Talk:New Girl in Town

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

Deleted infobox, etc.[edit]

I really liked the song list, so I kept that rather than reverting back to the previous version but I really, really hate it when the synopsis is merged into the introduction! It doesn't make sense as it is far too much detail for an overview sentence or two (the purpose of the intro section). Also, the info box is fantastic for those of us who use Wikipedia musical articles to find out how many performances or which theatre or who choreographed, etc. Please quit deleting the separation into sections of this information!Estreya 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is some info hidden in the infobox, though. Can anyone fix it? -- Ssilvers 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Info box. I've used the "Infobox Musical 2", and it has only the information that is visible in this article-in other words, the other information, such as "open" "close" "producer", etc etc will not show in the Infobox musical 2--they are in the old "Infobox musical". I wish I could point to a reference but I can't seem to find a clear reference as to just what is in the "Infobox Musical 2", the only way I know what is in it is by looking at some of the articles that used it to see what is there. In other words, I think there is no way to make the information visible. Just as a test, I took off the designation "2", previewed the article, and all of the "hidden" items appeared.

If one wants all of the information to be visible, simply not using the "2" box will accomplish that. (I don't want to get into whether that is accepted policy, however!)JeanColumbia 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here is a link that shows what is included in the Musicals 2 infobox: [1]
Is there any hidden information that everyone agrees ought to be showing? If so, we could either take off the "2", or we could add that info into the text of the introduction. Either way is fine with me. -- Ssilvers 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to know the choreographer (these are musicals, that seems to me to be a given), dates open and close, don't care about the producer (but I probably should), scenery and costumes are sometimes very important, oher times not so much, so I guess it depends. I wonder why these fields were left out of the new "2" box? At any rate, easy enough to include all of these in the opening lead, or in a "Production" section.JeanColumbia 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the director as a piece of information I consider essential.JeanColumbia
Thinking about it, it seems to me that since those items are specific to each production, it is better to mention them in the production section (or whereever the information about the productions are in the article). In this article, director/choreographer and dates are all mentioned in the introduction. If you think any other production info is notable here, feel free to copy it out of the hidden infobox info. So, I guess I think the infobox 2 is a good format, because it deals with the info that is constant for all productions. As you say, any production-specific information can go in the body of the text. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SYNOPSIS[edit]

I find it confusing to have the storyline thrown at the reader right at the start, when he would probably rather collect the credits (source, director, authors, etc.) and prepare him- or herself for the plot. This is a somewhat forgotten but very major show--major people, but also an attempt by musical-comedy folk to tackle a serious story in the Rodgers and Hammerstein manner. Segregating the synopsis would also invite editors to emend and refine it, which they really can't do when it's right at the top of the article. Also: the heroine's love interest is not Matt but Mat (as in the O'Neill play) and he was played by George Wallace--not George D. Wallace or G. D. Wallace, though he used all three names at various times.Fred Lane 06:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Per Estreya's and Fred Lane's comments, above, I am separating out the synopsis and adding info to the introduction per WP:LEAD, which states, "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Ssilver's edits resulted in an article that repeated a number of facts TWICE. While the suggestion that a synopsis be placed in a separate section because it's "confusing" otherwise and difficult to amend if it's "right at the top" seems odd - I would assume the average reader would recognize a synopsis as such without a headline explaining what it is, and any part of an article is open to editing, no matter where it is - I am willing to concede it should be so designated, but the repetition of info and a discussion of the production in an illogical, non-chronological order makes no sense. Also, I have found few articles about musicals or plays that list a cast of characters and find doing so to be of little value. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a Playbill. And by the way - my original edit spelled "Mat" correctly, but Ssilvers changed it with the claim I was wrong. SFTVLGUY2 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD requires that facts in the introductory section be repeated in more detail in the body of the article, as in the synopsis, history and character list sections. You are the only editor on Wikipedia that does not agree with this non-optional guideline and the basic article structure detailed on the article structure page at WP:MUSICALS, including a separate background section. It also makes sense to include a list of characters and information about which characters sang each song, unless the synopsis is very clear in giving all this information. It doesn't matter that you find it of little value, everyone else finds it to be valuable. However, you can't be wrong all the time, and it turns out that you were right about the spelling of "Mat". You were right, and I was wrong in that instance. However, you are entirely wrong in your newest edit, and I am reverting it. Please stop removing required information from musicals articles.

There are existing guidelines for the musical theatre project at WP:MUSICALS under "Article structure":here, which encourage:

  • a separate plot summary;
  • background/genesis of the work;
  • original and subsequent producton and casting information;
  • song list and character information
  • musical and dramatic analysis
  • critical reception
  • adaptations
  • recordings
  • refrencing
By separating sections this way, it becomes apparent what is still needed in the article and encourages editors to improve the article. In addition to the detailed Film project guidelines on the subject, the Opera project and G&S project guidelines WP:G&S are very useful with respect to similar issues that arise in these types of musical theatre, such as list of songs/musical numbers and role/character list. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Opera articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and plot summary[edit]

In general, SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs) — having watched your work now on several musical articles for about a month — I am becoming concerned that a Request for Comment might be warranted regarding your editing practices and the damage I've seen across the board on musical theatre articles.

I often need information about Musical Theatre; I have never yet encountered an article on Wiki which gives the detail I need, and find I must use other Google sources whenever I look up a play or musical. I am wondering why this is happening, and having watched several articles over the last month, I'm now seeing what is perhaps the explanation.

You seem to consistently go against established Wikipedia guidelines (like WP:LEAD), I've seen you delete information while labeling it as adding info in your edit summary, and you don't seem to have any sense of referencing requirements per WP:CITE and WP:RS when you either delete, change or add material. The musical theatre articles are in trouble across the board because of some of this editing.

While the Musical Theatre Project itself is weak (due to a lack of membership), you might look at some of the guidelines used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films for guidance on issues like lead, plot summaries, and production info; they are a strong Project, have numerous featured and good articles (of which the Musical Project not surprisingly has none), and it would be a good Project for you to peruse in terms of understanding how some of your editing practices are against consensus and weakening the MT articles. My sense is that you've not read WP:LEAD.

Here are the Film Project Style guidelines, here is some information about how to use plot summaries, and you can find a sample tag of information they request on stub articles at Talk:I Have Tourette's But Tourette's Doesn't Have Me.

By deleting other information and summarizing the plot into what should be the WP:LEAD, you not only violate WP:LEAD, but also go against WP:IINFO. A plot summary needs to be but one part of a comprehensive article, which should include several sections. Then, as in all articles, the lead needs to be a stand-alone summary of the entire article — not just a plot summary.

Across the board, I am finding cast, production and other info being deleted from MT articles, while the lead is being turned into an extended plot summary, comprising the entire article. This goes against the guidelines and practices I've mentioned above, and IMO, the MT articles are being seriously, systematically, and extensively damaged.

I hope you will refocus your efforts on building comprehensive MT articles with an adapted structure similar to that used by Films (or the structure suggested at the MT Project), and focus on referencing content additions while using the LEAD as it should be used — to write a compelling stand-alone summary of the rest of the hopefully comprehensive article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SandyGeorgia. Numerous musical theatre articles have suffered deletions of information by this editor, including those listed below (the dates specified are dates from the history page where information was deleted, often with an edit summary like "clean-up" or even "added info"). Synopses, infoboxes, cast information, external links, character/role information, headings and other information has been deleted, and all the rest is shoved, together with a one-paragraph description of the plot, into a long, unbroken introduction section. See for example:

Also, nearly all of the musical theatre articles that are listed at User:SFTVLGUY2 follow the same format: An unbroken block of text containing a perfunctory plot description and production/background information, followed by a song list, awards information, and a reference to the IBDB database and perhaps one other reference.

Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I must remind you these are suggested guidelines, not mandates, and were formulated by people who abandoned the musical theatre project long ago. WP:LEAD, WP:IINFO, and the like also provide suggestions rather than mandatory rules and regulations. Your insistence that one must rigidly follow old guidelines instead of considering new ones is puzzling. I strongly believe the following sequence I always follow is a valid and logical one, given the facts are presented in chronological order:
  • The work's creators
  • A brief plot synopsis
  • Development stage and rehearsal period anecdotes if available
  • Original production details, including dates, venue, creative team, cast, noteworthy cast replacements later in the run, and cast album info
  • West End production details
  • Major revival production details
  • Song list
  • Awards and nominations list
  • Film adaptation details, if a separate article is not warranted
  • References and external links
A "musical and dramatic analysis" requires a POV and as such is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. I would also like to mention that Ssilver's lengthy elaborate plot summaries (that include everything except the stage directions) are unlike anything I have seen in published musical theatre encyclopedias. Furthermore, if the principal characters are described within the synopsis, why must a separate character list be added? It's redundant and does nothing more than support Ssilver's theory that longer (and cluttered) is better.
I strongly resent the accusation that my work has "seriously, systematically, and extensively damaged" the musical theatre articles when I have created more new articles than any other editor, especially coming from someone who reverted my most recent edits to this article to a badly written version that repeats facts, such as production details and Tony Award winners, twice. How do you justify that? If the Musical Theatre Project is weak due to a lack of membership, may I suggest you not bite the hand that feeds it on a daily basis? I wouldn't mind criticism from editors consistently contributing original work, but when it comes from someone who does little more than make changes usually riddled with grammatical and punctuation errors to existing articles, I don't find it to be especially constructive.
If Ssilver spent as much time creating new articles as he does reviewing my contributions, there would be far less gaps in the musical theatre project. His taking the time to list my edits as he did above is pathetic. In every instance he cited, the article after my edits was far better than it was prior to them. Some were mere sentences before I enhanced them. And may I once again ask why he never took any interest in them until I worked on them? Why didn't he care enough to improve them before I did? His major contrubution to Wikipedia appears to be kvetching about my work rather than doing much of his own.
In conclusion, I would like to invite SandyGeorgia to review some of my original work and advise me what crucial info is missing so I can add it and thereby spare her from Googling the subject at hand. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I disagree with nearly every assertion that User:SFTVLGUY2 makes above, and I stand by the statement that SFTVLGUY2 continues to delete information from musical theatre articles and continues to shove the information he deems necessary into unbroken block of text at the top of articles. It is particularly objectionable that SFTVLGUY2 tries to cover up his deletions by using misleading edit summaries. The edit history of this article, New Girl in Town, is a good example of how he first deletes information and reorganizes what is left to create the type of start-class article that he prefers, then resists the improvement and expansion of articles until multiple editors come along to support the article's proper expansion. Hello, Dolly! (musical) is another good example of this. I believe that SFTVLGUY2 simply does not understand the purpose of the various guidelines described above about how to write a good musical theatre article and does not understand the principle of WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing Ssilver's list above (time better spent creating new articles), I find he has misrepresented many of my edits, either intentionally or because he simply didn't take the time to compare versions. External links were removed because they were broken or no longer existed; infoboxes were removed because they applied to a film adaptation and did not belong in an article whose primary focus was a stage production; synopses were never removed, but were rewritten to remove poor grammar and incorrect punctuation and spelling; character lists were removed because they simply reiterated names already stated within the synopsis. I invite anyone to review the version of these articles immediately prior to my edits and see my changes greatly enhanced them, despite Ssilver's claims. SFTVLGUY2 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is less that you don't respect article structure per Guidelines such as WP:LEAD, and more that you continue to *delete* information from articles, leaving one big plot summary where the lead should go, using no hierarchy for the articles at all. While it's commendable that you've created so many stubs, the bigger concern is ongoing damage to existing articles. I was hoping you would consider the process of taking some of your articles to WP:GAC to how they fare ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today SFTVLGUY2 again deleted the "synopsis", "references" and "external links" sections at La Cava, with the edit summary "Removed red links". This is an excellent example of what we are discussing here. See also his edits today at Nunsense. Comments, please. -- Ssilvers 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added diffs: La Cava Nunsense SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I would hardly call the 400+ articles I've created "stubs" as they all contain a considerable amount of info. Furthermore, the majority of existing articles I've edited were badly written or contained no more than a handful of sentences (a recent article I expanded had only one!). And please stop accusing me of "deleting" material when the truth of the matter is I either simply rearrange it into sensible chronological order or, if I do remove it, I do so with valid reason (such as external links that lead nowhere).
SSilvers has a nasty habit of claiming I "removed" a synopsis when in fact I simply rewrote it (he obviously resents the fact I correct multiple grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors in most of what he writes, which I believe is the real source of his sour grapes) or removed unnecessary subheads from a brief article that doesn't require them. In the case of La Cava, I'm the one who included the synopsis in the first place when I initially edited the article. The external links were removed in error and have been reverted. As for the references, why does someone who added no info to an article persist in adding references? Aren't they supposed to be cited by the individual who used them for research? More importantly, why would anyone spend so much time objecting to and changing formats that are not mandatory? Today alone I wrote 'four new articles. What has he done besides nitpick??? I find all this drama quite childish and tiresome and truly a waste of my valuable time. As long as Wikipedia remains open to the general public without demanding specific formats be followed, he has no right to complain about my contributions, especially when he never responds to issues I raise because he's so obsessed with his own. Why were none of these articles of any interest to him before I edited them??? If rewriting them using what he considers "proper" formats and structures is so important to him, why did he not take it upon himself to do so??? I find it sad that he would complain as much as he has about my hard work when he never made any effort to do any of it himself. SFTVLGUY2 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Some comments. Not in response to anyone but in general:
- There is at least one FA about musical theatre: Porgy and Bess. Granted, it wasn't one that the project actively constructed, but it's there and it seems to be in reasonably good shape and a good reference. So you see there's a fairly substantial synopsis there. As I see it, synopses are fine and desirable in articles as long as they're accurate, verifiable, and written well. This last point is the tough one. For some reason, synopses seem to lend themselves to colloquial, non-formal language more than most things. Something like that, in my opinion, should be deleted or rewritten on sight. Looking at the edit history, this synopsis was decent (except maybe the last sentence - "things are looking up again" seems altogther too pat and vague, but that's minor), not anywhere near overly extensive, and should be left in.
- Anyone can add references to an article. If the only person who could add references was the original writer, Wikipedia would have an even larger referencing problem than it already does. I'm not sure I see the problem here.
- I'm really not liking this denigration of stub articles. A good stub is better than a redlink. Someone going onto Wikipedia and finding a short article on a musical is far worse than that same person going onto Wikipedia and finding nothing. Of course, eventually it'd be great to have every single article be extremely thorough and FA-quality, but realistically, that isn't always possible, especially for minor musicals without much external information available. So I don't really agree with the "all you write are stubs. See?" comments. Crystallina 16:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're misunderstanding, Crystallina — writing stubs is not a problem. Stubbifying existing articles, converting them to only a lead section, which is mainly a synopsis with no other material or sections, while deleting other material, is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I probably was. I read a few comments as "this user only contributes stubs, which is a problem." Crystallina 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Crystallina. The problem is that the editor deletes information from existing articles and consolidates what is left into an unbroken block of text at the top of the article (in the order he describes above), stating that he need not follow guidelines such as WP:LEAD or the article structure guidlines of the musicals project (or the similar guidelines at the film, G&S and opera projects). He has stated his intention to continue to do this to more musical theatre articles, which would be a sad loss of information to Wikipedia. Also, as demonstrated by the edit history of this article, and articles such as Hello, Dolly! (musical) and Company (musical), he tries to prevent other editors from expanding articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this conflict, I must agree that you need to follow the guidelines, SFTVLGUY2. I've only reviewed some of your edits, but from what I have seen, there is no reason to rearrange the articles as you have. It is clear that the consensus among editors is to not include the synopsis in the lead but instead have a section for it.
I think we should all refrain from personal attacks, though. SFTVLGUY2 has made many valuable contributions, despite these issues. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

I think this should got to WP:RFC/USER, not because SFTVLGUY2 doesn't make valuable contributions, he is indeed a prolific and even valuable editor. I too have had cause to question his actions (with interests in the London theatre) but he generally has a clear rationale for them, so I assume WP:GF. There are few articles that do not benefit from editing, but as Ssilvers et al point out the degree of excision is leading to continual editing disputes and a loss to articles' coverage and verification.

I don't think the point of this is to sanction SFTVLGUY2 but to obtain clear guidelines from the editorial team as to the level of editing that is being engaged in and find some way forward based on WP:CONSENSUS. One of the reasons for looking for intervention is to increase the participation in the discussion and to seek an unbiased opinion.

I would also suggest that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre participants' list be updated. One of the aspirations there was to provide a detailed guide to musical theatre. Kbthompson 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Girl_in_Town&oldid=1202703010"