Talk:Pal Joey (novel)

I support the split
It makes good sense to create Pal Joey (film). There are plenty of differences between the novel and the film, and plenty enough info for the film to be able to stand as its own article. For that matter, there should probably also be a Pal Joey (musical) J. Van Meter 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok gang, the musical section of this article is now approaching something out of the talkinbroadway.com chat page. The information on this Rodgers and Hart (it's not a "Greenberg play") musical should be moved to the existing Pal Joey (play) page, which really really needs to be renamed Pal Joey (musical). Information about an 'expected' revival, regardless of the newspaper mentions, should be kept to an absolute minimum. J. Van Meter 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point in regard to supporting the creation of a separate film article: right now, every single link to this article in is reference to the film, not the novel. J. Van Meter 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pal Joey
I had no opinion on whether to split the movie and play, but thanks for taking the lead, J. Van Meter. Now, do you think the novel should be separated from this article? Also, The Plot summary was written (some of it by me) with both the play and film in the same article, but with these now in separate articles, perhaps the Plot summary could use a fuller explanation of some of the plot points--what do you think? (I can do it later tonight, if you'd like, although it shouldn't be too hard.) JeanColumbia 12:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added most of the material about the possible revival on the musical play--I've been thinking of shortening the paragraph, it's gotten unwieldy. Again, I'll be glad to rewrite, but later. (Not sure this comment belongs here, may move it when I get the time)

JeanColumbia 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - as I said above, I definitely think the film should be a separate article. Every link that's left to this page is about the film not the book. Now, I'm not sure whether they should be called "Pal Joey (novel)" and "Pal Joey (film)", or if the novel should stay plain "Pal Joey" or if it deserves a disambig page or what. Both the film plot and the movie plot sections could sure use some more filling out -- if you have the time to get to those it would be terrific. J. Van Meter 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Split Film and Book
I added to both the stage and film articles, they aren't perfect by any means, but at least they can now each stand on their own and have most of the info that I think should be there. I'm still thinking about an info box for the stage article--not sure how useful it is.

After giving this some thought, I agree that the film and book should be split. The film can stand on its own. The book section needs more work. I'd like to see the film titled "Pal Joey (film)" just to make it perfectly clear. I don't know enough about "disambig", but perhaps start out with the book simply "Pal Joey" and see what comments (if any) or problems arise. JeanColumbia 11:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be fine: keep the novel article here and titled "Pal Joey" and move the film section to it's own article called Pal Joey (film). Should I move it, or do you want to?J. Van Meter 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

==
 * Great...you had better move it--I don't know enough to do it.

JeanColumbia 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)