Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Another make-work project. I saw the reasoning for it, and it is that some people have decided that their feelings are hurt by their article not being considered "important". But "priority" is precisely the same, unless you don't understand what "priority" means, which is the real problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

According to this project page's summary, Michael Crawford's page has been nominated for a split by an IP address. I see no conversation on that subject on Crawford's Talk Page. I even created my own conversation regarding it, to which no one has replied. I believe we can delete the request that is suggested here in the summary box, but I can't figure out where the bot is finding the information so I can delete it. I'd love assistance. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 16:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Discography section? If so, why don't you lay out why you think it is a bad idea. I am agnostic about it right now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Good question. On this project page, in the "News" section, this bullet point is listed: 09 May 2024 – Michael Crawford (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 2601:1C1:8200:260:1D7B:1660:F08F:1EAE (t · c); see discussion. The "discussion" link takes you to Michael Crawford's article Talk Page, where there is no discussion except my inquiry into this bullet point, which has no responses.

So, I'm confused. I don't understand where Wiki is pulling from to get the bullet point onto the Musical Theatre project page. And even if I did know and could respond to the IP address that supposedly requested the edit, I don't see any point in splitting Michael Crawford's page, which reads as a pretty straightforward BLP. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 14:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Drayton Entertainment is at AfD. If someone wants to save this Canadian theatre company's article, they need to add reliable sources and some encyclopedic content about the company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drayton Entertainment production history. The outcome of this AFD could impact other performing arts related list, including those lists related to the production/performance history of theatre companies and festivals. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is the orchestration of the pits never included in any of the musical pages? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask: There are bunch of reasons for that. 1) Most orchestrations for musical theatre aren't published, and aren't covered in WP:RS. 2) Often productions scale down and modify orchestrations at the whims of the music director and the producers. (ie older musicals with fuller orchestrations with 30ish players in the original get chopped to tiny pit orchestras of 10ish people) This means that each production may have a slightly to radically different orchestration. 3) Most press and writers on musical theatre works don't include content on orchestrations. 4) Orchestrations put together for consumption outside Broadway/West End are often tailored to the needs of high schools or community groups or regional theaters with smaller budgets, so putting "published stuff" out there isn't always reflective of the original work. 5) Orchestrations used on recordings are often different that what is done in the theatre. I could go on, but the general point is orchestrations are unstable, and often change from production to production. There are of course exceptions. It really just boils down to what has reliably been published on the orchestrations of a particular show. It's a topic that often isn't discussed in print and that limits what we can write. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you had proper sourcing, would you add them, then? I just noticed Hamilton has the orchestration listed out, but it has also been covered in reliable sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Just my 2c: Even if you can find a reference, Broadway and West End pit orchestras are very standard. Traditional musicals usually use 26-28 pieces, standard strings, woodwinds, percussion, horns, sometimes also a piano. On tour they sometimes skimp on strings. Rock musicals usually use about a dozen pieces, including synthesizer(s), piano, a couple of strings, just 2 or 3 woodwinds, a couple of horns and percussion. There's no point in repeating this over and over in every article. It just isn't important to know whether a particular orchestration was scored for 1, 2 or 3 trombones, or if there was an English horn or French horn, 3 cellos or 2 cellos and a bass, and so it is neither noteworthy nor WP:DUE. If a pit orchestra adds an unusual instrument that has prominent scoring, like a harp, cowbell or glockenspiel, etc., and there is a reliable source, you could say "standard Broadway pit orchestra plus a prominent part for cowbell".<ref>cite</ref> As 4meter4 says, the orchestra often changes from the premiere to the first B'way/WE production, or between productions over the decades, and sometimes a later orchestration becomes the preferred one. The orchestration for recordings/televised/arena events is generally bigger than for the theatre pit. I would remove it from Hamilton, but I hesitate to edit articles that have rabid fan bases, as they get testy when you try to apply common sense to them. I'll do it in 20 years or so, when the fervor dies down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You could somewhat say the same about orchestral pieces. They are always going to have same similar variation of woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings, but seems standard to always include the instrumentation on Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Musicals are about singing, dancing, dialogue, wise-cracking, set/costume design, make-up, wigs, etc. An orchestral piece focuses on the orchestra, so the orchestration is more central to them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur and would add that WP:BALASP matters. Some shows or even particular production subsections might deserve more attention to orchestration than others. For example, if one were discussing the 2019 revival of Daniel Fish's Oklahoma! which drastically changed the orchestration from the original, it would be appropriate in that subsection on the revival to discuss orchestration (obviously without going into too much detail), because there are book sources and reviews that go into that kind of detail on that production. That, however, is not the norm. Again, it really just depends on what has been written. If sources in general on a work don't address it (which is true with most musicals), then we probably don't need to either. When it does get mentioned it's usually for a good reason.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Editors may wish participate in this event at WP:WikiProject Women in Red featuring opera and theater works by women. Any articles on operas by women would be appreciated. Sorry for the belated notice. I wasn't aware February was the month we were doing this until just now.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)