Talk:Hair (musical)

Casting tables

Casting tables are not very helpful and encourage fancruft. Only the original Broadway cast (and in cases like this, or Little Shop, where the Off-Broadway production was particularly significant, the Off-Broadway cast) should be separately broken out in a list or table. Other important cast members are listed in the narrative production sections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Flami72 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The thing I "fixed" on the casting table was just the way the way the headings were designed. It looked a little messy. Just cleaned them up and made them simple. Other casting tables look similar to this. For example, Back to The Future has a similar table design. I'm sorry I was not clear in the original reverted edit. Smitty1999 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not think your changes to the casting tables in numerous articles have been an improvement. They make the tables even more boated. So, no, you are not "fixing" anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers ok, fair, but I do not see anything wrong with the way I re-formated them. If you don't wanna call it "fixing," then just call it re-formatting. There's nothing wrong with that. I just thought it looked neater in that format. Smitty1999 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers is there a way we can find some common ground on this? Smitty1999 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You should have opened a discussion at WP:MUSICALS to see if others preferred the older style, without the extra boxes for dates, and your longer style of column headings before launching into a project to make these changes to numerous articles. I told you that I objected to your changes in numerous edit summaries when you started doing this. If you opened a talk page discussion at WP:MUSICALS, you would have known if others agreed or disagreed with you. I would prefer that all the noteworthy info about casting (other than the cast of the first major production) should be entirely in the Productions sections. Therefore, I see anything that makes the tables bigger and longer is bad, and anything that makes them more concise or eliminates redundant info is good. Others may disagree, but you will never know unless you open a discussion at WP:MUSICALS. By the way, you don't need to keep pinging me. I am watching this page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I will start a discussion on WP:MUSICALS. Smitty1999 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of its length. At 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be split or reduced. I think there is prose that can be removed, such as longer block quotes. Also, there is an orange banner about the term "Notable people" that should be resolved. Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you make some more specific suggestion as to what you think ought to be done? Given the show's extensive history, I don't think the length itself is a real problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: More specific suggestions below:

• The orange banner for "Notable people" needs to be resolved.

• Done. I removed a production from this table and added a hidden comment that contains the table criteria. It should be the same for all musicals that have a similar cast table: The Heading should just say "Casts" (or similar), and the table should list only the principal casts of the long-running major market productions and original production(s). So, once the show plays on B'way or the West End, the table should include only further B'way, WE or US/UK national tours, unless there is another major production that ran for years. This is pretty standard throughout the musical theatre articles on WP (though there are some that have accumulated lesser productions that should be taken out of the table). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• The block quote used in the themes is too long, as there are copyright concerns when large amounts of information like this are copied. This should be summarised or removed.

• Agreed. I have cut it down to its essential points. What is left, I believe is essential and represents only a tiny portion of the work quoted, an acceptable fair use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• The receptions for subsequent productions of "Hair" should be removed: if these are notable, the remounted version should get its own article or the critical reviews moved to "Reception". This will reduce the number of words in the article.

• I disagree, at least in part: various subsequent productions of this musical have been quite WP:noteworthy, but they are already presented in very summary form, and I don't see any benefit in creating separate articles for them. If you think any of these reaction sections are particularly overlong (or for less noteworthy productions) and that the quotes are of lesser encyclopedic value, let me know, and I'll try to reduce their length. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• " two songs that were cut from the original production." Has a citation needed tag which needs to be resolved.

• Agreed and resolved. I also shortened this paragraph considerably. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• The last block quote in the article should also be summarised and removed, due to the same reasons as above.

• I reduced this quote, and I believe it now complies with fair use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This was after a quick skim. I suggest that interested editors read through the entire article and remove unnecessary prose (especially quotes) and ensure that all concerns are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to look at this tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I have addressed your points above and did some additional work to tighten up the discussion. Please let me know if you see other areas that seem over-long or less encyclopedically necessary to the subject, and I'll review and try to tighten up the article further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Per WP:RS/P, IMDB and BroadwayWorld are not reliable sources: these should be replaced in the article. I'll try to give more comments later. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

BroadwayWorld, it says, should not be used as a source in articles about living persons. However, it is a standard source in musical theatre articles for production dates and casts in articles about musicals. You are correct that IMDB is not reliable, and I have removed all imdb cites (note that IBDB is a totally different website that IS considered reliable). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Any notes on inspiration?

With some of the subject matter of Hair, I don't think this is too far out, but I noticed the serial killer Rodney Alcala at some time used the name John Berger to escape authorities. While in New York, he also took a class with Roman Polanski. Something like that may have been in Hair, but it may also have been Rent, I don't know by heart. Emilehobo (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked it up to be sure and Polanski gets referenced in Claude's song "Manchester England." With all of the drugs, pederasty, and young girls, I'm fairly certain it's accurate to assume he was the inspiration for Berger, particularly because he was really charming and would expect you to follow him word for word. It fits in with the tribal-theme and what others would feel to be "the burden of being the man." Emilehobo (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that states that Alcala was an inspiration? Otherwise, until there is such a WP:RS, the material can go on another website, but not on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Article size concerns

This article is over 13,000 words; WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of that size WP:SPINOUT some of the prose into new articles. I also think there are places where the prose can be summarised more effectively. Some suggestions are below to help with this:

• There is a lot of prose in the "Subsequent productions" section. I think much of this information can be summarised more effectively, epecially the later productions. If not, perhaps this can be spun out.
• Both "Nudity, sexual freedom and drug use" and "Nude scene" talk about the show's use of nudity and the meaning behind it. I think these can be merged in the "Themes" section.
• I do not think the block quote is necessary at the top of "Themes": it seems like it is an introduction that I can skip and instead just read the individual entries of the show's themes.
• I am not sure what the connection is between the first paragraph of "Dramatics" and the show. I do not think this information is needed, and it can be merged into the subseqent sections.
• There's a lot of information in "Critical reception", including lots of "X said Y" quotes. WP:RECEPTION has ideas on how to avoid this, which will reduce the prose size of this section.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns? I would WP:BEBOLD but often my edits are reverted, so I do not want to spend hours on a project that is undone afterwards. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I will address it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Thanks. Obviously, there's no rush. If you need any help, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have tightened up the article a bit, including in the subsequent productions section. I merged the Dramatics sections into Themes and streamlined significantly, eliminating repetition. I think the (early) critical reception section is written fairly well and complies with WP:RECEPTION, though I did streamline it a little. I removed some meta information and excess detail from the plot summary. I'm not sure it's necessary to mention all the songs that are mentioned in the Plot summary, especially where they don't contribute substantially to the "plot". While I tightened up the prose in the Themes section and shortened the quote, I think the quote is a very helpful introduction to the section, putting it in context. You could say the same thing about Lead sections that you said about this quote -- the answer is that people don't have to read it. As for the substance of the Themes section, to work seriously on this section, one would need to go to the library to sit with the seminal books about the musical in order to improve the section towards the FA level. I think the length of the productions and subsequent productions sections is justified by the many thousands of professional productions of this show around the world. I don't think it would make any sense to try to spin off any of it. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Thanks for doing that. I have done a copyedit of the "Recordings" section to tighten up the language, remove words I feel are redundant, and other nit-picky fixes based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines. I also removed a quote that was more about the reception of the recordings rather than information about them: I felt that this quote was not necessary within that section considering the large length of this article. If these edits are helpful, I am happy to continue this in other sections. If these types of edits are not helpful, I am happy to stop. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your tightening up, and I tightened up a little bit more, but you changed the meaning of the sentence about the songs never recorded/that saw limited stage time, so I have tried to restore the meaning, but still in a shorter form. As for the New York Times quote, I disagree with your premise: This quote is central to explaining the extraordinary importance and cultural impact of the original B'way cast album (coincidentally, I have a neighbor who has, hanging in her apartment 56 years after its release, a framed Hair album cover; I remember that my father, who was 42 and a businessman when Hair premiered on Broadway, bought the album and played it incessantly for years). The sentence could be moved to the cultural impact section, but it is specifically about the recording, so I think it is better here. If you feel strongly about it, a new section here on the Talk page would be needed, and then we should ping all the people who contributed significantly to the run up to the GA review, recent contributors and the Musicals project talk page (which we could do anyway when we're all done with the article). I agree with you that we should try to make the article more efficient and tighter, but I want to WP:PRESERVE all the important information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the #Themes and similar sections are great in their analysis and wouldn't like to see those sections reduced. I think there is room to cut some of the details of subsequent productions, as some are quite trivial – e.g. mentions that a particular revival had a "long line", full listings of members of the Tribe (some of whom don't have Wikipedia articles), five separate reviews (including quotations) of the 2009 Broadway revival. Perhaps a separate article could be split out similar to List of productions of The Nutcracker if it's felt warranted. I T B F 📢 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)