Talk:The Will Rogers Follies

Synopsis
This synopsis was cut from the article today and condensed into one paragraph in the intro. This needs to be edited into a synopsis section with a reasonable amount of detail.

Each episode in Will Rogers' life is told through a production number. Will often speaks directly to the audience and to Mr. Ziegfeld, who isn't always happy with the way the show progresses. For example, after detailing his childhood, he mentions how he left home to see the world. Mr. Ziegfeld interrupts him and tells him he has to "meet the girl," and Rogers more or less says, "Oh, yeah, I did meet Betty Blake at about this time." We then are introduced to Betty Blake ourselves--she's sitting on the moon, mooning. Because Betty is impatient to marry Will, the show skips forward several years, at which point Will is playing in a two-bit wild west show. They're about to be married--but Mr. Ziegfeld intervenes again: the wedding can't take place yet because the wedding should end the first act, and the first act hasn't ended yet, so... time rapidly goes by, during which Will grows more successful and they have four kids as they travel around the country. Then Will is invited to join the Ziegfeld Follies, and time warps again into the 1910's, where he's become a big vaudeville and radio star and is about to embark on a journey to Hollywood. But the first act is ending, so now the wedding takes place.Internet Broadway Database listing

Act two shows Rogers at the peak of his popularity--so popular that he's actually asked to run for President. Meanwhile, Betty is feeling neglected and sings the blues, but Will returns with "a treasury of precious jewels" (and a parallel production number). The mood is spoiled by bill collectors and creditors; Ziegfeld is broke, and the Depression is upon them. At Herbert Hoover's request, Rogers delivers a speech to the nation. Later, he reconciles with his estranged father. And, finally, he goes on that fateful plane ride with Wiley Post (who has been popping into the show every so often with the cheerful refrain, "Let's go flyin'!") -- Ssilvers 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at adding a plot synopsis section. I reworked and reworded a few things. Thanks -Broadwaygal 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sslivers, the original synopsis sounded like it was written by a ten-year-old. It was rewritten to be clear and concise, with none of the major facts eliminated. Your belief that more is better sadly is blinding you to the fact that bad writing requires judicious editing. And no, a separate synopsis section is not mandatory . . . please see WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, where it clearly states "Below you will find the suggested structure of Articles pertaining to works of Musical Theatre on Wikipeda. Please note that this is the suggested structure and is not written in stone."
 * How sad that you spend your days trailing after me in order to rewrite my work instead of trying to show a little creativity of your own. How did you waste your time before you discovered me??? SFTVLGUY2 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Inserted new "synopsis" section edited from the one that Broadway Gal had put in earlier today. User:SFTVLGUY2, please stop deleting synopsis sections and other materials from Wikipedia articles. Also see WP:LEAD for the types of information that are appropriate in introduction sections. -- Ssilvers 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is yet another in a growing list of articles in which you took no interest until I improved them in a style which upsets your personal sensibilities. How often must I cite WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, where it clearly states "Below you will find the suggested structure of Articles pertaining to works of Musical Theatre on Wikipeda. Please note that this is the suggested structure and is not written in stone."??? Please refer to the definition of "suggested" in a dictionary and stop editing my work to conform to your desired way of doing things. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SFTVLGUY2: Please stop deleting Synopsis sections from WP articles on Musicals. -- Ssilvers 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop ignoring my discussions and continuing to do as you please. You do not control the musical theatre project. SFTVLGUY2 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring them. No one agrees with your approach to articles on musicals.  These articles need a WP:LEAD followed by adequate sections on background/productions (if significant enough to get their own sections), the plot, character/casting information, song list, analysis of the book and score, awards information, references and external links.  Everyone agrees with that except you.  Please do not delete this type of information from musical theatre articles.  -- Ssilvers 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to add my two cents here, if you will, as both a Wikipedian and an avid theatre buff. I definitely agree that there ought to be separate intro and synopsis sections. That just makes logical sense for this type of article. The intro gives you a major overview (who wrote the play, what its run dates were, major stars, genre). The synopsis, on the other hand, is a detailed view of the story which is invaluable but far too detailed to be crammed together with the intro material. I've come to Wikipedia Theatre articles for both types of info in the past and I'll be heartily annoyed if the nice break into intro and synopsis sections is systematically deleted from all the theatre articles. Please leave it as the suggested format suggests!Estreya 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Estreya. The into and synopsis in the SSilvers version are of the right length and detail. Sftvlguy2's version is brief, but misses some of the information users (well I, at any rate) would hope to find in an article about a show. I think, on balance and within reason, the more relevant information the better. I'd vote with SSilvers and Estreya. Tim Riley 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Estreya. I added a character list. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents (as well)
I am also an avid musical theater fan, as well as a former theater professional. I am occasionally quite dissapointed in Wikipedia's coverage of these topics and would hope we could all work together to expand this coverage.

I basically agree totally with Estreya. Wikipedia's coverage of musicals needs to be expanded, but it should take strongly into account the needs of hypothetical readers. There are two kinds of "questions" to be answered by articles about musicals. The first is sort of brief (What is the musical about? Is this the musical I'm thinking of?) and should be answered by a brief description of content and style in the lead paragraph. Mere composer/lyricist details are not really enough, nor are production details (as those change.)

The second "question" is really a set of really specific questions, unique to each reader: Plot details, song details, production histories, major story and character arcs. Cultural references, the popular succes of individuals songs. Revivals, movie versions...all of this is best answered by additional sections, well written, with great detail. This is the general format not just of Wikipedia articles about musicals, but nearly all Wikipedia articles, especially those about fictional works of any kind. I agree, somewhat, that the longer version of the synopsis needs some style touch-ups. But that is an argument for good editing, not for outright removal. The point of working on these articles (at least for me personally) is to raise their quality while expanding them, not to merely remove sections that need work.

As a side note, and not to play the heavy here, but please don't let this devolve into some kind of edit war. Although no one appears to have violated the 3 revert rule there has been a heck of a lot more reverting than discussing. I will not hesitate to protect this article to force productive discussion on the talk page if excessive reverting continues. Cheers. Dina 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the article is better with the synopsis than with the condensed overview in the introduction. I'm not familiar with the show in question, but SFTVLGUY2's condensed version feels rushed, and needlessly vague when compared with the synopsis it replaced. I am a bit concerned by the somewhat heated discussion, however, as well as the fact that SFTVLGUY2's first reversion to this article contains the summary "Reverted unnecessary changes by Ssilvers" before Ssilvers appears in the edit history at all... if there are multiple accounts in play here, or if there is previous history between these two authors, then I recommend prudence on both sides. - Brian Kendig 18:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They're Playing Our Song
Here's another article where he deleted the synopsis and headings. Can someone restore a synopsis and headings to that article so we can all edit it and try to improve that article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I await the day you actually write an original article instead of spending your time only editing the work of others. You had no interest in any of the articles I've enhanced prior to my working on them . . . why is that? Why do you track all my contributions and then edit them to your liking instead of doing something creative with your time? I can cite dozens of musical theatre articles that were no more than a handful of sentences and now are complete thanks to me.
 * Adding this comment about a show that has nothing to do with The Will Rogers Follies proves you're determined to stir up trouble. Others have warned you to stop this practice and I suggest you heed them. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SFTVLGUY2: Please stop destroying information in musical theatre articles. It must be crystal clear to you from the comments above and from those of User:SandyGeorgia and others (see, for example, here) that no one agrees with you on your deletion of synopses and other information in musical theatre articles. Everyone agrees that such articles should follow the guidelines referred to above, such as WP:LEAD and should have separate sections for background/productions and synopses, as well as including infoboxes and adequate character/cast information naming all the principal roles. As you also know from our interactions over the last many months, I have created many articles on Wikipedia, so your continued insults are unfair. Please be WP:CIVIL. I added this notice here because several people who are apparently interested in musicals have posted here, so this is as good a place as any on Wikipedia to try to find someone who is interested in collaborating on articles about musicals. Since you and I disagree on the basic approach to the structure and content of musicals articles, a collaborative approach is the best one. -- Ssilvers 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you both follow the process delineated in Resolving disputes with all due haste. - Brian Kendig 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've done steps one and two. How do we get a mediation? -- Ssilvers 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See Requests for mediation for instructions. - Brian Kendig 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support mediation here. This is becoming a bit too personal, and it makes it difficult for other editors to even enter the specific disputes, because, well, it seems so much more about your personal conflict.  You both are passionate and knowledgable about the subject, and frankly don't seem like unreasonable people, so I believe that mediation is a good step. Cheers. Dina 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis
This synopsis is often identical to that found on RationalMagic.com. That page is (c)2002. Is this a problem? -- 11 June 2007 24.188.188.15


 * Thanks. I've gone through the text to make sure that the language no longer copies from this synopsis (which is seen on many websites).  Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 12:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Will rogers.jpg
Image:Will rogers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Will Rogers Follies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610130027/http://www.willrogers.org/follies.html to http://www.willrogers.org/follies.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)