Jump to content

Talk:Hello, Dolly! (musical)

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

older entries

[edit]

User:4.47.127.133 says the movie is "great and definitely worth watching". I have removed this comment from the article (too POV of course) and put it here. <KF> 04:53, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Too late, they have removed it themselves. Feel free to contribute any interesting material you have, 4.47.127.133, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Dolly's 10 Tony Awards was a record held 37 years until The Producers garnered 12 Tonys in 2001. Company was nominated for 11 Tony Awards, but "only" won 5.

film version split

[edit]

I, for one, agree the film version is notable enough to deserve its own page separate from the musical (though I wasn't the one to put up the split tag). thoughts? Reimelt 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has split it. I've removed the split tag and added a Main article tag, and with this edit, I'm removing the FilmsWikiProject tag. TheMadBaron 12:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article work needed

[edit]

Work is needed on the structure and comprehensiveness of this article; as it currently stands, the article is all lead, no body (see WP:LEAD). The body is also very listy, and short on any content typical of Wikipedia articles. For an example of a featured article on a straight play, see The Country Wife, which gives a good idea of the type of sections one expects to find in a comprehensive article. This article doesn't tell our readers much about Dolly; if this is the standard, it's not surprising that MT is not represented at all in WP:GA or WP:FA. Suggestions at WP:MUSICALS are a good starting place for completing and beefing up this article to a more comprehensive piece, conforming with [[WP:MOS] and WP:LEAD. The article history shows that there was more of an article structure at year-end 2006; merging the current content and text with the earlier and a better structure might help. Also, I'm noticing Trivia sections in many musical articles, which should be eliminated (see WP:TRIVIA). Comments ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of this article was such a travesty it didn't include Jerry Herman's name in the opening sentence!!! Furthermore, it presented its facts out-of-order - since when is chronology of no importance in articles? I am appalled that anyone would think this revision was in any way an "improvement."
I have revised the article to restore Herman's name to the opening, give more prominence to the plot line (which was buried in the article), separate the film adaptation from the stage productions (as it should be), and remove inconsequential details about the film The Matchmaker. Who starred in that movie has no bearing on Hello, Dolly! and those facts belong in that film's article, not here. Additionally, reference to On the Razzle makes no sense, coming as it did some twenty years after Dolly and in no way linked directly to the musical.
I also removed an inaccurate comment re: he film version, which was a commercial flop at the time of its release. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 16:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would stop moving the sections around and leave them where WP:MUSICALS guidelines indicate that they should go, it will be easier for everyone to see and discuss the various textual changes that can be made. Plot synopsis sections do not belong in the introduction of WP articles -- WP:LEAD suggests that the intro should be an overview of the rest of the article, rather than a plot summary section. -- Ssilvers 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"SUGGESTS" does not mean "demands" or "forces" or "requires without question." Use some common sense here. Despite what a handful of people no longer involved with the project may have thought was a good idea, I don't think the average reader wants to wade through ¾ of an article about a musical or play before finally discovering its plot. I don't see how you can deny the way in which my articles unfold the facts is logical. Who wrote it? What is its plot? What interesting background info is there? Where was it performed? What are its musical numbers? What awards did it win?
Had you been one of those who compiled the WP:MUSICALS "guidelines," I could understand your resistance to changing them. But as often as I have asked, you never have explained to me why you insist on rigidly clinging to the past by claiming that the old formats designed by people who abandoned the project are the only ones that should be considered. Your argument is always the same - essentially, "it must be done that way because that's the way things are done." Why is it so difficult to accept that new ideas might hold some merit? SFTVLGUY2 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following WP consensus on WP:LEAD and the article structure described under the WP:MUSICAL project and similar projects like WP:WPO and WP:G&S. I disagree with you about the plot section: Having a separate section gives the plot more prominence than sticking it into the introduction section. The table of contents clearly indicates where it is so that readers can find it easily. I have reorganized the article using the structure described in the Musicals project, and I have also made many of the corrections that you suggest above. I think we need more detail on the subsequent productions. Best regards. -- Ssilvers 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merchant of Yonkers was not about Dolly Gallager Levi; in fact, she was a very minor character in that play. I have removed this incorrect info from the opening. Furthermore, Louis Armstrong never appeared in the stage production, so I have removed that info as well.
It's a pity that this article was permitted to evolve into the mess it is now. Ssilvers complained there was too much info about the film version, so I removed it, and then he reverted it . . . why? There also is an unnecessary repetition of facts throughout.
As far as structure is concerned, if you refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, it clearly states, "Below you will find the suggested structure of Articles pertaining to works of Musical Theatre on Wikipeda. Please note that this is the suggested structure and is not written in stone." This appears to support my position that editors need not conform to Ssilver's demand that things be done his way, one I have held since he first started harassing me. SFTVLGUY2 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to begin with an introduction that is an overview of the article and so, yes, it should contain information that is discussed below in more detail. See WP:LEAD. I don't demand anything. I merely point out that you ignore the WP:CONSENSUS of editors on Wikipedia and repeatedly delete information from articles that the consensus of editors find useful. -- Ssilvers 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your frequent and unwarranted accusations, I never have removed valuable info from any article. I rework badly written material to make it clear, concise, and free of grammatical, punctuation, and factual errors. According to your statement above, "Wikipedia articles are supposed to begin with an introduction that is an overview of the article." Why then does the intro for this one include such detailed info about the film version, which has no place in the opening? You criticized what little film data I originally had placed later in the article (where it belongs), claiming there was too much of it, and now it's given prominence to which it definitely is not entitled. Clearly there is no consistency to your thought process. SFTVLGUY2 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film adaptation

[edit]

There is already a separate article about the film, so we don't need a separate section here. Maybe we should slim down the discussion of the film more, since people can read the film's article. -- Ssilvers 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I agree with less-is-better and have edited the film info, but it shouldn't be included with the stage production history. And again I have removed the comment that it was one of the most popular film musicals made earlier in the article, since it was a box office dud. SFTVLGUY2 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it is played over and over on TV, so if we say it's a dud, we should just note that it continues to be popular on TV. -- Ssilvers 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself said, "Maybe we should slim down the discussion of the film more, since people can read the film's article," so why should any reference to its TV popularity be mentioned here? I didn't say it was a dud within this article; if I had done so your suggestion would be valid. The film article specifies it didn't make money until it was released on video, and that's where that info belongs. SFTVLGUY2 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. But this (now) one-liner should not get its own heading. Best regards, Ssilvers 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't belong with the stage production history, I'll remove it completely. The film version is referenced at the start of the article anyway. SFTVLGUY2 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is notable that a major motion picture was made of the musical. I don't think a disambiguation notice fulfills our responsibility to mention this in the article. I'll fix it later. -- Ssilvers 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis Needs Work

[edit]

I will have to get my copy of the musical, but the plot synopsis seems a little thin. Perhaps, when I find my copy, I will come back and flesh it out a little more. 66.192.126.3 10:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DollyPlay.jpg

[edit]

Image:DollyPlay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chorus? Ensemble?

[edit]

I was editing the song list and I noticed that there seem to be some inconsistancies in how the "cast members who have no particular role in the musical but still dance and sing" are referred to in the song list. I usually use the term "Chorus." However, I also see the terms "Ensemble", "Dancers", and "Company". Do each of these terms have a slightly different meaning? The dancers don't actually sing; do they still deserve to be mentioned on the list? Also, "The Polka Contest" is not an actual song; it is just a the polka music used for, well, the Harmonia Gardens' Polka Contest. The cast members listed after it make it look like it involves some singing, which it doesn't. I was in a production of Hello, Dolly! two years ago and I think I remember everything correctly, but I wouldn't want to make any errors. Does anyone else have any opinions regarding this?MarianKroy (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ensemble and Chorus are exactly the same; however Company means both the Ensemble and the Principals. I think our articles usually use the term Ensemble instead of Chorus, which is consistent with the IBDB database, I think. We usually do not mention dancers unless they have a big solo dance that is tantamount to their own number. For important musical numbers that do not have lyrics, I usually write "instrumental" or something like that. I would take out the name of the cast members, unless they are solo dancers or have specific speaking lines during the music, in which case, you can footnote this after listing the names. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made some edits now, and I'm pretty happy with them. However, "Dancing" starts out as a song with Dolly teaching Cornelius and Barnaby to dance. Then they dance with the ladies and sing together in front of the curtain as the scene changes to Central Park. Then when the curtain opens again, the ensemble is there dancing. How should I best notate this?MarianKroy (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I think "Dancing" is OK as is. You could footnote the action, but it's not really a big deal, I think. Nice edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall-E

[edit]

I just saw Wall-E two days ago, and "Put on Your Sunday Clothes" and "It Only Takes A Moment" are a very significant part of the movie. However, all the music and video clips are from the movie, not the Broadway production. I don't know if this matters, since it's really just trivia. MarianKroy (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am moving this to the film article, then. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you moved the info to the film article, but it's not there. It should be somewhere. NPR has references. MMetro (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look at the history of Hello, Dolly! (film)? It has recently been removed as WP:TRIV, see [1]. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumored Broadway revival

[edit]

Today I deleted an item (which had no WP:RS) about a Broadway revival "soon", "possibly with Patti LuPone in the title role. This, however, is unconfirmed.". I believe that this is still in the rumor stage and, although reported in the New York Times ([2])(yes, it is quite easy to find sources), the nature of that article makes it clear that this is not "set" and is truly unconfirmed. Should others disagree, feel free to add it, but I think it should be phrased carefully and referenced according to standard Wikipedia guidelines (WP:VERIFY).JeanColumbia (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update and maintenance

[edit]

The following link in "References" looks broken:

Bovsun, Mara. From 'Hello, Dolly!': Dolly Gallagher Levi. barbra-archives.com. Retrieved on 2007-04-08.

I've marked it to check. Lincoln Josh (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hello, Dolly! (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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hello, Dolly! (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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement

[edit]

Ermengarde also has been replaced for the 2019-20 tour. If Ambrose has been listed, a mention that Ermengarde has also been replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetoldalways (talk • contribs)

List of productions

[edit]

Please, stop deleting non-English language official productions from the chart. JoshuaPers (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hello,_Dolly!_(musical)&oldid=1196265409"