Talk:Show Boat

The article does not distinguish the five principal singing roles, a clear deficiency. Two methods I have tried, asterisks and footnote, have been reversed. There is no obvious place to go for a citation. Nor is this a matter of "original research" in that nobody would dispute which of the 12 or 13 solo roles we are talking about. So how do we overcome the deficiency? B C R M (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You need to a) find a WP:reliable source that supports that; and b) find something that makes it clear that it is important enough for inclusion. SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

SchroCat is correct. See these key Wikipedia policies and guidelines for more information. WP:OR and WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, Ssilvers and SchroCat, first of all, I am myself a reliable source because I know the score. Second, I have contributed to Wikipedia for going on 20 years adding all sorts of information *without* support, and I am certain that the vast majority of material added to the encyclopedia is in fact unsupported, uncited. You will know this too of course. Wikipedia would not be what it is today if contributors were forced to support everything they added. Third, about whether identifying the principal singing roles "is important enough for inclusion," most readers would say it is. I got the impression from one of you that you are part of an oversight body concerned with musicals. If so, you must agree. Your actions are a disservice. B C R M (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here is a good example of the disservice. Stageagent.com lists the "leads" and "supporting" roles for Show Boat. It would be easy for me to cite this to overcome your objection. But Stageagent is a bad source. Mrs Hawks is not a principal singing role whereas Queenie is. I know this; Stageagent does not, being a mindless database. B C R M (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

1. Adding information without a source is damaging. Please don’t continue to do it.
2. You are not a source. What you think may or may not be right is classed as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and it should not be on WP.
3. The fact that one source disagrees with your interpretation should be a red flag for you, that what you think you may know may not be correct, or at least open to interpretation by others.
4. Please don’t class anyone’s actions as a “disservice”, particularly when both of us have pointed you in the direction of the site’s guidelines and policies for doing things the right way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

   As to No. 4, yes, SchroCat, it is a disservice when the article is less than it could be. You have subtracted what I contributed despite the quality of the contribution, and you haven't addressed the Stageagent example I gave. B C R M (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can address it. The Stageageant example proves that different people (in Stageagent's case, a professional editor) disagree about which roles are the most important ones. You have not presented sources that authoritatively show which roles are "principal" ones, and your assertion that you are the best arbiter of this are directly contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and so your contribution was not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, the Stageagent listing includes non-singing roles. That's the difference. B C R M (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's no answer. B C R M (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

What other edits have you made to Wikipedia over the past 20 years without citing sources? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thousands. Perhaps one edit in 50 or 60 of mine has been with a citation. And "adding information without a source" is not damaging, as SchroCat suggests, unless the information is wrong. Naturally things are better sourced, I agree. But you can't expect volunteers to go to the trouble every time. B C R M (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please point them out to me so that I can help you source them or remove the information that violates WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you think that identifying the principal singing roles is "trivia," you really should not be involved at all in articles devoted to musical theatre! B C R M (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

What is trivia is your *identification* of the roles that you think are "principal" ones. The important characters can be identified by the plot summary and list of musical numbers as those who are important to the story and sing in the songs. Also, if you do not wish to follow WP:V, you should not contribute to Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

See my reply to SchroCat below. B C R M (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

As a little test, SchroCat, you might want to ask a few people to name the principal roles in Tosca. You won't get a single variance. It is not a matter of opinion. Granted, Tosca is not a musical, but in Show Boat the only variance might be whether to include Queenie; there would be no variance in naming the other four. B C R M (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

BCRM, you have not shown the utility of *naming* the "principal" roles, when we have already *demonstrated* which roles are the most important ones in the plot summary and list of musical numbers. BTW, our article on Tosca is a WP:Featured Article. It does not specify which roles are "principal" ones, showing that none of the dozens or hundreds of people who worked on this article believe that this is a useful thing to do in Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

LOL - I don’t need to do any tests thanks, but as a little test for you: why don’t you find a source to add the principals to this article? The roles you think should be there doesn’t matter one iota: it’s what the sources say. That is all that counts. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "utility" would be in helping any reader new to the subject. Obviously. The line distinguishing the principals is indisputable in the case of Tosca, hence the suggested test, and nearly indisputable in the case of Show Boat. The question is whether you want to help people new to the subject. B C R M (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nope. The question is what the sources say. How much importance do they put on the point. If little or none then it’s not worth stressing over - “principal” means different things to different sources and that’s why we follow the sources, not the opinion of a single editor. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The result of your stupidity is that Pete is equal to Ravenal. Do the damn test! B C R M (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please don’t insult people. WP:CIVIL is another policy you should read. Unless you are prepared to take on board some of the policies and guidelines you’ve been shown, I think we’re done here. Go find a source. The position of the website is how I outlined it in the first post: You need to a) find a WP:reliable source that supports that; and b) find something that makes it clear that it is important enough for inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We list 13 roles, undifferentiated. This does not much help the reader. The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization (not a great source) lists 10 “main characters” and 2 “supporting characters.” StageAgent (ditto) lists 16 “characters” classified as 5 “leads,” 7 “supporting” and 4 “featured.” In fact there are 5 principal singing roles (not aligned with StageAgent’s “leads”). These are clearly identifiable from the score, which is of course the only source that matters, and they should accordingly be identified in our article. I propose the addition to the list of the 3 missing characters and the following line at the start of the “Roles” section: Note: Julie, Magnolia, Queenie, Ravenal and Joe are the principal singing roles. Or asterisks by these in the list followed by an explanation. I suggest that editors involved in musical theatre obtain for themselves an education in the “utility” (Ssilvers’ word) for readers, especially readers new to a subject, of identified principal singing roles. It matters. It is, as illustration, the first breakdown at the above two source sites. Moreover, nobody wants to be confronted by a tag-team armed with wp:original research, wp:reliable source, wp:v, wp:civil, when they are trying to contribute, and this type of tool use runs counter to the recent messages I have received as a new account holder. B C R M (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Follow the sources, not your personal interpretation of them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The source is the score. B C R M (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

No it’s not. Not unless it actually says “principal” or “leading” next to the character name. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The score "says" that through its allocation. You don't know, do you? B C R M (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do know, yes. But I also know—and follow—the site guidelines and policies. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are a slave to them. You don't think. Earlier you wrote: "adding information without a source is damaging." This is also nonsense. Are you a person or a robot? B C R M (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

So you are a robot! B C R M (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the further incivility. We’re done here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This needs to be its own topic because the whole point is that a "principal" role such as Mrs Hawks is not necessarily a singing one. B C R M (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply