Talk:StarKid Productions

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atampir.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Past projects?
In the YouTube video "Treasures From the Past: Gollum," Nick Lang says they did a 2006 production of The Hobbit and a 2008 production of The Hobbit 2. My questions are: is a video a credible source for Wikipedia, and are those considered 'StarKid Potter' productions? (Seeing as 'StarKid Potter' comes from the script of 'A Very Potter Musical,' which hadn't been performed yet.) CatsAndBooks (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First as a general matter YouTube videos aren't considered reliable. There are exceptions but the better course is to look for something else.  For example, Team StarKid's own website, here.  They don't list either of those productions, so no, I wouldn't call them StarKid projects.  Also given that the Hobbit production was in 2006 and the article says the troupe was founded in 2007, something would have to give!  JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

History Section
The history section for the article is rather short. I feel that expanding this section could raise the quality of this article. Perhaps providing some background on how the members knew/met each other could be useful. Something else that could be of interest is the meaning behind the name of the troupe. Usually troupe names are picked for a reason. LJG81292 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AVPSY
will it be uploaded to YouTube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast/Crew Tables
Hi Eladkse!

I was giving some thought about the issue that you raised concerning the diminishing space left to insert additional musicals and cast members in one table.

I came up with 2 ideas:

1) We could eliminate the character column and simply list the cast members and the plays they were in. All the wiki links to the plays list the cast and the characters they played, so they have already been credited.

Example:

OR

2) I created below a possible table format we could use to include all the info.

Let me know what you think. Please leave your comments below. Thanks! Mimi C. (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Example:


 * I like the second idea a lot. Most of the actors play more than one character in a production, so cells get rather cramped in the current layout. This is a much better way of displaying the information, and resolves both issues nicley. My only concern would be the amount of lines such a table uses - from the mock up I've made (link below), it's almost twice as long.
 * In the interests of making the table easier to edit (the code for your suggestion is a lot more complex than a standard table), perhaps we should render it using a series of templates? Something similar to this format:


 * This would render the code needed for that performer's row. I've made an example template here, which you can see in use on this page. Eladkse (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Even though we solved the width problem, I agree with you that the length of the table is quite an eyesore. I have a feeling that the only other option would be the first table I proposed, without listing the characters.

We could use the table below as well, but I think it looks too confusing, lumping all the characters together.

BTW, I am hopeless with table formatting/templates etc... :-) I simply move move codes/text around until the table looks right to me. Feel free to use whatever template is easier for you. Mimi C. (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's still a WIP, but check out this new layout I came up with: link. Eladkse (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I love it! Brilliant formatting! Is there a way of putting a main "expand all" link at the top of the table for someone who wishes to see all the credits at once, instead of individually? Mimi C. (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it, but collapsible elements is quite limited in what I can do without MediaWiki access. I can't even center align the buttons to make them easier to see. Eladkse (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Afraid I can't do a expand/collapse all. The script just isn't there for it.
 * Is there anything else you think may need tweaking? I don't plan on changing the article until we are perfectly happy with the table. Eladkse (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, we can use the template you designed above. You might want to apply it to the other tables in the article, since they are also getting longer. Mimi C. (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. No doubt someone will complain sand start citing half a dozen rules, but I think it's for the best.
 * Looking over the article as a whole, I notice how much of it is just tables of information. I feel there needs to be more written prose - the history section should cover a lot more than what it does at least. Thoughts? Eladkse (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And as predicted, I already have two speedy deletes to sort out. Apparently main namespace subpages are not allowed, so I'm going to have to put them elsewhere. No biggy, but expect further incidents the future. :D Eladkse (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. It's not that namespace subpages aren't allowed, but that support for them has been disabled in the MediaWiki instance used by English Wikipedia. So if you try to create a page with a forward slash in it, you won't get a subpage but a page with a slash in it, like GNU/Linux, and the pages created weren't subpages, just empty, misnamed articles in the main article space. The problem of crowding stems mainly from the page being a bit too long: see WP:DETAIL. A detailed listing of crew is appropriate for a site like IMDB, which wants as much detail as possible about its specialist focus, but not for Wikipedia. The Musical_theater_productions section could also usefully be split off to a separate article. There are also several lists that should be converted to WP:PROSE. Happy to help with any of this. Altered Walter (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No help is needed, but thanks. We're already planning an substantial expansion of the prose, and productions list is one of the things that is being integrated. It just takes time. We also plan to drop a few of the less notable tables (do we really need to mention conventions?), and while I acknowledge your views on the cast table (again), there are no plans for it to be changed at this time. Eladkse (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that you personally don't want to drop the cast table, but I'd like to hear from other editors though, to avoid WP:Ownership issues. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've converted "Musical theater productions" and "Concert tours" from wikitables to simple bulleted lists, since each entry has its own article. Both sections are now much easier to read. Altered Walter (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've now done the same for "Concerts and conventions". Altered Walter (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, look. I really appreciate having a fresh pair of eyes on the article - I really do; regardless of any tone some of my messages my present. And I have taken onboard a lot of feedback from you, and it will be put to good use in the rewrite. However, you're making major changes without even consulting the two main editors of the article. As I have told you already, we have a plan. We're going to be doing a lot of rewriting in sandboxes to set the article straight. But what I need now is your cooperation. I asking you to please take your foot of this, and allow us to work on the article. Eladkse (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, with thanks! And I agree fully about fresh pairs of eyes: many eyeballs make better articles. But I don't put my foot on anything or up anyone: I know that you, and now User:Mimi C. are working on drafts in sandboxes. That's fine: once you're happy with the drafts, feel free to overwrite my quick tidy-ups with the improved re-writes from the sandboxes. But as Mimi C. noted two days ago, it was way too heavy with tables. No need to starve the article while we wait for dinner to arrive. :-) Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

productions
With so many productions, might it be better to put them in a table rather than a bulleted list? Because currently, it's a rather unwieldy blob of text to my eyes. Also, perhaps start a section for unproduced work like AVP-Xmas? Irvek (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And only include the notable ones along with this article is way out of control with the name dropping and adding non-notable stuff that should just be found on their website and not an encyclopedia. I removed a lot of the information, but I am sure I missed some. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Woah.... I have to respectfully disagree with and revert the change you've made. You've removed large amounts of useful information on what seems to be a rather arbitrary basis.
 * Let's break this down a little:
 * Musicals/works - you've basically removed all post-2011 works of this group from the article, and I'm not entirely sure why. What makes these later works any less notable than the earlier ones? They certainly all have articles which were linked to. They could do with a few more citations perhaps, but overall I would say that a list of a group's work, with a little information about each, is a fairly reasonable thing to have in an article.
 * Members - yeah, this is getting a bit ridiculous. It was okay a few years ago when there were fewer works and fewer contributors. However, your removal of everyone who isn't notable enough for their own article is equally ridiculous. Of these six people who are left - two have had appearances in only one of the shows, and only one (Richter) is considered to be a 'regular' member of the group (Criss pretty much parted ways after the Harry Potter shows).
 * Perhaps instead we could reduce this section by only including those with X or more appearances. There is a core set of members who appear quite regularly. However, this still has potential of excluding some notable names (the ever popular Criss for example, as well as most of those six with articles). I feel we must also consider the fact that people will just re-add names to the article anyway - fans who don't know and/or care for discussion or Wikipedia guidelines and just want to have the names of their favourite members on the article. I don't want to be the one policing this page.
 * Principle crew - I'm not particularly fussed about this, as they're mostly covered in the respective articles. However, we could perhaps reformat some of this information into prose about regular writing and musical contributors.
 * This article hasn't been very well maintained. Partially my fault - I have very little interest maintaining it anymore, and it ends up being eroded somewhat by fans who don't understand how Wikipedia works. However, I can't see the justification for such radical change without even a discussion. Eladkse (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am fine with most of what you have mentioned, as for the productions, I included the ones that made notable mentions in such things as the billboard awards, which seemed to be all the early ones.
 * I am good just including the core actors, if they are only mentioned once. We don't need to include every time the did anything i.e. write, produce, film, etc. etc. I would also be in favor of removing the participants who have their own article but do not perform for the troupe.
 * I agree I do not want to be policing this page either. I came to it because I watch new editors and a new editor made a change to this page that I noticed, and wow it was bad, very difficult to read and for the notability of the troupe very long. I cleaned it up quickly because it seemed very promotional.  My personal belief is often less is more.
 * If you want to take a gander at the article since you seem to be familiar with it, that would be appreciated. If not I will try to clean it up the best I can when I have some time next week, knowing my philosophy of less is more. However I will try to take into account your thoughts.
 * My apologies if you feel like I gutted the article, I was doing what I felt is best for the article and making it less promotional and more encyclopedic. As I mentioned I don't have a strong feeling about this article, my strong feeling is to avoid promotion and fan overboarding (I think that should be a word).  VViking Talk Edits 00:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Apocalyptour
Too much detail about the tour, a paragraph at StarKid Productions would be sufficient. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the tour is not independently notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The tour itself does not stand on its own as notable. Of Apocalyptour's five current sources, one is from StarKid's YouTube channel, one from AnnArbor.com (where StarKid was founded), and two from StarKid's own website. Also, none of the 15 or so performers listed in the article, except guest performer and StarKid's co-founder Darren Criss, are notable. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The merger proposal…
 * Support the tour is not independently notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The tour itself does not stand on its own as notable. Of Apocalyptour's five current sources, one is from StarKid's YouTube channel, one from AnnArbor.com (where StarKid was founded), and two from StarKid's own website. Also, none of the 15 or so performers listed in the article, except guest performer and StarKid's co-founder Darren Criss, are notable. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Atampir (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"It's being touted as..."
This wording in the "Firebringer" section is probably not ideal, since "touted" has certain aggressive connotations. It may be better to use "presented" or "advertised." However, if those connotations are intended, it may be best to explain why it is that way. For example, was there backlash against calling "Firebringer" the 10th full-length show? Was the company angry at people assuming it was not being seen as the 10th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfishbennet (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed "touted" to "presented", as I also found that the original connotation to be more on the aggressive side as well. Atampir (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello! I am looking into some improvements for this article from an editorial standpoint for one of my courses this semester. I have some ideas in mind for edits that should help the page. One of the edits I plan to work on is the finalization of the merging of Apocalyptour with StarKid Productions. I would also like to revisit the Talk:StarKid Productions discussion, as I think the information would be helpful for the article. Other edits I plan to do are things like adjusting the tone of the article to be more encyclopedic, as well as fixing some organizational issues. Please feel free to reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns! Atampir (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up StarKid Productions and removed some of the empty spaces in the columns while putting the chart positions in the Notes column. It does need some citations. Atampir (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reduced some of the information in StarKid Productions so the descriptions were more uniform, and took out information that was more suited for the articles for the individual shows. Atampir (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Cast Member Segment Removal
I was wondering if the cast members segment of the page is necessary as each page has it's own dedicated page where the cast is listed. At the current moment it takes up a significant amount of space on the page. AbiiMaryy (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)