User talk:Flami72/Archive 9

Archive 9, March 2010 through June 2010; new through August 31, 2010

The Music Man

It appears that my changes have been reverted again and will only be undone if I can get you to agree to change it back. I am in a production of the music man and have been giving a copy the Libertto book. The book says the song are a different way so i changed them to match it. Also the current list is obvoiously flawed because it has Lida Rose (Reprise) but no regular Lida Rose. 173.2.226.91 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked (musical)

I saw you've made a couple of edits to the article, and without plowing through the entire history of the article, I am simply hoping that you have an interest in it. Over the last two days, over fifty edits have been made by IPs, a ton of 'em related to some cast change. I can't see the forest for the trees anymore in that article and have reverted to an earlier version, though I can't say for sure it's an "authoritative" version. Will you please have a look and figure out what's going on and what's kosher, and what isn't? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweethearts (musical)

Would you kindly try to explain to the editor there that we can't list amateur productions: See [1]. Thanks for any assistance. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. On my watch list, as well. JeanColumbia (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How many musicals have you seen? I'm just curious because i always felt i've seen many brodway musicals but i thinlk you might have seen more. Also how long have you been seeing them for? Again i just want to compare myself to someone else

Hi. Re Guys and Dolls. The comment came from original notices from the London papers. I've removed it though because maybe it looks unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertie1pug1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can't put her photo on her page. I've tried to understand it and thought I had dragged it there but no luck yet. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertie1pug1 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All American (musical)

This image is tagged for deletion: File:AllAmericanBroadway.jpg It just needs "source" information to save it. It was uploaded by our old friend STVLGUY2. Do you think he scanned it from either of the two references shown at the bottom of the article? If so, all we need to do is give the source and delete the tag. Please let me know what you think. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a bit--lunch now.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a scan from the tv show, but frankly I do not entirely trust the uploader, so I would be very wary of doing any work on this image; is there any proof that the musical appeared on Ed Sullivan? (I really do not like to be so negative but I cannot assume good faith here, and would not want to get into any kind of difficulty over one image-it's not worth it.)JeanColumbia (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you're doubtful that the image is worth saving, then we'll let it get deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebratory

I think they more or less qualify under "civic", so you don't need a third word, but I suppose celebratory is as good as any.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I finished the hat....JeanColumbia (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Cohan

Thanks for adding all the references! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been interested in Cohan ever since I saw George M, in...too long ago. JeanColumbia (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could certainly use expansion. I am sure there is a lot written about Cohan, but I don't have the right reference materials. I've got him watchlisted; so if you decide to work on him, I'll try to help out. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any good references either, just what I find on the Internet. I will be prety busy from now until next week, then on a wikibreak for 2 weeks. The rest of May and June will be very busy for me also, with a week-or-two break again. However, I should have some time this Summer, I may try to get some books on George M. via inter (intra?) library loan.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Chenoweth

Regarding Kristin Chenoweth and headaches caused by flash photography...I seem to recall an episode of NPR's Fresh Air where Chenoweth discussed some of the problems caused by Ménière's disease, and she talked about how she would occasionally literally have to lean on other performers to keep from falling over onstage. However, there wasn't anything in her interview -- or in the Ménière's disease article, for that matter -- which talks about headaches or photophobia. I suspect the edit you reverted was, in short, complete non-WP:RS bollocks, for lack of a gentler term coming to mind.

So, for your adept catch of said bollocks...

N5iln has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cookies, I love cookies! and finally I get one...JeanColumbia (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early American musicals

Have been working on this area with Tim riley. Check out Jerome Kern, Guy Bolton and Princess Theatre. Any contributions very welcome. As I mentioned above, if you could help out with George M. Cohan over this summer, the area of early American musicals will have gotten a facelift! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be fully back in very late-June to early July, busy with ...stuff, will dabble for a while.JeanColumbia (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My plans are revised, will be taking a brief wikibreak starting June 19, will start looking at Cohan in early July.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're having a nice summer. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

In the sentence in which this change occurs, are all of the shows listed very popular and worth listing? The list seems a little long. If you think any are cuttable, would you kindly do so? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I deleted a few. Better? (I might consider cutting a few more, but not right now.)JeanColumbia (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks much better. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

64th Tony Awards

It's showing in three columns for me... :)  — AMK1211^talk! 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the template I was using for breaking into columns doesn't work for all browsers. Should be in three columns now. :)  — AMK1211^talk! 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Chenoweth

Metro is a free daily newspaper in the UK with a very wide circulation. I don't have another reference. I happened to come across the relevant article shortly after I had read that in Wikipedia. Probably not worth pursuing if you feel you have editorial control. LymeRegis (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Theatre

Hi. I did some updating/streamlining at Musical theatre. Would you kindly check what I did and make sure that I used good examples, wrote in intelligible English, etc.? Thanks in advance for your always-excellent advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from a short wiki-vacation, not really ready to look closely at anything today, but with a quick look (with my minor edit) I like...JeanColumbia (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette

This table doesn't include such productions as:

• Dames At Sea - Jan-Feb 1973 at Paper Mill Playhouse
• Tartuffe - Nov 1972 - Tartuffe opened at the Philadelphia Drama Guild
• Mother's Kisses - Sept, 1968 - unsuccessful pre-Broadway try out at the Shubert Theatre in New Haven. Her part was written out of the show almost immediately. It starred Beatrice Arthur
• The Boy Friend - Jun 1967 at the Wedgewood Dinner Theatre in Glen Cove, Long Island.
• The Penny Friend - Dec 1966 to Jan. 1967 at Stage 73.
• Riverwind - Jun to July 1966 at the Bucks County Playhouse. Apparently, she interrupted her run in Dames At Sea to take this summer stock engagement.
• Dames At Sea - May 1966 original off-off-Broadway production at the Caffe Cino. It ran for about sixteen weeks.
• 1965 Summer Stock - Jun 1965 at the Mt Gretna Playhouse in Lebanon County, Pa. She played Leisl in The Sound Of Music and Jenny in Riverwind.
• 1962 Gypsy in summer stock - Jun 1962 as Dainty June, with Betty Hutton as Rose, in a production that was staged in Pennsylvania at the Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera and in Ohio on the Kenley circuit in Warren and Columbus.
• 1961 Gypsy - second National Tour - Sep 14, 1961 For approximately 5 months, Bernadette played one of the Hollywood Blondes (among other small parts) while understudying the role of Dainty June in the second National tour of "Gypsy". She met her music director and friend, Marvin Laird, on this tour.
• Gypsy mini-tour - Jun 1961 as Thelma and Hawaiian Girl in a summer Las Vegas production of Gypsy. The production opened at the Lambertville Music Circus in New Jersey before moving on to Las Vegas.
• 1959 The Most Happy Fella - Feb to March 1959 at New York City Center.

See: http://www.bernadette-peters.com/cgi-bin/timeline.pl?cat=4&search= -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely aware of her career, in case it is not rather obvious. This posting is somewhat insulting to me, why not just revert my edit and give me a big red hand? And by the way, look at the names of the editors on your reference to a FAN SITE, say under "Gypsy -second National Tour - Sep 14, 1961"-look familiar?? JeanColumbia (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? Sorry, I don't understand. I know very well that you are an expert on Peters' career (one of the contributors signed "Jean"; I am guessing that's you), so I was surprised when you removed the word "selected", because it seems that she has been in productions other than those listed in the chart of stage productions. Am I not understanding something? BTW, what is a "big red hand?" I'm totally mystified here. Please WP:Assume good faith! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I shall be taking an indefinite wikibreak as of July 2, 2010 @ 6:10pm EDT.JeanColumbia (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awww. Hope you come back soon. DS (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Cohan

In April you added two citations to books published by Icon Group International to this article. Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are copied from Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my...thanks so much, I am trying very hard to get this reference stuff right, and I will add this to my [very small] store of knowledge!.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. A similar operation is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fences. I just did a Google search on this, and I wonder if someone is pulling our leg about the "American Folklore Hall of Fame". Can you tell if it's real? If not, we should get rid of the ref in George M. Cohan. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition lists

Wikipedia:MOSLIST#Definition lists

a definition list is used to markup definitions of terms

definition lists are really about rendering information in a manner consistent with Semantic HTML

definition lists are underused and not well understood by most editors

definition lists also can have more than one definition for a single term

Hi,

I see you just reformatted the list of songs on Assassins (musical). That was pretty much an exact undo of a change I'd made.

Your rationale in your edit summary focused on the appearance of the rendered text, using terms such as 'show', 'bold', 'italic', with emphasis "look". You did mis-link WP:BOLD, which I think we both are, and understand. I'd like to point you at Separation of presentation and content, too, because this is what underpins what I was doing: a song list is really about giving a definition-term, the song name, and then giving a definition of that term. This is a pretty good match for what a definition list is.

You seem to do a lot of editing in musical theatre pages, an area I know well, but only edit in occasionally. I see that you're focused on consistency across the whole spectrum of articles, and that is a good thing. Much of my focus is on proper structure of things. The key benefit to a definition list versus a bulleted list, is that it structures things such that the term and the definition are marked-up in the generated pages as distinct elements. This provides more information to things like tools; Googlebot is the obvious one, but all manner of wiki-bots that have not been developed yet will understand the distinction better with such markup. Building the wiki is about building a database and designing it's structure.

I'm not here to ask you to change it back. I know that the bulleted lists and italics are pretty much the norm. I just thought I should explain the distinction I was making. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, there certainly is a lot to think about. For the record, I am not at all computer-literate so a lot of stuff just flies over my head. A quick question, do you think that all of the song lists on the musical theatre articles (I don't know how many there are) should have the format you suggest for Assassins? If so, I am obviously not the one to talk to (I'm not even a member of the MT group), but that group might want to hear what you have to say. By the way, if you would like to revert to your format, or if you want me to self-revert my edits, let me know or go ahead--I do not insist that, just because "that's the way its done" need to be the only way.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this together. I'm not sure that switching them all over would be good. The alignment of song lists to definition lists is not exact, and the presentational aspects don't quite align with the MOS, which is too focused on appearance and too neutral on structure. The above is from a web developer perspective. That's what we're all doing: developing a website.

• See: Assassins (musical)#Characters

I used much the same dl-format. I'm not a member of WP:MT, have never even looked at it, until just now to see that it's not about Malta or Montana. I do know theatre; worked a production of Assassins, designed and hung the lighting for a serious production of Cabaret, and a lot of others, although I've done mostly dramas.

I'll leave it to you to go where you want with this. If it goes back to dl-form, adding italic on the titles would be appropriate; for the bulleted-list form, too, really. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jack: Please take this to the musical theatre discussion page if there is any intention to change what we have been doing. I do not think song lists should be bold. That would just take up more space, and there is no reason why the names of the songs should be bolder than text in other sections. Also, I do not think that character lists should be bold. And why does each character need two lines? The character descriptions should go right next to the character names, to keep it more compact. The list of characters is one of the least important parts of the article, since the characters are already supposed to be identified in the Synopisis. Best regards, -- Ssilvers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs)

Hi. Obviously, you've not considered most of what I posted about semantic structure; you have simply focused on the appearance. I've said I'm not going to push this, too. As to WP:MT, do you believe that it has any authority over articles related to musical theatre? It doesn't; see: Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of authority, it's just a place where more people can discuss a subject of common interest. Sorry, Jean to discuss this on your page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think this is interesting, glad to "host" it! (And, when I archive, as I will do in early September, I will keep it here.)JeanColumbia (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Question

Hi Jean, just a quick question if that's ok since Im not sure on this one. I removed a link to http://www.loveshoulddie.com/ in the external links of the Love never dies article. It is basically a hate website for the new phantom show. Someone since re-added it back in stating "Page necessary as several articles reference the website and group affiliated with this work of art". My theory is that this has no merit, as Wikipedia should be Neutral, and having this as a prominent external link has no merit. What do you think?Mark E (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaken by events, no response from me is needed (in other words, I'll keep my 2 pennies home).JeanColumbia (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How 2 succeed film

Are these changes Kosher? If not, please revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_Succeed_in_Business_Without_Really_Trying_%28film%29&action=historysubmit&diff=381801616&oldid=378582304 All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look later today; two caveats--I am not familiar with the movie, and I am really unsure/shaky on movie article structure & guidelines. (I am, however, familiar with Kosher!) JeanColumbia (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info box is now correct as far as I can see (just a minor typo plus another credit). The Cast list looks fine, good to see that what I guess are minor characters have been deleted. I can not comment on the Synopsis, I can not remember if I saw the movie and I have no resources (or time) to do any further checking. All in all, ok by me. (Of course it could use more references, but I am not inclined to take that on at this time.)JeanColumbia (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. Sounds good. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:South pacific film.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:South pacific film.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let this one go, I like the current image in the movie article.JeanColumbia (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

END

Newly archived talk page, through November 30, 2010:

Definition lists

Wikipedia:MOSLIST#Definition lists

a definition list is used to markup definitions of terms

definition lists are really about rendering information in a manner consistent with Semantic HTML

definition lists are underused and not well understood by most editors

definition lists also can have more than one definition for a single term

Hi,

I see you just reformatted the list of songs on Assassins (musical). That was pretty much an exact undo of a change I'd made.

Your rationale in your edit summary focused on the appearance of the rendered text, using terms such as 'show', 'bold', 'italic', with emphasis "look". You did mis-link WP:BOLD, which I think we both are, and understand. I'd like to point you at Separation of presentation and content, too, because this is what underpins what I was doing: a song list is really about giving a definition-term, the song name, and then giving a definition of that term. This is a pretty good match for what a definition list is.

You seem to do a lot of editing in musical theatre pages, an area I know well, but only edit in occasionally. I see that you're focused on consistency across the whole spectrum of articles, and that is a good thing. Much of my focus is on proper structure of things. The key benefit to a definition list versus a bulleted list, is that it structures things such that the term and the definition are marked-up in the generated pages as distinct elements. This provides more information to things like tools; Googlebot is the obvious one, but all manner of wiki-bots that have not been developed yet will understand the distinction better with such markup. Building the wiki is about building a database and designing it's structure.

I'm not here to ask you to change it back. I know that the bulleted lists and italics are pretty much the norm. I just thought I should explain the distinction I was making. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, there certainly is a lot to think about. For the record, I am not at all computer-literate so a lot of stuff just flies over my head. A quick question, do you think that all of the song lists on the musical theatre articles (I don't know how many there are) should have the format you suggest for Assassins? If so, I am obviously not the one to talk to (I'm not even a member of the MT group), but that group might want to hear what you have to say. By the way, if you would like to revert to your format, or if you want me to self-revert my edits, let me know or go ahead--I do not insist that, just because "that's the way its done" need to be the only way.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this together. I'm not sure that switching them all over would be good. The alignment of song lists to definition lists is not exact, and the presentational aspects don't quite align with the MOS, which is too focused on appearance and too neutral on structure. The above is from a web developer perspective. That's what we're all doing: developing a website.

• See: Assassins (musical)#Characters

I used much the same dl-format. I'm not a member of WP:MT, have never even looked at it, until just now to see that it's not about Malta or Montana. I do know theatre; worked a production of Assassins, designed and hung the lighting for a serious production of Cabaret, and a lot of others, although I've done mostly dramas.

I'll leave it to you to go where you want with this. If it goes back to dl-form, adding italic on the titles would be appropriate; for the bulleted-list form, too, really. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jack: Please take this to the musical theatre discussion page if there is any intention to change what we have been doing. I do not think song lists should be bold. That would just take up more space, and there is no reason why the names of the songs should be bolder than text in other sections. Also, I do not think that character lists should be bold. And why does each character need two lines? The character descriptions should go right next to the character names, to keep it more compact. The list of characters is one of the least important parts of the article, since the characters are already supposed to be identified in the Synopisis. Best regards, -- Ssilvers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs)

Hi. Obviously, you've not considered most of what I posted about semantic structure; you have simply focused on the appearance. I've said I'm not going to push this, too. As to WP:MT, do you believe that it has any authority over articles related to musical theatre? It doesn't; see: Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of authority, it's just a place where more people can discuss a subject of common interest. Sorry, Jean to discuss this on your page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think this is interesting, glad to "host" it! (And, when I archive, as I will do in early September, I will keep it here.)JeanColumbia (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen Sondheim

The numerous productions at opera houses, productions such as A Little Night Music and Sweeney Todd being for better singers than most of the inexperienced actors/singers on Broadway. On the Southbank Show (ITV) in 1979 before the Original London Production, Sondheim called Sweeney Todd "practically an opera". The acceptance of the classical community of Sondheim works.

In many languages, operetta and musicals and synonymous, and I think my reasons above are pretty much justifiable. (Jamesmarkhetterley (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As I said somewhere, I saw both Sweeney and ALNM ("usually performed" is simply not verified) at opera houses. But I do not make the call, that is the fundamental problem here, I am not the expert (nor, probably, are you). Basic features of Wikipedia are no original research WP:NOR and verifiablity WP:VERIFY; let's get reliable sources here. JeanColumbia (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is patently wrong to say that any Sondheim work is usually presented as an opera. This happens only occasionally. If you do the research you will see that this is so. Sondheim has said many things about his works when *asked* if they could be regarded as operas, but I do not think it is fair to say that he regards any of them as an opera. Indeed, he has most often said that they should *not* be presented as operas. In any case, James, the place for this sort of discussion, if you can find WP:Reliable sources, is the Stephen Sondheim talk page. I think, however, that you will find a strong consensus of editors who agree that Sondheim's works should not be categorized as operas or operettas. I know for a fact that the opera project members do not consider them to be operas or operettas. Also, I find your assertion that Broadway performers are not experienced enough singers to perform in Sweeney or ALNM to be unsupported. Sondheim thinks that Johhny Dep can sing Sweeney. Don't you think Brian Stokes Mitchell could do it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.JeanColumbia (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break

{{vacation}} (Will be back Septmber 27 for limited editing) JeanColumbia (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you were away

While you were away, someone added this to WP:MUSICALS (near the bottom of the page). I think you already use a tool like this, but you might prefer this one? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On September 10, someone made changes to Bernadette Peters. I made some proofreaders' changes, but I do not have an opinion on whether the new additions are all helpful or not. Please check it to see if you want to further streamline the new info, delete it, or keep it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to get to this, no earlier than October 1.JeanColumbia (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another break

Will be extremely limited in editing until mid-December

JeanColumbia (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another break

Flami72 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

JeanColumbia (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Linda Lavin. I added dates, links, etc. and some Intro stuff and promoted it to C-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I'm only on a partial break now, but very limited in time/energy/interests.JeanColumbia (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Musicals with Broadway under productions

I know that you deleted the word Broadway in the productions section of Catch Me if You Can article, but their are other musicals that have Broadway listed under productions like Wonderland: Alice's New Musical Adventure and Sister Act. If they can have Broadway listed under their productions, why can't Catch Me if You Can? And1987 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response on "And1987" talk page, but for the record, the upcoming production in the infobox in each of the cited articles has just been deleted by me, per WP:MUSICALS article structure.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma!

Is any/all of this right?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma!&action=historysubmit&diff=397931595&oldid=397514217 Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an odd coincidence, I saw Oklahoma! on Nov 21 (2010), and paid particular attention to this scene. These edits describe exactly what happens; I would not change a thing. (The production was quite wonderful, I am a sucker for R&H.) JeanColumbia (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Jean, I noticed how good you are with musical theatre articles, so I wanted to ask you a question regarding Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. It begins previews today, but in the infobox, where it says "productions", would you put "2010 Broadway" or wait until it officially opens, and then put "2011 Broadway"?

Or would you put "2010 Broadway" for now, and then change it later? Thanks.

--S.S. Miami (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, once that curtain goes up, even in previews, I'd put "2010 Broadway tryout". Of course, there may be some who disagree, but that is the way I interpret the guide @ [[2]]: " Future productions should not be included in the infobox, but only added after the production opens.". So, let's go ahead and put it in, I will not take it out! (By the way, I am enjoying seeing how the article is coming along, you and a few others are really doing a lovely job!). JeanColumbia (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Quartet

I thought you might be interested in helping me make the page for Million Dollar Quartet (musical). It's being worked on at User:JDDJS/Sandbox. --JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's ready, feel free to create it. JDDJS (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the plot section, but since I don't usually write plot summaries, you'll need to rewrite it when you can. JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New archives

Flower

Hi. User:Wehwalt and I have finished upgrading Flower Drum Song. I'd appreciate it if you would kindly review it and give us any comments you can come up with. All the best!

1)I did not know that we were now showing the film in the infobox and the film cast in the "Cast" table. I can remember some talk about not showing either in Musical theatre articles, although there is no specific instruction in the MT article structure guidelines.

2) I find the image of Hammerstein in the "Synopsis (1958 plot)" puzzling and (maybe) just misplaced. I knw why you want his image, but, perhaps not in this section.

3) The Theatre World Award, Theatre Los Angeles Ovation Award, Drama League Award nomination, and Grammy Awards are not referenced (look at the talk page, I think I put a link to a few refs for some of them there).

I have to leave in 2 hours & have a few things to do before then. I expect to be able to look at this more closely this evening or tomorrow afternoon.

Oh, nice job, I've been following the progression of the article (but, why THIS musical? How about an important Sondheim or, of course, another landmark musical like Oklahoma! or Show Boat?).

JeanColumbia (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments: 1) I prefer NOT to have the film in the infobox, mostly because I think infoboxes should be as short as possible, since they take up valuable space at the beginning of articles. I would encourage you to give your opinion about it either way on the FAC page or the talk page, as this FA may be a useful model for other articles going forward. I think it's OK to include it in the cast table if it fits in neatly, as it does here, since it does not look very crufty. 2) Hammerstein and Fields wrote the plot, so It doesn't bother me, but where would you suggest putting it? 3) Good point. Done, I think. As to why this musical, I guess it was because Wehwalt bought the Lewis book and decided that he wanted to do it. He asked me to help, and I said sure. However, improving this R&H musical may make it easier for us to improve the others. That's one of the weirdest things about Wikipedia - there might be a stub about something of massive importance and an FA about Creatures of Impulse (I didn't pick that one either!). Looking forward to your further comments. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. Also I thought that Flower Drum Song would be a useful toe in the water, to establish a path for future R&H. I would really like to do Carousel, but I am snowed with projects so it is unlikely this year. I have never been a huge fan of Oklahoma! btw, that one has always left me cold ... feel free to help out but FAC is a time when major alterations should not be undertaken. Once the star is in the upper right corner, we can relax and do any work without pressure.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)Film in infobox & cast list--since there is no specific guideline against this, I would have to say that the article meets the guidelines. Therefore I will not raise this in the context of the FAC on the article, this is not the proper place to raise it (if I ever do); 2)image of Hammerstein -- since you have given it thought and the principal editor(s) are in agreement, it is ok with me if it stays. No further comments, the article reads very well! JeanColumbia (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Is there any chance you could weigh in at the FAC and let them know you've reviewed the article and found it satisfactory, and if possible let them know your view on whether it should be promoted or not? Ssilvers and I are starting to discuss doing Carousel after the new year, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gave my support (for some reason, it did not occur to me that an editor, not at all experienced with the FAC process, could-or should- give comments!). Oh good, I love Carousel, I cannot help much (In addition to being busy, I do not like to work on details) but, of course, I will be eagerly reading.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the Hytner production, and the carousel came together on stage, there was just this gasp from the audience. Yes, we will be relying on your practiced eye even if you can't help out. That will be a big assistance by itself. There is also a book out there (I haven't read it yet) about the genesis of South Pacific.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jean. I would like to revisit the issue of the film in the infobox, after the FA. I don't think it's really appropriate, and we have plenty of other links to the film article in this article, so I would vote to take it out. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, film in infobox issue (and maybe in cast lists as well) on my agenda, but not until Flower passes FA and not until I get my mid-winter break.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Drum Song has been promoted! Thanks for your help and advice. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, cast party in the sandbox tonight, now that they've cleaned up from the drunken ArbCom candidate celebrations!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on Carousel but it will take some time; I had to order a couple of sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Wicked (musical)

I just wanted to compliment your work on Wicked (musical). I've been trimming all the superflous stuff for months now, battling against dozens of Wicked fans who want to add more trivia. Nice to know I'm not the only one on the field.--Dmol (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, both of you. I trimmed a bit more tonight. It's a neverending battle for truth, justice and the defeat of fancruft. Is there a better tag that could be used at the top warning people not to add non-notable info? Also, I'd like to delete the list of international productions from the infobox and just put in "International productions". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'll take a break from this article today, but will keep an eye out for "stuff". To Ssilvers: please, delete the extensive list of international productions in the infobox per your comment. (Infoboxes really require almost as much grooming as a Himalayan cat!) JeanColumbia (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let's see how long it lasts! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma!

Are these changes ok? I'm not sure - shorter is better, but are these details important? I think we have to give an idea of how Jud tries to kill Curley. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, the little wonder is actually made much of in the show; I also like having a reason for the dream sequence, otherwise Laurie seems, well, just goofy. Reverted.JeanColumbia (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oz

Thanks. If you want to be totally boggled by people, see this. This editor changed a couple of dozen articles because s/he thinks it is a violation of "IP" to say that someone "created" a role. See "Role creators" at the bottom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I'm over the limit and had to revert my own edit. Can you please take a look? Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the 1987 version. It's hard to tell from the description whether a couple of these versions are based on the RSC musical, so I left a couple of hidden comments. If you have a chance, see if you can clear up the mystery. No rush, of course. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added more info to the 1987 article last week. See if it looks ok to you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the info on the ice show (and fixing the misplaced sentence! - sorry, if I made that mistake). It doesn't really look like the 1987 RSC script. Do you think we should just leave it where it is anyway? Alternatively, we could just copy it into The Wizard of Oz (adaptations) article. I don't think it really needs its own article. No big deal, either way, but I thought I would see what you think about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel

I have not yet worked on the production section. That is usually the hardest, so I am saving it for last. I think this should work out even better than FDS; there's just so much more meaning to Carousel and so much more has been said about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not plan on doing much (if anything) else on the article --unless invited to the party. I did want to get that West End section cleared up, it's been on my mind for a while. (Oh, this is one of my favorite of the R&H musicals, I am enjoying reading what you've done so far.) JeanColumbia (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to come in, feel free. I never mind collaborators.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're up. [3].--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I hope you are enjoying a a lovely holiday season. Best wishes for a happy, healthy and Wikicallifragilistic new year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Oh! I'm sorry. Considering the fact that I'm quite new to this "editing" thing, I didn't know about "referencing". Thanks for the links to read about it. This minor error isn't going to affect my editing eligibility, right? Thanks! Informationadvocate (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBDB

Hi. I can't find the guideline, but it seems to be accepted that IBDB should not generally be used as an inline reference; only as an external link. If an article advances to the GA or FA level, inline cites to IBDB inline are usually deleted. So I try to find something else to cite if I can. Here's the guideline on IMDB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb but I can't find the one on IBDB. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#IBDB I can't find any guideline against it, so I guess ignore my comment here. Sorry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, actually glad to have those references. I try to find other sources but when I can't I use IBDB. Thanks for looking out for me.JeanColumbia (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have more than the word of one editor, distinguished though he be, I would rather avoid IBDB, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, W, this was not about Carousel. But do you know of any reason why IBDB is not an RS? I looked around a bit and couldn't find anything except some people at various FACs who said they didn't like it, but didn't say why. Unlike IMDB, for instance, IBDB content is posted by editors, rather than users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, obviously it would be nice if it was usable but I don't need the aggravation of being the test case!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pyant‎

I put up a quick stub on Paul Pyant‎, because I wanted to link him in the Carousel article, and he obviously deserves an article. I'm not very proud of it, so if the spirit moves you, please wade in. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly looked at the article, it looks ok for a quick article. If you want, we could add his Tony/Drama Desk nominations. Also, I could probably reference some of his work, with newspaper articles or books, but that will take some time. Depends on how much referencing you want. I think it would be good to find some quotes on his work. I'd also like to see the ballet/opera expanded. Just depends on how important it is to you to have a more complete, "properly" referenced article. I really do not have the time for the work, could help a little within the next few weeks if you need it. (I think I'll do the awards right now while I'm in the room, so to speak!)JeanColumbia (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with your analysis. A couple of references to independent sources would be helpful, but once we have verified the basic facts, I am not inclined to spend much time on this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz

I have taken the cast list change to the talk page, if you want to discuss it there and now. DarkDancer06 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oz 1942

Hello, Jean. I put up a short synopsis that seems safe, based on the description here and the plot summary of the novel. Can you add any details, or do you think I made any mistakes? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this either later today, or, football willing, tonight. (Safe is good!)JeanColumbia (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie (film)

I split this off to its own article and added links to the disambiguation page and all the actors and other people from the film who had been linked to the musical's article. Then I shortened the info about it in the musical's article. You may want to add a song list with the movie's songs. Let me know if I made a mistake and you need me to clean something up. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I watched this movie maybe 6 months ago, and I could not follow the plot! Now I know why! At first glance the article looks good. I'll do a song list. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Leave It to Me!

On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leave It to Me!, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gene Kelly's first Broadway appearance was in the 1938 musical Leave It to Me!? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lerner and Loewe

I see you've been brushing up their musicals. Did you feel bad for them because R&H were getting a lot of attention?  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Shop

What do you think of this?: [4]. I think the plot summary is long enough already, but do you think this is needed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand (since I've never seen the stage or film musical), it does not seem to add anything -- to me -- as someone looking at the plot without knowing anything about the story. Seems a bit dramatic, but does not "set the stage", so to speak, as I want the first sentence of a plot to do. Sorry I can't be more helpful, maybe I'll get the movie and watch it some day.JeanColumbia (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a very entertaining show, and the movie is a good version, even though it cuts a bit of the music. I would definitely recommend the movie. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Broadway vs. Off Broadway

An editor has made dozens of changes to remove the hyphen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.174.87.29 As I noted at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS, I think it probably should have the hyphen. Otherwise, when it appears in the middle of the sentence, it looks like this: "Pat went to see a play at an Off Broadway theater." Or, "It was playing Off Broadway in New York." What do you think? Certainly in the first case, I think it needs the hyphen, and in the second case, it doesn't hurt. I would also rename the article Off Broadway to Off-Broadway. But I don't want to do it until I get at least your advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those changes, my head spun around and I literally walked away from this! It's Off-Broadway per Actors Equity (with the hyphen)[5], the League of Off-Broadway Theatres and Producers (as you pointed out), and the Lortel Database. If it matters, Playbill uses the hyphen, while the NY Times does not seem to (spot check). I can not deal with this IP, I am simply no good with this kind of thing, but I will back you 100% (it amazes me that an IP can so casually make massive changes without asking/discussing/wondering). Let's at least try for a consensus to change the title of the main article to "Off-Broadway". JeanColumbia (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please comment on the talk page at Off Broadway, so that everyone can see your opinion. Also, if you disagree with this, feel free to revert or revise. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you agree with this edit? I think the body of the article supports the previous version. Any thoughts? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no thoughts either way, except that you are in for an interesting voyage should you revert or change (in any way) the editor's wording.JeanColumbia (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but if a good argument is supported by multiple editors, it should prevail.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that! (and soon...)JeanColumbia (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie

The move discussion has been renewed. Please comment at the bottom of the talk page, either way. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment, I do not know what to think, I am, sadly, totally confused as to this entire title/naming process. (I am, also, about 1 week from a Spring wikibreak, during which time I will be on extremely limited reading/editing/commenting.) JeanColumbia (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that, if Snowman moves the page, then to find the article about the musical, people will first see the disambiguation page and then have to click on Rosalie (musical). Not a disaster, surely, but if it's not what you want, then you can prevent it. Since you're the only other active editor on the page, your comment is essential if you don't want him to move the page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request your input on an article plz :-)

I want to put a synopsis of the show The Wedding Singer (musical), but I see that summaries have been removed many times due to copyvio. I wrote a draft on the talk page, and I want to know what you think of it. I did not copy and paste any part of it, I swear to you.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Wingdude88 talk page (in summary, go ahead and put the synopsis into the article).JeanColumbia (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::Alright, thank you! But I have one more question: With my current synopsis, I left out a subplot or two, and that means I won't have all songs included in the synopsis. Is that fine, or do I have to include the subplots?--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignore my response above....) Thank you very much! I spellchecked the synopsis, fit as many songs as I could in it, and paragraphed it accordingly. It should be good. Anyway, enjoy your WikiBreak and enjoy the Super Bowl!--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive talk page through JUne 1, 2011

I am taking a short wikibreak as of February 7, 2011, until some time in May; it's the Spring semester (but I may have some time for minor work).JeanColumbia (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have 2 minutes, on wikibreak again.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy and quite pleased to say that my wikibreak has finally started, after being delayed for a day by some of the cold powdery white stuff--will be back in mid-May (except for dire emergencies)JeanColumbia (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed to say that I do not seem to need a wikibreak, although my happy activites continue, will see how it goes, still will be limited (just adjusting sleep, eating and uh oh, tmi.)JeanColumbia (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me and Juliet 1953.jpg

This file has been removed from the article Me and Juliet after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Use_of_image_of_record_cover_in_more_comprehensive_article and is now subject to deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The School Girl

I think it is a pun on "french bun" - just a pretty young thing, I guess, but I don't have a definitive cite. That's what the cast list says. It's used in the novel Vanity Fair here, so it was a common expression. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! google translates "bonne" as "housemaid", but I like the pun; actually I was thinking of a young and pretty girl, kind of flirty, very oh-la-la! maybe a pretty parlour maid (ok my imagination has taken over).JeanColumbia (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you think! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait!

Before you run into that beautiful sunset, please comment at Talk:Musical theatre on the EL issue. This person wants to slash all the ELs, even though I already culled several of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a break from your break, it would be super if you could add a reference or two to the Musical theatre article's "International" section, particularly the last paragraph about the "other" places with a thriving musical theatre scene. Maybe one of your books mentions it? No rush. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the books I own have this kind of international theatre material (I own 3 books on Sondheim, also 1 on Follies--the Chapin--1 by Lorna Luft and 1 by John Clum.) I think this will require just the kind of research that I don't have the time--or, honestly--the energy--for right now. I will try to get to this in late May but I make no promises, as May and into mid-June will also be busy for me. (And in July, well, I'll "Sail Away". Hmm, I seem to have over-subscribed my time!) (Oh, glad that things turned out satisfactorily last night.)JeanColumbia (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Unfortunately, this editor is demanding that we do things now, so if he ever stops with the procedural stuff, I'll be able to make some time to roll up my sleeves and try to find some more refs. Thanks for the kind words. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Musical theatre regarding the current proposal. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Me and Juliet 1953.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Me and Juliet 1953.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Sail Away edit

Hi JeanColumbia :-) My apologies for taking so long to reply. I've just had another look at my edit and it mentions David appearing as John in the London Savoy production only. As far as I know, it was Elaine Stritch who appeared in both the Broadway & London productions. Cheers Bluedelta25 Bluedelta25 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) (PS Have left same message on my talk page.)[reply]

Larry Hochman

Hi! Since you do a lot of editing in the musical theatre area, I was wondering if you (and any editors you know that might be interested) could help expand the Larry Hochman article? It's actually pretty short now, considering all the credits listed in the websites from the 'external links' section. Happy editing! --Bialytock&Bloom (talk)

DuBarry Was a Lady

You are right, thanks for the insight. Savolya (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimusical

What do you think of this article? Should it (i) just sit there as a stub (and/or remove the merge tag), (ii) be merged into musical theatre, (iii) be deleted as useless, (iv) be expanded (I haven't seen much more to say about it), (v) none of the above, (vi) your ad goes here? I put a merge tag on it more than a year ago, but that did not generate any discussion, except one comment by the creator on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the time right now to work on this. Has the proposed merger been listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? Have you asked for comments at the musical theatre article discussion page? Is there some urgency to needing to do something with the article? (I will be super busy through, probably, March 23 evening, but may be able to pop in now and then.)JeanColumbia (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No urgency at all. Feel free to respond whenever it is most convenient to you. I can't remember any more where else I listed this proposed merger. I may bring it up again at the musicals project talk page, but I figured that if anyone had an informed opinion, it would be you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm about to leave for an afternoon class, I'll try to look at it over the weekend but it may take me a while to figure this out, and as I mentioned, I'm really busy till next week (and my head can only hold so much!).JeanColumbia (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. Yes, I believe that is how our friends from across the pond would put it. I hereby award you the "above-and-beyond-the-call of inter-continental accommodation" award for this.  :-) On another subject, Time magazine did a feature on the Mormon musical by the South Park guys. I have it here and will look to see if I can cite it in the article. This is sort of an interesting Broadway season, what with The Book of Mormon, Spidey, and lots of openings, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the season seems interesting, but I haven't really been inspired to make the long trip to see anything; I did see Good People and was completely captivated by the performances -- everyone in the cast is superb. Probably will try for War Horse, but time is limted & it's a limited run, so...JeanColumbia (talk)

Musical theatre

What do you think of the most recent changes there? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that all of the recent changes were deleted. I do not have the time in the next few days to carefully look at them, but with just a quick look my first reaction is that deletion was the correct action. (I may change my mind with more time/analysis, but until April 8 I'm on limited wiki time.)JeanColumbia (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had the same feeling about it. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Chenoweth again

Great work on Chenoweth. We have added about 70 refs to the article since March 5, and the article is much more encyclopedic now, thanks in large part to your hard work and super research skills. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Passion 1994.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Passion 1994.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Project collaboration

Hello! You are invited to participate in the Theatre Project's Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500 hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

Vandal @ Barbara Streisand

Hello Flami72
FYI Editor Mhansonpoop (talk · contribs) was already BOT reported at Usernames for administrator attention. I gave them a welcome, a warning, and added a note at UAA regarding their BLP vandalism. You beat me to the rest of their vandalism too! 'Juiciest' vandalism I've seen for some time, so I wanted to revert it. >;-/ <Mock indignation> Happy editing! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Pacific

I saw that you've been working on this, so I gave it a once over. There was no mention of the 1955 City Center production (IBDB considers City Center to be a Broadway house at that time), which I added. We could ref IBDB, but a newspaper or playbill ref would be better if you have one. I also added more about the racial prejudice theme. There is plenty still to do on this article, but you are making great progress. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article looks great; frankly I've done virtually nothing on the article except for a little referencing & minor housekeeping. School is really busy again, and I am extremely busy in May and June (and will be floating away in part of July). I do not like to use "too busy" as an excuse, but I simply cannot do good work when I am otherwise occupied, so I will not be doing much work on South Pacific, or anything else, until August.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great summer! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out to be fairly easy to reference those productions.JeanColumbia (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette

I thought you might like this:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5wOd2aGxdU
• And 30 years earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuBs-tHKyZc&feature=related !
• One more: http://www.raceonbroadway.com/broadway-shows/broadway-baby-by-bernadette-peters/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks; I have the tape of the Royal Festival Hall London concert--as a matter of fact I saw her perform that very same (or similar) concert in late November 1996; quite a show! And, of course, I've seen her do Fever in concert several times, and even have that on tape also. I adore All that Jazz, I watch it every so often, it reminds me how very much she changed over the years, and also how, if she wanted to, she could have moved even more into full-fledged musical-comedy-dance. Those Carol Burnett Shows were terrific,I have some on tape. (I think, with her later work, she got away from the dance part.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more observation--Bernadette is wonderfully silly and goofy, and more than a little "over-the-top", but in recent performances (most especially Follies) she is quite subtle and nuanced--perhaps reflecting the role, perhaps the woman. But, always emotionally raw and vulnerable. JeanColumbia (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though she always had this gun in her holster. See her 1992 Tonight Show performance. Really subtle and beautiful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you mean the show where she sang "Come Rain Or Come Shine" and "What'll I Do", I have worn out my tape of that Carson tv program--she is demonstrating, at that point, a wonderful grasp of showing restraint while still being emotional and vulnerable. JeanColumbia (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Her performance of "What'll I do" is particularly beautiful. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Some Enchanted Evening (song)

I didn't even realize this was a piped title till someone just disambiguated it on the South Pacific article. As a frequent editor on that article, you may wish to opine on the Requested move discussion. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

END