Talk:Rodgers and Hammerstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Collaboration of the week Rodgers and Hammerstein was the Biography Collaboration of the week for the week starting on August 14, 2005.
For details on improvements made to the article, see the History of past collaborations.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecac1119 (article contribs).

Pulitzer(s)[edit]

I don't think they won two pulitzer prizes, only one. I was looking at the pulitzer winner lists, and I don't see their names anywhere else. Danlevenson (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning a complete overhaul of this article. If no one objects I will start doing it on December 10, 2005. This will include getting rid of all the sections about the musicals and focusing more on their work together as suggested by the peer review. --kralahome 06:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I haven't been working on it, but I will soon so I am putting the template back. --kralahome 00:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include a song list from all of their musical colaborations? --arctic 05:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical numbers[edit]

I removed the "Musical Numbers" sections; the musical numbers for a given musical can be found on that musical's article page. This article probably needs more work on the musicals section as well, but I'm not sure exactly where to begin. --Vbbdesign 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg[edit]

Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the song "Oklahoma"[edit]

Today's anon IP edits make the dubious and unsourced claim that the title of the song "Oklahoma!" was first "Pennsylvania". The edits have been deleted twice. I am writing this note for the record, in case this possible vandalism continues. In all of the literature on the musical Oklahoma!, I would think that this would have been mentioned. See [[1]] for 1 example of a lengthy discussion of the musical, with no mention at all of this title change. I have requested WP:VERIFY, and will refer to this note in the future, if necessary.. JeanColumbia (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted this same dubious claim from the article on the song.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original title was Oh! Calcutta! (Just kidding, but you can imagine how dangerous it is when the wind comes sweeping down the plain there!). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on social issues[edit]

If the social issues in some of the productions are going to be pointed out, then I think that it would be best if the idea is developed further. At least the issues in the six profiled ones should be mentioned; i.e., "Oklahoma!," "Carousel," "State Fair," "South Pacific," "The King and I," and "Flower Drum Song." The section could also be organized by pointing out a few main themes and then, in a more detailed way, looking at how various productions address each particular issue. Veritate10 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it needs some real research to find secondary sources that discuss this. You can't just write up an argument based on your own thesis. See WP:V and WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Holiday[edit]

Under "Previous work and partnerships" I removed an incomplete reference to "Roman Holiday," which said, "Also did Roman Holiday". I have not been able to find any information that mentioned Hammerstein and Kern's involvement with "Roman Holiday." Please add if you have any information concerning that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritate10 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The King and I[edit]

The King and I has been nominated for FAC. Please take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC if you can! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous adaptations in the "Work" section?[edit]

I propose that posthumous adaptations should not be included under 'Work' as if they are part of the R&H canon. Otherwise it's confusing, because there are cases where a posthumous production really is the product of the deceased author. (For example, Fred Ebb wrote much of 'Scottsboro Boys' and 'Curtains', but they were only produced years after he died.)

If the adaptation is itself notable (such as Hwang's rewrite of 'Flower Drum Song'), it should be discussed on the relevant page. (Which it is.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoAdamite (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After leaving this comment a year ago, I removed the "works" with mostly new books, only to have the change reverted on the grounds that the new books use the old scores. Why do the derived works deserve inclusion, since Hammerstein had no part in them? We could do what was done on the Gershwin page, things like "an original 1983 musical using previously written Gershwin songs," but why bother at all, as the derived works are covered on their own pages? (If this was the Richard Rodgers page, not the R&H page, I could see it making sense.) NeoAdamite (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I did not notice or understand the import of your message last year, but I am not convinced that the posthumous adaptations should not be included. I do not think it is correct to say that Hammerstein had no part in them. He wrote the lyrics and conceived the stories or, in many cases had much to do with the book or screenplay. For example, the 1997 Cinderella remake is certainly Hammerstein's Cinderella. But I am not certain about all of them. Why don't you explain, item by item, why you think each one does not belong on the list, and perhaps there is a compromise? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is a possible middle ground might be segregating them in the infobox under the subheading "Posthumous adaptations".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense to me. Distinguishing the genuine article from retreads, but nonetheless listing things visitors to the page might expect to see. Tim riley talk 14:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: I failed to spot "infobox" in Wehwalt's suggestion. I was thinking more about the main space. Sorry to muddy the waters. Tim riley talk 20:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

counting a team[edit]

Rodgers and Hammerstein refers to an influential, innovative and successful American musical theatre writing team ...

My change of "refers to" to "were" was reverted with the comment rv British idiom. This article is written using American English. You can say "was", but not "were". Um, really? (I'm American.) I read the subject as, y'know, two names, not the name of a firm. Would a newspaper of their time have said "Rodgers and Hammerstein has done it again"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the team (singular), not two men. So "refers to" is better, notwithstanding WP:REFERS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. —Tamfang (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rodgers and Hammerstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney’s Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella[edit]

Should this article mention that the 1997 version of Cinderella was made by Disney for their The Wonderful World of Disney TV program? Is that irrelevant? BlackAdvisor (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that it was produced by Disney, but readers should click the link if they want more details. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: how many Oscars?[edit]

In the State Fair section: "It was a great success, winning Rodgers and Hammerstein their lone Oscar," but the intro says they won 15 Academy Awards. Cognita (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WP:LEAD says that film versions of their shows won 15 Oscars. But their only Oscar award together was for the song from State Fair. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rodgers_and_Hammerstein&oldid=1194711868"