Talk:Kiss Me, Kate

Kiss Me, Kate 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

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare 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.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Music

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music.

Romance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

kiss me,kate

The title of the musical has a comma in it ("Kiss Me, Kate"). This may or may not have been dropped in the title of the movie, need to verify if it was or not. -_ Someone else 08:30, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC) this was on one of my word searches and i just wanted to tell you that!!!

What does "aye, I" have to do with anything?

? It's used in the original play too... Twitterpated. (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A year and a half later, it's gone. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kiss-Me-Kate-stage.jpg

Image:Kiss-Me-Kate-stage.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General / Dewey

Should be a little more on the topical MacArthur / Dewey references, and the role the General plays in the plot... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast table

The West End productions should be listed, but not the Old Vic productions, since Old Vic is not a West End theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start class assessment

This article is rated Start class because it does not have a reception section, little information about the musical's development and writing process, little/no analysis of text and music (for example, comparing it with The Taming of the Shrew), no references in the film and television section, missing references in the Productions section, and, once those are done, will need a more complete Lead. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure for more ideas about what sort of information should go into a good musical theatre article. Other good articles on musicals include Carousel (musical) and South Pacific (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list

Hi @Ssilvers. I am aware the Barbican is not a west end theatre. I never claimed it was and it's pretty irrelevant really. It's a major London theatre that ran a major production of the show that is well covered by the press.

There's no reason to exclude it from the cast list DeputyBeagle (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We include in casting tables only the original production and revivals on B'way, WE and long-running US/UK national tours. Anything else should be removed. Notable cast members for this production should be mentioned in the productions section, not in the cast table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no precedent for that. Anything Goes lists the Barbican cast as well as an off-Broadway cast. Heathers: The Musical, Be More Chill and Falsettos list runs at The Other Palace. Eugenius! lists both TOP and Turbine Theatre runs. Groundhog Day (musical) lists both of its Old Vic runs. And there are plenty more I haven't mentioned

To say we only add West End is patently absurd. We add major productions, and this objectively is one. There's no reason to remove it DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an equal comparison though, is it? Most of those productions you've listed were in the Barbican and either a tour or moved to the West End; this one wasn't. There is a consensus to restrict to the list that SSilvers has described otherwise pages become bloated with overlarge tables, so I think it's best left out. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me that consensus? It's definitely not on this page and I can't find it on any other page.

Also, no. Some of them did have transfers after their off-West End run, but many didn't. They are notable productions in and of themselves, which justifies their inclusion in the cast list. Anything Goes didn't transfer identically from Barbican to tour, it was a different production with a largely different cast, but the Barbican production was notable in and of itself. Heathers' off-west end revival didn't transfer but is still listed. Groundhog Day's off-west end revival didn't transfer and is still listed. They're listed because they're notable, same as the Barbican production of Kiss Me, Kate DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boated casting tables are not helpful. in Featured articles, like The King and I, we use a more compact table that focuses on the original major-market production. You're wrong also about this Barbican production. It ran for only 3 months and won no Olivier Awards. We don't list the 1952 Broadway production in the table for similar reasons. Imagine a table listing every off West End and off-Broadway production of Oklahoma! It would run on for pages and pages. And then people would demand that we add to the tables Australian productions, Toronto productions, Chicago productions, etc., etc., etc. B'way and WE are plenty, and the notable cast members of other productions should be listed in the Productions section, along with anything encyclopedically noteworthy about the productions. The examples you listed should be deleted from those tables. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3 months is a pretty sizeable run, and it's in a major London theatre. And it not winning any Olivier Awards is a silly way to define notability here.

If it's notable enough to have a section in the productions section, it's notable enough to have cast listed in the cast table.

If the cast board was too crammed we take it case by case in moving it to the notable performers one as per The King & I, but this page is nowhere near that level.

And no, the ones I listed should not have the productions removed from the table, because you haven't shown that there's any consensus for where you decided to draw the line DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear there's no consensus to add it here. It's not the strongest claim that the Barbican is a "major" London theatre: it's certainly a London theatre, but so far away from the rest of theatreland that it's a bit of a forgotten extra than a "major" one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]