Talk:Carousel (musical)

	Carousel (musical) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 31, 2010 Good article nominee Listed January 24, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

	This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Musical Theatre Carousel (musical) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre

The "plot synopsis" included as the main part of this article looks to me as though it was lifted from the liner notes of a cast recording, which I believe would be copyright infringement. I don't know which recording, however. It would certainly be easy enough to rewrite.

I wrote it. I used the liner notes from my CD (the 1994 revival version) for reference, together with my knowledge of the musical, but the language is all mine. <Men's Wearhouse guy voice>I guarantee it.</mwgv> Naturally, anyone who wishes to may rewrite whatever they wish! It is Wikipedia, after all... But thanks for the compliment! -- Nightsky 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd say the synopsis is too long. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has started a new Wikipedia article for the 1956 version of "Carousel". I am going to incorporate section on the film version in this article be into the new one. That might involve removing the photo, and I don't know how to transfer photos on Wikipedia.AlbertSM 18:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the image and most of the links over, but you need to check all the links under "what links here" on the left side of the article to make sure that I moved all the links that belong to the movie and TV versions rather than the musical. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the film version goes in the infobox for the musical. It has its own article. What about the TV production? Shouldn't we just list major stage productions? -- Ssilvers 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made extensive edits (editorial corrections and improvements) in this article without altering the substance, except to remove occasional ambiguity and "say what you mean" errors. I have also made two minor substantive additions.

Before this editing, the article's substance was excellent and comprehensive, but the writing would rate a C+ or B- at best in a freshman English class. The errors and infelicities included verbosity (wordy phrasing); overuse of passive voice, "stuffed sentences" ( overly long sentences with too many ideas in one sentence), and compound sentences; midsentence and midparagraph switches in tense; not-the-best choices of words; and numerous errors of grammar, syntax, style, usage, and punctuation.

In the plot synopsis, the parenthetical song titles in appropriate places in the text were too bulky--and conflicted with the streamlined form used in other Broadway musical articles. The song references read like this: (Song: "You'll Never Walk Alone," reprise of song). In these references I deleted "Song:" and, for reprises, deleted all words except "reprise," which I changed to the following form: (reprise: "You'll Never Walk Alone").

Under "History," I added a new fact, shown in bold face in the following revised sentence: "The final anthem 'You'll Never Walk Alone' has assumed a life of its own as a funeral and graduation standard. The song is often sung at funerals.

Under "Themes and Issues" I added this sentence: "The later Rogers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific returns to social themes by attacking racial prejudice."

Saul Tillich 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carousel 1945 Bdwy.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 Wikipedia: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 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)About the song "There's Nothin' So Bad for a Woman As"--I can find many references to a song titled "Stonecutters Cut It on Stone", but the "There's Nothin'..." seems to be a line from the song rather than its title. Could you include a brief explanation, perhaps in a footnote, to explain the dicrepancy? 2) Do you want to leave in the infobox a production that was deleted: the 1966 NY City Center revival; 3) I'd like to see the number of performances for the 1950 1993 West End production (gives some sense of how sucessful it was. 4) the article does not strictly follow the Musical theatre strucure layout (which I am sure you know); but I would like to see the Musical numbers follow the Plot (and perhaps move the plot up one heading to stand out). Thanks, JeanColumbia (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the source said the song was called, I thought it odd myself, and will look at what little primary source materials I have to see what Rodgers approved. I'll strike the '66 production. I will add what you've said, and yes, I varied a bit from the Musical theatre structure for effect and because there is a bit more to say about Carousel than most Broadway musicals. I am happy to move the plot as high as you like, I personally believe in making life easy for the reader (many of whom are here to get a quick look at the plot before seeing the show, I suspect) by making it as high as possible.

There may still be more shifting in the structure, I am not entirely happy as it stands. I am getting a few more books that may be helpful. Obviously "Critical reception" and "Legacy" need beefing up.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Hytner RNT production was in 1992 (p. 131, The Oxford companion to the American musical, Hischak), ([http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/7106/past-events/past- events.html See Hytner file, says "Lyttelton 10 December 1992"); will try to get more.JeanColumbia (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC) From a review: "The 1945 musical by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II has been revived in the production of a lifetime at the Royal National Theater, and it's unlikely this musical war horse will ever look quite the same. The production, which opened to rave reviews Dec. 10 at the National's Lyttelton auditorium, stars American actor Michael Hayden as the volatile carnival barker, Billy Bigelow; Joanna Riding as his patient and put-upon wife, Julie Jordan; and Patricia Routledge as Nettie Fowler, the whistle-blowing local matron and sage." (MATT WOLF, "Beloved Musical Classic Is Born Again in London", The Associated Press, December 29, 1992,).JeanColumbia (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are calling it '92 and some are calling it '93. Dunno why. As for the song, the Boston handout sheet (I downloaded it off eBay) calls it "There's Nothin' So Bad for a Women" (yes, the plural form, which I assume to be a typo). So does the original cast album (with "Woman"), which I guess settles it. So does the Hischak book--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still says "Woman As". Does the word AS belong there? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps changing the song title, you're wrong, and you need to accept that. Page II-1-75 of the script reads:

 "MUSIC 20:  GERANIUMS IN THE WINDER/STONECUTTERS CUT IT ON STONE."

So the title is "Stonecutters Cut It on Stone." I am re-reverting the changes I made to this document. It is against site policy to undo someone's changes without reason, so please don't do it. Ever. If you don't like the fact that someone edited "your" text, then please stop contributing to the Wikipedia. I don't mind if you edit something, but don't simply revert my changes unless there's a reason (e.g., I'm demonstrably wrong, as I was in regard to the timeline; see discussion below). Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the reference for the 1949 Atkinson review was the same link as that for the 1945 review by Nichols. I changed the link to the 1949 Atkinson review.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 1996 tour material is no longer in the article, should that be deleted from the infobox? JeanColumbia (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait on that one, I might yet mention there was a US/Japan tour. Let's just keep it there for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to give this article a very thorough read over the next few days. I would have liked to help out more, but I'm crazed with rl and stuff. Sorry! Great work on the article so far! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is not done yet, it needs beefing up in a few areas. But I think it will be well received.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. There needs to be another sentence or two about the film; e.g., how did it do. If true, it could be said that the film version was fairly faithful to the show's storyline and included most of the songs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a level 2 heading here, as is normal in all stage works. FDS was an unusual situation, since there were two plot summaries to deal with. The level 2 heading will also help readers find it in the TOC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might consider putting reception after music and recordings, although I'd do musical analysis, then reception, then recordings (or maybe recordings and films?). All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidetomsicaltheatre, Nettie runs a "snack bar on the beach", not a "spa"; I really don't know if it makes any difference, but, would you check?JeanColumbia (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, which is their published work up through Me and Juliet, page 111, Act 1, Scene 3 of Carousel has a setting described as "Nettie Fowler's Spa on the oceanfront, June. Up right is Nettie's establishment (and residence combined) ...".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should link Hungarian language. You don't want people clicking away from this article. It is general knowledge per WP:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it out but don't be too surprised if it winds up being put back in.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be very surprised. WP:OVERLINK says quite clearly: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is a question of whether "major" modifies language and whether Hungarian qualifies.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess people can disagree about anything, but yes, Hungarian is a major language: if you say "Mr. Jarosz speaks Hungarian", people have a general idea of what that is and don't need to click there to find out what it is. It is fairly self-explanatory that it is the language spoken in Hungary or by Hungarians. It would just be distracting to your narrative to link it. Now, if you say that you heard somebody speaking the Bodo language or the Sandawe language, then I think it would be helpful to provide a link so people have some idea of who speaks that language and where it is spoken. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are called upon to do too many links, catering to most unlikely trains of thought. The article's more or less done though I hope to add more critical reaction. I'm thinking it's a good thing Billy went invisible to the graduation, Louise did not have an extra ticket for him. Julie got leaned on for all but one by Mr. Snow (all those kids you know).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was unfavorably compared with the stage musical."--It might be good to give an actual quote--I assume that the item comes from Hischak, p. 131. Some of the reviews that I've read are very favorable about the movie, and I think that something more is needed here.

See, for example: allmovie review; or "...an equally stunning version of their even more tuneful 'Carousel' opened across the street at the Roxy...they have not let the sentiments of the story and the music enduce them to gush...the picture follows the stage play most faithfully in plot and in mood. The only considerable exception this reviewer can take to the film is its rather startling confusion of pictorial styles...In general the stage designs are are brilliant, the costumes flavorsome and gay. You may look for two hours of fine enjoyment in this beautiful, touching 'Carousel'". by Bosley Crowther @ NY Times). JeanColumbia (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the NY Times bit in and modify it. I don't want to say very much about the movie because this isn't that article. I will make Hischak a direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...this often-lumbering musical" - does he mean the stage musical or the film? If he means the former, then I don't see how this statement has to do with the film at all. Also, can you say how the film did at the box office? I recall that in FDS you said that the film versions of all the successful R&H musicals other than FDS made money. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that. I don't have a specific figure though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article on the film says "The film was largely critically acclaimed, but was a box office flop." The allmovie link I referenced also says the film was a "a surprising box-office flop". I have no suggestions...JeanColumbia (talk)

Hischak says it was successful. I will look for information elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that it did badly. Hischak says in another book that it did well, and another source says it was the second top-grossing movie of the year (behind The King and I btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting a cite, as I stated in the edit summary. Please wait a moment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of separate cites in my sandbox, play with them if you like. The Shaftesbury engagement ended May 28, 1994 according to the articles I read.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref in the article gives a different closing date, I will not get into this further but there is clearly a discrepancy.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the material that Jean found. It seems clear that the London production ran until May 1994 at the Shaftesbury:

Wolf, Matt. "Stage frights; Dead on Revival". Variety, May 23, 1994 - May 29, 1994, p. 45 "There may be a limited British audience, too, for West End musical revivals, at least if the closing May 28 of "Carousel" at the Shaftesbury is any gauge. Nicholas Hytner's production never acquired the momentum in the West End that it enjoyed for four months at the National -- nor did it look as good there -- and its success at Lincoln Center has not had the knock-on effect at the London box office that producer Cameron Mackintosh had hoped for...."

There are lots of sources confirming the September start date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt deleted the information that stated, for the 1996 tour: Other cast members included Sarah Uriarte Berry and Jennifer Laura Thompson. The review we show certainly does state that Sarah Uriarte was in the cast. Jean, do you have a cite that shows both names? I see one, but I don't know if we can cite it: [1]. The ref also give other interesting information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline. I am not convinced it is the most accurate site ever. Carousel was certainly Rodgers's favorite, but I would hate to assert on the basis of this that it was Hammerstein's favorite, for example. I think they are going up on their lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, those people were in the cast, though. Why would you want to exclude that information? We should try to find a cite. Here is an extensive review of the 1994 production that I added to the article, by Vincent Canby: [2] It notes more of the cast, including Sally Murphy as Julie, Shirley Verrett as Nettie, Eddie Korbich as Enoch. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think that listing most of the cast in text clogs up the text needlessly. I would suggest a table as with FDS but I think they'd creep in anyway. My criteria for inserting a cast member's name are three: either a lead, or someone whose performance is particularly notable, or someone well-known to the reader (i.e., Florence Henderson).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a cast table like in FDS would be good. But I think that the major productions should name the four leads, if the people were notable. Up to you, but I think that the narrative production discussions need it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly for the largest productions. Not sure about all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Lexis/Nexis, will add a few complete articles in my sandbox, I can't link to them. The ones from Sarasota and San Diego show Thompson as Julie (appears to be later in the tour), while Sarah Uriarte is still Julie in Vancouver in September.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the text of that Providence article?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 11 Providence article, as requested in my sandbox. (I also will now take a short break.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished proofreading. I'll step back now and let you guys work, but I'll keep an eye out and do a quick proofread of new materials as you add them. I assume you'll fix the London 1994 closing date. The Variety article noted above is a reliable source. Good luck with the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be comprehensive, the article must describe all the major recordings, including the 1993 London cast recording and the 1994 Broadway cast recording. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what information is wanted?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should mention all the cast recordings of the major productions and say whether or not they sold well and were reviewed well. You should also mention whether there were major studio recordings or not. This can be done very briefly if none of them were successful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jean, do you have any information on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will take a while to check (probably tomorrow, depends on the weather). However, in the meantime, the material on the Japanese tour and then US tour in 1996 probably came from the rnh official site: [[3]] (" A Japanese production played extended engagements in Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka in 1995, and a U.S. National Tour visited over 40 cities from February of 1996 through May of 1997, and starred Broadway stars to be Patrick Wilson, Sarah Uriarte Berry and Jennifer Laura Thompson".) I do not know if this meets the GA/FA standards, but there it is.JeanColumbia (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source, taken with a grain of salt for self-interest not really applicable here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start: a lengthy paragraph from The Rodgers and Hammerstein encyclopedia, Hischak, pp. 42-43: Recordings.JeanColumbia (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it's always great to have a scholar: John Kenrick puts it together: Comparative CD Reviews, Carousel.JeanColumbia (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I'm not sure I'm up to it tonight, but I'll expand it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it, though I do not cover every recording in detail, that would be tedious and better reserved for a sub article. I find that there is a 2009 version out, apparently from that 2008 revival. I listened to bits of it on iTunes, and if that's the best Nettie they could find, I'm very sorry for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. I filled in the info on the 2009 Savoy Theatre closing. Waiting for the info re: the the Japanese and U.S. 1996 tour, for which Jean gave you the cites in her sandbox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Today would be a good time to make suggestions, as I am away tomorrow for a week and will not have my sources with me (book ones anyway). Could someone go over the synopsis? I fear it is overlong but am uncertain of what more to cut. This is turning into quite a long article, one reason I am getting a little leery about additions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the synopsis a bit more, but Jean could probably tighten up a little bit more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not agree that, in general, the article is too long. If you do not put in adequate information about the productions, I would not be able to support the nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please state what you would like. I do not agree that we need four performers for each production. I am willing to put two, plus any other performer whose name would be readily familiar or else whose performance is in some way specially significant. Those are my criteria, leads, famous, or stunt.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical limits are silly, and the ones you propose do not make sense to me. A casting chart would help here, though. The question is whether the actors are notable. If you look at Hair (musical), you will see a way to condense cast information where there were many more productions than this. The longest sections are the inception and casting sections. However, I think the information that you have put in them is interesting and fun to read. IMO, you should not omit important information about the article just to push it through FA as fast as possible. Please slow down. Yesterday you were deleting very important information. FA is not the goal: an excellent article is. I do not think this article is too long at all, although you will notice that many of my edits over the past few days were to trim and tighten. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2)Not at all. If I wanted to "push it through FA" as you say, I wouldn't have it at GAN where it is languishing due to a large number of other articles in its category. I think you misunderstand. Once I have an article well-sourced, anything that goes into it, whether added by me or someone else, must be sourced. Period. That way I don't have to worry about what is sourced and what may not be sourced, and it is not written on the forehead of the words, so to speak. If you toss in the name of an extra actor, not listed in the source, and I leave it, thinking you will source it later, and you don't, I may not remember that that little bit was left unsourced. And when someone checks the sources, as routinely happens at any level of review here, I do not want to hear the comment "that's not in the source". I am grateful for your assistance, but please insert your cite at the same time you insert your new information. That way we are both sure. If you would like to do something to help this article, you'd make sure all the footnotes are consistent in style. I did what you suggested and avoided templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue with you, but, for example, you wouldn't wait 5 minutes yesterday, even though my edit summary clearly said that I was working on getting a source. That was very disheartening to me and caused me extra work, while I was trying to help you; but I'll put it down to your rushing. As I told you that I do not have time to be a nominator on this article, and I am sorry, but I do not have time to deal with footnote style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling through the article now, my impression is that the production sections are, if anything, too short, especially the original production and 1994 production, which are, I think, the two most famous productions. What do you think, Jean? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the article, not through diffs. It's OK to wait to add stuff until you have a cite in place, we are better off in the long run. You could have been interrupted and it slipped your mind and we have a booby trap in place in the article just waiting for someone to check the refs. Guess who gets to answer for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And labeling everything as "ce" destroys the edit summary to the point of uselessness. I'm not always perfect about using them, but please try to give some indication of what you've done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should make as little use of websites like whatsonstage.com, whose primary purpose is to pretty up a ticket sales site. I've tried to keep to high quality reliable sources. The sites being added are dubious. Convenience does not equal excellence.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I only saw similar websites that reported the early closing. Do you prefer this? Jean, do you see a better source for this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, they are all online theatre guides whose fact checking and editorial review are questionable. I'd rather have a newspaper. Did this version of Carousel have a website?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is wrong; "The plots of Liliom and the later work based on it, Carousel closely track each other...." Liliom does not track Carousel. The plot of Carousel tracks Liliom. How about: "Rodgers and Hammerstein would closely track the plot of Liliom, except for the ending." -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? I reversed it and took R&H out of the mix but I don't think it's too far off. At some point in the review process, they are going to get me for calling Ficsur a lowlife, but I think it is the best term for him (Jigger-analogue, but without the sense of humor, and he doesn't get to deflate Mr. Snow's ego a couple of times in the play, alas).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sarah Uriarte Berry is called Sarah Uriarte in the review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did manage to fire up enough synapses to get that one. However, I'm concerned about the Thompson reference. All the SD paper seems to say is that she replaced Sarah whozits about a year before after being her understudy. I suggest changing what is written to say that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I simplified and shortened it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I will only notice them if I happen to be editing that section of the article or happen to look at that diff, it seems better to leave a note here. Or on my talk page if you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to shorten the plot summary, as you requested yesterday, but I am not sure about a couple of things: you say that the girls go to the town's carousel. Is it just a carousel, or an amusement park or carnival? It says that Billy thinks about "the fun he will have with Bill Jr., until he realizes the child might be a girl." This implies that Billy does not want a girl. Is that right?

If you were reading the published script, which I do not have before me at the moment, you'd see mention of other attractions. I would term it a carnival. The setup makes more sense for Budapest than Maine, frankly, you are not going to find many (non-moving!) carnivals in a small Maine coastal town in April, where it is cold at night. As for the other thing, I'm guessing you are as familiar with the lyrics for "Soliloquay" as I am, so something must be wrong with the synopsis. I'll look at it. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Perhaps Jean can tighten up Act 2 even more? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but I hope she works from an accurate plot synospis, if she doesn't happen to have a copy of the out of print script, which was not easy to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the stage directions to support the word "little" before carousel. God knows the one on the Hytner production wasn't!. At this point, why don't we let the article sit for a bit? Can we get a GA reviewer from your serried ranks assembled, Ssilvers?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask one and see if she can do it expeditiously. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just wrote "in the hope". You could just write "so" instead and save two words! OK, so my life is not that exciting. :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Soliloquy, you now have "realize" twice in that sentence, it is much longer, and I still don't know what it means. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better to have it inscrutable than incorrect, as it was before. I'm still trying to regrow my hair after learning that the Starkeeper told BIlly he would have to spend 15 years in purgatory before going to earth. Anyone for some hanks of hair violently torn from head?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply substituted a line from the song that sums it up. I will check the script before FAC to ensure the word "father" is italicized. It is certainly sung that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I took out the first half of the quote, since it's the same as what you've already got there. The rest of the quote finishes it off perfectly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maine is linked only in the WP:LEAD. I think it should be linked once also in the body of the article, since it's a state that is probably unfamiliar to Non-norteamericanos, and its location is important to the article.c -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it needs to be linked a second time, it is just the other side of Liliom from the lede. We credit the reader with some elementary memory. As far as we can tell by the text, Billy has nothing to do with ANYTHING else but the carousel. He works for Mrs. Mullin, who is the CAROUSEL's owner. He gives off with that line I quoted as an edit summary. There are other places (see Julie's comments in the scene with Carrie at Nettie's later in Act I, it is the music of the CAROUSEL which disturbs Billy) but I don't think there is any doubt that Billy works at getting people to ride the carousel. Why, that is how he is described in the pantomime's stage directions. Also see Carrie's lines "Did you like it when he looked at you that way/when he put you on the carousel that way". Do not describe him as the carnival's barker.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to shout at me. If I make a suggestion and you revert it, I will not re-revert. New: I suggest that you move the word "instrumental" out of the plot summary and put it, instead, in the list of musical numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might need additional sourcing. I will have to find something that describes them as instrumental. Actually, that's going to require a reassessment of how the musical numbers are sourced. If I have to put in specific sources for the instrumental numbers, that will make the other numbers look unsourced. I'm not sure what the benefit is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, you could simply take it out of the plot summary. We can generally source the musical numbers to a theater program or vocal score. Up to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not clear. I do NOT mean to take the number out of the plot summary. I mean that I think you should take the WORD "instrumental" out of the plot summary and put it, instead, in the list of musical numbers next to the name of the number. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it on hold. I've gone away for a few days so don't have my books with me. Since there are instrumental numbers that are key to the plot, I'd rather put them where they are. Perhaps I can find a source that has all of this in the same place.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think this article would benefit from views outside our little hothouse, so I look forward to seeing the GAN comments. I do not expect to take this to FAC for a couple of weeks yet, I will probably nom C. D. Howe which has had a peer review and is FAC ready once I implement the PR comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the plot. I will make NO changes, unless for spelling or punctuation. I have no sources (no script, most importantly), so I can not make any substantive changes. If I see anything that I think shoud be changed substantively, I will note that on this talk page. Your plot is safe! (Although I also think that Mrs. Mullin owns the CAROUSEL, not the carnival, and that should be changed.) Happy New Year!JeanColumbia (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will make that change. I did not write the plot and feel no writer's pride in it; I merely insist that it be utterly accurate. Nothing would be more embarrassing in review ... thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a change to the plot of Liliom. As it reversed a change made by Ssilvers, I want to explain. Liliom is not being judged by the Police Court Magistrate for his involvement in the robbery, the magistrate is uninterested in that, what he cares about is the circumstances Liliom has left Julie and his unborn child in. In fact, when Liliom asks "Should I have stolen for her?" the magistrate responds (emphatically) "Yes". This was greatly toned down by Hammerstein but it is still there, the Starkeeper never says a word about the robbery. That's why I made that change. I cannot expect others to read through Liliom, which is a brilliant work though slightly dated. With that understood, please feel free to modify my phrasing. I regret that the discussion has become a bit testy, but I think the result will be worth it. This is already a better article than Flower Drum Song.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the three words "as in life" do not seem to add anything, and the sentence seems clearer without it. OK now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks strange. I think it's probably easier to follow the way you had it before, but I don't feel strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Technically I am correct, Liliom is dead at that point. However, it reads oddly. I'd like to get other views on the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carousel (musical)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Will review. 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having been through the article thrice I have no doubt that I should promote it to GA, and the few comments that follow do not affect that one way or the other. But you might like to look at them before I observe the formalities.

• Background
  • "When it reappeared on the Budapest stage" – it would be good to have a date for this

The source doesn't say but I will keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "there is a story that the actual translator, uncredited, was …Lorenz Hart" – a source for this?

Wehwalt added a source as requested, but it is the same source shown in the following sentence. Perhaps we can remove the second reference to that source (which is merely to confirm a cast member (does h38 cover that anyway?)). The n153 cite comes up a third time in the same little paragraph anyhow! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot synopsis (one word too many in this heading, perhaps?)
  • "barker" is bluelinked, but has been used, unlinked, earlier
• Productions
  • "daughter Mary" – blue link from the two-word phrase looks a bit odd
• Notes
  • For web references you vary between "Retrieved on MDY" and "Retrieved MDY" (and note 70 has "retrieved" without the capital R.)
  • Note 87 – could not the url be piped?

Not quite sure what you mean here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wiki-colleague has kindly attended to this.

• References
  • Links to Google Books – I assume that these links open readable texts where you are; they don't where I am. I imagine this is a matter of local copyright or some such, but you may wish to know that not all your readers can see what you are quoting. (Not that this is a reason to avoid such links, of course)

I know. When I go to Canada, I get a lot less access to Google books. It's the best we can do though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Links
  • You need to disambiguate your links to Creole, John Kenrick, Majestic Theatre, New Republic and Oliver Smith
• Images
  • You have managed surprisingly well from Commons. I don't know if the fair use rationale for the LP cover would persuade an image expert, but it persuades me.
  • Alt-text – not a GA sine qua non, but you have it for two out of your six images, and you might wish to add it to the others
• Possessives
  • I notice you write "Rodgers's", which surprised me: I thought that was the UK usage with "Rodgers'" the U.S.

I've found I get less complaints with s's ... let's see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is lots of disagreement about this. See this.

Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done everything as noted except the alt text, which I will add later today, I don't like to do that in haste. Alt text is not my forte; anyone more interested than I should feel free to jump in. Thank you for the review. I think the article is shaping well, better than FDS, as more source material is available, and Carousel just brims with emotion that you can't help carrying over into the article. Unlike FDS, which is a fine work in its way, but not a classic.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was easy (for me). A very fine article. I have not the slightest reservation in promoting it to GA. Shall we be seeing it at FAC in due course?

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Tim riley (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As soon as we do some polishing and Royal Maundy passes, at FAC it shall go.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I converted footnoe 87 (Coslet, Paul) into the usual piped cite, but I had not read the GA reviewer's comment about this cite. If I did not do it right, apologies.JeanColumbia (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did it exactly right, but I notice in your citations that you usually need a space after the author's name and also after the ending bracket, like this: Columbia, Jean. [url "See Spot Run"]. Playbill.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Wehwalt and Jean, for bringing this article through GA. It is unquestionably the most important 20th century musical yet promoted this far. Thanks, Tim, for the review. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is likely to be a few days until Royal Maundy passes FAC and I'm allowed to do another nomination. Jean has done a fine job and I'm content to see it move forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With three supports, Royal Maundy looks like a good bet for promotion, which would free up a slot at FAC for me to use. I am going through it closely, I saw an extra comma or two when reading on my iPhone but did not take any notes. I will list Jean as a conom. I honestly think this should sail through, it is much better than Flower Drum Song, though that is a reflection on no one, we simply have a better defined path to follow now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I think we need. I think we need a brief mention of exactly how Oklahoma! advanced the musical, perhaps simply mention the concept of an "integrated musical". We dance around the point all night but we never actually reach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the holy grail of the musicals project: a cogent description of the "integrated musical". Often attempted on WP but never yet achieved successfully (see our inadequate attempt in our flagship article, musical theatre). G&S were integrated musicals. Then, the Edwardian musical comedies and turn-of-the-century American fare were mostly not integrated, with topical songs tossed in wherever they seemed to fit. (But the Victor Herbert works were pretty integrated). But then the Princess Theatre musicals and also Show Boat really were. I think it is very difficult, and possibly a slippery slope, to try to argue that Oklahoma! was a huge step forward in the structure and design beyond Show Boat and G&S. Indeed, opera music is often "integrated" with the plots. I'm sure you can find references that "say" this was something new, but often unconvincingly, and they don't acknowledge the above. In fact, I think it can be argued that it was really the *dance* part that was more integrated here, combining, for the first time, singing, speaking and dance *by the principals*: the principals in the show were expected to dance in a way that advanced the plot. I will not be surprised if you let this difficult task await work on Oklahoma! itself. Maybe Andrew Lamb or one of the theatre writers who also understand opera will have a really good explanation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you, being very familiar with many of those. I guess I'll put it off until I get to Oklahoma! then. Which won't be soon, I do not really like either Oklahoma! or "The Sound of Music" and will leave them for last.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt we had to say something about Oklahoma! Take a look at it, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slight modification, as the word "claim" would leap out at reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] You know, you just have to go so fast that I did not even have time to explain my edit. I have asked you not to rush so much; it is hard on your collaborators (IMO). Also, again, our goal should not be about placating FAC reviewers; it should be about quality. We need to make sure that it is clear that this is his POV, because the language that he uses is so bombastic. Like a lot of things that I have seen, though, Hischak gives his conclusion but (at least in what you have quoted), does not explain very persuasively why Oklahoma! is that different from Show Boat or Pirates. Yet, it is apparent that, from Oklahoma! in 1943, most successful musicals seem to owe something to the Oklahoma model. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I will try to slow down, but I like to get things finished. At any rate, I agree with you. That is why I said innovative for its time. To avoid the argument on a point which is there for the sake of continuity and complete background more than anything else. I'm trying to continue to bounce around the point, but to give the reader a closer view of it. It needs to be dealt with, as you noted, when Oklahoma! hits top of the list. I think it is possible, btw, to be both good and placate the FAC reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is necessary to use this, but note: "After Oklahoma!, Rodgers and Hammerstein were the most important contributors to the musical-play form – with such masterworks as Carousel, The King and I and South Pacific. The examples they set in creating vital plays, often rich with social thought, provided the necessary encouragement for other gifted writers to create musical plays of their own". Lubbock, Mark. "American musical theatre: an introduction" excerpted from The Complete Book of Light Opera, London: Putnam, 1962, pp. 753–56.

Can't argue with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That and which (and attendant comma). For a quick explanation, see: http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• I would delete the "of Molnár's play", as we already said that earlier in the same sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The first paragraph should have a sentence about the plot of Carousel: "The story centers around carousel barker Billy Bigelow, who...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "put together" - how about "created"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done two of those. I don't think we should put the plot in the lede, it would be awkward and out of step textually with the rest of the lede. If people want the plot (and many will, WP is a fine resource for the incipient playgoer) they can quickly click down. Also hard to do in just one sentence. Were we to do this, I would add another paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICALS' Article structure page, as well as WP:LEAD, require something brief to be said about the plot in the Lead, because the Lead must give an overview of the whole article. In Flower Drum song, we said: "Lee's novel focuses on a father, Wang Chi-yang, a wealthy refugee from China, who clings to traditional values in San Francisco's Chinatown. Rodgers and Hammerstein shifted the focus of the musical to his son, Wang Ta, who is torn between his Chinese roots and assimilation into American culture." I'd suggest something like: "The story centers around ex-carousel barker Billy Bigelow, who participates in a robbery to support his wife and unborn child. He is killed when the robbery goes wrong but is given one chance to come back to Earth to set things right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liliom

• "nonentities like the two would-be robbers will not come before God Himself." This is a leaden phrase with a weird tense and is repetitious in the context. I suggest "'dirty bums' like them would not come before God himself"
• I don't think we should use an initial cap for "heavenly" or "himself. In the MOS, in the religion section, it says "Pronouns and possessives referring to figures of veneration are not capitalized, even when they traditionally are in a religion's scriptures; they are left capitalized when directly quoting scriptures or any other texts that capitalize them." -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inception

• I made some minor edits and feel pretty good about the section, except that we jump back from December 1943 to October 1943 - but I don't feel strongly about that, if you think it's in the best order now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "dirty bums" is a bit too colloquial in a section where there is already likely to be raised eyebrows for me calling Ficsur a "lowlife", though he certainly is, he has none of Jigger's redeeming qualities (in a manner of speaking). Perhaps "nonentities like them do not come before God himself"? It is a point that needs making, as it explains why Liliom finds himself in the Heavenly police court and is paralleled in Carousel.

I saw no great objection to the other changes, but I may polish a bit. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He says "dirty bums", but in any case "nonentities" is an unnatural word, and I don't think it's in the script, so we can just say would-be robbers, even though it's a little repetitive. I think that what you are trying to convey with the word "nonentities" is already crystal clear from the context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks again. I think it is looking very good indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casting and Tryouts

• Do you really mean "seeking a replacement for the part of Curly for the touring company"? Or do you mean that they were seeking the first Curley for the touring company? What you have written there implies that the tour of Oklahoma! had already started. It that is not true, you could simplify it and say: "seeking an actor to play Curley in the touring company".
• As Tim riley indicated before, I think it is preferred, in American style, to write the possessive as: Rodgers' rather than Rodgers's throughout the article.
• "That innocence takes repeated blows from her schoolmates...." - What does this mean? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means hse is teased and mocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the gate keeper says, in "The Wizard of Oz", "Why'nt ya say so?" -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musical numbers

Do you have to say "Finale Ultimo"? It sounds hokey. How about just "Finale"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Productions

• I added that Clayton left the show to star in Show Boat. Is that covered in your ref, or do we need another ref?

Taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redlinks: Iva Withers just died in 2010. She was a replacement not only for Julie, but also Laurie in Oklahoma! Nellie in South Pacific, and Miss Adelaide in Guys and Dolls, among others. The only place she "originated" a role was in the London production of Carousel. Murvyn Vye became a successful character actor in films.

I am very surprised no article on Vye, it shows the weakness of the R&H interest on wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1994 in NY: "He does the one unpardonable thing, the thing we can't forgive. It's a challenge for the audience to like him after that." Who is being quoted - Cheever or Hayden? It is ambiguous. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

One more thing. The R&H article says "...both the stage and film versions began with the familiar Carousel Waltz. This music was included in John Mauceri's Philips Records CD of the complete overtures of Rodgers and Hammerstein with the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra. It was also included in Rodgers' rare 1954 album for Columbia Records with the composer conducting the New York Philharmonic Orchestra." This seems like it merits a mention in the music section, if you have a ref for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss too much what happens to the numbers outside of their original context. We already to that for "If I Loved You" and "You'll Never Walk Alone".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with my pre-FA review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roles/casting

Oh! One more thing. There was previously a discussion (on someone's talk page, I think) of adding a principal roles/cast table like in Flower Drum Song. I think that would be an very helpful addition here. Alternately, there could be a table like the one in Oklahoma!. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems doable. Which do you think is better?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did an Oklahoma style one. Is the placement in article appropriate?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table looks good. I think you should move it below the synopsis, since people often say that they like the synopsis to be as high up as possible in fiction articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Murphy is a bad link. Is the name right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the name is right, but it should be blacklinked, and I'll pull it from the table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my screw up, sorry. Eventually I click every link and these things get discovered, but it can take time. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP is right: one n. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. I think a google search will convince you, even though her name has sometimes been misspelled. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it you read it in the Times, it is so, at least in this case. Surprised there is no article on her, or Mervyn Vye for that matter. I will have to write some stubs when I get a chance. Thank you for catching that the books misspell her name.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit summary for my last edit. Please do not remove this info (or substantially the same info that gives a brief summary of the entire plot) from the Lead without a consensus here. I consider this essential to this article and to my support of the FAC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this change to the Lead. I think it gives WP:UNDUE weight to Enoch's "large fishing fleet" but doesn't even mention Billy's death and the second act story line concerning Billy and his daughter. Does anyone else agree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Billy's death occurs in Act 2, I believe it is too deep into the story to be given to the reader in the lede. As I pointed out in discussion with FAC delegate Laser Brain, that, in combination with the "more hopeful ending", gives away the entire plot to the reader. I am happy to discuss this, and alternative descriptions of the setting, but I do not think we should mention anything that happens in Act 2. I know the plot of Carousel backwards and forwards, so do most people likely to comment here. Yet there are always youngsters and newcomers who approach this for the first time. If they voluntarily choose to read the plot section, that's fine, but the understanding under which we got rid of spoilers some years ago is that "plot" or "synopsis" was itself a spoiler warning. I do not want to give the ending away to readers unless they choose to have it so. I would love to see Carousel myself with the innocence of not knowing what is going to happen, instead of knowing exactly what Billy or Carrie or Enoch is going to say, and hoping there will be differences from the Carousel I am used to ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act II is about Billy's death, his failure to gain immediate entrance to heaven, his observing his daughter on Earth, his return to Earth, and his interactions with his daughter and widow on Earth. The Musicals Wikiproject article guidelines states that the LEAD should contain "a brief (2 sentence) overview of the plot." It is not an overview if you leave out everything in Act II. See also WP:LEAD. I think that the previous text (prior to this change) gives a fair description of the plot, and that it does not give anything away that should not be said about the 1945 musical. I also note that my support of this FA was, as noted above, conditioned on a fair overview of the plot being in the Lead, and that Wehwalt's changing it within 24 hours after the promotion seems to be disingenuous, to say the least. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I noticed you on your talk page, that seems one of the sillier accusations of bad faith I've seen recently. Does Flower Drum Song, on which you were given credit as conom, contain any mention of either couple's marriage? Does it mention any specific plot element at all? You were very happy with FDS, you were talking about it on noticeboards all over the wiki as the first Broadway musical to make it, so you must have liked it.[9] [10]I suggest that you are not being consistent, and that this dispute has more to do with our personal disagreement than any wiki guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I simply disagree with you, and I suggest that it is you who is not being objective. I have been requesting a fair overview of the plot in the Carousel Lead for a long time. But let others decide. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What revelation struck you since Flower Drum Song? Like it or not, that is our benchmark in this matter, as the sole previous FA on the subject, and you can hardly object to what is in Flower Drum Song, since you copyedited it. Shall we explain all of Ta's romances and say that he gets married to Mei Li in the end, as does Sammy to Linda?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing the dispute in this article, I have reverted the edit by Wehalt back to the state the article was in when it received FA status until a consensus for change is reached here. This seems a reasonable way forward to me. Jack1956 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but Ssilvers needs to come forward with something a little more convincing than reciting the plot deep into the second act when he saw no such need when he was conom on the only benchmark we have, Flower Drum Song, a FA. I say again: Saying that Billy is given one chance to return to Earth, and saying that R&H makes the ending "more hopeful" gives everything away, and I think that is unfair to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to process, I concur with Jack, but as to the merits of the content before and after the changes, I'd like to look at all the relevant versions carefully before expressing a judgment. I'll do this by this time tomorrow, if that's OK. Meanwhile, deep breaths and sweetness and light all round, gentlemen, for the good of Wikipedia and everyone's blood-pressure! Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to make up at any time, please check what Ssilvers deleted from his talk page. I'm also open to compromise langauge, which is what I tried to put in there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that I have been suggesting this info in the Lead since January 6. On January 19, Wehwalt objected to this language. I then attempted a compromise because I felt that it was important to have something about Billly's death and return to Earth, and I stated that since voting on the FA had begun, it would be unfair to change this concept in the Lead. On January 24, shortly after the article was promoted to FA, Wehwalt made this change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You attempted a compromise? You put what you wanted in there with threats if it was not left alone. I made a change, many hours after the FAC cleared, and after leaving word on your talk page I was doing it, and inviting a discussion. Your implications of bad faith are repudiated. You said that you " I feel very strongly about this and will withdraw my support and oppose the nomination (of all your musicals FA noms) if you change this again." Given a blanket threat like that to oppose all the musical articles I will ever write without regard to their content (obviously, I have ceased involvement in writing any further musical or G&S articles, I don't need this). I have explained at considerable length why I believe that your version is a bad idea. You have said nothing to defend it. Why do we have to give away most of the second act to the reader in the first two paragraphs, and not even give him a chance to pull his eyes away?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tone of that, and I withdraw my unfair statement about the future, but you quote me out of context. I wrote: "the first paragraph of the lead should give information about the creators and the story. I feel very strongly about this and will withdraw my support and oppose the nomination (of all your musicals FA noms) unless you confirm to me that you understand that a lead section needs a very brief summary of the entire plot." I do think you should acknowledge that the Lead should give an overview of the whole plot, not just Act I. It need not "give away the ending", but here Billy's death is in the first half of Act II. The rest of the act concerns his attempt to get into heaven and his being given an opportunity to return to Earth to make things right. I always edit to the best of my ability, and Wehwalt's accusations here that my opposing his edit is in bad faith is utterly false. In contrast, Wehwalt's edit, made hours after he got his FA star, regarding a previously disputed item, speaks for itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You apologize?""Your Majesty, I didn't--""Good! I accept". Now that we've gotten that out of our way, OK, is there any way we can get out of telling about Billy's death? It would look odd coupled with the hopeful ending phrasing. What if we were to go back to mentioning the robbery to provide for the unborn child?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply regret that our productive partnership on various articles has degenerated to this unpleasant discussion. You have asked Tim riley to comment, and I think we should wait until tomorrow when he does so, as I don't think that covers it (though I don't mind also mentioning the robbery to provide for the unborn child). In the meantime, if any others have a solution that will present a brief "overview" of the story in the Lead section of the article, we certainly can discuss it and try to reach a consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, at least it wasn't over a carpet. Still, never say never. Very well, we will wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the lead should attempt to summarise the entire plot and any sub-plots, or give just a sketch of the broad themes of the show. Also, whether the lead should reveal the denouement.

To see how other WP projects deal with the question, I have looked at two opera FAs and two play FAs. They vary widely between:

• setting out the plot in the lead, including the denouement (Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria)
• giving a brief, overarching plot summary in the lead (Romeo and Juliet)
• giving the broad themes of the plot in the lead, but not mentioning the denouement (The Country Wife)
• not describing the plot in the lead (Gianni Schicchi)

There is, in short, no consensus across the stage work FAs on how much plot to put in leads. (I have not included G&S articles as I am too closely involved with them myself to be a dispassionate observer). This present dust-up has usefully shown the desirability of a consensus on the matter as far as musical theatre articles are concerned. Could this be raised by project members at the project page, perhaps? My own vote would be for something along the Romeo and Juliet lines.

Having looked at previous drafts of the Carousel article and the arguments for and against, I don't agree that giving the whole plot away in the lead is unfair to the reader, but I think it is reasonable for the lead to stick to the bare essentials, leaving sub-plots to the main text. For present purposes, I reckon that the lead – deaths and all – as approved at FAC is about right. But that's merely my preference, and I see from the entries immediately above this that I am likely to be outvoted. No matter! – as I say, a consensus on the general question of how much plot to put in leads is devoutly to be wished.

May I add the fervent hope that harmony will prevail between two such exceptional and valuable editors as Ssilvers and Wehwalt? – Tim riley (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain your reasoning holds. You are taking more distant FAs while ignoring Flower Drum Song. And I cannot say that Ssilver's version had consensus, as you are aware he prevented the removal by threatening what he did, thus I was in a poor position to say anything.. And let's get down to brass tacks. I wrote the damned thing. That gives me no special rights, of course, but how does there become a consensus version when I've opposed the inclusion of material? I'm really feeling hard done by here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a change that has one sentence on the primary romance and one on the second. I ask that this change be accepted. This is a unnecessary distraction for me and I have no intention of letting this happen twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that articles about musicals/opera/theatre, etc. need info in the Lead that gives a concise overview of the highlights of the whole plot: it doesn't have to state the ending, but the reader should understand the basic highlights of the story. Here, I don't think one can understand the gist of this piece without knowing that Billy can't get into heaven and is given an opportunity to return to Earth to try to do good. I don't agree that Flower Drum Song is a good analogy, because it was difficult, in that case, to give concise capsule plots for multiple versions. As noted above, I believe that both WP:LEAD and the article structure guidelines at the Musicals Wikiproject indicate that a very brief overview of the plot is required in the Lead (of course there should be exceptions, particularly for new works). In the FAC for Carousel, three editors voted to support this version: me, Tim riley and BrianBoulton. I don't know about BB, but Tim and I both think that the information about the plot elements in Act 2 should be mentioned in the Lead. I don't think you need to mention Carrie and Enoch, but I don't mind it. I am very sorry that we don't agree, and I will not change the article myself. Best regards to all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, unless they said "Gee I like the little plot summary that Ssilvers has inserted in the lede," I don't think you can count that way. Your change lacked consensus, period, as shown by the fact that I removed it and you restored it complete with threats.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, if others feel strongly that much of the plot should be in there, I will yield to it. However, I would like to discuss alternatives.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possible compromise occurred to me: How about adding to what we have now: "He attempts a robbery to provide for Julie and their unborn child, but when it goes wrong he is given one chance to make things right." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the Starkeeper says is ambiguous. He never actually says that if Billy fails, he cannot not have another chance, and there's the whole line about "as long as there's someone left on earth who remembers you ..." which should be by my calculations at least another 50 years. The Police Court Magistrate in Liliom makes it clearer, though there is ambiguity even there ... I would suggest "He attempts a robbery to provide for Julie and their unborn child; when it goes wrong he has a chance to make things right."--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good; done. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the bibliography, "The Rodgers and Hammerstein Encyclopedia" links here, which is a search in that book for "Flower drum song london". I'm assuming that the FA reviewers missed this. Focus (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it gets you to the right book?, which assures verifiability?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I'm not questioning the verifiability. Just that it seems illogical to have a search for a different musical as the link. I'd recommend that you fix this, either by replacing the link with a search for this musical, or just linking to the cover page. Focus (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link. But would this be an even better link? The one that's there now shows Carousel, but you have to click it. this one goes right to the page, but you have to scroll down to see that Carousel starts on the same page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor has doubled the length of the plot section, and I have reverted. An overdetailed plot section is not favored, first it is inelegant and fannish to explain every little plot point at length, second, there is the risk that by discussing the work in such detail we create a derivative work which is a violation of the copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted another very large addition (or the same one again?). I think it adds undue length and weight to the section. --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy, all this was happening as I went to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My correction of the spelling (not grammar) to British is a matter of courtesy. Grammar may be the prerogative of North Americans in an article about a musical written by two of its citizens, but the BBC is British and its radio and television programmes are just that.Roger Arguile 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. We use home country usages. Similarly, that is why we refer to Liverpool F.C. as a soccer team, not a football club. It's all in WP:MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wehwalt. This article uses US spelling, grammar and dates consistently throughout, even when describing British productions of the work. It goes both ways: In the H.M.S. Pinafore article, for example, when we describe American productions, we use UK date format, spelling and usage. This is very clear in the MOS, which says: "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation [throughout]", except in direct quotation, proper names and the titles of works. It also notes: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation". Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today an editor attempted to reformat the references in this FA article. I think the new format makes it nearly impossible for a new editor to work with this article and its references. I have reverted. If you wish to discuss your plan, please propose it here so that others can discuss. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that moving the text of the reference out of the main body of the text makes it much easier for anybody to work with the references and with the text', which is much less cluttered now. Doing this is not a change of format since the appearance of the article remains unchanged. That is the meaning of format.

I give a valid reason for moving references out of the body of the article, but I see no corresponding argument on your part. The assertion "makes it nearly impossible for a new editor to work with this article and its references" is garbage and has no basis in fact.

However, that is the least of the problems in your revert:

• You also re-inserted <br /> tags and removed the list markup from a list. That runs directly contrary to accessibility guidelines where we need to understand that those using non-visual agents need to have correct markup, so that they hear things properly. Just because a piece of prose with line breaks in it looks like a list to you, it doesn't mean that visually impaired visitors are going to hear anything like the list they should be hearing.
• You also regressed multiple isbn-13 numbers (the preferred format per WP:ISBN) to isbn-10 versions.

I'm sorry to be so blunt about this, but a featured article deserves more care than that which you displayed when making your last edit. I have reverted it. I'm happy to stand by the edit I've just made and can justify every byte of it. If you feel you'd like to discuss any of the changes I've made, I'd be happy to hear your objections. --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! First of all, RexxS, it is not civil to call another editor's opinions "garbage". IMO, this kind of referencing is a code designed to guaranty that only a few techies remain as Wikipedia editors. I worked pretty hard to help bring this article to FA, and I have watched and helped to maintain it since then, and I don't recall either you or Alarbus helping at all. It is amazing to me that someone can just drive by and change the entire referencing system of a FA article like this without first discussing it and reaching a consensus on the talk page. The previous system was reviewed and approved by a lot of editors. Since I am uncomfortable with the referencing system, I'll leave it to you to maintain this article. I hope you have the commitment to do that. This saddens me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can we just talk a step back and talk this out for a minute? I've reinstated the citation system previously used, but with the markup and ISBN fixes implemented. Moving all the references to the end of the article (whether you believe this is good or not) is a significant change in system/style even if the result for the reader is the same, and thus we should try to discuss it first. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria asked me to come back to participate in this discussion. If the other editors here agree to drop the idea of moving the references to the end, I'm happy to resume watching the article and trying to continue to improve it, just as I have done since I first stared working on it in 2007. I don't want to argue about it, so it's up to you guys. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarbus, I suggest that things be left as is, and that it might not be a good idea to work on the opera/theatre range without discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ssilvers, I'm sorry you find my bluntness incivil. It's a reflection of the imperfection of online communication. To be honest, though, I don't find the attitude of throwing out all of a set of improvements to an article because you disagree with one aspect particularly helpful, and so you'll have to accept that I was not very pleased with your behaviour in doing so. Nikkimaria has demonstrated that it would not have been difficult to revert just the contended edits had you chosen to do so. I don't find any value in your protestations that having the references at the end of an article instead of mixed up in the middle of the text will "guarantee that only a few techies remain" or "makes it nearly impossible for a new editor to work with this article". Do you really believe that? If you'd cut out the hyperbole and say that you find them difficult to work with, I'd have a lot more sympathy. In fact, I always recommend that any suggested change to list-defined references ought to be discussed rationally before any change may be implemented, because it's a courtesy to the editors who regularly maintain an article to check that they would comfortable with them. But isn't it a sad reflection on the current state of Wikipedia that you feel you have to threaten to abandon an article to get your own way? Whatever served as rational discourse in the past has surely dissipated from these talk pages now. I find it deeply disappointing. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are of no relevance to this article—they are merely fuel for the fire. No one will try to stop you feeling that fiddling with reference styles is a vital part of the encyclopedia, but please stop antagonizing content creators. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes them just slightly less irrelevant than your comments. Your battleground mentality which seeks to divide editors into "content creators" and "the rest" is poisonous to a collaborative atmosphere and really needs a rethink. Just what do you think qualifies Ssilvers as a "content editor" that does not qualify me as well? You can imagine what you choose, but I know the difference between a vital part of the encyclopedia and a small but worthwhile improvement. You want to justify having a FA with markup in it that makes it a poor experience for a blind visitor? You need to quit defending the indefensible and concentrate on dismantling the walled-garden that leaves a small group of editors with a myopic view of what constitutes Wikipedia's best work. When your standards for accessibility reach those mandated by the MOS, you'll be in a position to start preaching to others about "content creation". --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[left]Okay, talking is good, attacking and battleground-ing not so much. Rex, Ssilvers seems to be saying he finds the end-of-article system difficult to work with, even if you disagree with the rhetoric he used to say so. John, I get where you're coming from, but the "us-vs-them" mentality isn't helping here. Now, per WP:CITEVAR we need consensus to change the citation style of an established article, and thus far we don't have it. Would anyone like to present further points that might convince others and thus gain consensus? Also, while I'm here, I'm noticing a few inconsistencies in the already established format- would anyone object if I were to attempt to address them? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nikkimaria, for your kind efforts to damp down the fires here. I'll try to refrain from fanning the flames any further. I know from the training that I deliver that references are the most difficult function for editors to grasp fully, and I appreciate that many editors will learn one method and become so comfortable with it that they find different schemes unmanageable for them. Many of our longest-serving and finest contributors prefer parenthetical, plain-text references and despise templates. None of that is a problem while this remains a collaborative project, because we accept that others' views are also valid, and work to find common ground or areas where we can work synergetically.

I've already accepted that Ssilvers finds LDRs difficult to work with, but in return I'd like to see some recognition that indiscriminate reversions are no way to greet well-intentioned contributors who edit this article for the first time. I would be happy to help anybody who wants to implement a better system of referencing on any article, but I'm not in the business of pushing editors into doing anything they don't want to; there's nothing I wish to add to my initial endorsement of the LDR method.

Finally, I'd very much encourage you to address the inconsistencies you spotted. I doubt that anyone here will not endorse the MOS injunction to use a consistent reference style throughout an article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, given what has happened here, would you kindly give us some idea of what you see that you feel is inconsistent before going ahead? I see one thing that I would like to change in the edits that Alarbus recently made to increase the length of the targets (if targets is not the right word, please let me know the correct term) in the repeated refs that orginally said "lou", which now say "NYT/Calta 1949-01-25". I always try to make repeat refs into one-word targets without quotation marks, and so I would welcome a chance to make those into consistent one word targets (lou or Calta1949). The reason for this is that it is better to use the fewest keystrokes in targets, so that it is easier later to type them again if you need to move them or add more of them. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit before seeing this note - feel free to revert this edit or point out if there's something I got wrong. The other two issues, which I didn't want to touch without asking, were a) some refs use {{cite}} while others don't, and b) Bibliography entries include locations, while books listed only in citations do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Our intention was *not* to use the cite templates. A few sneaked back in; I'll convert them now. I'm agnostic on the locations. Frankly, I don't think it adds much to the encyclopedia, but I don't feel strongly. Do what you think is best about that. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be confusion over the time line outlined during the play. The park bench scene (Act I, Scene 2) takes place, according to the script, "in May." This is the first time Billy is ever formally introduced to Julie, of course.

Act I, Scene 3, in which Julie mentions to Carrie that her husband (Billy) hit her the previous Monday, takes place "in June" (which is why "June is Bustin' Out All Over"). Later the same day, Mrs. Mullin tells Billy to "look at the thing straight. You've been married for two months and you're sick of it."

May and June are only one month apart, so clearly 13 months have passed. I suppose it could be 25 months, too, but one is not possible. We are not given the details of Julie and Billy's courtship, but his frustration with unemployment after 13 months is very understandable. Not so much if it's one or two months. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein out, which includes their first six (through Me and Juliet). I see no mention of time of year in the (lengthy) stage directions for Act 1, Scenes 1 or 2. The stage directions which are printed for Scene 3 begin "Nettie Fowler's Spa on the ocean front. June." As if we didn't know :) However, in the Carrie/Julie bit in I.iii. where Julie discloses that Billy hit her and Carrie discloses her incipient marriage, there's this exchange (near the top of page 120)

Girl: Well, tell us! How long hev you been bespoke?

Carrie: Near on t'two months. Julie was the fust t'know.

Which the way I read it clearly refers to the Carrie/Julie scene in I.ii. which leads up to "You're a Queer One, Julie Jordan". Later in the scene there is the line with Mrs. Mullin which you accurately portray. It's on page 132 of my book. But I think it's pretty clear that two months are intended, not 13.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I've thoroughly pored over my script, and I'm now convinced that there is in fact a mistake in said script, as the chronology no longer makes sense. From the Libretto/Vocal Book (rented copy of the script), page I-1-1:

"Scene 1: An Amusement Park on the New England Coast in May"

So Billy and Julie meet in May. Now from the same book, page I-2-4:

"Scene 2: A Tree-Lined Path Along the Shore, a Few Minutes Later" Key dialog is CARRIE (singing): "Last night he spoke quite low, and a fair-spoken man is he, and he said, [etc.] '...and indeed, Miss Pipperidge, if you'll be mine, I'll be yours for the rest of my life.' Next moment we were promised, and now my mind's in a maze, ..."

So it appears Enoch and Carrie are already engaged as of May. Now, on page I-3-26:

"Scene 3: Nettie Fowler's Spa on the Oceanfront in June" Key dialog is NETTIE: "You stay out here and visit with Carrie. You haven't seen each other for a long time. Do you good." [more lines] CARRIE: "Julie, I got some good news to tell you about me---about Mr. Snow and me. We're goin' to be cried in church nex' Sunday! [more lines] 1ST GIRL: "Well, tell us! How long hev you been bespoke?" CARRIE: near on t' two months. Julie was the fust t'know.")

So Julie is already married here, and Carrie has been engaged for two months or so in June. Since we know she got engaged the day before Julie met Billy, this means that two months have passed between May and June (toss the red flag now, please). Later in the same scene, we have dialog: MRS. MULLIN (to BILLY): "Look at the thing straight. You been married two months and you're sick of it. Out there's the Carousel...."

From this, I think it is clear that:

• Julie and Billy just met, as of May
• Carrie and Enoch got engaged in May, just before Julie first met Billy
• Carrie and Enoch have been engaged for two months, as of June
• Julie and Billy have been married for two months, as of June

As little sense as it makes for Julie and Billy to be married the day they met, it appears that this is the only way to interpret this. Also, from Carrie's comment to Julie about her "having a feller of her own," it appears that merely putting a hand on a woman's waist on a carousel ride and then offering to go out for drinks later was considered a proposition of marriage in 1873 (hmm...). We also have to make the assumption that Julie and Billy's wedding was in very early May, and the clambake scene is in very late June, and Mrs. Mullin's line is exaggerated (i.e., "two months" means "a month and a half" or some such), and that Nettie considers about seven or eight weeks to be "a long time" for Carrie and Julie to have not seen each other. I liked the time line much better before I noticed the line about Carrie being promised and then her comment about being engaged for two months. Now it makes so sense whatsoever. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I just looked at the Synopsis of Scenes page and I see

Prelude|An Amusement Park on the New England Coast. May.

Act I|Scene 1. A tree-lined path along the shore. A few minutes later.

Scene 2. Nettie Fower's Spa on the ocean front. June.

Maybe we could change the synopsis to make it unspecific as to time, something like "later that spring"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, in the movie there is a brief scene between Nettie, Billy, and Julie, making it clear that they eloped that night. However, that's not in the play. It does make sense. Remember, both are now jobless and homeless.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. In musicals, people fall in love at first sight very often. Cinderella meets the Prince, and soon the slipper is on the right foot and a royal marriage is hastily planned. Anti-fairy tales like this skip right from falling in love to wedding and disillusionment, which is the part that interests the dramatist. Plus, May 1 to, say, June 20 is "near" to two months.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiserkarl13's expansion of the plot is unquestionably correct. However it is much too long. We are not trying to get every plot detail in, we're trying to give the reader something usable if he has tickets to Carousel tonight and has never seen it. The changes are a bit of overdetail, I'm afraid. Also, what's the justification for "Stonecutters Cut It on Stone"? The original cast CD is in my view fairly determinative as R & H would have looked at it themselves. I am away from home until Saturday so can't look at my references but as I recall, Hischak agrees. I'm not trying to discourage Kaiserkarl13, who is obviously a knowledgeable editor and clueful. However, we can't put everything in and still have a useable article. There is a lot to be said about Carousel, but we can't say it all.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wehwalt; when this article went through the FA process, we tried to focus on the most important information. If you believe that any further details are really necessary, let's discuss. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I state above, Jigger's song is "Stonecutters Cut It on Stone." Page II-1-75 of the script:

  MUSIC 20:  GERANIUMS IN THE WINDER/STONECUTTERS CUT IT ON STONE

Remember: every performance is different, and just about every production has to make a cut or two. People cut songs, shorten them, and give them new names. I found it difficult to leave some changes and dispense with others, so I reverted everything. If you think some parts are too long, by all means edit them, but it pains me when I correct something only to have it deleted a few minutes later for the wrong reasons.Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly we put both, but one in parentheses. It's an ongoing issue. You might want to look at WP:PLOT for our guidelines on this. As for the "wrong reason" and so forth, keep in mind that Ssilers and myself have been at this for a while and each of us has managed to put together decent-quality articles on the musical theatre. We respected you, though we disagreed with you ... anyhow, I'll look it over later. Keep in mind there's not always just one answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some of Keiserkarl13's changes and kept others by just copyediting the whole thing. I did revert the song title thing, per here p. 38. I am willing to discuss putting (Stonecutters Cut it on Stone) in parentheses after the song title.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some day you theater buffs will have to explain to me why an encyclopedia (The Rodgers and Hammerstein Encyclopedia) is a better reference than a primary source (the script to Carousel). Being a science/engineering type, I have always been taught the opposite. To me, the script of a work (or its score, for musical questions) is the definitive, primary source; everything else is some third-party's adaptation, subject to the usual mistakes and edits. Please consider my contributions to this page over. It is not worth my time to fight with the likes of Wehwalt; what such editors are actually looking for is a soapbox. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Left] Because we don't have what you have so in case of conflict we have to go with published sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. See also WP:Secondary source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:98.248.10.236 has made a number of edits to the above section recently and I would like to discuss them here. As this issue is becoming more and more troublesome, I believe we can get a clear consensus about either including the edits or keeping the section as it is. Additional thoughts on the matter are appreciated. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should return the "Musical numbers" section to Wehwalt's version of this FA article (which was reviewed by numerous reviewers). He used Hischak, p. 38 as his reference, which is a very high quality reference; it also agrees with the IBDB listing. The IP is WP:edit warring to add unencyclopedic details. For example, everyone knows that the overture is played by the Orchestra. He also keep adding capital letters to the word "reprise". There is no reason why that word should have an initial cap. He also erroneously keeps changing the ndashes to hyphens. In short, his changes are simply wrong. He has also violated the 3rr rule, even though I suggested on his talk page that he should stop edit warring and use the talk page here instead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a note on the user's talk page inviting them to take part. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the edits going across my watchlist but haven't felt like getting into it one way or the other. The IP seemed to know more or less what he was doing, even if I think he's wrong (he may not be; my opinions have changed in the past), I'm hoping to engage with him. He's not completely wrong, the numbers he put in clearly exist (the Girls' Dance in the first act for one) but Hischak hasn't included them. It all goes, I suppose, to what level of detail you want to get into. I'd be curious to know what he's working from.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there divergence between these edits and those proposed by Kaiserkarl13? This is not a particularly high-traffic article, though it gets a fair number of hits, and it strikes me as odd we are getting successive disputes on the numbers list. Yes, there's no "Stonecutters", but not everyone's stupid. Not saying it is KK13 in particular, just thinking out loud.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[left] It appears the IP has been blocked. I got through to the last bit on the reporting page only to find out they were blocked earlier on. I think this is only a brief block so I have saved my form should they continue when they are reinstated. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since IPs are often shared (i.e., library or school computers), they are not blocked for long. You may want to ask for page protection at WP:RFPP.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to do it later, but I will happily oblige. Could you check my revert please? I'm not sure I reverted all of it successfully. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look once I have more coffee. Even Billy liked his coffee.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, I fixed it. Wehwalt, Hischak and IBDB agree. The changes this IP was suggesting were mostly different from what Kaiserkarl was doing. If you look at my comment at the top of this section, I explain what he was doing wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in agreement is Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, which is what I worked from. I have the published scripts from the first eight, all but The Sound of Music (oh, and State Fair). I cited to Hischak after I compared the two to avoid claims of primary sources, which I got anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection requested -- Cassianto^Talk 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This person is using multiple addresses to make troublesome edits on several articles, like a COPYVIO yesterday at Celebration (musical), previous edit warring at The Fantasticks and this rather strange edit! Paul Eric blocked the sock (User:198.228.216.146) as well as the original edit warrior. He noted that the sock had previously been blocked for block evasion related to a previous series of edits -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section becomes much too technical. Wikipedia editors should remember that there will be those who read this article and know nothing about dotted rhythms, eighteenth notes, or sixteenth notes. Leonard Bernstein explained music more clearly on his Young People's Concerts. AlbertSM (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A blue-link is given explaining these rhythms, and this analysis of the music in the show is cited to reliable sources. There is no reason to dumb down the discussion. If you have a suggestion, however, on how to explain it better, and can cite reliable sources, I'd love to hear it. As to the other changes you made, they contradict the sources given, so I have reverted them (except for one spelling correction - thanks!). If you have reliable sources to back up those changes, however, present them, and we can do further research. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ssilvers. If you don't understand the technical terms you can pass by those. What is the alternative? To delete the passage entirely?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and am a lover of musicals. Carousel is one of my all time favorites (second only to Sondheim's Follies) and I have seen the movie and read the Libretto countless times. After having read the OFFICIAL Libretto and the OFFICIAL Piano/Conductor Score, I believe that a number of songs have been left out. I read above that there was a problem involving musical number changes. So before changing anything, I wanted to check in here so I don't get a bad rep. So, according to my Libretto/Score, 1)The end of Act One is a reprise of "June Is Bustin' Out All Over" and seems a significant part of the show. Maybe we could refer to it as "Finale Act I (June Is Bustin' Out All Over)" ? 2)There is a musical Entr'acte, which should be mentioned. 3)Just a couple of minor fixes: The opening is referred to as "Prologue (The Carousel Waltz)", The word "reprise" should be capitalized ("Reprise") and put inside the quotation marks (instead of "(When I Marry) Mister Snow" (reprise) it would be "(When I Marry) Mister Snow (Reprise)"), "There's Nothin' So Bad For A Women" is "Stonecutters Cut It On Stone" in both the Score AND Libretto (although I realize that is what the title was on the Original Recording), should we note that "The Carousel Waltz" and "Billy Makes A Journey" are played by the Orchestra? Some people who don't know the show might not know that they are instrumental and played by the Orchestra (for all they know, "The Carousel Waltz" could be a song), and lastly, does it have to be "Billy Makes A Journey" - Instrumental ballet. ? It just looks REALLY bad. Why is that period even there? Could we PLEASE make it "Ballet: Billy Makes a Journey" ? Thank you so much for listening to this. -GossipGuy215

Carousel is my favorite play without exception. Welcome to this article. Let me see. We went by the libretto as published in Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and the list of musical numbers there. As far as I know, that's official. That list was confirmed by Hischak's R&H encyclopedia. I think we should go by the list, which presumably was checked by the authors. I'm not certain how to account for the discrepancies between the sources. I think any consistent way of describing the instrumental would be fine. On the reprise, I am not sure. Ssilvers is more familiar with the standards of the musical theatre articles than I. Perhaps he can opine on the matter. The libretto/score. May I ask for the publication details on that? Just so I know what to think of it. Oh, and to sign, you click the little bit that looks like a pencil writing in the edit bar above the edit window which you open when you click edit, or else type --~~~~--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fist things first, than you so much for responding. Second, my libretto is old, so old that it apparently sold for "$2.00 per copy." It was published by Williamson Music, Inc. Inside, it reads "This Libretto copyright 1956 by Oscar Hammerstein II and Richard Rodgers." It does not have a list of musical numbers, only a Synopsis of Scenes and a Character list. However, when reading it, it has cues that read Music No. __ so it matches with the Official Piano/Conductor Score (for example, for the opening it reads: "Music No. 1 PROLOGUE (The Carousel Waltz)"). For the Score, beneath each number it reads "Copyright 1945 by Williamson Music, Inc., New York, N.Y./Sole Selling Agent T.B. Harms Company/International Copyrights Secured Made in U.S.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED including public performance for profit" On the cover "Richard Rodgers/Oscar Hammerstein 2nd/Carousel/A Musical Play/Piano Conductor,Edited by Richard A. Haggerty/Property of Rodgers and Hammerstein Library, New York, N.Y." I believe it was edited so that it would show the piano parts and a selected portion of the other Orchestra parts. Third, to quote my Libretto for the Act One Finale "PEOPLE start entering with baskets, pies, jugs, etc, ready to go on the clambake. BILLY: Y-yes. I better go and get it - the shawl. JULIE: Now that was real thoughtful, Billy. NETTIE comes out of the house crossing to D.C. The stage is pretty well crowded by now. BILLY: I'll go and get it. He exits into the house quickly. (Warn Housetabs, Warn Switchboard Cue 13.) NETTIE: C'mon, Everybody! From the house come GIRLS carrying cakes, pies, butter crocks. Men carrying baskets. [Nettie] Sings June is bustin' out all over! ALL: The flowers are burstin' from their seed! NETTIE: And the pleasant life of Riley, That is spoken of so highly Is the life that everybody wants to lead! ALL (Repeat twice): Because it's June! June-June-June! Jest because it's June-June-June!" Also, at the end of the synopsis for act one it reads "The whole town leaves for the clambake. Billy, who had earlier refused to go, agrees to join in, to Julie's delight, as he realizes that being seen at the clambake is integral to his and Jigger's alibi ("Act I Finale")." So why would it not be in the list of Musical Numbers? Fourth, I will change it to read - Orchestra on the Prologue and Ballet and change the "reprise" thing. If Ssilvers says it's wrong, he is free to revert it, and discuss it with me. Once again, thank you so much for helping me with this. GossipGuy215--Wehwalt

Hit enter twice between the two paragraphs and then indent using the colons on the second paragraph. Williamson, is of course, R&H. We will see what Ssilvers says, I will leave a note on his talk page. Note that this may be a very slow discussion due to the upcoming hurricane. I'll dig up my copy of Six Plays.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wehwalt, and welcome, GossipGuy215. First things first. I have no objection to saying that the number is an orchestra or instrumental number, as you do on "The Carousel Waltz". However, there is no reason to capitalize the word "reprise". This is a description, not part of the title of the song, so it should not be capitalized or within the quotation marks. Is the word "ballet" part of the song's title? If not, it should not be within the quotation marks; but I have no objection to it being at the front of the title, if it is consistent with the sources. I'll let Wehwalt comment specifically on this one. The word "Finale" is also a description, I'd say, not part of the title. Only the titles themselves should go within the quotes. I've made changes consistent with the above. As for your original numbered questions above, here are your questions, with my answers:

• 1) The end of Act One is a reprise of "June Is Bustin' Out All Over" and seems a significant part of the show. Maybe we could refer to it as "Finale Act I (June Is Bustin' Out All Over)" ?

• Wehwalt, does your libretto match GossipGuy's libretto concerning a finale for Act I? I do not see it, and the IBDB does not list it.

• 2) There is a musical Entr'acte, which should be mentioned.

• I don't mind listing overtures and substantial entr'actes, but how important is this one? That IBDB does not list it is one indication that it is not so important. In this general readership encyclopedia, we are just trying to summarize the most important things about the show that general readers need to know. Plus, if this is the sort of information you want, it is readily available elsewhere, particularly in the score. Speaking generally, many musical theatre scores list lots of little named snippets of music, background/incidental music and/or short reprises. For example, the score of The Fantasticks lists 41 numbers, including the ones designated as "a", like 2a. But fewer than half of those are real musical numbers. In general, I think that lists of musical numbers in this encyclopedia are better off being restricted to the most important ones, so that the musical numbers section is compact and in proportion with the rest of the discussion. So, the question is always, what does listing this item add to the discussion? Is there a unique musical theme in this Entr'acte that is not just a repetition of other music in the score? Is it pretty long, or just long enough to make people quiet down and get settled in their seats for Act II?

• 3) Just a couple of minor fixes: The opening is referred to as "Prologue (The Carousel Waltz)"

• I am not sure that was true in the original production. I leave it to Wehwalt to consult the sources.

I look forward to hearing back from both of you on this, but I may lose power at some point during this hurricane. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here. I will look for the book, it is someplace around. I may not have much else to do the next two days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for responding. According to the Libretto/Score, the word "reprise" is NOT in the quotation marks. However, it IS capitalized. Also, in the Libretto/Score the title "Billy Makes a Journey" is not used, it only reads "Ballet." However, I am assuming that you got the title from a verified source (therefore, Rodgers and Hammerstein approved of it), and I agree we should keep the it in the title, along with the word "ballet." Also, the Finale is not named "You'll Never Walk Alone" (Reprise), but "Finale Ultimo" in the Libretto/Score. As with the "Ballet" I believe we should keep the currant title in and change it to either "Finale: You'll Never Walk Alone" (Reprise) or "Finale Ultimo: You'll Never Walk Alone" (Reprise). I'll change it to the latter and you can undo it of you believe this is wrong.

• 1) "The end of Act One is a reprise of "June Is Bustin' Out All Over" and seems a significant part of the show. Maybe we could refer to it as "Finale Act I (June Is Bustin' Out All Over)" ?

• Wehwalt, does your libretto match GossipGuy's libretto concerning a finale for Act I? I do not see it, and the IBDB does not list it."

In the Libretto/Score the title is "Finale Act I" but I believe (as with the Finale) we should add that it is a reprise of "June Is Bustin' Out All Over." Once again I'll change it, but please feel free to undo it.

• 2) "There is a musical Entr'acte, which should be mentioned.

• I don't mind listing overtures and substantial entr'actes, but how important is this one? That IBDB does not list it is one indication that it is not so important. In this general readership encyclopedia, we are just trying to summarize the most important things about the show that general readers need to know. Plus, if this is the sort of information you want, it is readily available elsewhere, particularly in the score. Speaking generally, many musical theatre scores list lots of little named snippets of music, background/incidental music and/or short reprises. For example, the score of The Fantasticks lists 41 numbers, including the ones designated as "a", like 2a. But fewer than half of those are real musical numbers. In general, I think that lists of musical numbers in this encyclopedia are better off being restricted to the most important ones, so that the musical numbers section is compact and in proportion with the rest of the discussion. So, the question is always, what does listing this item add to the discussion? Is there a unique musical theme in this Entr'acte that is not just a repetition of other music in the score? Is it pretty long, or just long enough to make people quiet down and get settled in their seats for Act II?"

The "Entr'acte" is listed in both the Libretto and (obviously) in the Score. The "Entr'acte" consists of six pages (as opposed to "The Carousel Waltz"'s Sixteen) and contains "When the Children Are Asleep", "If I Loved You", "Soliloquy", "June Is Bustin' Out All Over", and "If I Loved You" (Reprise). However, most Overtures and Entr'actes just play themes from songs in the show, and both serve as a place for latecomers to get into their seats, but a lot of musical pages on Wikipedia include them in the "Musical Numbers" list, so why should this be any difference?

Also, although the score calls for 31 musical numbers, here are the ones I believe we should use: 1) "Prologue (The Carousel Waltz)", 4) Julie and Carrie Sequence ("You're a Queer One, Julie Jordan" and "(When I Marry) Mister Snow"), 5) Scene Billy and Julie ("If I Loved You"), 7) "June Is Bustin' Out All Over", 11) "(When I Marry) Mister Snow" (Reprise), 12) Carrie and Mr. Snow Sequence ("When the Children Are Asleep"), 13) "Blow High, Blow Low", 15) "Soliloquy", 16) Finale Act I ("June Is Bustin' Out All Over" (Reprise)), 17) "Entr'acte", 19) "A Real Nice Clambake", 20) "Geraniums in The Winder" (and "Stonecutters Cut it on Stone"), 21) "What's the Use of Wondrin'", 23) "You'll Never Walk Alone", 25) "The Highest Judge of All", 27) "Ballet", 28) "My Little Girl" - (Reprise) ("If I Loved You" (Reprise)), and 31) "Finale Ultimio". I do not think we need to include all of their names, just as what they are known as now, such as "You're a Queer One, Julie Jordan" instead of "Julie and Carrie Sequence". This is just what I personally believe and in no way is official.

• 3) "Just a couple of minor fixes: The opening is referred to as "Prologue (The Carousel Waltz)"

• I am not sure that was true in the original production. I leave it to Wehwalt to consult the sources."

I am not sure if that was true for the original production either, but we don't call it "Waltz Suite: Carousel" as on the Original Recording. It is entitled "Prologue (The Carousel Waltz)" on both the official licensed version Libretto and Score, so I personally believe this is correct.

Finally, I'm letting you know now that I'm changing the stuff on the "Musical Numbers" section to reflect this. If you still do not agree, I am totally fine if you revert it. I will not, however, change "There's Nothin' So Bad For a Woman" to "Stonecutters Cut it on Stone" because I see there was a problem with that above. However, as it is referred to that in both the Libretto AND the Score, I would like to discuss it with you farther. Thank you for listening to my opinions and sorry if the post is so long. Once again, feel free to revert the "Musical Numbers" section. Hope the hurricane isn't too bad! --Gossipguy215 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)GossipGuy215--Gossipguy215 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have my libretto. The libretto I have does not have a list of musical numbers, possibly to save space as it is from the book of the first six R&H. However, Hischak does, and he is pretty authoritative, and had the cooperation of the R&H people. Remember, both my book and your book are primary sources, Hischak presumably has the materials. He also mentions, in the entry of "There's Nothing So Bad for a Woman" that it is sometimes called "Stonecutters Cut it on Stone" so I think what we have now is an adept compromise. As for reprise/Reprise, I do not greatly care, that forms no part of the title. Carousel Waltz is a prologue, but I think by putting the word first we mislead people into thinking the name is Prologue and Carousel Waltz merely an alternate name. I really think all the reprises are unnecessary, it simply is not necessary to mention every time a character bursts into song. We'd be half the page with that if this was Allegro!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve reverted you on Carousel Waltz. Prologue forms no part of that title, it is a descriptor. As for "Billy Makes a Journey", yes, it is described as such in several sources, not only Hischak but the bio of DeMille and I think a couple of others but I'd have to look.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. I noted after - Orchestra on "The Carousel Waltz" section that it is also referred to as "Prologue", which I think is a good compromise.

As for the rest of the numbers, let's leave them alone until Ssilvers returns or Hischak enters into the discussion. --Gossipguy215 (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who refers to it as Prologue? It is a prologue but I would submit that the name "The Carousel Waltz" has taken all the oxygen out of the room, and if there was a time that it was called "Prologue", that time has passed. Also suggest that the cast album, again, is of interest on this point. If you ask me, "Prologue" is what is going on, on stage in dumbshow as the orchestra plays the Carousel waltz. As for Hischak, it is my handy dandy reference book for R&H, it is where I would turn to before my other refs because it's organized rather than narrative.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the 1993 London Cast Recording it is called "Prologue." Obviously, Rodgers and Hammerstein didn't check it, but it proves that an entire SOLD OUT production of it referred to it as "Prologue" instead of "The Carousel Waltz." Also, on the 1994 Recording it is called "Prologue/The Carousel Waltz." So, the word Prologue is also an alternate title to "The Carousel Waltz." --Gossipguy215 (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I saw the New York production of that and possibly the reason is because they started with Carrie and Julie working, then the end of the work day, them coming down to the carnival and the carousel was assembled on stage. But you make a very good point..--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I strongly disagree with capitalizing the word reprise. That is a typographical choice made by some publishers, but it is better to use the lower case word to distinguish it from part of the title, and that is what we have done throughout the musical theatre project (at least with respect to the musicals that I have contributed to). I also don't think that the quotes should go around the words Ballet or Finale, as they are descriptive, rather than titles. Also, the word "prologue" was not used in the original production. It was added later, and so I don't think it is authentic here, when we are basically using the original production materials. Wehwalt, what did you conclude about the Act I finale and the Entr'acte? Also, I think that lots of people reviewed this article before and at FAC, and I think that we should be very cautious about adding entirely new items to the list of musical numbers that was reviewed by so many people at that time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Hischak nor the libretto I have mentions either. The Act I finale is a very brief number, really just long enough to cover the townsfolk heading towards the boats and Julie acting all shocked that Billy has a knife, which she had just discovered. I've heard the Entr'acte, it is a short version of what would have been the overture, had there been an overture. Neither one, IMHO, is musically significant. I'm also concerned about putting material in which is not contained in the sources, as you can see, the article is fully cited and I hate to send the reader to the wrong place if he checks up on us, which is his right.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will note also that the libretto begins (after the dramatis personae, first night cast, other credits, and synopsis of scenes"

ACT ONE|Scene One

WALTZ PRELUDE: Carousel

SCENE: An amusement park on the New England Coast.

TIME: Late afternoon.

It then goes on to give a detailed description of the stage action during the waltz.

I'm not sure when the name "The Carousel Waltz", as such, originated. That could be our point of difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider looking in at this FA, I would expect the sources to be backing up the text 100%. An Artistic license should not be adopted when writing or referring to the text within the sources. I do not see the need to capitalise "reprise", as I too find it's capitalisation misleading. To me, it would look like it is part of the title when it is not. I would strongly oppose any major changes to the article as, IMO, it is a fantastic piece of work. I would be worried that any major changes could void it's previous FAC and therefore, render it liable for another review. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned the article to the last agreed-upon state. Please obtain a consensus before making any further changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads fine as it is and does not need any major reworking, which, as stated above, could invalidate its previous FAC status. I also do not see a need to capitalise the word 'reprise'. Jack1956 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as one of the people who has worked extensively on this article, I am iffy about adding the names from the concert production. Normally, we only include names of persons listed in the Productions section. Other than the person who added them, does anyone else have an opinion? Secondly, as far as the other new names that I have deleted, unless a person is named in the Productions section (or possibly in that well-received concert version, as noted above), then they do not belong in the table. If you can cite a WP:Reliable source showing that they played a major role in a production listed in the Productions section, then we can also add them in the table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it all depends. If it is a one-off, and will not be heard of again, however excellent, then probably not. I seem to remember other concert hall productions of Carousel, when it was going through the dearth of productions in the 70s and 80s. If it is going to be released on DVD and CD (or iTunes, I suppose), then it may be worth mentioning either in the productions or adaptation section, and we should then make a decision on the casting table. We've included concert versions in Pipe Dream, but then, there's not a lot to choose from in Pipe Dream and there is no casting table because productions have been so rare (most of the original night cast and prominent replacements therefore are mentioned in that article's prose, and there's no great point in having a table recapitulating what would be slim pickings. On the other hand, there have been several important productions of Carousel in the last quarter-century. So I think there's leeway either way, but I don't have broad experience of the musical theatre project outside R&H, and would be concerned about setting an unfortunate precedent. I did not include the cast of the 2005 Carnegie Hall production as part of the ongoing renovation of South Pacific, but there has been no review or feedback as yet, as I only created the cast table some weeks ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I am asking two questions above, and I don't think you exactly followed them. Please note that the concert production mentioned above is already described in the "Film, television and concert versions" section of the article. Would you please review that section and my comment above and then respond to both questions I am asking, bearing in mind that the question under discussion is the actual casting table, rather than the productions or adaptations sections, and whether to include or exclude the names from that version and, *also*, the names that I recently deleted and are being edit-warred over..

OK, my personal view is that we should avoid putting anyone from something other than a full-fledged production in the casting table. This, it seems to me does not qualify.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Based on that, I have now removed the concert's stars from the casting table. Please keep an eye on the article to see if the IPs that added them will try to re-insert them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I am traveling and have limited internet until the 18th, when that situation should improve. Perhaps that caused me to be too hasty in answering.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 3-week long production in Chicago at the Lyric Opera currently, starring Laura Osnes and Steven Pasquale and features Denyce Graves as Nettie, Jennifer Gambatese as Carrie, Charlotte d'Amboise as Mrs. Mullin, Jarrod Emick as Jigger and Tony Roberts as the Starkeeper. http://www.lyricopera.org/carousel/ . We have not described the many other regional productions of this musical, so, notwithstanding this production's starry cast, I am not sure that we should add this one. What do you think, User:Wehwalt and others? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all it is, a limited run, certainly by a fine opera company, but no different than many other stagings of Carousel put on for a short period by opera or theatre companies across the nation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, it seems inappropriate to add it.Somambulant1 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made two kinds of changes to the article today seen here. First is a technical change concerning the table. This change does not seem to change the appearance of the table. It uses longer coding, but it seems to me that shorter is better. Second, they added a short paragraph about domestic violence. One from the British critic Michael Billington in 2012, and another from a 2013 BroadwayWorld.com article. I object to the placement of this paragraph within the section, but the idea seems worth mentioning. There is some discussion of this in the Productions section regarding the Hytner production. There is also some discussion in the musical themes section. Also, is BroadwayWorld the best source to discuss how this theme has been viewed in recent years? User:Wehwalt, did you see more on this when you were researching the show? Do you have a suggestion on how best to integrate this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to what seems to be a decent spot, although I don't consider the points made on domestic violence very profound, in fact not too different from what the characters say, that Billy is very wrong to have done that and that Julie should leave him. But I agree, it should stand, at least for now. I am looking for further analysis of Carousel, I'm not as happy with it as I was in view of better efforts we've put forth later. But I'm not aware of anything better on the violence issue recently; possibly there might be something in a review, but the reviewer might not know more than broadwayworld.com--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored the simpler table format, unless the editor can explain why they changed it. I like the new location, and I did some formatting and grabbed a short quote from Kelli O'Hara from the same BWW article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I have a bit of time, I'm going to go through the various reviews of the Hytner and other modern productions and see if I can find a bit more on the themes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Darling was replaced by Margot Moser during the original run, as the article states, citing footnotes 53 and 54. Moser went on to play Carrie in the London production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I imaged the souvenir book that image is from (Mr. Snow arriving) at the Performing Arts Library at Lincoln Center. I conclude I based it on the cast list in there. If I had tried to research it, I would remember that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Carousel (musical) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think we might as well wait for the 75th anniversary in 2020. Possibly there will be news and scholarly coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carousel (musical). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ibdb.com/production-songs.php?ShowNo=2419&ProdNo=1694
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122081559/http://stageagent.com:80/Shows/View/708 to http://stageagent.com/Shows/View/708

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this solid enough to keep, or is it predicting the future? Ssilvers?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it and thought I would leave it to the regulars, however, it fails WP:CRYSTAL IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's close, because the producer, director and all involved have the horsepower to get it done, and it has instantly attracted quite a bit of entertainment press. If it is actually produced, the dancing should be spectacular. Still, I'd suggest removing it and waiting *at least* until a theater has been engaged. Broadway productions are so often cancelled (especially prior to rehearsals beginning), that WP:CRYSTAL is a very good guideline in this area. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the press regarding Fleming's participation, and since a specific opening date was announced, on review, I don't mind leaving it up for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've generally tried to keep the mentions of subsequent productions to the most important. It's not obvious to me that this production meets that standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. According to the sources offered, the production played only 17 performances in total, and only one of the players is a blue-linked person. Google shows two negative reviews of the show in German sources here and here, with the director and music both coming in for some sharp criticism. I do not believe that this was not a noteworthy production. This musical is played regularly in professional theatres all over the world, so revivals listed should be particularly long-running, of unusual scale, involve major stars and directors, or have some other indicia of noteworthiness as compared with other regional and international productions. Compare the previous discussion of the 2105 Chicago production, which had a far more notable cast. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I guess we need to discuss the 2015 Chicago production that was added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed it above. We agreed not to add it, mostly because it only ran for three weeks. Despite the starry cast, such a short run in a regional theatre does not seem to clear the bar for a musical with so many regional and international productions over the decades. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carousel (musical). 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://archive.is/20080704130706/http://www.dramadesk.com/1993_1994dd.html to http://www.dramadesk.com/1993_1994dd.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming did a play on Broadway in 2015: Living on Love. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]