This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

An editor has raised the issue of deleting a paragraph that is essentially covered elsewhere and which confuses the focus of the article, viz modern (Western) musical theatre. The first editor also inserted subheadings to clarify this. A second editor then reverted these changes, perhaps not realising that the "Other Forms" section slightly below it already explained about older and non-Western musical theatre traditions. I agree with the first editor that it would clarify matters if we were to delete the paragraph about non-Western traditions in the "Antiquity" section near the top. We could then add a new heading over the "Antiquity" and "Renaissance to 1700s" section called "Antecedents of Western musical theatre". This is merely a suggestion, but it might help resolve the questions of major contributors in the past about what should be in the article. Tim riley ( talk) 19:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. The article is about modern musical theatre as it developed in Europe and America, and the early sections of the History section should be re-labelled to make this clear. The discussion of non-Western traditions is not within the scope of the article and should be dealt with elsewhere. The "Other Forms" section explains about these other traditions and links to articles about them. Therefore, the paragraph in the early part of the history section is redundant with the "Other Forms" section and adds nothing. Based on Tim riley's comment above, I will revise the section. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comments. Their arguments make perfect sense to me. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or do Bob Fosse's contributions to MT seem completely ignored on this page? Stephenjamesx ( talk) 20:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could write a well-referenced sentence or two about his most important contributions. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to muddy the waters (so to speak) but this article is missing a section on the importance of director/choreographers, including, of course, Fosse, but also: Jerome Robbins, Gower Champion, Tommy Tune, Gillian Lynne, Michael Bennett (although he is at least mentioned re Chorus Line), Susan Stroman, etc. And of course the article does not address the contributions made by directors such as Hal Prince and Trevor Nunn. This is not an inclusive list, just off the top of my head. And, no, I have no time to do the research needed to add any such section to the article. Flami72 ( talk) 12:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We do mention George Abbott, and, very briefly, Fosse, Robbins and Bennett. I agree that we should probably mention the most important director/choreographers who have really had an impact on the genre, although I really think that these mentions should be kept very brief, as the article is already quite long. I think we should be extremely selective: For example, Gillian Lynne may be skillful, and she has worked on some extremely successful shows, but has she left behind anything of enduring influence to the genre? Has Tune really influenced the genre? As for a separate section on directors and choreographers in musicals, I'm not so sure. Note that there is an article on Theatre director but none on choreographer. Such articles should probably be expanded and improved and could make space for more discussion of prominent choreographers who have not been, perhaps, as influential as Fosse and Robbins. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

[Left]A very nice short essay on "The Director-Choreographers", from John Kenrick: [1]. (Gillian Lynne=MEOW!) Flami72 ( talk) 19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I added a paragraph based mostly on Kenrick's material, but please improve it if you can; in particular, one of the reasons that our article suffers from a U.S.-centric POV is that we rely heavily on Kenrick, so if you can find a reference that will let us add Trevor Nunn, etc., that would be helpful. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Trevor Nunn

"The question has, at various times and in various forms, frequently been asked of Nunn, who is one of the most respected yet divisive figures in British drama. He may have been the boss of the Royal Shakespeare Company for a record-breaking 18 years (1968–86), then the head of the National for another six (1997–2003); but there are some who lament that he long ago sold out to commercial theatre. At one stage, the three longest-running shows of all time –Cats, Starlight Express, Les Misérables – were all his, and his critics allege that he has never been the same director since. On the other hand, there is no doubt a hard core of fans who wish he wouldn't waste all that time with Shakespeare and Chekhov, and devote himself full-time to musicals.....One of the best living directors; also, sometimes, one of the worst; a reluctant impresario, but a fierce defender of his record; a lover of the toughest classic drama, and also of shameless sentiment." A life in theatre: Trevor Nunn. 18 November 2011. The Guardian. UK. by Andrew Dickson.

• Interesting piece on Nunn. Be back sometime next week. Flami72 ( talk) 10:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I added a reference, although it would be nice to briefly explain what Prince and Nunn's impact has been rather than simply stating that they are prominent directors. When you get back, see if you want to add some explanation. Have a good week! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody interested in this topic could create at least a stub on the Theatre music (music used in theatre pieces)? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us a sentence or two about this topic that explains why it should be a separate article from, say, show tune? Otherwise, maybe a redirect to show tune might be all you need? See also incidental music and musical score. Maybe what we really need is an article on musical score or score (music) that is not a redirect. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability wise, "Theatre music" on Google Books yields thousands of hits. Correct me if I am wrong, but show tune is used in modern context (there's no Shakespearean show tune, or Ancient Greek show tune), and it refers only to the most popular and usually vocal part of the show. It would be conceptually similar to film music (redirecting to film score), although the term theatre score seems much less widely used. For a sample source, see [2], and note the footnote, which lists an academic publication on "19th century theatre music". In other sources, I saw terms such as Victorian or Elizabetian theatre music. This source lists it among church music and chamber music. I am sure there should be enough for an expert to write a stub, if not a DYKable start-class article, sadly, my knowledge of music topics is pretty poor. In fact, I wanted to learn a little about threatre music, hence I tried looking for this topic on Wikipedia, but it seems we have nothing on it so far. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Ssilvers's point above, I am gathering material for an article on musical scores, which will include reference to scores for musical theatre of all kinds. There's quite a bit of useful stuff to be had, and it will take me some little time to assemble the article. Tim riley ( talk) 18:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm gathering that the idea of this article will not be songs from musicals, but music composed for straight theatre, i.e. incidental music. There's already a stub of an article on incidental music. -- kosboot ( talk) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I started an article. There is also an article for show tunes, which is about songs from musicals. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We noticed that the template for albums does not permit you to state that an album is a cast album. Many are incorrectly designated as "soundtrack"! Please vote here so that we can make the template more flexible. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why am I directed to a page concerning Musical Theatre when attempting to find information about Jim Nollman...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.88.244.27 ( talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been massive vandalism to the Jim Nollman page. I have reverted to an earlier version. However, I note that the Jim Nollman article does not contain any WP:Reliable sources and could be referred to WP:Articles for Deletion unless it is improved soon. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "culminating" is the right word to use in the top section -- that would imply either that musical theater ended with Gilbert & Sullivan // Hannigan & Hart (which isn't true) or that it reached its highest expression with them (which is debatable at best). However, I'm not sure what the right word is, because I'm not entirely certain what that sentence is trying to say.-- Zzedar ( talk) 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point. I have replaced "culminating with", instead noting that many of the modern musical's "structural elements" were "established by" these works. Any further suggestions? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

To improve the logic flow and the layout, I suggest to do as most articles do and to place the portal bar at the bottom of the article (just below the space usually used for navigation templates) in a nice horizontal fashion. Coreyemotela ( talk) 16:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

I disagree that most articles do this, and I think that putting the bar at the bottom of articles is a waste of space. Please leave the small box instead, as it has been for a long time in this article, unless you first build a new consensus to change it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Be bold? I see no consensus or previous discussion about this matter neither here nor in the archive of this talk page. And the side of the section dedicated to external links is in principle used for links to sister projects. Coreyemotela ( talk) 19:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

Be bold says that if another editor reverts your edit, you should discuss it on the Talk page until a consensus is reached. It doesn't say to edit war to get your own way. I object to moving the portal box down to the bottom. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you also object adding links to Wikimedia Commons? Coreyemotela ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

No, I don't object to that. Thanks for asking. Please revert your change to the portal bar, however. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between the sections "References" and "Further reading"? If references are used to write the article, why are they not cited in footnotes? Coreyemotela ( talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

Book sources are listed at the bottom, and shortform references to the exact page numbers within them are cited in the footnotes. The "Further reading" section contains sources that are not yet used in the text but that are other important sources on the topic. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

To make it clear, the content of the current "References" section should be a sub-section of the current "Notes" section. What do you think? Coreyemotela ( talk) 19:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

I did it. Please, do not hesitate to discuss here changes of the section titles. Coreyemotela ( talk) 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

In this example, Notes and sources are laid out the way we had it here. You have made an arbitrary change to the headings that does not improve the article in the least, and you have done it even though you knew that at least one editor of this article objected it. So you are just behaving badly. I am always amazed when people want to reformat articles stylistically where they have not contributed any content. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not your own article and you should accept that some people specialise more in content and other more in style. It is complementary. You can change the headings if you would like. But having a subsection makes it much more clear. Coreyemotela ( talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

And this is not your article either, Coreymotela. When one enters a house as a guest, it's good manners to be quiet and observe what go on for a while, instead of walking in and immediately starting to move furniture around. The layout and format of what you see has come about through years of editing. Please don't be so quick to ignore so many peoples' choices by changing it around without having a thorough discussion. Please don't forget as well that Wikipedia does have consistency and that one should observe the formatting of other articles in other disciplines before suggesting changes here. -- kosboot ( talk) 11:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Consistency is important. But consistency is achieved through guidelines rather than by just keeping the layout that was set up long ago. What do you think? Coreyemotela ( talk) 06:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

If you really want to fulfill Wikipedia's mission (allowing free access to information), the best way to do that is to create/expand article content. -- kosboot ( talk) 11:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Efforts have been made to add more information about the pit orchestras used in musical theatre. It is appreciated that various changes have been kept. However, I do not agree with the view that information about the ensembles that accompany musical theatre should be kept as short as possible. I believe that the different types of instrumental ensembles used in musical theatre deserve their own section. Specifically WP:BALANCE was cited as a reason for keeping the information brief, but this is a WP:NPOV guideline about "assign[ing] weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Adding information about musical theatre ensembles is not part of a contentious debate where we have to make sure that the opposing viewpoints are fairly reflected in the article. As well, WP:UNDUE was cited, but given the length of the article, it can be argued that a section on the musical ensemble is warranted. The current section is about one half of one percent of the article. Going up to one percent would not appear to be undue weight.

All the more so because the ensembles that accompany musical theatre are so varied (in contrast with opera, where it is pretty much almost always a conventional orchestra, albeit sometimes a smaller one). Musical theatre may have a mini-orchestra, it may have a mini orchestra + rock instruments (e.g., Jesus Christ Superstar), it may be just rock instruments, and so on. As well, another difference from regular orchestras is that in musical theatre, the music director may direct from a keyboard (rather than using a baton). As well, I think giving the standard opera orchestra size (70-100 musicians) is pertinent because it helps the reader to see that musical theatre ensembles (27 or less) are much smaller than opera orchestras.Thank you :) OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To the general reader of this encyclopedia who is trying to learn about musical theatre, the question of orchestration and exactly what instruments are used in particular shows is only one of dozens of production issues, like set design, or how musicals are financed. The article must cover the full breadth of musical theatre, from dialogue, lyrics, music, choreography and direction, to all the technical matters, to the kinds of theatres used for musicals, as well as the history of musical theatre. So, each individual topic needs to be concise here. There are separate articles on Pit orchestra, orchestration, and various articles on music and sub-genres of musicals, like rock musicals, Edwardian musical comedy, etc., where one can go into greater detail concerning the details of orchestration and relevant instrumental issues. So, I think that the information that you have added about orchestration for musicals is an excellent addition to the article, but it should be kept very concise, and the blue-links within the paragraph will lead anyone who is curious about this area to the Pit orchestra article, where they can find more information. I would also suggest that you add research to the Pit orchestra article to expand it and make its sourcing more rigorous. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The way the article is currently structured, most of the article is comprised of the history section. There is no section on the music components (harmonic language, orchestration, etc.) of musicals, the visual spectacle element, which has been an "enduring element in the Broadway musical, both in the form of the...chorus line and in striking stage effects such as the crashing chandelier in the Phantom of the Opera" (Shepherd and Horn, p. 97), and as you listed, set design and financing. While you state that orchestration is just one of dozens of production issues, orchestration is important to the sound of a musical. The top Broadway composers have preferred orchestrators. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that orchestration is important to my experience of a show, but most people consider it to be a secondary element at best: Cyndi Lauper won the Tony Award for best score for Kinky Boots by humming the songs to the orchestrator over her cellphone. If orchestration were considered to be of primary importance by the Tony voters, they would have insisted that the orchestrator share in her Tony. If I recall correctly, the Tony for orchestration is not even included in the Tony broadcasts -- it's one of the "little" awards given off-camera. And as you pointed out, plenty of amateur and school groups ignore a show's orchestration and happily perform it with piano accompaniment. Note, also, that the history section discusses the visual elements of shows as it goes along. Indeed, the chandelier in Phantom and similar other devices are specifically mentioned. Anyhow, if you still disagree with me, there is no point in our "he said/OBZ said" any further. We need other editors to weigh in on the discussion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, WP:UNDUE was cited. The first sentence of that section reads: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In regards to the musical theatre article, it can be argued that the if reliable sources regarding musical theatre give a significant coverage to element "x", then the article should have coverage of element "x". The musical theatre article does not describe the music elements of musical theatre: harmonic language, rhythms, song structure, types of songs, orchestration, the role of the pit orchestra (which reliable sources indicate goes beyond mere accompaniment...the orchestra may also play the musical's overture, which weaves together the main melodies of the show in an instrumental pot-pourri). If reliable sources discuss these elements of musical theatre in a significant fashion, then it can be argued that these elements should be described concisely in the article. To raise a specific point, I added sourced quotes by major musical theatre figures indicating the importance of orchestration to musical theatre. If there are contrary viewpoints, such as "According to [authoritative musical theatre person], "orchestration is not very important to musical theatre: the vocal melodies and lyrics are most important", then the different viewpoints can be summarized, in accordance with WP:NPOV. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, except to note that the key issue we are having is the part about "in proportion to the prominence" given to the issue in all reliable sources concerning musical theatre. I think that our current discussion of orchestration and the pit orchestra is already at least proportional, compared to the thousands of [EDIT: books and articles] that one can find about the history of musicals and the musicals themselves and other issues. But I do agree that more could be said in the article about the nature of the music, as long as it's not too technical. Technical discussions should go in more specific articles, like show tune and theatre music. Similarly, the sourced material about orchestration and pit orchestras will be excellent in those articles. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that what is currently in the article is in proportion with what reliable sources state about musical theatre, regarding orchestration and the role of the pit orchestra? Right now the section on Medieval pageant wagons is longer (by a few words) than the pit orchestra section. This looks like undue weight on pageant wagons and too little weight of the role of pit orchestras. I don't understand what you said about the thousands of discussions about the history of musicals and the musicals themselves. Are you saying that because there is a lot of coverage of the history of musical theatre and the musicals themselves in reliable sources, these sections should comprise the majority of the article? OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[left] Yes, that's right. As for the pageant wagons, OBZ, please see below, where I have made a proposal to split off much of that sort of information. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that by prominence it refers to what percent of the pages of sources on a topic cover. If this was the case, then with articles about pop stars or actors, since 90% of the media coverage about them is for things entirely unrelated to their music or acting career (e.g., articles on who he/she is dating, his/her new mansion, her new Ferrari, etc.) then Wikipedia articles on these pop stars or actors would have to be 90% about these lifestyle/personal life aspects. But that is not what is done on FA-class articles (see Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, for example). Instead, almost all of the article focuses on the actor's professional achievements, with only a short section (Personal life) on dating/relationships and mansions. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There is already enough information in this article about orchestration and ensembles. As I pointed out above, any further details about orchestration and pit orchestras should go in those articles. Please see the discussion below about other matters. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder to any newer editors here: what this article desperately needs is more well-referenced information about non-English language musicals and also about musical theatre of cultures outside of Western Europe and the English-speaking world. If anyone could help with this, it would be much appreciated. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding OBZ's recent changes, I have reverted them per WP:BRD. We need to discuss each of the paragraphs that you wish to add and decide whether they should be included, and if included, whether they should be made more concise. In some cases, they may already be included elsewhere in the article, or part of them may be more appropriate for sub-articles or footnotes. It may be that we can come to a good compromise, or that someone else will have a better idea(s). I suggest that you introduce headings below with the content you wish to add in each new paragraph so that we can discuss it one by one. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a Featured article that we could look to for ideas for this article: Peking opera.(Yes, I know WP:OSE...I am not claiming it sets a binding precedent. But it shows a different approach to an article on a music theatre topic). It has a section on history, which is, of course, essential. But this history section is only one of the sections of the article. After the history section, there are sections on performers and roles, classification of performers and roles, visual performance elements, aural performance elements (vocal, speech, music), repertoire and opera houses. This article is about musical theatre. As it currently stands, the history section comprises about 77% of the article. I think that there could be a separate section describing the key music elements in musical theatre, which could include the types of songs, song forms, harmonic language, rhythmic language, different instrumental roles (e.g., providing accompaniment, playing the overture to the musical) and orchestration (note: all these paragraphs would refer solely to musical theatre examples). I would be happy to work out how such a section could look with you and other editors on the talk page. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 05:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that sections could be added, although IMO the key sections for musical theatre would be: book, lyrics, music, dance/movement/staging, and production. The music section would include discussions of songs, incidental music, musical styles, vocal style/technique, orchestration and overtures. The book section would include discussions of dramatic structure, dramatic/literary themes, roles/characterization, dramatic structure. The dance/movement/staging section would discuss direction/staging, dance styles and technique, casting, etc. Production would include set/costume/lighting/sound design, theatre buildings and business/marketing, recordings, awards, touring. Anyhow, I agree with you that there could be sections on these things. My only caveat is that the article must balance the discussion of these elements -- what is key to musical theatre is that it is an artform that integrates *all* of these elements, unlike articles on opera, drama and dance, which emphasize one element. So this article must be brief in discussing each of these elements and sub-elements, since there are so many to cover. So, yes, lets discuss the proposed new content piece by piece. I suggest that you create new headings below when you have new content that you want to discuss so that we can do it topic-by-topic. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

One issue we need to discuss first is the need to make the article smaller. WP:TOOBIG says that articles larger than 100 kb "almost certainly should be divided." Without my most recent edits, the article now stands at 108 kb. One approach to dividing could be to split off some sections into new articles and retain a summary of the key points of the section(s) and a link to the new article(s). As it stands, about 80% of the article is about the history of musical theatre. While the history is important, other sections need space in the article, too. Another article I contribute to, Heavy metal music, is a Featured Article. It has a big history section, but it also has sections before the history part on the musical and harmonic features of the music. I look forward to working with you and other interested editors to work on this issue. Thank you. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the "history" section is long, but as I noted above, the section discusses other matters as it goes along, such as technical, musical and visual matters, so it's not just history. One thing that we might be able to split off is a couple of the early history sections into a "Development of the Musical" article, leaving a shorter summary of this material. User:OnBeyondZebrax, should I go ahead and do this? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please split off the early history section into a "Development of the Musical" article. That is a good idea. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, give me a couple of days. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Musical theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213110721/http://www.mtishows.com/show_results.asp to http://www.mtishows.com/show_results.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tuts.com/season07/wonderful_study.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yPic5kyJ?url=http://faculty.winthrop.edu/vorderbruegg/winthropweb/vitaindex/gilbert.html to http://faculty.winthrop.edu/vorderbruegg/winthropweb/vitaindex/gilbert.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803175455/http://www.furious.com/perfect/industrialmusicals.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/industrialmusicals.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Musical theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418002225/http://www.nea.gov/national/gav/sweenytodd.html to http://www.nea.gov/national/gav/sweenytodd.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Musical theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804175330/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1993/1/1993_1_58.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1993/1/1993_1_58.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412001249/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/theatre_performance/features/history_of_musicals/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/theatre_performance/features/history_of_musicals/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Musical theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://web.playbill.com/news/article/81129-ON_THE_RECORD_Ernest_In_Love_Marco_Polo_Puppets_and_Maury_Yeston
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222053219/http://www.broadwayleague.com/index.php?url_identifier=press-releases to http://www.broadwayleague.com/index.php?url_identifier=press-releases&news=the-broadway-league-announces-2007-2008-broadway-theatre-season&type=news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222053219/http://www.broadwayleague.com/index.php?url_identifier=press-releases to http://www.broadwayleague.com/index.php?url_identifier=press-releases&news=league-releases-annual-demographics-of-the-broadway-audience-report&type=news
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.solt.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/pressroom/SOLT_180108.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Jack1956, Michael Bednarek, and Ssilvers: A shifting IP wants serial commas used in this and some other articles despite being reverted by myself and other editors. I have asked for this article to be semi-protected to encourage a discussion which should be here. A key point is that Wikipedia follows the general rule that the style of an article should not be changed based on the preference of a particular editor—not unless a discussion has concluded the change would be desirable. Anyone wanting a change needs to make their case. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq above. Jack1956 ( talk) 10:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

+1 -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 10:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Also, if anyone has the energy, the IP should be reported for Edit Warring. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should put up a talk page banner, too? No serial commas allowed! Tyrone Madera ( talk) 05:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a notice into the talk page to exclude the serial comma. Tyrone Madera ( talk) 05:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What should be the standard style for this article? No serial commas seem to already be part of the current consensus, which can be established implicitly. It's time to establish an explicit consensus because an editor has disagreed with my interpretation of the implicit one. I repeat myself: what should be the standard style? Best, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 16:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that omitting the serial comma is a good idea, and I believe it has long been the agreed style on this article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

BCE dates and Spaced en dashes also seem to be standard throughout the article. Is there agreement that these should also be part of the standard? Tyrone Madera ( talk) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Spaced ndashes, yes. Dates should be mdy. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Spaced en dashes are part of MOS:DASH, and I don't see any other usage in this article, so I don't think any specific instructions are needed. Similarly, I don't see any dispute of the article's only use of a BCE date. As for mdy: I have no objections; it should be codified in the article via {{ Use mdy dates}} and applied to non-conforming usage, although that is minor and trivial currently. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 05:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Should Sfn be enforced as the dominant style of footnote in this article, given that it already predominates? Tyrone Madera ( talk) 06:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Adding more templates makes it harder for many editors to contribute to Wikipedia. The manual style is simple and effective; I think we should convert the sfn notes back to manual style. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Okay, as long as there is a consistent style, which currently there isn't. Tyrone Madera ( talk) 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think short citations implemented with {{sfn}} are superior to plain text short citations. I don't see how "{{sfn|Carter|Butt|2005|p=280}}" is harder than "Carter and Butt 2005, p. 280". -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's harder because you need to know how to fill in the template. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ssilvers, It's easier for readers, however, because they can click to see where in the page the resource comes from. I think that this feature is worth the potential extra hassle for new editors for this reason. Tyrone Madera ( talk) 17:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Fact is, the article's citation style is inconsistent. The majority of citations are inline full citations, some are plain text short citations, some are {{ sfn}} citations. In this case, WP:CITEVAR considers unifying the style helpful and there's no reason not to. {{sfn}} citations have been added to this article by several editors; only Ssilvers has objected here and reverted wholesale edits that contained other improvements, which I find galling. Ssilvers's argument above, that they consider it harder to use {{sfn}}, doesn't hold when other editors standardize short citations which they then selectively revert. That's stubborn WP:OWN and uncooperative. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 02:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Uncooperative? You mean we have to use your preferred style of template coding that requires specialized knowledge to use, because you say so? It is quite unfair and impolite of you to accuse me of WP:OWN. If there were a clear consensus here to use the technical sfn cites, I would follow the consensus, no matter how strongly I feel that it is the wrong path to take. But this article has used manual ciations (except the book citations) for many years, and if you want to make a huge change like this, you should first gather a clear consensus. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have always struggled with sfn templates, though I have used them sometimes when collaborating with an sfn fan or updating an article where sfn was already in usw (in accordance with WP:CITEVAR. I have to say that the sfn-using colleague with whom I have most often collaborated finds not using sfn just as difficult as I find using it, so perhaps there's no better or worse about either, and it's just a matter of personal preference. Unless there is a consensus to change from one to the other, I'd leave well alone. Tim riley talk 07:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Have never used an Sfn citation in all my years of editing Wikipedia as I find them too confusing. Keep to manual style. Jack1956 ( talk) 17:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley, The main problem is that the style is not currently consistent, so one style needs to be chosen over the other in order to have a consistent referencing style in the article. Cheers, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tyrone Madera, It is now consistent. Let us know if you still see any inconsistencies. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Just noticed this, haha. Thank you all for helping to achieve a consensus! Best, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 17:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the following statement:

The antecedents of musical theatre in Europe can be traced back to the theatre of ancient Greece, where music and dance were included in stage comedies and tragedies during the 5th century BCE.

In Western culture it has been popular since the Renaissance to try to connect every aspect of the culture to ancient Greece. The reality is that most of these supposed connections are tenuous, if not completely fabricated. The reference provided is not authoritative on history. Most modern Western art forms have little or no connection to ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks certainly were not the only culture that had art forms, and Western culture influenced by far more than the Greeks and Romans. To suggest that Western musicals were a direct outgrowth of Greek theater is a huge stretch. -- 165.204.84.11 ( talk) 18:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A quick google search shows that numerous sources agree that musical theatre has antecedents in ancient Greece. John Kenrick (theatre writer) says so in his book, Musical Theatre: A History. Do you have any sources that state that all of these are wrong? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand where the commenter is coming from because I've seen such statements in scholarly literature. But they also clarify that what is important is NOT that there's a direct line from Greek Theatre to medieval or Renaissance times (there isn't), but rather that the people of the Renaissance and later times derived inspiration from the Greeks and invented their own concepts of theater, claiming Greek antecedents (which made it more desirable and in sync with Renaissance ethos). I vaguely recall coming across such passages when I wrote the article on Polifemo (opera) but I don't see it in the text of that article. - kosboot ( talk) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and we even point out: "The music from the ancient forms is lost, however, and they had little influence on later development of musical theatre." -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I just added a short section on the shutdown caused by the pandemic. Please improve it if you can, but I think we should keep it short, per WP:10YEARTEST. Could someone please add a sentence that concisely notes the gradual and in some cases halting, worldwide re-opening? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Two initial remarks: I'm not sure about the upper case in "theatre" ("2020–2021 Theatre shutdown"), and I think the ToC limit should be removed. It only affects the section "2000s–2010s" where visibility from the ToC seems especially important. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the initial cap after a date. Can someone find the actual rule on that? As for the ToC limit, I don't see why we need to see all these subheadings. If you're looking for something recent, you'll look in the 2000s–present section. So many subheadings in the ToC just makes the ToC less useful. Can we get a consensus on that? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 08:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A Sondheim musical needs to be listed in the lead. ‘’Sunday in the Park with George’’ is possibly most notable as it won him the Pulitzer Prize? StJaBe ( talk) 23:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanielleMargarite ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DanielleMargarite ( talk) 19:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding going on about how musicals are produced. Using the term "respectively" as a qualifier in the lead paragraphs of this article (I incorrectly used "respectfully" in an edit summary minutes ago because I'm multitasking this morning) is correct. It is needed to dispel any confusion that a Broadway production could be produced in London or a West End production could be produced in NYC. For example, when a hit musical like Phantom comes from London to NYC or Hamilton comes from NYC to London, the second production is always treated as separate and distinct from the first production (even when they share some lead actors, such as the famous situation when Sarah Brightman starred in the original casts of Phantom in both cities). Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is about overuse of the adverb "respectively". You should only use it when you need to assign something to one or another subject in the order given to avoid ambiguity: Jane and Bill are 15 and 16 years old, respectively. If you didn't have "respectively", there could be an ambiguity. However, here, there is no real danger of any confusion about the facts that the WE is in London, and B'way is in NY. Moreover, the point of the sentence is that "big budget" productions can be in either place (it doesn't matter to the point we are making which of the two). See the last example given here about the parking spaces, and also their conclusion: "make sure that respectively and respective add meaning". Unless one is writing a contract or some other kind of legalistic document, it is overkill, distracting to the point of the sentence, jargony, and not good prose. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)