Talk:Houp La!

Cast list

I deleted the names of the minor players, other than bluelinked ones, and suggest that the minor characters be summarized as "Circus performers and chorus girls" (or something similar). This was reverted by User:Moonraker, who reinstated the list of minor characters. I am copying here the relevant parts of a discussion that we had about this:

...In the case of Houp La!, for instance, I find all the character names are useful in throwing light on the nature of the show and I shall now reinstate them... Moonraker (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I replied: Would you kindly leave a note on the article's talk page explaining why you feel that including the full list is helpful in "throwing light on the nature of the show", so that other editors can understand your thinking? See WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonraker replied: Well, what I said was an off-the-cuff remark rather than an argument. If the inclusion of fuller or less complete cast lists is a matter of personal preference, then I'm not sure discussions about it will take us very far. The matter has many complications. For instance, there is no disagreement about the inclusion in Houp La! of Binnie Hale, a minor character who was also an understudy, evidently because she went on to be a big name, but with Ivy Tresmand, who is also notable, your judgement was to take her name out. As a general rule, I'm sure non-notable names can be included in articles, so long as there is some useful purpose in including them, and to my mind completing a cast list (within reason) is useful to some of those who come to the page. I should not wish there to be a principle that I needed to demonstrate (which I could do rather easily) that Ivy Tresmand was notable before I could include her name. Please do feel free to copy this conversation to Talk:Houp La! if you feel that would be useful. Moonraker (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe, to the contrary, that non-notable names of minor characters should not be included in articles per the consensus reached by WP:MUSICALS. As Article Structure page there says: "Long, detailed descriptions of characters are not needed (unless necessary to convey the story-line). Rather at the first mention of an important character in the Synopsis, some effort should be made to convey the personality or characteristics of the character. If a story is complex, the characters confusing, then a list of principal characters may be given." (emphasis mine). I think that the reason for this is an extension of the principle of WP:NOT. I think that if, at a later date, someone writes an article about one of the people who played a minor role and who later became a notable star, then that person's name can be added and blue-linked at that time. Most of these people never became famous, and therefore, IMO, including their names is clutter. Does anyone else care to comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "Long, detailed descriptions of characters are not needed", but to include a name in a list is not that. When it comes to "If a story is complex, the characters confusing, then a list of principal characters may be given", that appears to recommend against the inclusion of cast lists at all, unless the story is complex (in my view most musicals do not have complicated stories) and to prevent the inclusion of complete cast lists, unless all characters are major ones, which rarely happens. I do not know what such a policy would be aiming to achieve, other than conciseness, which of course is an important issue for any printed encyclopaedia, but is not that here.

In the case of characters in the play (or musical, or film, or opera, or whatever), if the article on the work of fiction aims at completeness, then choosing to exclude some characters from the article must undermine that, and which ones to include or exclude could well turn into a long and troublesome discussion leading nowhere. Better, in my view, to have a presumption that character names can be included, so long as they are not given more space than they deserve.

When it comes to the names of the real people who played a part in an original production, then what is the purpose of including them? Partly, it is that a musical comedy is much more than a work of fiction. An article on a musical cannot be separated from the production as an historical event, in which the personalities involved are important. Indeed, the musical may only be of interest to anyone now as part of the history of musical theatre. Many of the players do, in fact, prove to be notable once reliable sources are worked through, and many of the rest are more notable than at first seems likely. To have a policy which meant in effect "include the names of notable performers but not non-notable ones" would seem to me to be pandering to the present-day cult of the celebrity. Some non-notable performers may prove to be significant to the history of a series of productions, and to have to guess (a) which are notable and (b) which have some other significance is too difficult to do routinely without a lot of work. Again, I should prefer a presumption that original cast names can be included, provided there are reliable sources for them - and that important proviso should knock out most unnecessary names. That is, it should always be possible to challenge and remove names not supported by reliable sources.

In short, in my view names only become "clutter" if musicals are seen as works of fiction isolated from the real world, but that is not what they are or ever were. Moonraker (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Play Pictorial and other things

• Could we confirm the date of the edition of Play Pictorial cited five times in the article? I have a pdf of the issue, downloaded some time ago from an online source to which I no longer have access. (I have added three images from it to the article.) The citation note at the top of my pdf says: "FINDON, B W,'HOUP LA!', Play Pictorial, 29:177 (1916:Nov.) p.82". As the piece opened in November 1916 I imagine the date, December, cited in the WP article is correct and my pdf incorrectly annotated, but I think it would be as well to check. If my source is wrong I'll need to amend the details on the upload pages for the three images.

• On the question discussed above of how much to include, may I add my two-penn'orth? When I began editing WP theatrical articles I tended to included everything I could lay my hands on, on the premise that readers could take what they wanted and leave the rest. However, before long I came round to the prevailing view among other toilers in the same vineyard that part of our role is to sieve out information of minimal interest, leaving only the salient facts. A specialist book should naturally have the lot, but an encyclopaedia article is more user-friendly if it includes only the important facts. – Tim riley (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• A third point, as an afterthought: though the authors and composers are listed in the info-box, I find the lead feels bare without them there too. I think it is usual to put them in both places, but I'm not sure it's laid down anywhere. Tim riley (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another afterthought (please excuse – senility setting in): I've rejigged the references, making them consistently laid out; most of them followed the customary WP order of Surname, Givenname; now they all do. Best to stick to this, methinks. Tim riley (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)