Talk:Hair (musical)

Hair (musical) (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 14 April 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Hair (musical) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 15, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 29, 2008, April 29, 2009, April 29, 2010, April 29, 2012, April 29, 2013, April 29, 2015, April 29, 2018, and April 29, 2024.

Current status: Good article

Musical Theatre

Hair (musical) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Nudity Mid‑importance

	Nudity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

First non-Shakespeare production

The claim that Hair was Papp's 'first non-Shakespeare production' can't be correct. There was a presentation of Electra in August, 1964 in the Delacorte theater, by the New York Shakespeare festival (per New York Times article). It is identified by the Times writer as 'the first time the festival has departed from Shakespeare'. The 1964 Electra is already incuded in List of Shakespeare in the Park productions at the Delacorte Theater. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]