Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 4 March 2011

Musical Theatre B‑class

Musical theatre is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Misplaced Pages. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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

• Internet Broadway Database – Cast and production lists, song lists and award lists

  This is more general than just the topic of musical theatre. There are over 9,000 links to it across Misplaced Pages, so I don't think it needs to be here as an overly general external link. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  As User:Tim riley wrote above, keeping this link falls "into the 'of course' category". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  I stand by my analysis, and WP:ELNO #1 and #13. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Guidetomusicaltheatre.com – synopses, cast lists, song lists, etc.

  At least the scope of this database matches this article. There are over 300 links to it within Misplaced Pages, but I can see the value of leaving it here. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Castalbumdb – Musical Cast Album Database

  Doesn't seem too bad. The scope is right and there's plenty of information relevant to the topic. Just over 50 links to it. I'd prefer more specific links across Misplaced Pages and this being listed in an WP:ELMAYBE directory, as discussed above. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Please use English instead of abbreviations. What is an "ELMAYBE directory", and why do you think it is better than this link? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry to disagree again, but those "directories" are, as far as I can see, confusing and random groupings of links that lead to more links. They do not seem to be helpful, as opposed to the this castalbum database link, which is user friendly and easily searchable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Until we find an acceptable directory, the point is moot. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Edwardian theatre site with links to midi files and other information

  This is one of the two links that I thought was worth keeping. It's specific to "Victorian and Edwardian Light Operas" rather than the general topic of musical theatre, so inappropriate per ELNO #1 and #13. It should kept to articles on the specific topic that it covers, like Edwardian musical comedy where it is an external link. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  It also covers Jerome Kern, Victor Herbert, Gustave Kerker, John Philip Sousa, Walter Slaughter, Franz Lehár, Charles Lecocq, and composers of several different genres of early musical theatre, so I think it is helpful here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean it belongs here, only that it might be helpful in those individuals' articles as well. It doesn't appear to be in those of Kern, Kerker, Sousa, Lehár, nor Lecocq. It's linked in over 100 articles. I'm sure researchers can find it easily. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• List of long-running plays (over 400 performances) on Broadway, Off-Broadway, London, Toronto, Melbourne, Paris, Vienna, and Berlin

  This link belongs in (and is linked from) Long-running musical theatre productions and other articles that are specific to the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think that our readers will be interested in this quick reference for how long the original runs were for major shows around the world. Plus it is much more extensive than the Misplaced Pages list, which only covers a small percentage of the productions listed in the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  In the correct context, it's fine. This article simply isn't the correct context. Editors can easily find it from the more specific articles. That's why we have WP:ELNO #13 and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages. 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

• Actors' Equity Association
• The Dramatists Guild of America

  I asked why these are appropriate on 00:33, 24 February 2011. If no one is going to respond, then they don't belong in the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  PLEASE COMMENT - Does anyone have an opinion on these two? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC) DELETED.

Discussion comments

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)

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

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 . --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 . --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

-- 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." 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)

Response to my offer

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

-- 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

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)

Redlinks

-- 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"

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?

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

Fixed it. Looks like a mistake made during cleanup 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages editors who have worked on GA and FA-class Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Aussietheatre.com as a ref

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)

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 ) 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)

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)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Musical Theatre articles