Talk:Wicked (musical)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "grimmerie" :
    • {{cite book | author=David Cote | title=Wicked: The Grimmerie: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Hit Broadway Musical|publisher=Hyperion| year=2005|id=ISBN 1-4013-0820-1 }}
    • {{cite book |author=David Cote |title=Wicked: The Grimmerie: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Hit Broadway Musical|publisher=Hyperion|year=2005|page=13|id=ISBN 1-4013-0820-1}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Dafyd (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm worried that we're using a few too many fair use images of performances here. Can someone explain why we need so many? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Elphaba's Name

Elphaba's name is listed as elphaba thropp, but she isnt called that in the show. i keep changing it but people keep changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.22.99 (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Actually, my comments in my latest edit notwithstanding, there isn't one clear language variant present in the article. We have "capitalise" and "organize", and "honor" together with "colour". We should decide (preferably amiably :D) which variant to use, and stick with it. I'd argue for en-gb (naturally :D) partly because I think there's slightly more of it in the prose at the moment than en-us, but mainly because there are more en-gb productions (or productions in countries where en-gb is spoken rather than en-us) open or opening than there are en-us (remembering that the North American productions, visiting both the USA and Canada, can't really count for one or the other). I know the difference it utterly inconsequential when the production is spoken (and let's be honest, the choice of one or the other is itself pretty trivial), but a decision has to be made, and to not be made on the basis of how many editors happen to speak whichever variant. Comments? Happy‑melon 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberetto link legality

I noticed the link to the musical's entire liberetto. This is on a russian website, and doesn't look like it is legal. Should this be removed?

Immediately, but I'm scared to click it. I might get arrested. I'm kidding. I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Was Fiyero changed back?

I've never seen the musical, so I was wondering if Fiyero was changed back from being a scarecrow or not? Can someone tell me because the plot overview's wording left me confused, as it didnt say whether he was changed back or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.64.72 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he is still a scarecrow at the end of the musical -- Dafyd (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ahhhhhhhh, thats deppressing..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.65.12 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists rules

Resuscitated from archive... -- Dafyd (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We can keep the cast lists as long as there is no nonsense added to them such as saying celebrities like Bill Clinton, Cher, or David Letterman are joining the casts. In order to make an addition to the cast lists, there must be confirmation from a news source or this website: [1]. It has been accurate many times because of the members HAVE spoken to cast members about replacements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by And1987 (talk • contribs)

Suggestion. Why don't you list merchants go over to Wikia and create you own wiki with a separate article for each production? Believe it or not, no-one will come trying to delete them! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an Oz Wiki. — MusicMaker5376 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When this article was promoted to GA status, we had a long discussion about what to do with cast lists. It was decided (and there was a clear consensus on this, both from contributing editors and those who had nothing to do with the article) that long cast lists were bad. Wikipedia is not a directory. That said, notable cast members should be listed: they are important parts of each production. Basically, then, we decided that only actors who have their own articles on Wikipedia should be mentioned, and only those who took one of the principle roles (use your common sense). They should be mentioned in prose with each production ("Notable replacements in the Broadway cast have included...").

Wicked is currently a Good Article, and is not far off an FA. Long lists of actors will only add to the article's cruft... they will be deleted.

-- Dafyd (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To add... the article, without cast lists, is currently about 60kb. This is already a big article according to WP:LENGTH. Adding the cast lists pushes the article past 100kb, which is far too big. Usually, I would suggest that the cast lists could have their own article, but clearly the community has decided that they don't deserve one. If they don't get their own article, they don't go here either. Please. -- Dafyd (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize I have arrived far too late to this argument over the cast list, but I was surprised that the article didn't list the names of the original Broadway principle cast members. I came to this article specifically seeking such information and was disappointed to find no list. I truly believe the following list, taken from wikia:oz:Wicked cast lists (mentioned above) would be a good compromise, and would not add any burdensome length to the article:

Original Broadway Cast (2003)

Principals (in order of appearance) 

  * Kristin Chenoweth as Glinda
  * Sean McCourt as Elphaba's Father
  * Cristy Candler as Elphaba's Mother
  * Jan Neuberger as The Midwife
  * Idina Menzel as Elphaba
  * Michelle Federer as Nessarose
  * Christopher Fitzgerald as Boq
  * Carole Shelley as Madame Morrible
  * William Youmans as Doctor Dillamond
  * Norbert Leo Butz as Fiyero
  * Sean McCourt as The Ozian Official
  * Joel Grey as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
  * Manuel Herrera as Chistery  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.19.18 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 film

That's not true. Just because IMDb says so doesn't mean that it's true. Remember that IMDb is a user run web site just like Wikipedia. - Jasonbres (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article cited IMDb? I have no idea about IMDb, but there's interviews with someone from Universal saying they're negotiating the adaptation of the musical to film, but they had no date cause the success of the musical makes the rights of adaptation from Stephen Schwartz hard to get... And Gregory Maguire has commented that there was going to be a movie version of the book, not soon, but there would be. Although he didn't mention if it was an adaptation of the musical or the book... Even so... It's not just rumors about the movie, I think... Lumi-chan (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists

In agreement with the discussion above, I have removed the cast lists from this article for probably the second or third time. I intend to continue to do so unless there is a consensus here that they should be included. The cast lists have been removed several times from this article, indeed an entire list of them was deleted at AfD. Current consensus appears to be very clear: we do not want these lists in the article, nor do we want extensive 'prose lists' of cast replacements. Is there any reasoned argument why this consensus should be considered changed? Happy‑melon 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadway Replacements

Rent, Beauty and the Beast, and Hairspray have notable Broadway replacements in their articles. Why can't we have them here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb1990 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To list a few reasons:
  • WP:NOT#INFO: "Wikipedia articles are not... Lists or repositories... such as... persons (real or fictional).... [Separate lists] are certainly permitted..." So that's what we did... and then deleted. Clear consensus there.
  • WP:WPMT/AS#Productions: "The names of non-notable... ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members... should be deleted... For the original Broadway or West End production, there may be a cast list, with notable actors bluelinked, or the casting may be described in prose... However, there should not be full lists of replacement casts..." (my highlight). So if the cast are described in prose, as is the case in the "Tryout and Broadway production" section, there is no need to include a separate cast list.
  • There is a consensus of several editors just two sections above that these cast lists are therefore unnecessary and so should be removed.
I hope this clarifies the situation. Half of your addition is redundant to content already given in prose, the other half is directly proscribed by relevant guidelines. Please revert your addition. Happy‑melon 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The original Broadway cast is listed in the narrative section about the Broadway production, above, so the list is redundant information. The replacement cast list does not indicate whether all of these people played the role for any notable length of time or were just understudies. What might be better would be to note, in the narrative section above describing the Broadway production, the notable actors who joined the principal cast for significant stretches of time, and when they were in the production. As for other articles that have cast information in list form, those articles are not as carefully watched and groomed as this one. Here's a thought: It is far less important to highlight the name of a Broadway replacement Nessarose than it is to highlight the actor who created Elphaba or Glinda on the West End. But if we start makings lists of all the casts, we get back to the problem of a proliferation of lists. I think that it is better to describe notable cast information in the production section. Another way to do it is to have a small chart setting forth the major roles and who created them (or played them for long stretches of time) in the most important productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The current guideline seems reasonable. Wikipedia is not a fan magazine, and repeated additions of non-notable persons to the cast list do not help the average reader who is looking for basic information on the musical. Thomprod (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the "Tryout and Broadway production" to "Production history" and moved information about the Broadway company to the "Other productions" section which is now the "Current and Previous Productions" section. Does this current version of the article follow the rules? And1987 (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Fiyero.jpg

The image File:Fiyero.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast blobs

Have replaced cast lists as the latest source of bloat in this article. We've finally decided that bare lists are not to be included, but now we have a proliferation of 'prose lists', or cast "blobs", that achieve largely the same purpose. I'm not saying that some of them are not useful; some of them should be retained, but the problem is that we now have so many edits going in that merely bloat out those sections that it's impossible to separate the good wood from the bad. We need to have a serious think about what casting information we're presenting in this article, and how best to present it, and take a firm line against additions that run counter to that decision. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

I don't know what all this talk about Netherlands is about but the Stuttgart production is transferring to Oberhausen, not the Netherlands. That should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.34.97 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Flim Version

I was doing some research about this I noticed that it came up alot that a flim version of wicked is in production and is slated to be released in 2010. Now I found some information about it on IMDB but I am not sure how reliable that site is cause it has some un realstic information about production. For example how all the cast is rumoured. I would think that it being released next year that they would have a confirmed cast. Does anyone have any other information about this they have come across? Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Headstrong 345

According to the IMDB site, the movie is to be released in 2016. Though it is deceiving to put "2010" on the end of a title when it is actually being released in 2016. Thank you for that though, I've been wondering if they were going to release a movie! Diligence 5960 (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Now there was page a on here with information on it but it was deleted. Is there a reason that it was I mean it did have references on it. I have also done some research and on the pages that I found though I am not sure how reliable they are, they all seem to say that it is going to be released in 2011 but the cast is still not confirmed which I find to be really strange and the only other reason I could think of is that maybe they are trying to keep it under wraps for now. So I was wondering if anyone else has come across reliable sources so we can possibly get a page going. Headstrong 345 (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Most concurrent performances?

Does anyone have any idea how I'd go about finding something citeable for my perception that Wicked has had more simultaneous {standing performances,mounted companies} than any other Broadway {show,musical} in history?
--Baylink (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Editor Eekerz ([[2]]) did a redirect of the phrase "Thank Goodness" (from the article Thank God) to this article, with no edit summary or explanation. I guess it's because there is a song titled "Thank Goodness", but that seems to be misleading and far-fetched. I think the redirect should be un-redirected; sorry, I don't have the right terminology, nor the skills to do this myself. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction, it was not Eekerz who did the initial redirect, it occurred here: [3]. Apologies. Upon further reflection, I think that the "Thank Goodness" entry should not be a See also (and should not be a re-direct), but have text similar to that which was included prior to the redirect:"Thank Goodness" is a song from the broadway musical Wicked (musical). It is the beginning of the second act of the musical. Madame Morrible, Glinda, and the citizens of Oz sing in it, and Fiyero has a few lines". JeanColumbia (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cast Lists

Why is the original cast not listed out here somewhere? From reading the discussion, it seems like several casts had been listed and since condensed into blobs, but the original cast of a musical is especially important as that is the cast that recorded the cast recording. I'm going to suggest that the original cast gets a list, and any subsequent or current casts get inline mention at most (that's the way it typically is on most musical wiki pages). SnetskyCM (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll work on it. Thanks for pointing that out. Diligence 5960 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

With the amount of changes that have been made recently to the cast and replacement lists, almost entirely without referencing, I now have very little confidence in the verifiability of the details. I'd like to propose a fairly draconian solution which I think will also ease the problem of cast bloat: I propose that we require a reliable source for every actor mentioned. No source, no mention. Sound viable? Happy‑melon 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree I have noticed this too and find it to be very misleading and I also find that sometimes when the issue is corrected it ends up going back to the way it was confusing and disorgainzed. Is there a way we can keep it neat and tidy and easy to find reliable sources without it changing every five minutes? Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Headstrong 345

The best source for the current actors (at least on Broadway) is Playbill. If it's changed in Playbill, it is definitely true.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 04:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingdude88 (talk • contribs)

Character ordering & Voice types

1. I couldn't help noticing the characters are in the wrong order. The correct order according to the script is Elphaba, G(a)linda, Nessarose, Fiyero, Boq, Madame Morrible, Wizard, Dr. Dillamond, no other order, so why is the order different here? I also noticed people keep changing the order...why?! About 2 years ago it was in the right order, now its just all over the place.

2. Also on another character related note, in the cast lists page/section why can't we call Elphaba's mother and father by their names: Melena and Frex instead of "Witch's Mother" and "Witch's Father". They have names, use them. To make things clearer we can put something like "Frex (Elphaba's father)" or "Frex (Witch's Father)" to be precise. I mean even this article ITSELF calls them by their names in the Plot Summary.

3. And also the table with the character info lists Boq as a tenor when he's actually a baritone. Also we might need to trim some of his info out, as it's basically explaining his whole story during the musical, just a brief summary is needed like it is for the other characters.

Reply to Number 1: I believe the order should actually be: Elphaba, G(a)linda, Fiyero, Boq, Nessarose, Dr. Dillamond, Madame Morrible, and the Wizard, as that is the character order listed in the Playbill program (with the ensemble in between Nessarose and Morrible & the Wizard).--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 04:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Number 2: They are called "Witch's Father" and "Witch's Mother" because those are their names in the official program for Wicked. However, if it's really wanted by many, go ahead and put Melena and Frex in parentheses beside "Mother" and "Father". Wait! You just reminded me of another issue I have: why is the Lover/Suitor NOT listed in any program? He has as much of a role as the Midwife, if not more of one. Hmm.......--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 04:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Number 3: Trust me, Boq is a tenor. I've heard the notes he has to sing; they're about as high as Fiyero's. As with the info, I have no opinion regarding that matter.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 04:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingdude88 (talk • contribs)

Reply to point 1, I don't really think it matters on the order but the first three should be Elphaba, Galinda and Fiyero. All other parts after that are pretty even.
Reply to point 2,Agree with Wing Dude, as far as im aware the names of the parents are not mentioned in the musical?
Reply to point 3, I think the vocal ranges should be removed, as vocal ranges mean different things to different people. Some say a tenor goes up to a G, whilst others don't class themselves as a tenor until they get the Bflat. The musicals project guidelines also state that vocal ranges should generally not be included To quote
"Vocal ranges: Vocal ranges for musicals articles should generally not be included in character lists unless a consensus of editors working on the article is obtained. Editors may remove the vocal ranges in the absence of such a consensus. For musicals that are similar to operas or operettas, however, such as Candide (operetta), or The Desert Song, it may be useful to include vocal ranges. In these cases, editors working on an article should attempt to reach a consensus and report the consensus on the article talk page."

I do not believe Wicked is one of these cases, and so they should be taken out.Mark E (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Although their names aren't actually mentioned in the musical itself I feel people should use their actual names when referring to them. Frex (Elphaba's Father) or Frex (Witch's Father) or even Elphaba's Father makes more sense than just Witch's Father to be honest. Even the musical script calls them by their names.

Also Wing Dude you have a point about the Lover, he plays a much bigger part than the Midwife. However I think the actor playing the Wizard does hs singing while they have a silent actor playing him so maybe that's not why, and don't forget that actually is the Wizard when he was younger (sorry for spoiling it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.31.120 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Frex's name is mentioned in the musical a few times, but it's not that big of a deal. And concerning the Lover, I'm glad someone finally agrees with me. However, the actor portraying him is singing too. The actor portraying the present-day Wizard can't be singing for the Lover too; both actors are onstage and in the spotlight in the finale!--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Film Adaption

Why was the part about the possible directors cut? It was verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefyingGravityForGood (talk • contribs) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The source was a blog. It needs to come from a proper news outlet, not just someones blog. Feel free to put it back in if you find one.Mark E (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Source was Broadway World, not a Blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefyingGravityForGood (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The link that was given in the citation was to a blog. If it was officially reported on Broadwayworld, feel free to add it back with the source.Mark E (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting the Part about the Directors! I sourced it to Broadway World! --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also wondering too why the directors part was deleted as well. I too have also come across it on broadway world and various sites I highly doubt it is false I have also read about it in magazines that was talking about musicals. I hope people realize that a lot of people post stuff on their blogs from other websites. So I was just curious on how we can tell which is true and not. I mean if you see it on more than one blog plus on a reliable source. Anyone disagree? Headstrong 345 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Like I said, The reference was to an article on Broadway World, So there was no reason for it to be deleted. --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a See also: List of characters in Wicked???

I clicked on this, and it redirected me to the list of characters in the book Wicked. Yet, from the musical to the original book, the characters and plot are extremely different. I don't see why this is here; it could confuse many viewers with the character descriptions and plot. Can I remove it?--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 15:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingdude88 (talk • contribs) I would Remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefyingGravityForGood (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I'll wait for more of a consensus to settle this issue.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There used to be an article titled "List of characters in Wicked", which contained brief descriptions of the characters in the musical Wicked. That list was merged with the article to which it now directs: "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" (see the talk page for that old, now-merged article here: [4]). Its ok with me if anyone wants to delete the see also, it is obsolete. As a matter of fact, I'll do it myself now, being BOLD.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

COI and peacock tags

I have added COI and Peacock tags due to several edits and reverts by a few editors whose only edits concern this article and related articles. (Particularly with regard to the Australian tour). Previous fact tags have been removed on a few occasions, leaving unsupported grandiose claims. Rather than getting in to an edit war with these editors, can a few others have a look over the claims and edit as you see fit. Thanks--Dmol (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cast lists.

I've added a tag requesting cleanup, with the reason that there are far too many cast lists in the article. At least 100 people are listed throughout the article. They can't all be notable. Personally I don't think any actors should be included, other than mentions of actors famous in their own right. There is also a link to an entire article (on another website) that lists all members.--Dmol (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the above is a fashionable attitude on this site - especially since it starting developing delusions of grandeur. But does it really matter if there is a fair bit of information additional to the stuff that you or even I consider "notable" - whatever that may mean.

For instance Wiki has untold stubs giving info on mediocre English footballers some of whom struggle even to get into my teams first 11. Personally I find that useful but nobody in their right minds, other perhaps than their own mothers, would think these guys "notable". Yet neither the world nor even Wiki seems to have ground to a halt as a result.

So I think we should let well alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.18.97 (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The external wiki-link to the cast information is fine. There is no need for it to be clogging up the article.Mark E (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new here, this has been an issue for some time; see, for example, these discussions from 2008 on cast lists: [[5]]. JeanColumbia (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

IP changes and threat

IP 71.81.54.217 ([6]) made some changes to the infobox which are against MT guidelines and also changed some perfectly good headings. What is worrisome is this statement by the IP: "do not try to change this page, because I WILL continue to change it back until you stop doing" (diff here: [[7]].) Immediate attention of an experienced editor and possibly administrator intervention is needed.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

London (2006–)

Is there a reason that this was taken out of the article?
"Alexia Khadime permanently took over the role from Kerry Ellis on 11 May 2009, having previous filled in from June to November 2008 whilst Ellis played the role on Broadway. Khadime was the first black woman to be cast in the role full time. As being the first black woman to play the role, a special green make-up had to be made by mixing three different shades of green by MAC cosmetics."[1]
Ok, so the green make-up trivia which only applied to her doesn't have to be in the article, but why were the first two sentences deleted or re-arranged? -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Film?

There's currently a film version in the works, I couldn't find it mentioned in the article, it's listed on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262426/ maybe it'll be worth someone with better skills than me to add info onto the page? 220.253.17.179 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not count IMDB as a credible source for this particular topic as it has changed the release date of the movie so many times. I have done some research on it and there is nothing to my knowledge that says this movie has even gone into production or that even found a cast for that reason. And due to that I think it would be safe to delete it because it is just speculation, however it is true that universal holds the rights so maybe a bit of re-writing may be better. Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Total removal of cast lists, and trimming non-notable actors from prose.

I am proposing that the list of cast members be removed for the following reasons.

  • There is a long running consensus to remove it, going back to 2008. Talk:Wicked_(musical)/Archive_2#Cast_lists_rules
  • Wikipedia is not a directory.
  • The article Wicked cast lists has alread been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wicked_cast_lists
  • A few contributors insist on adding non notable actors. At present our criteria seems to be that anyone with an article should be included, however, many of these actors only have an article due to their involvement with Wicked. It's circular logic.
  • The list, and mentions in the prose, are already too long. Between them there must be over a hundred and fifty names so far. They can't all be notable.
  • The list is limitless. Wicked is a major production and will no doubt continue for many years, in an ever increasing number of venues. We could potentially have hundreds of actors listed, again breaking the directory and indiscriminate collection of information rules.
  • There are several sites off Wikipedia where this information can be listed, and it could be link to from the article.

I suggest the total removal of the list table. Notable actors in notable roles can be mentioned in the prose. "Replacement" and temporary actors should not be mentioned at all unless they are already well known and notable for acting outside of Wicked.--Dmol (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I support this decision. What makes some of these replacemnts more notbale than others? My advice: Keep the original actors from each major production on here, nothing more. -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on some suggestions. I believe that original Broadway/London casts should be listed, along with notable (as in people who are notable outside of the Wicked world) listed underneath.Mark E (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there so little info on the Broadway production?

See the "Current productions" section. The London production has far more written about than the Broadway does! This makes absolute no sense. I'm not saying we should trim the London one down, more like fill the Broadway one out! Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There's too much on the London one, and it needs to be trimmed. Of the 2000 articles on my watchlist, Wicked is the most puffed out with trivial info of all of them. It needs a serious pruning of all sections, especially the endlist lists of actors.--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I have an idea for performers. Maybe just name the original cast members and those who have won awards. That would classify them as "notable." Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Productions

What annoys me most about this article: information regarding productions is weak. There's either too much or too little. I am going to work on it on my userspace. Visually, the 4 productions sections look horrible and read even more abhorrently! Ideally, I'd like to edit down the 4 sections we currently have to 1. If FA Carousel can do it, this should be an easy job. I plan to title the section simply "Productions" with subsections like "Original American productions", "Subsequent international productions", "Recent productions". I'll provide you with a link when I'm feeling happy with what I've done! Stephenjamesx (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Started work on it: User:Stephenjamesx/Wicked (musical). Please give me some feedback. I, personally, much prefer the structure I've given it. And it definitely helps the accusation that this page contains too much "current" info by structuring it this way. I think some details can be edited down. But I'm not sure which bits... Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Its looking good, my only complaint is I now feel there are too few subtitles. I think the West End production should have its own section directly below the Broadway section (A Broadway production of a British musical wouldn't be listed as an international production, and the same should apply the other way). Then followed by a "subsequent north american productions" and then "international section". A Broadway production of a British musical wouldn't be listed as an international production.
The information could certainly do with more trimming though, especially the US tours/productionsMark E (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Also to add, all the names that aren't blue-linked shouldn't be mentioned unless original Broadway/West End cast. This is mostly for the international ones where it could be heavily trimmedMark E (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've split it into similar sections but I believe North American productions should come before the West End production both because 1) most of them originated before the West End one and therefore is better for chronology and 2) seeing as this is an American musical, we need to remember to be slightly, but not completely, loyal to its origin. I've added the West End subsection as I believe it is notable, but this may cause arguments from others who believe, for example, the Australian version is just as note-worthy. Either way, I don't think it should be split up too much. And as for getting rid of information, that's what I find hard to do! Feel free to excise things you don't like if you'd like. I'm struggling to decipher what's important and what's not! Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see the page now (User:Stephenjamesx/Wicked (musical)) for I feel I have condensed the information down further. WP:MT mentions nothing about including response to productions in the production section (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure). Therefore, I have tinkered with the current "Commercial reception" section of this page on my page to incorporate this change. This fills out the reception section and also reduces the stress on the production section! Feedback anyone? :) I think we could transfer this work soon? - Stephenjamesx (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we ever solve this cast problem!?

As somebody has just rid of every name other than those who appeared in the original production, I find it necessary that something conclusive and definitive needs to be sorted for this article! In my opinion, those who could be considered notable are:

Please can we finally sort this mess out!? Stephenjamesx (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable set of criteria to me. Happy‑melon 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
See my page User:Stephenjamesx/Wicked (musical)#Principal roles and notable performers. This is how the edited version may look. In order to avoid conflict, it would include the hidden message:
If you're all happy for the go-ahead, let's do it. Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I still believe some other performers should be listed. And in the table of characters also that the original West End actor/actress should also be listed.Mark E (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the criteria listed above. There's far too many listed as it was, and I have been asking for it to be trimmed down for a long time. The only other actors I think we should allow who don't meet the above criteria are those who are already famous in their own right prior to joining Wicked. There's not many, two that stand out are Rue McClanahan and Bert Newton.--Dmol (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@Mark E, please provide some examples. :) Yes, I think we should adjust the criteria to add something like:
"iii) The cast member has had a notable career, excluding their contribution to Wicked." Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Also Joey McIntyre (from NKOTB) as Fiyero? Stephenjamesx (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
My example would be names like Kerry Ellis/Megan Hilty/Lee Mead etc who are it may be of interest of people reading the article, as they have careers exceeding the world of Wicked. And yes, the examples you listed also.Mark E (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
All three aforementioned have won/been nominated for an award so would qualify. :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's reach a consensus:

Performers listed on this article must meet the following criteria:
  • i) The cast member has originated the role in the Broadway/West End production of Wicked
  • ii) The cast member has won/been nominated for an award for his/her role in a production of Wicked
  • iii) The cast member has had a notable career, excluding their contribution to Wicked
Support or oppose? Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think you might want to define award, or else you will have the nominees/winners for the Helen Hayes Award, Broadway.com Audience Awards, etc included. I suggest limiting to the Tony Awards, Drama Desk Awards, Outer Critics Circle, Drama League, Olivier, Evening Standard, and...maybe: Jefferson (Chicago), Helpman, and Green Room Awards (Australia for the last 2). I suppose "notable career" means--at least one other Broadway/Off-Broadway/London/UK/Australia (?) theatre or film or tv credit? How about other US cities like Chicago and states like California? Starring or featured? Or is it anyone who has a Wikipedia article (and then you've got trouble, my friend!). I think these items need to be spelled out and clarified. (By the way, Stephenjamesx, great job!).JeanColumbia (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Didn't think this through that much! Gosh, this is a challenge! SCRAP my attempt then! I'll try and rethink this! Thank you, by the way! :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I know it has been suggested before, but I honestly think the best thing for this article is to completely delete this section. WP:MT doesn't even specify that such a section is necessary. Plus, what does this section provide us with? It's repetitive because 1) characters' names and their descriptions are covered in Synopsis and 2) notable performers are mentioned throughout this article in prose. Let's put an end to this! I propose the complete deletion of this redundant section. Support or oppose? Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot

For a GA, the plot "summary" on this page is seriously beyond the word superfluous! More is added everyday I check out this page! In addition, I don't think it is entirely well-written. Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

May I add, WP:MT states a synopsis should be between 800 and 1100 words. The current version is 3048. Exceeded much?! Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It was getting silly. I've reverted it back to the Synopsis that stood when the article was promoted to GA. This means it was of a high standard at this time as it was promoted against the criteria. Its 1350 words, still slightly long but a whole lot better than 3000+!Mark E (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
We love you! Being pedantic, but I still think it could be structured better... Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it could! I'm not exactly an expert on this show so I'll leave someone else to give it a go.
I've just attempted! I think it needed a splash of colour too... so added some pictures! :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Box office for Wicked

Why, this will be a good as gold musical. That was a big box office blockbuster!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.120.122 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs mention of movie progress

Rights acquired, Studio, Script writer selected, Director selected, Casting Progress, etc.

Timing: won't be while traveling Broadway franchise remains so fabulously profitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Character table

I seem to recall being told to get rid of the table format a few years ago when it came to listing the characters, character descriptions, and performers. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe User:JeanColumbia (one of my unofficial mentors) said it was not recommended and not within guidelines. I may be wrong about that memory, but should there be a table or not? Is this still being disputed? I haven't been on here in quite some time. :/ -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Japanese link

Link to the news release announcing the Japanese soundtrack CD (reference 68) is broken. If you browse through the Shiki website eventually you get redirected to their webshop selling the CD: http://gdsk.jp/shop/goods/goods.aspx?goods=01565-00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.97.218 (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why current cast?

Why are we listing current casts which always change? Shouldn't we list the original casts? --NeilN talk to me 05:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, if there is a cast chart it should always include the original cast, or any revival original cast.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: How long is the musical. . .2 hrs? 3hrs?.

65.25.45.119 posted this comment on 26 December 2013 (view all feedback).

How long is the musical. . .2 hrs? 3hrs?.

Any thoughts?

Bryson Hussar 03:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wicked is usually a 2 and a half hour play. It'll seem like 30 minutes if you are really interested in it and not bored. You'll enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bphussar (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, our daughter and her husband were thrilled when they saw it a month ago for their wedding anniversary. We missed it here in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Pantagus Theater. "Catch us before we fly away" was three month ago. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wicked (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian cast

The Brazilian production will open in March, 4 and the cast has already been announced. Should it be added to the "Casts of current worldwide productions" sections or not? Rodrigo-hp (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo-hp (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Wicked (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wicked (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What defines an original cast?

Why only US and West End casts are included under original casts? This section shouldn't include only the original-est cast of all - the Broadway one - or all original casts, with no space in between? Rodrigo-hp (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wicked (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Wicked (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Wicked (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation Error

Hello, in the references of this article citation number 154 consists of a broken external link. --TheDroidYouARELookingFor (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken External Link

Hi, citation number 181 in the references includes a broken external link. --TheDroidYouARELookingFor (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A Very Wicked Halloween

This article should be updated to reference the NBC "A Very Wicked Halloween" TV Special.Gagaluv1 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Productions into separate article

According to Xtools, this article has 64,255 characters of readable prose, which means it should probably be split, per WP:SIZESPLIT. I think the worst offender in terms of bloat is the § Productions section. I'd like to propose splitting it to a new article like List of Wicked productions. (I can't find any examples of this being done for any musicals in the past, but List of productions of The Nutcracker provides some precedent.)

I think this could also help with this article's 'cast lists' problem. If you look at the archives, you'll find that editors going back and forth on the addition and removal of cast lists has been a huge point of contention (example discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The current § Casts section exceeds the recommendations of WikiProject Musical Theatre, which is to include full cast lists for the principals in the original Broadway and West End casts, and only mention notable actors in other productions. We have full cast lists for 10 productions (in a table that's bursting at the seams, and probably unreadable on mobile), plus long additional lists of notable replacements and cast members. If we have a List of Wicked productions article, with sections for each notable production, we can list the principals (and notable replacements/other cast members) for a production in its corresponding section, without bloating the show's main article.

I would suggest a much shorter § Productions section with three subsections: Broadway, London, and Other productions. The "Other productions" section would have a "Main article: List of Wicked productions" hatnote, and some summarizing prose. "Wicked has had multiple national tours in the US and the UK. The first US tour ran for a decade, beginning in 2005. Wicked has had major productions in over X countries, and been translated into over Y languages, including A, B and C. blah blah blah."

Thoughts? I'm happy to boldly attempt the split myself when I have some time, but thought I'd float the idea here first. Colin M (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

For the casting section, would a table as seen in The King and I or Oklahoma! not be beneficial seeing as though there are a lot of productions and many, many cast members? There are other issues in the article also. Overly long plot synopsis, overly detailed orchestration section. For productions, you could remove the table completely and lose no information, it's just a different way of displaying the prose underneath. Much of the detail in the productions section is fan trivia/fluff that really doesn't tell us about the SHOW. Take this section for example: "Another former West End standby, Ashleigh Gray, took over as Elphaba for the tour's second contract run, making her the second actress after Davis-Jones to have played the role in both the West End and the UK touring production. Originally, Davis-Jones was due to leave in order to return to the London company and lead its cast, however, it was later announced that, towards the end of her run in August 2014 she had withdrawn from the tour and subsequently would not be appearing in the West End." Like.... who cares? It's not encyclopedic.Mark E (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start just there, but there is an awful lot of content which is not needed and is more akin to a fansite than an encyclopedia article.Mark E (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, those are great cuts. I got nervous when I saw the (negative) size of the diff, but I can't disagree with any of those removals. Even if I personally find some of the "Notable cast member" bullets interesting, I have to admit they're fancruft rather than encyclopedic content. Colin M (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You're talking about e.g. the table at The King and I § Principal roles and notable performers, right? I'm not a big fan of that particular usage because it doesn't give any context about the "Other notable stage performers" entries. Where and when did these performers appear in that role? I would rather mention them in the section talking about the production in which they appeared (whether it's the original Broadway run, a Broadway revival, a tour, etc.). (Or have separate columns for each production, but you've seen in this article how that can get out of hand as the number of productions grow). Colin M (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes I can understand the dislike of those tables. I'm going to go through again with fresh eyes and see if I can cut anymore "fancruft" as it were. I'm glad you agree with the cuts I made, I was concerned it may appear like a lot, but actually already it makes the info a lot more concise and readable. The plot synopsis is also way overly at almost 2000 words. Recommendation is 800-1100. I've had a read through and it is extremely detailed, but not particularly engaging to read. A good starting point may be to look at the plot description from when the article was made a GA way back when, which whilst still too long, is almost 600 words less!Mark E (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, just to add and to answer the original question of this topic, I don't believe splitting the article is necessary to list the productions.Mark E (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for the latest round of cuts. You'll notice I restored a few little pieces (with some changes), but I agree with the vast majority of the removals. We're currently down to ~55k characters of readable prose (and as you note, the synopsis could still definitely use trimming), so the WP:SIZESPLIT argument is less compelling at this point. That said, I still kind of like the idea of a split. Even after the cuts, the "Productions" section kind of drags on. Even if the dates, locations, and casts of the productions in Seoul, Rio de Janeiro, Prague, Mexico City, Copenhagen, etc. are verifiable and encyclopedic, it doesn't feel like information that's important for the purposes of giving an overview of the topic of Wicked. Also, I agree that the table of productions was taking up too much space and removing it was probably correct, but I was a little sad to see it go, because it does provide a useful formatting of structured data. It makes it easy to see at a glance where notable productions have taken place, how long they ran for, which ones are still running, etc. It's the kind of thing that would be more at home in a List of Wicked productions article, rather than the main article. Colin M (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ INTERVIEWS WITH WICKED CAST MEMBERS. The Make-up Process. Theatre and Performance Videos. Victoria and Albert Museum Online. Wicked The Musical
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wicked_(musical)/Archive_2&oldid=1145854137"