care to respond? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the "elno" tags need to be removed. I would also like to point out that while it is the case that three editors expressed a reservation about one or another of these links in the past, since then about 10 editors have agreed that they should stay. Jack1956 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The vast majority of editors who have commented have opined that all or virtually all of the links in question should stay. That really should be the end of the matter; editors should now focus on adding additional content to the article and related articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sensible words with which I entirely agree. Let's all move on now. Jack1956 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not well acquainted with the arcana of Wikipedia administration, and I am afraid I know nothing of the "ELN" request, nor what a such a thing might be. I do know, however, that on this topic page, there are, as Jack1956 rightly says, a large number of editors who are of one mind on this, outweighing any contrary minority opinion by a long way. Consensus, surely, is what we must go on. Tim riley (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I have spent too much time hanging out at ELN, and the best thing now would be for everyone to forget this issue and move on. There is absolutely no need for anyone to contribute further to the ELN discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Orthography

Copied from Archive 1:

On Feb 2, 2011, an editor changed "theatre" to "theater" in many places; I reverted because of this discussion, also because of this footnote (in the Broadway theatre article): "Although theater is the preferred spelling in the U.S.A. (see further at American and British English Spelling Differences), the majority of venues, performers, and trade groups for live dramatic presentations use the spelling theatre." JeanColumbia (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

From a quick check in newspaper archives from round the globe, "—tre" seems more prevalent than "—ter" in most Anglophone countries, and I happily support JeanColumbia's edit. Tim riley (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Both spellings are appropriate, and there appears to be good reasoning for preferring -tre, so it should remain. See WP:ENGVAR. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with JeanColumbia's edit. The "tre" spelling is correct everywhere, but the "ter" spelling is wrong in many English-speaking countries, so we should use the spelling that is always correct. Plus, as Jean noted, theatre professionals and insiders, even in the US, prefer the "tre" spelling. Of course, if a theatre building's official name is the "X Theater", then we must use the official spelling when referring to that building. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for bringing this up. I never meant to imply or suggest in any way in any form that we not follow the proper (and, perhaps, legal) name for a theatre (er) building, a theatre (er) company and the like. Good example is: The Public Theater; another example: Walt Disney Modular Theater, or the Lincoln Center Theater ([[6]]). JeanColumbia (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
My favorite example is the Apollo Theater, and the Apollo Theatre, which use the difference in spelling to point to different theatres on the appropriate continents.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Category question about authors/librettists

There is some confusion as to how to categorize the authors of musicals, there being three categories that seem to overlap (Category:Musicals by lyricist, Category:Musicals by librettist, and Category:Musicals by author). The discussions are found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre#Category question: Musicals by? and Talk:Libretto#Musicals: libretti or books?. Any advice would be appreciated, especially at the Project page. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Operetta info

It is irrelevant to this article how many acts the operettas of the early20th century had. G&S had two acts, as did the Edwardian musical comedies, the American musical comedies of the early 20th century and the vast bulk of musicals in an unbroken line from G&S to Rodgers and Hammerstein. The fact that certain operettas had three acts adds nothing to this article and can be mentioned in the operetta article if you like. Indeed, some of the English language versions of the operettas changed them from a three-act format to a two-act format. But again, that is of interest in the operetta article. This article has too much territory to cover. Please do not add unreferenced information to this article. We are gradually working on improving its referencing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over reference to operetta

I am disappointed to see that Ssilvers does not know the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy, and instead has reverted AlbertSM and now my edits. This indicates an ownership attitude. One of the points AlbertSM made was a perfectly valid comparison with the structure of operetta. This is the passage that Ssilvers keeps taking out "While operettas of the early twentieth century were frequently staged in three (or more) acts with more than one intermission, musicals . . . ". Ssilvers should reinstate the passage. --Kleinzach 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I am not adept in the Wikipedia protocol scriptures, but the addition of the information about the intervals in operetta performances seems to me to be supererogatory, even if it is duly cited. I should strongly counsel leaving it out, as a mild but nevertheless undesirable distraction for the reader who is interested in the specified topic. Tim riley (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
What about the references to ancient greek drama, commedia dell'arte, Bollywood etc etc., are all of these to be left out as well? Most of them are much further removed from musical theatre than operetta. (As far Wikipedia protocol goes, it's all available in plain English at WP:BRD.) --Kleinzach 22:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that those topics are relevant if they are presented in a way that clearly relates to musical theatre. Notice how quickly the current article presents Greek theatre, Commedia, etc. and then moves on. The question is how to present only as much information as is helpful to the article. My suggestion is to restore the deleted material but edit it down to its most relevant pieces. Only what relates to musical theatre should be included; the rest can be left on the operetta page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Operetta is already mentioned in this article where it is relevant (indeed, it could be argued that we discuss it too much). Scroll through, and you will see it discussed at some length. The insertion by Albert SM, which is unreferenced, applies only to a subset of operettas and is tangential in the place mentioned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ownership: most grateful for the guidance about WP:BRD. I shall look it up forthwith, along with the WP: pot -v- kettle page etc. Tim riley (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Irene"

For the record, Victor Herbert did not compose the music for "Irene". Harry Tierney wrote the music and Joseph McCarthy (no relation to the senator) the lyrics. Herbert did, however, compose the music for an operetta called "Eileen". AlbertSM (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon should be added to the list of musicals in the opening paragraph. Many critics and theatre-lovers agree that it is changing the face of musical theatre. Avenue Q should also be added since it should be noted as a nice blend of musical and puppetry--Beausalant (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. All the musicals in that list (which is probably too long already) are the most successful blockbuster musicals in their decades, or musicals that smashed the previous long-run records and which appear in books written about them and their influence on musical theatre. Avenue Q is a nice show, but it has not proved to be as big an international smash hit as Wicked. See this and this, for example. In about 10 years, we will be able to look back with some perspective and see whether The Book of Mormon is still a big hit and if so, we will be able to compare it with, say, Billy Elliot, or something that hasn't been written yet, and see which one was the biggest hit of the 2010s. See WP:Recentism. BTW, in what way do you see The Book of Mormon as changing the face of musical theatre? What critics had said so? See WP:V. It seems to me to be, in concept, rather like Nunsense or, even closer, A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant and several other musicals that have satirized religion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I have reverted your unreferenced change where you added new unreferenced information to this article. We are trying to improve its referencing. Please see WP:V and WP:OR. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Split it up

This page deals with two different things:

  1. musical theatre in general through ages
  2. the originally American pop culture phaenomenon, a genre on par with opera and operette.

Now many languages have adapted the word musical as a noun, referring to the genre. For instance, German clearly distinguishes between Musical and Musiktheater. The genre is pretty coherent and recognisable, too. Is it too much to insist that the article be split? Steinbach (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is too much to insist: Wikipedia operates by consensus. If your very interesting and novel view commands a consensus so be it. For my part I vote against splitting the article, which seems to me to be a cogent whole as it is. But no doubt other editors will have their views. Tim riley (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with splitting this entry. This entry deals with the evolution of musical theatre from early forms to the British and French musical stage of the 19th century, Edwardian musical comedy, the development of the modern musical in the 20th century, the emergence of the rock/pop musical, the importance of European musicals and movie musicals and finally the current state of the musical. It puts the most popular forms of the musical into historical context. What would be gained by splitting the entry? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
What would be gained by splitting the article? As it stands now, it deals with both the history of music theatre as a whole and with a specific genre. (To be sure: the article deals not only with the direct precursors to the musical, but, briefly, with all forms of music theatre that came before vaudeville, including the Ancients.) Musical theatre is a phaenomenon, which includes chiefly (in Western music at least) the genres of opera, operetta, and musical. Of these three main forms, the musical is also specifically dealt with in this article, unlike opera and operetta, which do have their seperate articles. The only reason that this doesn't become obvious is a linguistic one (see my comparison with German). Now this situation is like the Books article being also about the Bible, and covering all other sorts of books before the Bible was written, or like an article United States dealing with Oklahoma in particular from the moment it got statehood. It covers two separate topics. You'd normally want two articles for two topics. That's what would be gained by splitting it up. Steinbach (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. This article does not deal with opera and distinguishes it. It deals with the musical and so defines "musical theatre". The term "musical theatre" as used in this article means "musicals" as you are using that term above. Opera is a related but different performing art and is already covered by another article (indeed a large group of articles and its own WikiProject). Likewise, operetta has its own article, and to the extent that the operetta is an antecedent to musicals, or there is overlap, it is discussed here is in some detail. I don't think you read this article very carefully, as it goes to some lengths to define and distinguish opera and operetta. This is the flagship article of the WP:MUSICALS project, so many editors have reviewed this article over the years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes ok, surely this is a flagship article, but that does not mean that it is perfect. As a matter of facts, someone assigned a B class to it. Anyway, if you are against splitting up, you might consider removing the Antiquity to Middle Ages and Renaissance to the 1700s instead. I don't see how their content is directly relevant to the topic of musicals, and much of them seems to suggest an article on all theatre involving singing. It would be enough if we let the prehistory of musicals begin with operetta and vaudeville, and transfer the two sections in question to a much needed but as yet non-existent article on music theatre (Musiktheater) in general. Steinbach (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting and novel points. At present Steinbach is in a minority of one, but perhaps other editors will agree with him/her. Let us see. Tim riley (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Music theatre

Someone has just created an article called Music theatre. It seems like a confused variation on this article and also contains elements of the Performing arts article, such as dance. I think it should be AfD'd. Do other editors agree? If so, can someone go ahead and put it up for AfD and alert us? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Musical_theatre/Archive_1&oldid=1137028718"