Talk:Never Forget (musical)
 | Musical Theatre Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Information in musical theatre articles
Pursuant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, I have removed the list of ensemble members and most of the creative team. I did leave in the names of the principal designers (and moved all that info to the top of the article, which has all the production info), although most of our musicals articles do not include that information. QUESTION: Did the designers design the tour, or just the West End production? Did the producers produce the tour, or just the West End production?
The most useful thing you can do for this article now, I think, is to expand the plot summary. But please do not use the markety language from the website. Instead, look through the script (which you indicated that you have) and summarize the action of the show, divided by acts. For a good example, see Buddy - The Buddy Holly Story. Best regards, and Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message and for the new Synopsis information. I tried to make the language a little more formal and what we call "encyclopedic". Be careful of words like "world domination", unless you are quoting the script. See WP:PEACOCK. Please describe Act II more. What happens after she gets there? It should be a complete plot summary, not a teaser. Everyone knows that the plot summary will contain spoilers here. Also, is the audition that you refer to the audition for Ron, or the audition for the competition? Also, please divide the summary into Act I and Act II. It's getting there, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Take That & Never Forget The Musical
The Music for this musical has been composed by Gary Barlow The Lyrics for the music are by Gary Barlow
The Musical is based on the music of Take That —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Defender (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit dispute
could an admin check the source and added this diff in as the article is currently misleading. --87.112.25.245 (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only if everyone editing this article reaches a consensus. So start talking. -- Netsnipe ► 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- what's to talk about? on the one hand, we have a SPA who wants to promote a musical - part of that promotion is editing take that related articles to remove the irksome fact that the band is not actually connected with the musical. As the article currently stands, it does not represent a NPOV because it is misleading about the involvement of Gary Barlow (which could actually be a BLP matter I guess because the article currently represents a fact we know not to be true and more over we have verification not to be true). I am simply trying to insert a sourced statement (from the band, printed in the times - a source we consider highly reliable) that indicated the band is unconnected with the musical. This was already mentioned at the COI board and the fellow of an uninvolved editor was that Light defender's edits did not represent a NPOV. --87.114.151.105 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above contributor has changed IP address several times today in an attemp to bypass IP blocking. My defense of the article has now resulted in my own username being blocked - which I am contesting. The above contributor has chosen to remain anonymous in order to hide their own conflict of interest.
The old statement previously made by the band has been withdrawn for legal reasons. It is now totally irrelevant to this article.
Gary Barlow is both the composer and the lyricist of the musical.
The musical is entirely based on the music of Take That.
The Musical is completely and properly licensed by the above.
The musical is totally relevant to both the Take That and the Gary Barlow articles.
(Light Defender) - With the current block in place I am unable to answer to this dispute under my own username 81.151.254.220 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The musical is entirely based on the music of Take That. - which nobody is disputing, so it's irrelevant.
The Musical is completely and properly licensed by the above. - which nobody is disputing, so it's irrelevant.
The musical is totally relevant to both the Take That and the Gary Barlow articles. - which nobody is disputing, so it's irrelevant.
The dispute is that you are systematically trying to remove source material that states that Take that are unconnected with the musical, so we come to the only point you make that is relevant.
The old statement previously made by the band has been withdrawn for legal reasons. It is now totally irrelevant to this article. - so please supply a source to that effect. --87.113.75.133 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. I edited the musical's article yesterday, but I was unaware of this controversy at the time. Sorry to wake up to a huge edit war! It is well-documented that Take That made the statement on its website that the editor quoted from The Times, and numerous news articles have noted (and continue to note) the controversy. It is clear that Take That distanced itself from the musical and has had no involvement in the development of the musical. Barlow also made other negative statements about the musical Never Forget. It would be appropriate to mention the controversy and to cite the article from The Times that the editor cited. However, the placement of the information in the musical's article was not optimal. I would be happy to take a crack at presenting the information in a more balanced way in the article. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with Ssilvers and I think it would be appropriate to place the information in a better place and make it more neutral in tone.Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- How do we make a direct quote "more neutral"? since all the addition consists of is "it was reported in the times that" and then the quote. --87.113.91.149 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the quote is neutral, but it can be placed better in the article. The way you tried to insert it, with a major heading near the top of the article is not optimal. I would propose to move the section lower down. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure that there is a way to place it in the article so that it flows well. I also agree that the information belongs there. It was well reported in the media and is relevant to the article.