Talk:Show Boat: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:25, 12 November 2024

Show Boat was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
November 5, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 27, 2011.

Current status: Delisted good article

Musical Theatre

Show Boat 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

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Principal roles

We have reached the point of more heat than light. Several editors have explained core policies such as V, OR, and RS to B C R M. There is a clear consensus to not designate which roles are principal/leading in the list of charaters. It is time for B C R M to drop the stick. If they continue, I would be more than happy to partial block them for disruptive editing. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article does not distinguish the five principal singing roles, a clear deficiency. Two methods I have tried, asterisks and footnote, have been reversed. There is no obvious place to go for a citation. Nor is this a matter of "original research" in that nobody would dispute which of the 12 or 13 solo roles we are talking about. So how do we overcome the deficiency? B C R M (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to a) find a WP:reliable source that supports that; and b) find something that makes it clear that it is important enough for inclusion. SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat is correct. See these key Wikipedia policies and guidelines for more information. WP:OR and WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ssilvers and SchroCat, first of all, I am myself a reliable source because I know the score. Second, I have contributed to Wikipedia for going on 20 years adding all sorts of information *without* support, and I am certain that the vast majority of material added to the encyclopedia is in fact unsupported, uncited. You will know this too of course. Wikipedia would not be what it is today if contributors were forced to support everything they added. Third, about whether identifying the principal singing roles "is important enough for inclusion," most readers would say it is. I got the impression from one of you that you are part of an oversight body concerned with musicals. If so, you must agree. Your actions are a disservice. B C R M (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good example of the disservice. Stageagent.com lists the "leads" and "supporting" roles for Show Boat. It would be easy for me to cite this to overcome your objection. But Stageagent is a bad source. Mrs Hawks is not a principal singing role whereas Queenie is. I know this; Stageagent does not, being a mindless database. B C R M (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information without a source is damaging. Please don’t continue to do it.
You are not a source. What you think may or may not be right is classed as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and it should not be on WP.
The fact that one source disagrees with your interpretation should be a red flag for you, that what you think you may know may not be correct, or at least open to interpretation by others.
Please don’t class anyone’s actions as a “disservice”, particularly when both of us have pointed you in the direction of the site’s guidelines and policies for doing things the right way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to No. 4, yes, SchroCat, it is a disservice when the article is less than it could be. You have subtracted what I contributed despite the quality of the contribution, and you haven't addressed the Stageagent example I gave. B C R M (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can address it. The Stageageant example proves that different people (in Stageagent's case, a professional editor) disagree about which roles are the most important ones. You have not presented sources that authoritatively show which roles are "principal" ones, and your assertion that you are the best arbiter of this are directly contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and so your contribution was not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Stageagent listing includes non-singing roles. That's the difference. B C R M (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's no answer. B C R M (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What other edits have you made to Wikipedia over the past 20 years without citing sources? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands. Perhaps one edit in 50 or 60 of mine has been with a citation. And "adding information without a source" is not damaging, as SchroCat suggests, unless the information is wrong. Naturally things are better sourced, I agree. But you can't expect volunteers to go to the trouble every time. B C R M (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please point them out to me so that I can help you source them or remove the information that violates WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it’s damaging. Aside from the fact people lose confidence if information is unsourced, without citations we end up with people adding trivia (like who are a “principals” in a show), and worse, they get it wrong, disagreeing with better sources than their own opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that identifying the principal singing roles is "trivia," you really should not be involved at all in articles devoted to musical theatre! B C R M (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is trivia is your *identification* of the roles that you think are "principal" ones. The important characters can be identified by the plot summary and list of musical numbers as those who are important to the story and sing in the songs. Also, if you do not wish to follow WP:V, you should not contribute to Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to SchroCat below. B C R M (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a little test, SchroCat, you might want to ask a few people to name the principal roles in Tosca. You won't get a single variance. It is not a matter of opinion. Granted, Tosca is not a musical, but in Show Boat the only variance might be whether to include Queenie; there would be no variance in naming the other four. B C R M (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BCRM, you have not shown the utility of *naming* the "principal" roles, when we have already *demonstrated* which roles are the most important ones in the plot summary and list of musical numbers. BTW, our article on Tosca is a WP:Featured Article. It does not specify which roles are "principal" ones, showing that none of the dozens or hundreds of people who worked on this article believe that this is a useful thing to do in Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I don’t need to do any tests thanks, but as a little test for you: why don’t you find a source to add the principals to this article? The roles you think should be there doesn’t matter one iota: it’s what the sources say. That is all that counts. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "utility" would be in helping any reader new to the subject. Obviously. The line distinguishing the principals is indisputable in the case of Tosca, hence the suggested test, and nearly indisputable in the case of Show Boat. The question is whether you want to help people new to the subject. B C R M (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The question is what the sources say. How much importance do they put on the point. If little or none then it’s not worth stressing over - “principal” means different things to different sources and that’s why we follow the sources, not the opinion of a single editor. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result of your stupidity is that Pete is equal to Ravenal. Do the damn test! B C R M (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t insult people. WP:CIVIL is another policy you should read. Unless you are prepared to take on board some of the policies and guidelines you’ve been shown, I think we’re done here. Go find a source. The position of the website is how I outlined it in the first post: You need to a) find a WP:reliable source that supports that; and b) find something that makes it clear that it is important enough for inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We list 13 roles, undifferentiated. This does not much help the reader. The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization (not a great source) lists 10 “main characters” and 2 “supporting characters.” StageAgent (ditto) lists 16 “characters” classified as 5 “leads,” 7 “supporting” and 4 “featured.” In fact there are 5 principal singing roles (not aligned with StageAgent’s “leads”). These are clearly identifiable from the score, which is of course the only source that matters, and they should accordingly be identified in our article. I propose the addition to the list of the 3 missing characters and the following line at the start of the “Roles” section: Note: Julie, Magnolia, Queenie, Ravenal and Joe are the principal singing roles. Or asterisks by these in the list followed by an explanation. I suggest that editors involved in musical theatre obtain for themselves an education in the “utility” (Ssilvers’ word) for readers, especially readers new to a subject, of identified principal singing roles. It matters. It is, as illustration, the first breakdown at the above two source sites. Moreover, nobody wants to be confronted by a tag-team armed with wp:original research, wp:reliable source, wp:v, wp:civil, when they are trying to contribute, and this type of tool use runs counter to the recent messages I have received as a new account holder. B C R M (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the sources, not your personal interpretation of them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the score. B C R M (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s not. Not unless it actually says “principal” or “leading” next to the character name. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The score "says" that through its allocation. You don't know, do you? B C R M (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do know, yes. But I also know—and follow—the site guidelines and policies. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are a slave to them. You don't think. Earlier you wrote: "adding information without a source is damaging." This is also nonsense. Are you a person or a robot? B C R M (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are a robot! B C R M (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further incivility. We’re done here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be its own topic because the whole point is that a "principal" role such as Mrs Hawks is not necessarily a singing one. B C R M (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is uncited text throughout the article, and an orange "more citations needed" since 2015.
The "Analysis" relies on block quotes, and should instead summarise the information in prose.
The article uses citations from IMDB, and the Amazon citations should be evaluated for its inclusion.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Show Boat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, and an orange "more citations needed" since 2015. The "Analysis" relies on block quotes, and should instead summarise the information in prose. The article uses citations from IMDB, and the Amazon citations should be evaluated for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ferber and her novel Show Boat

@Ssilvers I have now completed writing this sub-section. I incorporated the facts that were previously copyright infringed but in new language and with a lot of new material so that the article is no longer plagiarizing. I still have to address the copyright violation material in the adapting the novel section which I am moving on to next after I do some more research/reading. I would appreciate any copy editing or feedback on the "Ferber and her novel Show Boat" sub-section. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a once-through, but it is still too long, because this is the article about the musical, not the book. All of this is good stuff but needs to be summarized more in this article -- though, by all means, add it to Show Boat (novel). I'd say that it should still be cut by, ideally 40%. If you want me to try to make the painful cuts, let me know. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Agreed, let me finish writing the adapting the novel section. Once that is written, I think we'll have a better overall view to help make trimming decisions. You have a better critical eye for cuts than I do. It's one your strengths as an editor, so I'll leave it to you to decide what we should keep and what should be thrown out. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, if you have never seen the movie, here is the great Kathryn Grayson singing "Make Believe" and "You Are Love" with Howard Keel. Her vocal style (and that of Magnolia in the musical) is not much influenced by black music as Ferber intended, but they don't make 'em like this anymore. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Yes, I actually watched the Grayson and Keel movie for the first time the night before you posted to the musical theatre wikiproject page. It was odd timing, as if the fates knew I was about to start editing this page. lol Grayson's vibrato kind of annoys me, but somehow Keel's voice blends nicely with hers and I enjoy her voice when she sings with him, just not by herself. Interestingly, several of the books I am reading say the Show Boat (1951 film) is the weakest of the film adaptations. All of them go out of their way to praise the Show Boat (1929 film) as the best. Here are few interesting clips of Hattie McDaniel with Robson and Helen Morgan from the Show Boat (1936 film) Ah Still Suits Me" and Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man. I would be interested in catching these older films which both got better reception in the books.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great clips. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. You can tell the actors have lived with these characters for a while on stage prior to filming it. There's just something so appealing about their performances that I think is hard to replicate for film actors new to their parts.4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers I finished taking care of the copyright issues in the background section. You can go ahead and start making cuts. Is this enough content on the adaptation? So much has been written on all the various changes and cuts during tryouts, I could add much more. Should I get into where it played during the tryout performances and all the alterations, or is this sort of general background enough?4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could mention a couple of the really major cuts and changes. Depending on how many tryouts there were -- if there were only a couple, let's name them, or if there were a lot, we can give a general idea of the trajectory -- we should give the basic timeline, however. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dietz, there were four tryout runs. I'll try and come up with a brief overview tomorrow.4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good I did a little more trimming. I still think the first part is too long, but I am not inspired right now as to what is still cuttable. I'll ponder and come back to it later. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]