Talk:Starlight Express

	Starlight Express 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pearl <> Observation car

I thought Pearl was another Pullman like Belle (hence her visual pun in the carriages song) - I'm checking now for citations

chrisboote 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pearl is a very important charecter in Starlight.

The Quidam 6:19 January 20 2007

While Pearl may be a Pullman(it certainly seems the only likely explanation for the 'PM' on the later designs of skirt, despite the fact that 'Pullman' is one word), she is also brand new and shiny, and one of Control's new favourite toys. Mazz0626 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.B.

What happened to him? I heard that he got cut out of the show in later editions, but was quite important at first!

JaffaCakeLover 18:28, 17 October 2006 (GMT)

Control

It seems someone is aruging about the gender of Control. Some random person keeps on saying that it's a girl but in most productions, the part is given to a boy. Could anyone double check this? The Quidam 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that Control was the little boy in the beginning who was told to put he's trains away and go to bed. I may be wrong!

Well the actor who plays Control can be female but it's meant to be a boy. The Quidam 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Control is generally genderless - it doesn't really matter since toy trains are not a gender specific toy, but some may find the idea of a girl playing with Barbies(clearly the inspiration for the Coaches) more comfortable than a boy. The role has been recorded by women, boys and most recently a girl. Mazz0626 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Productions

Fairfield High School put on the first Amateur production of this show last year, but the information about it keeps getting removed. I have physical evidence to prove that it happened, but (for some reason!?) there's nothing online. What can we do about this?

JohnHoldun 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High school productions are, by definition, not notable, and, therefore, will be deleted without discussion. — Music Maker 5376 05:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that--but wouldn't the fact that it was the first one constitute some notability? That the show is (well, will eventually be) released to amateur theaters?

JohnHoldun 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The fact that the rights are now available for amateur productions is, yes, notable. But it's extremely hard to determine who was actually the first to produce it. The word of your director isn't enough. It also invites things like "ABC High School was the first to produce it in Northeastern Indiana" and the like. The Les Mis page was filled with cruft like that. — Music Maker 5376 06:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, understandable. However (and it really pains me that this information isn't online anywhere), our director worked closely, and personally, with the Really Useful Group on adapting the show for an amateur audience. Our production has become the model for future shows. I'm almost certain that an actual amateur production available for anyone is still in the works.

JohnHoldun 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article

Look. We have one person, JeanColumbia, who wants to have no information on this article except that pertaining to UK productions. We have another, MusicMaker5376, who doesn't want a page for each production. If you both get your way, this article will be misleading in the extreme as it will state that there have only been three productions. I propose that there be separate articles, and this a hub that connects to the lot, with all the messy 'duplicitous'(it is NOT) information that JeanColumbia doesn't like sectioned neatly into its relevant page. Mazz0626 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, new talk posts go at the bottoms of pages.

I have no idea what your beef with Jean is, but I'm sure s/he's right. JeanColumbia is a fine editor with whom I've agreed on just about every edit.

You have about 60 edits -- all in the subject of Starlight. Why don't you do a little work elsewhere in the project and learn a little more about how things work before you begin proposing radical changes to the accepted way of doing things. — Music Maker 5376 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'm an enthusiastic blundering newb who knows a lot about Starlight Express and wants to share my information. Unless you are seriously saying that an encyclopedic entry on a subject should be limited to the barest facts possible, how am I supposed to do it? Mazz0626 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a serious request, by the way. Re-reading it sounds sarcastic. Mazz0626 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this: What Wikipedia is not. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The idea behind an encyclopedia is not to present every imaginable fact on a subject, but to present things in a clear and concise manner, properly citing things so that someone who wants more information knows where to find it. It's not for the glorification of your personal knowledge. Also, you might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. The differences in productions should be described in prose, not presented in lengthy and ultimately redundant and confusing lists. Wikipedia exists for readers, not for editors, so if we're not presenting things in a non-overwhelming way, our mission is lost.

That being said, I really suggest you read up on WP policies. It may seem that way, but WP is not an experiment in anarchy. — Music Maker 5376 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there must be a misunderstanding here. Jean is only deleting repeated infomation in the article. All those productions were listed twice. We need to try to consolidate this information into a more readable format, the way Mark E had done. -- Ssilvers 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Additional productions" near the end should be moved up nearer the top under "Productions". -- Ssilvers 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the "Additional productions" up into the "Productions" section. -- Ssilvers 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please list the references you are using at the bottom of the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]