User talk:LiteraryMaven/Archive 1

Notability of Summer Brave
Since this encyclopedia is intended to educate, why subjects are notable is a central requirement of articles, so that the uninformed can grasp the significance of the subject. Please use verifiable, reliable sources when doing so. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relax; it's just my perception. If you disagree that more information needs to be added, simply remove the tag, and explain your reasoning on the talk page.  Admins don't actually have power, you know. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source; therefore the burden of evidence is on article creators and editors to prove that what is said in the articles is fact. WP:NOTE:Wikipedia's criteria on notability states that multiple sources are generaCobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly HOW I'm exerting "power," so in protest to such an allegation I'd like for you to address my concerns directly. This is a request from one editor to another.  Notability on Wikipedia involves strict adherence to the notability criteria by use of verifiable, reliable sources -- usually more than one -- and not undocumented opinions.  This is not a personal affront; it is a request for scholarly documentation for the intellectual elucidation of Wikipedia readers.  I don't understand why this is a problem. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a decent source and added it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin article
LiteraryMaven, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your critiques on the layout of the Aaron Sorkin article. I am going to take them into consideration. Maybe the introduction could be significantly shortened.Homely Features (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your first experiences editing
Dear LM, yes, I can imagine that you did find it a little intimidating. It's important to remember, though, that all of us here are motivated by a common desire to make the site better. Inevitably you'll disagree with others sometimes, but despite our disagreements, we're all here for the same reason and share a common goal. The theatre articles in general aren't in such great shape, so I hope you haven't been discouraged from contributing further. While I would disagree with some of the interpretations of the Wikipedia guidelines you've been offered, nonetheless there is an important point buried in all the to-ing and frowing: that you have to assume that your reader is profoundly skeptical of everything you write. The only way to reassure him/her is to provide a source for anything you want to add. That way, they can go off and check the facts for themselves. I know this can seem a little strange to a newcomer, since there's a fair amount on the site that isn't properly sourced. We all want Wikipedia to be a reliable, accessible (and free!) source of information for everyone out there, so when/if you encounter a challenge from another editor, remember that this is what's behind it, and that it's ultimately a goal that you both share. I hope you do feel like contributing further, and let me know if there's anything I can offer my two-penny's worth of advice on. Do add yourself to the Wikiproject participants list too. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, sure, if I'm around, I don't mind answering any questions you might have but I'm probably not the most knowledgeable. You really improved the article about Noel Coward's play "Cavalcade (play)". I don't know enough about Noel Coward but have something of his on my shelf that I will have to make the time to read now.Homely Features (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

private lives
hello. there are/were a couple of things wrong with your extensive edits i found it necessary restore. one thing to watch out for is overlinking...particularly within the infobox, and with dates. also i replaced editing templates you removed, and reformatted date expressions and re-ordered lists all within wp:mos guidelines. please also note that it customary to discuss before reverting. --emerson7 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * with regard to the 'Tony Award Best Actress in a Play;: some simply copy/paste from the usage from imdb [here. i prefer 'Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play'. --[[User talk:emerson7|emerson7]] 15:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * a couple things...discussions should be added to the article's talk page...also check out wp:overlink. was that the name of the category when it was awarded? most of the tony have undergone several name changes. --emerson7 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i moved the discussion to the talk page here where further comments are easier to follow. --emerson7 15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm really not sure why you taking this in an ugly direction. it's not necessary. if you want to discuss this issue, we can...but i don't want it to devolve into tit-for-tat sniping. cheers. --emerson7 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Good work on Private Lives. Can you please add in-line cites to the Background and Production sections (See WP:CITE)? All you have to do is put this after the statement or quote: Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Same Time, Next Year
i have moved the data intact from the article for the play. i can only work on one at a time. i honestly don't understand why you are taking this whole thing so personally...it simply is not. --emerson7 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * you are being disruptive. if you continue, you will be reported to administrators. --emerson7 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i would really prefer not to handle things this way, and i don't understand why you are behaving like this. the edits i made are standard and routine. unless you have a very good and specific reason for your reverts, i would ask to to stop. you have already received a 3rr warning, if you continue in this manner, i will report you. --emerson7 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Literary, thanks for the message. My advice is not to sweat the small stuff. If you disagree with Emerson's changes (and I think I agree with most of his/her de-linking changes), let them sit for a couple of days and look at them with fresh eyes. Wikipedia is discouraging linking of dates and many other things these days, unless the link would really be helpful to readers of the article. See WP:OVERLINK. Instead of worrying about the changes to relatively minor issues, work on major article content expansion and research and then come back to the areas of disagreement after you both have had a couple of days away from it. By the way, for British articles, like Noel Coward plays that ran in Britain first, the dates should be in British format, like "A Broadway producton opened on 10 November 2008". Opposite way for American plays: "Little Shop of Horrors ran on the West End from November 10, 2008 to...." Do yourself a favor: if an argument with a persistent editor is just about a style issue, don't revert more than once--there's no emergency! Be calm and deliberate and make your case on the talk page of the article and also at the project's talk page. If people agree with you, a consensus will develop to support your views. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the IMDB link is needed, since you have links to the film article. But there aren't too many links in the article, so it's a super insignificant issue - certainly not worth arguing about.  I suggest researching more sources, expanding the article, putting in citations to multiple relevant sources and making sure that the article has good history, synopsis and critical reception sections.  Then you can worry about weeding out any unnecessary links.  As I said before, there is no emergency or time pressure.  You can always reserve your right to argue about stylistic or other minor issues later.  When it does come time to argue about minor issues, look at other film articles that are FA-class articles and see what they do.  If they all treat a style issue one way, then you can argue that the best film articles on Wikipedia handle it the way that you suggest.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The film project has some helpful guidelines. The WP:MUSICALS project has other guidelines, and they are not exactly the same. I assume that the theatre project has their own set of guidelines. But WP:MOS is the main style manual for everyone. If you edit plays, you should review the Theatre project's guidelines. But everyone should review the WP:MOS. You can save yourself a lot of worry by not worrying too much about style disagreements and focusing on content. No one can argue with excellent content that is thoroughly referenced from multiple WP:reliable sources. :) Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Emerson7
Suggest you report this for community discussion at WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I too don't understand Emerson7's edits. He reverted an edit to the biography of Des McAnuff without any explanation. It was a good edit. And if there is something wrong with it, where's the explanation?Homely Features (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Emerson7 has recently been warned about 3RR on both the Entertaining Mr Sloane article as well as Same Time Next year article. Please assist.  Thanks!  207.237.228.71 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LM, I took a look at the Private Lives history, and the article seems in better shape now. Em7 is right about the date format with an English play (and it should be consistent throughout the article, even when discussing broadway) and the need for citations, but Wikipedia policy is clear about the wikilinking of the awards, which should go to the more detailed and specific article when one exists. The linking to the setting of the play should also be there, as many will not know the location. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Laurents
Hello. Although Laurents asserts he rejected all fundamentalist religions at an early age, according to his memoir he continues to identify himself as Jewish. I will clarify that fact and revert your edit. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hope I didn't step on toes - it just seemed odd that the very first paragraph said one thing while the cats said another.  Thanks for clarifying. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, why the Category:Ashkenazi Jews? There's been an IP editor that often adds that category (along with a few others) and I have no clue what that means or when it's appropriate.  For instance, Laurents' article doesn't say anything about "Ashkenazi" - is the cat correct?  Thanks! You can reply here to keep the conversation in one place. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! You didn't step on any toes at all - you pointed out what seemed to be a contradiction and I'm glad I had the chance to clarify things. Re: the category Category:Ashkenazi Jews, it was already there and I left it, but now that you raise the question I'm not sure if it applies to Laurents. The article Ashkenazi Jews defines them as "Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland in the west of Germany." Unless I've overlooked the mention in his memoir, Laurents makes no reference to where his grandparents on either side originated, so I'm going to remove that category until I or someone else can find material justifying its inclusion. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

West Side Story
Thanks for the message. I usually put the history/background section near the top, right after the LEAD section. Looking forward to your additions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice job. Check my changes, which are based on the background section that used to be in the article last year.  There were a lot of changes after my last edit in 2007 which were mostly, in my opinion, crufty and ill-advised, and I threw up my hands on the article.  If you go back to the last edit that I made in 2007, you may find a number of useful items in that version that could improve this one.  I'll watchlist the article, and if you go ahead and begin improving it again, I'll support you.  The long lists of references in film, TV, etc are not helpful.  A separate article on cultural references could be created, and then only the highlights could be discussed in this cultural references section.  Let me know if you want to take the bull by the horns here.  The article could be brought to GA class with some effort.  I don't have the energy or time to do it by myself.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude Lawrence
Hi and thanks for your note. You're right that stark lists are discouraged in general, but there are certain situations where it is part of WP:MOS and credits are one of those. Manual of Style (lists of works) shows one format and WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers takes it a step further to go beyond the straight list to an established format. We haven't really taken steps to further this to the MOS, mostly because no one to date has felt it necessary. If you'll look at any actor article that has been developed to any degree beyond the basics, all of them contain the filmography table in either the older suggested format or the newer one, like the table I had previously established in Lawrence's article for her film work. I've not had time lately to look at the Broadway/theatre credits, but anything that was incorrect or needed clarification could and would be done. I didn't compile the lists that were already there, I worked from what was there and what I could discern for what was there. If there are changes or additions, that's fine. I've had to deal with a fairly problematic sock puppet on this article as well as few others and I had really just taken a break from it. I don't object to your expansion of the article at all and am glad there is someone interested in doing so. My only real concern is the credits lists and the tabling, which is supported all around, in one form or another. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP Films is kind of an entity unto itself and I did know they weren't supportive of tabled cast lists. I'm in the project, but to be honest, I don't do much with it because it seems like there is a fairly solid group of editors who run it and what they think is usually what happens, regardless of how it fits in with other projects. Actors and Filmmakers is part of WP Biography, although quite often, people think we're a part of Film. Most projects do have their variation on the MOS and it is all valid, I think. Go ahead and do the work you want, but I will probably return the filmography table and table the theatre section when I can. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but if you look at Bernadette Peters, I think you'll see some lists of credits that make sense and could be referred to as a good example. The article is GA class. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Thanks for your message. Recently the MOS was changed, and we are no longer supposed to bluelink dates. If you do a lot of bio articles, you will see editors going through them systematically to remove the date links (but there are lots of bio articles, so it will take them awhile!) See WP:MOSNUM re: auto linking of dates. For the nationality link, the English link points to English people, rather than to England, which is at least somewhat more relevant. However, some experienced editors are now saying that nationality should not be linked at all any more, per WP:OVERLINK, so if you like it better, take out the link for both. Basically, now that Wikipedia is becoming more complete in its coverage, and most major subjects can be bluelinked, WP:OVERLINK is being enforced more, so that the only blue links that articles should have are when a link will really add to the understanding of the reader. If you follow a link to a date or nationality, you get a lot of random information that is not really relevant to understanding a biography. Makes sense? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely. I also prefer the bulleted list to the table.  We are all *generally* supposed to follow the MOS, and the various projects try to standardize styles within their projects.  But there may be several legitimate ways to do the same thing.  I usually try not to change other editors' styles, unless I think that something is generally being done in a particlular way, or there is a clear guideline.  However, once an article gets to the WP:Featured articles level, a large number of editors comment, and a strong effort is made to standardize style.  One good way to decide on how to handle an issue is to look for a similar WP:Feature article and see if that provides some good guidance.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Block
Hi, thanks for contacting me. The reason I did not indefinitely block the IP was because I always believe there is a chance that s/he will learn from the block and eventually constructively contribute. The IP did have some valid edits, but did continue with disruptive ones as well. I don't think I've blocked anyone indefinitely (I may be wrong, I've blocked a lot of IPs), and I try to usually begin with a day, then a week, and then usually a month. Of course this all depends on the severity of the edits and the timing duration. Let me know if you'd like further clarification. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Not sure how that happened, but I apologize.--Beth Wellington (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hours
I'd discuss the film if it didn't make me feel so full of despair whenever I've watched. It's a wonderful film, but it calls to my dark corners. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The funny thing about the film is that even after I had first seen it from Netflix and spent too long crying after, I still bought the DVD, and still have it. I watched it when the copy I bought arrived, and it has been on my shelf for what? Two years, probably. I make my living buying and selling DVDs, photos, CDs and the like, but I've never considered selling this. Perhaps I'm waiting for that sunny day when I feel up enough for it. It is a wonderfully photographed, conceived and written film, all of the actors gave stellar performances and when I've been asked, I've told people they should see it. (Of all the performances, I think of John C. Reilly's poor pathos-ridden beleaguered husband most often, but then he often plays characters like that and so well.) Sadly, the place that so many of the characters in the film visit is a place with which I'm familiar - it's not such a nice place to visit when you try so hard not to live there. I tend to think of this film much in the way I did Shakespeare in Love - a brilliant revisiting of something familiar, yet it gives one a whole new perspective on it. I'm glad you figured out that it wasn't someone cutting a film that need never be cut! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hello
Sorry about that, I decided to go to sleep before 1 AM for a change and did not proceed to block the IP when it violated the final warning :P. I have been enjoying the holidays recently and have mostly vandalfighted in the evening hours. Seems that IP has been doing that for some time though...let me know if the IP continues to do so after its 3 week block.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was apprehensive about using too long of a block, because the editor does make some valid edits. I hope that with the limited blocks I provide will motivate the IP to consider stop doing the actions that results in his/her blocks. However, for each successive time that the IP gets blocked, the length should be increased. Hopefully the IP will recognize that some of the edits he/she is making is not constructive. Thanks for the heads up and if you need help with anything else let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Evita
Tim Rice himself writes in Evita: Legend of Eva Peron that he considers The Woman with the Whip to be the only accurate book about Eva Peron. At any rate, the requirement was simply that I add a citation, which I have done. You may go to the Amazon.com listing and check for yourself to see that Fraser and Navarro indeed state that the musical is based on the Main book. As an editor, this is all that is required of me: to give a citation from a notable and scholarly book. The Fraser/Navarro book is perhaps the most respected biography of Evita available. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned already, my only requirement as a Wikipedia editor is to provide a notable and scholarly citation. I'm not responsible for whether other editors agree with the citation. That's between the other editors and the author of the work cited. Fraser/Navarro have claimed that the musical is based on the Main book. Rice himself has praised the book. Further, any researcher knows that at the time of the writing of the musical the Main book was the only biography of Eva Peron that was widely available. If I can help you any further, please let me know. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Revolutionary Road
Why does the table make the list difficult to read? I think it is clearer than if it was written in prose, since there is not a flow to it. There is less likelihood of prose that flows when a film gets more awards, like Milk. That is why I am okay with using a table format in this case. For a section like "Cast", I believe in permitting room for adding detail, but I don't think that's quite the case for the awards themselves. (The awards campaign for a film can go in a place like "Marketing".) What other format can be used? Writing with a simple list provides too much white space, as seen at Slumdog Millionaire. As for discussion, check out WT:FILM... we haven't talked about adding anything to the guidelines, but we have ideas. Feel free to comment on the discussion so far! (As for the bold line, I think that the 2px can be upped to 3px; maybe that should be the norm.) — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When I look at the "Awards and nominations" section of Slumdog Millionaire, there is a lot of white space to the right of all the items. With the table, the white space is reduced.  Plus, it is a better layout for left-right reading; the award can be seen, the categories, the names (if relevant), and the outcome.  For Milk, though... try to edit the section to remove the collapsible coding (which was added after I implemented the table) and preview it to see if the lines show up.  It's possible that the collapsible coding has an unexpected effect on the presentation of the table. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 02:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Star! (film)
Hi. I've restored the reference to this article for the Academy Award nominations. I've added an opening line explaining how many AAs it was nominated for. Your edit summary asked why do we need to reference it? Well why reference anything? You could edit the article and say it was nominated for 9 awards, and who would be any the wiser without an ex. ref backing it up? Removing credible reference sources to unreferenced facts could be viewed as vandalism.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that you did vandalize the article, but it could be viewed in that light. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. See the discussion here.  Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the source again. Howard Bristol is the first name under the "Nomination" heading and Walter Scott's name is about half-way down (3 above Levin's)!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Marley & Me
Looking over the article, I don't think that it is necessary at this point to lock the page. Although there were several cases of vandalism, it would be better to just keep an eye on the page. As I've been told/seen in the past, locking a page when the film has just been released, will make it look inaccessible to new potential editors who want to add to the article's content. It's better to allow a few instances of vandalism go through rather than turn away several editors who could improve the article or other parts of Wikipedia. Since the vandalism will likely be high over the next few days, I've added it to my watchlist to help you watch the page. If you have further questions on the situation, let me know and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was quickly heading out the door, and figured it was probably inaccurate (especially with it being Saturday!) but I thought it may be in the source. Thanks for fixing it, and good work on the article so far. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A Life of Her Own
Hi, I've looked at your DYK nom and I have raised this issue. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello
Ok, thats good. I've marked the DYK as good. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:JoeGouldDVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JoeGouldDVD.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi, thanks for your message. Sorry for not getting back to you until now, I have limited internet access at the moment. Yes I do think a report should be filed. I can try and do that this weekend if you like, although I may struggle as my internet is very intermittent at the moment, so if you want to go ahead, that's fine.

Userbox
Hi, just wondering why you oput an austrailan userbox in Userboxes/Media/Theatre. I noticed when I put my Bristol Old Vic box there. Did you mean to put it somewhere else? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting that out. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the Sea
I hope I am not being too bothersome with your comments at the talk page for Beyond the Sea. I just want to make sure that the discussion does not get out of hand. I encourage you to focus on one point at a time and to assume a more collaborative tone. "This is what I think... what do you think?" It's just the kind of approach that I learned since I began editing, since opinions will differ. — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you need any specific input about the film article. I'm busy the next few days, so just leave a note here if you want anything looked at. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Visitor
Hello, I noticed that you moved The Visitor (2008 film) to The Visitor (2007 film), and I don't think this was the right approach. While I understand that the film first screened at a film festival in 2007, it was not a public release. Per WP:NCF, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release." As we can see from the article, the film was ranked in some critics' top ten lists of 2008, so I think this reflects that it is best treated as a 2008 film. Would you be okay with me moving it back to the  disambiguation? — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A public release is synonymous with a commercial release, so films that tour film festivals are still "upcoming" films for us, the public. We are not able to access them because festival attendees are privileged.  With limited releases, proximity becomes the only issue... while a public release is far and limited, it is still accessible by the public.  If you look at the IMDb page for 300, IMDb marks it as 2006.  This is just the way IMDb is set up; it marks the year as the very first time a film's mostly-final cut is seen by anyone (usually the privileged festival attendees).  I can request a move at WP:RM; I just wanted to check with you about this.  I will have to pursue this for The Fall (2006 film), too, since it was in solely film festivals for 2006 and 2007 and was publicly released in 2008.  Hope everything is well with you, though! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Camboy
I have unblocked that IP. My decision to block was definitely too hasty, and the block was definitely too long. I apologize for that. Regarding the actual content dispute, however, I do strongly agree with Camboy that the filmography is an important part of the article on Nathan Gamble. Although I am only an occasional contributor to articles about films and actors, I have read lots of them, and lots of articles about actors have filmographies. Although Nathan Gamble's career has been short, the filmography does provide another way to organize the chronology of his career, and to mention the roles that he played. I think you should leave it alone. Any other issues with Camboy can be worked out more easily, and I'm definitely willing to help with that. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Way We Were
Hi,

I have no problem whatever with the first and third para in the intro, which are IMO models of their kind, but tone of the second paragraph is entirely wrong for an encyclopedia article. I understand if you don't want to change it, but it has to be changed. My problem is that I haven't seen the movie, and so can't replace the para in question with something more objective. Any ideas? Lexo (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again - I know what you mean by "analytical" in tone, but what I didn't like about it was that it was just someone gushing over the movie - all that stuff about his perfect cheekbones, etc. You get that a lot when fans of movies write articles about the movie.  One of my favourite WP guidelines is "Be bold": if you think that something needs to be done then go ahead and do it, and remember that if you do cut something and the consensus is that it was a bad cut, it can always be put back.  Deleted material is still there in the article history.  In this case I don't think that anyone but major "Way We Were" fans is going to miss that paragraph.  Cheers - Lexo (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Windy City
Hi--I replied to your note about the Windy City article; I'm not an official member of the MT project, I hope it's ok with you that I put the copy-vio template on the article. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

speedy
Please check the  statement of WP:CSD. Only an indication of notability has to be given to pass speedy. Otherwise, use prod or afd. personally, I'm guessing the Masterwork Choir and its director will pass afd also, but they do need better references. Why not look for them? See WP:BEFORE. DGG (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Southampton Operatic Society
WP:MUS? :-) All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AiW
Hello - i reverted your edit; WRT Alice-related articles, we have a standing policy in which we don't cite works which are still in production / have not yet been released to the public. Historically, we've only had to worry about people adding cinema but now, apparently, there will be theater as well. If you feel strongly that this work should be an exception to that policy, please bring it up for discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just saw this... I recommend starting discussion and citing WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." There is no good reason to deprive the readership of that information. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (It was totally classy to make a comment on the AiW talk page that i never responded to your question about 'we', even though i did.) Quaeler (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your message is ready to be picked up. Quaeler (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

removing wikilinks
Hi, WP:MOSFILM Linking only states one wikilink per section, not one per article. And if you choose to link any section, cast would be the place to do it.-- Terrillja talk  18:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the specific section in WP:MOSFILM where it states that. I previously have been told by experienced editors names should be wikilinked once in the infobox and once in the article; anything more is considered excessive. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Linking largely depends on editorial discretion. I have to agree with Terrillja in this case, that it is more appropriate to do one link per section, especially for longer sections.  The reason is that not all readers will read an article in chronological order.  A portion will "jump" directly to a particular section, such as "Reception".  So like I mentioned, if the sections tend to be long, redundant linking helps readers avoid backtracking.  So obviously for articles with brief sections (only one or two paragraphs), redundant linking isn't as necessary.  It depends a lot on how the article is structured and how much content exists for topic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The text of importance is:


 * Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section.

-- Terrillja talk  19:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the key phrase is "may be repeated" as opposed to "must or should be repeated." Erik's explanation makes sense, but I personally get annoyed when I see a link repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseum, perhaps because I tend to read an article in chronological order. Thanks for directing me to the right section. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you, we just have to consider who is looking around here, and how most people probably tend to skip around rather than read completely. Perhaps an eye motion study is in order? I did one once for another site, very interesting stuff. Either way, have a good day. -- Terrillja  talk  19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward
If you have time, would you kindly comment or vote on the Noel Coward FAC here?: Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for support and encouragement!  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nifty barnstar! Now back to my regularly scheduled G&S agenda. I'm working on H.M.S. Pinafore. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Nickleby links
Most of the articles put in the links for ease of reference.

Savolya (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Job!


Cssiitcic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Good Job! The article you wrote, So Big (1953 film) is very good! Congratulations! Way to go!--Cssiitcic (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I enjoy making people smile.Cssiitcic (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Design for Living
Thanks for your help. I added a little more. Would you say the article is C-class or start class now? If you think the former, go ahead and promote. Of course, if you can add any further improvements, even better. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am sorry to say that disagree with much of what you wrote.  You need to look at the forest, not just the trees of the project guidelines and the Wikipedia project goals:  1) Providing history that gives context for how a work came into being is not only appropriate but necessary if the article is ever to be expanded to its full potential.  It is essential to explain about the Hays Code and why Design for Living was able to make it through the censors that it would not have made it through after 1934.  It is also important to explain that the film is one of a series of famous films by Lubitsch and how it fits into his series of such films.  Perhaps I went too far, and we can discuss your concern with particular sentences on the article's talk page.  2) It is ABSOLUTELY OK to give a SOURCE's POV, just not our own, as long as attribution is given.  If you have more than one POV from multiple sources, you can say "Critic X says it's the greatest thing ever, but Critic Y says it sucks."  It is useful to tell readers what commentators believe about the work of art.  You wrote: "While a published analysis of film can be a good reference for factual information and can be cited as such, the analysis itself shouldn't find its way into the article."  I think that is absolutely wrong, as long as there is proper attribution.  I'm going to revert, and we can discuss particular points on the talk page after you consider what I say above.  Please do not revert wholesale, as this article needs to be stable for a few days.  Thanks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you put your objections on the article's talk page, other editors can join the discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the play, I'm not sure that all three are Americans. I thought that Coward's character was supposed to be British?  Lunt and Fontanne were New Yorkers, and the dialogue is the usual Coward sophisticated, urbane, cynical stuff.  The film, on the other hand, makes them exuberant, naive middle-Americans thrown into a fast-paced European capital.  Feel free to express this how you want, but the basic idea that needs to be conveyed is that the characters are much changed.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I certainly agree that it would be better to get the background information from 1) more than one source (always true); 2) books and major publications that are obviously WP:reliable sources. I think that this is a fairly high quality web source, since it comes from a theatre institute at a university, but the way the website is set up, we don't have much information about its editorial process; hence we are not sure of the level of its reliability. But its analysis is sensible on its face. The fact that your source may not be prestigious does not mean that you should not use the information (where, as here, we have not yet done sufficient research on other sources), unless you have reason to believe that the source is wrong or contains fringe theories, etc. So, I agree: after someone does a thorough research project on this film, they will no doubt find more and better sources and be able to replace this information with higher quality research. But in the meantime, it's what I found on a quick search. If you want to do more research, I am all for it. You should know that I am not interested in working on this article more. I generally focus on the G&S-related articles and early musical theatre, so I only created this article because it needed to be split off from the play's article (I was helping with the Noel Coward project). But I felt pretty bad when I saw that you had thrown away so much work that I had done, saying that part of it was irrelevant to this article (I disagree) and the other part was impermissible to use (again I disagree). The better procedure, I think, would be to quote, on the article's talk page, the material that you think should be deleted, and let the editors interested in the article discuss it first (unless it's obviously fancruft, etc.) It is normal for Wikipedia articles to evolve into better and better pieces as more sources are found, etc. But I don't think it is helpful to just discard a reasonable explanation of the history, context and analysis of a subject just because you think there are probably better sources for the same information somewhere in the world, until you do the research yourself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't know the nationalities of the characters in the Coward play. Their names are Otto Sylvus and Leo Mercuré.  In his book, Lahr devotes 17 pages to the play, but does not mention the names and nationalities.  It could be like in Boeing Boeing, where everyone is French.  But we don't know.  They are just young artistic people.  In the movie, a big deal is made about their being specifically American in Paris.  BTW, congratulations on your barnstar!  All the best -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Every source I've seen makes a big deal about how handsome Cooper was, and how it was a surprise to everyone that he was cast in the role. Both adjectives are cited. In addition to telling readers who, what, where and when, we need to tell them why these people were cast. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, Erik didn't say to delete the language, he said that the rationale "should be more clearly specified." -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Romantic Comedy
Hello! It is also a film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086205/ and I wasn't sure how to enter the info box without totally disrupting the page (that is why I put it on the film list) ;} D'Oh!! Just found the film page I should have looked first. Very sorry.l santry (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ah! thank youl santry (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That Lady in Ermine
Your hook is still in line to be used, and will be placed on the queue eventually. DYK always has a large backlog, though, and we tend to take the oldest hooks first (to keep them from getting too old, so it's normal for a hook to sit at Template talk:Did you know for several days after being approved and before being moved into the official queue. If the hook is still on the page, you have nothing to worry about; a hook is never removed without being reviewed, and once a hook is approved then it will go into the queue eventually. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation . . . I appreciate your taking the time to write. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rose Gregario
Hi there. I understand your perspective but I disagree. If you look at feature articles on actors, for example Judy Garland, you will notice that the personal life and professional life are appropriately intermingled. A seperation between the two is somewhat artificial because one's professional life is often influenced by one's personal life. Also, repetition of facts is not a good thing in my opinion per WP:Style. If you notice the marriage is mentioned under early career and not in the lead. Repetition of facts from the lead is fine but that is not the case here. Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WhenTheTreesWereTall.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WhenTheTreesWereTall.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Warren Beatty
There's no trick to it, all I did was cut the content from the filmography and paste it into the main article, then redirected the filmography. There's more detailed guidelines at WP:MERGE, but that's basically all there is too it. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Amityville Horror Sequel
It is being called "The Sequel to the 2005 remake of 'The Amityville Horror'. I believe this is the same info as the refrence but look at this: http://us.imdb.de/news/ni0652980/ We also decided a while back to keep that to the 2005 page for now. but I'll check with the people again on the main page.--Darkness2light (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The IMDb entry you cited above actually was copied from ShockTillYouDrop.com, which credits it to The Hollywood Reporter. The fact someone writing for that newspaper chooses to describe The Amityville Tapes as a sequel to the remake doesn't make it so. By its very definition, a sequel is a literary work or film that continues a story begun in a previous work. If The Anderson Tapes continued the saga of the Lutz family, it would qualify, but this is simply another rip-off trying to cash in on the Amityville Horror reputation. Note that the entry you cited continues, "Insiders tell us the next chapter in the Amityville franchise has been a priority for company in the last few months," which supports my belief that any information about this proposed film belongs in the main article for The Amityville Horror and should not be described as a sequel in the article about the 2005 remake. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a section on the discussion page of the main article. but I should tell you that none of the Amiityville films are sequels to each other. They are a series of films which is why they have "Proceeded and "Followed by". but I havee to check with the people who run the main page because last time I put it there they told me to put it on the 2005 page then someone created a article to soon and yeah. but good point.--Darkness2light (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Adolph" Hitler
Hitler's first name was Adolf, not Adolph. A literary maven should know that ;-) Kelisi (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why certainly. It was here. Kelisi (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Vantage Point
Hi! I don't think we should take opinions of things like that for verbatim, even it is from the cast and crew. Several directors or actors lump themselves up with genres or are against them with "Oh I don't really consider this a horror film" or such. I'm trying to keep it basic, so if you can find other sources citing it as an action film, make sure to label it by decade as action films are being cited by decade now.(Use Category:2000s action films) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming
"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide.  ↜Just me, here, now … 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Code Hollywood
Hi, Maven. I restored some text that you rv form the Pre-Code article. I understand the point you made in the edit summary about text relating to post-Code period, but barring the creation of a new article, there is no way to inform the casual Wikipedia reader of subsequent related events. This is not WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:POV, but an encyclopaedic, sourced, detailed follow-up.

It may be that the name of the page can/should be changed to Pre-Code and Post-Code Hollywood, for instance, or something of that sort. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. - I forgot to say thanks for changing the article's name to Pre-Code Hollywood; it is a better name than the original. So Pre-Code and Post-Code Hollywood might be an appropriate newer name to accomodate the above-referenced text. I think it is only fair not to move the page to the new name until I get your input. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article entitled Pre-Code Hollywood should be strictly about pre-Code Hollywood, which is why I had removed the material you restored. I think anything related to Hollywood filmmaking that occurred once the Hays Code went into effect should be discussed in that article, making the creation of a new one, or changing the existing Pre-Code Hollywood to Pre-Code and Post-Code Hollywood as you suggested, unnecessary. One way to inform the casual Wikipedia reader of subsequent related events could be to list Hays Code in a "See also" section in Pre-Code Hollywood. If you strongly disagree with me, I suggest you raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films and see how others feel. You may also want to participate in the discussion at Talk:Hays Code. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I remember correctly (you can check the diffs) you removed a lot of info about developments in the 1940s/1950s and early 1960s, which were all technically part of the Code period, as the Code did not officially cease to exist until the late 1960s. There was simply too much important info removed (which, for me personally, although this is not dispositive, left the depressing suggestion that that was the end of the phenomenon of American film censorship). I suggest renaming the page (Pre-Code and Post-Code Hollywood) to incorporate the sequential seminal data, which occurred over a period of only three to four decades. This would require, I think, only relatively minor textual changes and resectioning. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Renaming Pre-Code Hollywood to Pre-Code and Post-Code Hollywood is unneccesary because Wikipedia already has three separate articles covering distinct eras in American filmmaking. Pre-Code Hollywood covers the period before the code went into effect. Hays Code covers the period starting with the establishment of the code through its enforcement until its end, when it was replaced by the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system. I don't understand why think details pertaining to one era should be repeated in an article dealing with a different one. The details having nothing to do with Pre-Code Hollywood which I removed and you reverted could be incorporated into Hays Code, but I still maintain references to Anatomy of a Murder, Suddenly Last Summer, Some Like It Hot, Psycho, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? do not belong in an article about Pre-Code Hollywood. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see your point. If you can reach a consensus and keep all the salient info and do what's best to maintain the integrity of the article(s) from revisionists, go for it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. As you can see I have conceded your point. What are you planning to do with the Pre-Code article? Keep in touch. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I'm far from being an expert on the subject, I wasn't planning to do anything. However, I think I'll move the data I previously deleted (and you subsequently reverted) to the more appropriate article about the Hays Code. Thanks for the nudge! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I think you did a good job editing this article. LargoLarry (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tharon Musser
Your recent edit of the article on Tharon Musser has removed a lot of structure from the article, I have now only added a small fact and not undone your edit but I think you should have a look again as the article is a lot less well structured and more annoying to read in it's current form.

--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, but I see nothing wrong with the article's structure and certainly don't think it's "annoying" to read in its current form. If you could be a little more specific in your complaint I might be able understand what you think the problem is. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 12:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the vagueness of the previous statement. The article was, in my opinion, more structured when it was still split in subsections and her credits/awards mentioned as lists as opposed to long sentences.
 * --Keeper of the Keys (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Subsections are useful when articles are lengthy. With one like this, so short it can be read on one computer screen, dividing it seems to chop it up needlessly. Wikipedia discourages the use of lists in general, which is why I mentioned her credits in paragraph form. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comprising
There was a similar case where an editor was replacing barbecue with barbeque (or vice versa - I forget which) and causing outrage amongst Australians. You could try 'revert per US-Eng' on US articles and see what happens. Certainly 'comprised of' is regularly used in UK-Eng but I have always thought it was wrong. There was another enormous argument about whether autoroute should be in UK-Eng or Can-Eng, and the word 'whilst' in particular (endangered except in parts of the UK), and as for yogurt (see its talk page) ... Occuli (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Hello
Hello LM. Opinions - I use the Cinema of... in the infobox as it has two results. 1) It auto-populates the category for that country on the article and 2) it links to the main article of Cinema of X Country. I previously used the flag of the country in the infobox, but this went against the MOS for films. For release dates, I too thought that just one date would be sufficent, unless there was an exceptional reason for having more than one date. And I agree, changing Academy Award for Best Cinematography to Academy Award makes no sense! If you have continuing issues, I'd reply on the user's talkpage or on the project page for further input. Hope that helps!  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company
Thank you very much for your review and changes - I have learned a lot by looking at the diff between the two versions

ed Ecragg (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - I noticed you changed the importance of the article from "mid" to "low". Can you point me to any standards defining importance? Obviously I rated it higher, which implies that all of the many theatre project boxes I have installed recently may be too high —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecragg (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the changes...
Hi, sorry I keep changing things on you! I'm new to wikipedia, and the reason that I started up today was because I noticed the inconsistencies between pages on the awards/nominations information. I just was going to go through and make them all consistent. Could you explain what the proper format is, if there is one, and why it is that way? BirdDogg34 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I understand what you're saying. I wasn't changing the pages and reverting them to annoy or upset anyone, I just disliked the format and thought that it was easier to read/understand the way that I had made it, and since there is no official wikipedia format for such a part of an article, I thought that I would start to go through and fix things. You know what I mean? BirdDogg34 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Birdogg. It's good that you started the dialogue over at the Musicals Project talk page.  It would be great for you and Jean to discuss a new format and propose it to the musicals project so we could all be comfortable with it, and then you could implement it across the whole project, and I am sure people would help you.  It's a very good idea!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound Design
Done, LM. That ought to help keep the tags off. It would be easy for you to fill in the rest of the IBDB cites if necessary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian Yorkey References
Hello there. I noticed you reverted a bunch of text for references I'd added on the Brian Yorkey page. I'm just wondering about the logic behind this "clean up." I've posted a comment on the talk page, and I'd encourage you to post your thoughts there. Typically, when including references in an article, editors are encouraged to include as much information about the reference as is possible (to help with reference verifiability. I would encourage you to check out the Wikipedia style guideline on Citing Sources.  Specifically, how to cite sources.  Another helpful how-to is here.  I'm going to revert your edit, but I wanted to check with you before doing so, so we don't have any problems with multiple reversions of the same edit.  Thank you for your contributions, and I'm looking forward to expanding this article and others in the realm of Theatre. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've copied our discussion and replied to your comment at the Brian Yorkey talk page. Please feel free to respond there. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Hello, this is Dinker22089. I understand that awards such as "Best Actress" and "Best Director" are not allowed in the infobox. However, what about awards like "Best Book" or "Best Orchestrations"? These are not specific to a particular production, but specific to the musical itself. Thanks. Dinker22089 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Dinker22089

Vandalism?
Are this user's changes vandalism?: User:TheRedPenOfDoom  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. He seems to have moved away from the musicals.  He was deleting links from musicals articles.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)