Jump to content

Talk:Nuts (play): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Consensus building: new section
Line 14: Line 14:


:That's a fair enough compromise — it's not the full nine characters but it's six of them, which is more than the three I had. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:That's a fair enough compromise — it's not the full nine characters but it's six of them, which is more than the three I had. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Consensus building ==

Since extensive changes have been made to the article by one editor, as is the case in such exensive changes, some of them have been kept, some of them have been integrated more naturally into the article, and some of the have been deemed unnecessary or unproductive, and have been reverted. I invite those concerned to discuss their desired changes here. The editors involved in this article are happy to discuss and consider each issue concept by concept, section by section, line by line, or word by word, as is desired. Please continue the discussion below. Thanks! [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:11, 6 August 2009

WikiProject iconTheatre Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cast

Re: Questions about which original cast members to list: Having edited a lot of Film articles here, I know that complete casts are frowned upon on those articles; only the main cast is listed, since the complete cast is available on the everpresent IMDB link. The same seems to apply even more to plays, which articles generally only list one to three original leads, if that. Cf: any of the articles in the category "American plays." The cast of a play that ran on Broadway for less than three months does not warrant a full original cast list in the Wikipedia article, especially since the complete clickable cast list is available on the everpresent IBDB link. It's a question of relevance. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the complete cast is listed in the film article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that. [UPDATE: The cast list on the film article is bascially only the main characters. The film cast is actually 48 characters: [1].] The film article is nearly barren of any info but that cast box, all of which actors have Wikipedia articles. It doesn't change the fact that the complete cast of a Broadway run under 3 months lacks relevance. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary in detail

I added an infobox and made some corrections to the article. Neither of the sources I consulted suggested the Broadway version of the play greatly differed from its original off-off-Broadway staging, so I changed the date of the play to 1979. Rather than have a separate list of characters, I incorporated details about them into the plot synopsis. (This is common in film articles; if the policy for play articles differs, I apologize for being bold.) Anne Twomey was nominated for the Tony as a Leading, not Featured, Actress.

Re: the discussion above, I see no reason not to name the actors who portrayed each of the characters mentioned in the plot synopsis. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair enough compromise — it's not the full nine characters but it's six of them, which is more than the three I had. Softlavender (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus building

Since extensive changes have been made to the article by one editor, as is the case in such exensive changes, some of them have been kept, some of them have been integrated more naturally into the article, and some of the have been deemed unnecessary or unproductive, and have been reverted. I invite those concerned to discuss their desired changes here. The editors involved in this article are happy to discuss and consider each issue concept by concept, section by section, line by line, or word by word, as is desired. Please continue the discussion below. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]