Talk:Oklahoma!

Cast table

The cast table that an editor implemented today (without asking first on the Talk page), containing numerous columns, and rows and rows of minor characters, is a mistake. This article uses the much more compact cast table used in the best musical theatre articles, like Carousel (musical) and The King and I, which are Featured Articles. Other notable originators of roles and notable players of major roles in revivals should be mentioned in the Productions section of musicals, instead. The cast tables in all of the popular musicals should be this style, not the bloated one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Please watch the WP:OWN type comments. We don't need to discuss article improvements before making them per WP:BOLD, and reproaching people for making good faith edits that were obviously intended to be constructive isn't a good practice under our civility guidelines. As for cast lists... Personally I hate the cast table organization on either of those FA pages. For one the tables aren't completely cited and lack WP:Verifiability. The Carousel table doesn't even highlight the original cast. It's not informative and overly vague. At a W:FAR review I would ding it as something needing obvious fixing. The actors should be placed under the major market productions they appeared in. Anyone not sorted would likely be from one of those but as a cast replacement, and they should have citations after each individual name (something I'm working towards on this page). I much prefer the more detailed table, which I note we have implemented on numerous musical pages like Grease, Show Boat, The Phantom of the Opera, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Company, Gypsy, Into the Woods, and The Sound of Music to name just a tiny number of examples. I'd be ok with trimming some of the less important characters though. That seems like a reasonable compromise, and in keeping with some of the table examples I provided earlier. I would strongly urge changing the cast tables at both Carousel and The King and I as both have issues with verifiability and vague reporting which is something that a FA or even a GA review should have caught.4meter4 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Update. I trimmed minor characters and sourced all of the actors listed. I removed several from the old table as they were not in noteworthy productions but regional stagings with short runs. This is one reason why the old table design is inferior. It lends itself to name dropping people who weren't in notable productions.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this. The previous format was, I think, adequate, though plainly susceptible to enhancing, and the new format undeniably contains extra information. The problem to me is that the new one looks perfectly foul on both the screens I normally use, with the left-hand column running to anything up to nine lines deep with only two or three words per line. This in turn means acres of white space above and below the text in all the other thirteen columns. Not a pretty sight, and requiring frantic scrolling with the mouse wheel to get from top to bottom. On balance I'd plump for the first or an enhanced version of it.

In passing – and just checking – are the italicised descriptions of the characters taken from any authoritative source or are they just one editor's interpretation? Tim riley talk 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Afterthought: incidentally, for the benefit of non-Americans, what exactly is a "market production"? (There may be a joke lurking in there about Covent Garden, but I don't think that's relevant.) Tim riley talk 17:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The new table also highlights numerous non-notable names, especially in supporting and minor roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I don't know. I left them in from the old table. Ditto on the language of "major market productions". It seems to be a phrase used on a lot of musical articles. I think it is meant to discourage the inclusion of regional theatre productions with short runs which I think is right. @Ssilvers: The new modified table has the names of the most important productions. I trimmed the list to principal characters so I disagree with your characterization. I think this is the best way to present the characters and casts. It's certainly what I as a reader want and expect in all musical articles. What I don't want is a bunch of names with no clue how these people fit into the production history. It becomes a wall of meaningless text in the old format. Plus it had many unverified non-notable performers previously.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Also on a side note, many of the actors lacking wikilinks in the table would pass WP:NACTOR (some even had staff written obits in The New York Times). The table is highlighting where our musical theatre bio pages need expansion not the fact that is has a lot of non-notable people. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not well up enough in Broadway musicals to pontificate about content, but I repeat that the present table looks what we in England might in our coarse Anglo-Saxon voice call bloody awful and it needs something doing to make it less sanguinary. Tim riley talk 18:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd be ok with limiting it to just the Broadway and West End casts. I don't think we need to include the others. I'd even be ok with removing the nebulous "main market" productions section.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I've trimmed to just the Broadway and West End casts. I removed the tours and the major market productions section. I think this should reduce the table to a reasonable size. I also note the other table was not referenced and had WP:OR as several of the names didn't belong in our article as the actors weren't in notable productions.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers There were a bunch of actors in the old list that played the role in Australia for a single weekend in Melbourne, and another for less than a month in a regional theatre in the UK. It wasn't a great list. It was also unreferenced. Can we please keep the current table which fixed the OR issues intact. I am happy to discuss trims.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop WP:EDITWARring. I am happy to discuss trimming the old table, but strongly oppose your new format. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not ok with restoring a largely unsourced table with errors and original research. I already trimmed this to just the Broadway and West End casts, and this a table format widely used across the encyclopedia in musical articles.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Enough with the edit warring and disruption through tagging. Please come to a consensus here first and then move forward. We’re all adults here and know the various guidelines and standards, so it won’t be difficult to come to agreement on how to address the points of disagreement here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the compact table, and that other notable cast members in major productions should be mentioned, instead, in the Productions section of the article. Jack1956 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Frustration

I don't know what to do here. I'm seeing a bunch of reversion to unsourced content which contains unverified claims. We have actors in these lists which only played these parts in regional productions for short periods of time. Plus the names mean very little without any context. This is not what I would want for this article as seems to ignore basic things WP:MOS and WP:Verifiability. I don't feel like I can work here productively as I took a lot of my time to find sources and verify the content over several days. It makes me not want to edit on wikipedia anymore. This seems to ignore WP:BURDEN by supporting the version without references. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As I’ve posted on your talk page, start with what you think needs changing by highlighting here—with sources—that specific information. If you’re confident in your sources, it should be an easy win, as should adding the sources, but let’s do it through discussion and agreement as the first step. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm done. I can't work with people who restore unverified claims not supported by sources, and revert solid edits. Article reversion shouldn't be allowed when moving from a well cited version to an unreferenced version. That goes against core policies. I'm happy to discuss further changes, but restoring a frankly inferior version not compliant with WP:Verifiability isn't right no matter how you slice it.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Then discuss: it’s also a core policy. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat If basic policies like WP:BURDEN aren't upheld I don't see the point. Not worth my time with the current group of editors. They have a pattern of tag teaming and supporting one another in this type of discussion. They don't like others editing their articles. I've learned that there is no winning and it is a fruitless exercise. Nothing will change, and my work won't be implemented even if it would improve the article. The OR issues will stay and the article will remain unverified in its current state until they choose to take care of it which may or may not happen. It's best to just let them have their way and move on to a different topic.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Doubling down on unfounded uncivil accusations isn’t a great look. All you had to do was discuss with the sources for two minutes, rather than this tantrum. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are finished edit warring and wish to discuss proposed changes to the table, without adding the multiple columns and extra rows of characters so unimportant that they don't even appear in revivals, then fire away. I am happy to remove anything that is not noteworthy from the table, including the Australian names that you identified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm done. I don't want to work on this anymore. Allow me the grace to exit. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This is very sad. I have been much impressed by 4meter4's edits in the past, e.g. chez Richard Strauss, which he brought from a right old mess to a fine article, a credit to Wikipedia. Such a pity we can't establish a collegial working relationship here. Tim riley talk 19:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley I very much respect you and Ssilvers too Tim. Most of the time we are on the same page, and get along great and help one another. Ssilvers has done some amazing copy editing for me (most recently at Jacques Presburg to which I am so grateful), and I know we can work together in most cases (and will do so again) in a productive and congenial way. Sometimes we disagree and there are some places where we can butt heads. For my own mental sanity I recognize that this is one of those times where Ssilvers has extremely opinionated ideas and I have extremely different opinionated ideas. When that happens it hasn't worked well for us in the past. It really is just best for me to move on here, and not allow myself to A) Lose my cool further. B) Continue to be combative. C) Get too emotionally invested in this article. It will drive me crazy seeing that cast template. I really hate it that much. I'm taking this page off my watch list and moving on to being productive elsewhere. It's honestly not worth it to anyone (especially me) to be worked up in a state over something that is overall trivial. The article will survive without my attentions, and there are so many other places to be productive. Best wishes and happy editing.4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

So be it! I regret it, but we are all clearly grown-ups and and unresentful. I echo "happy editing" to all. Tim riley talk 20:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have addressed the sourcing issues and reduced the editorializing in the "description" column. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Popular Culture (Films) Inaccuracies

Hello, everyone.

First post on Wikipedia. Just trying to correct something since I don’t know how to edit articles yet. The article currently mentions that “In Twister (1996), Beltzer is heard singing the song "Oklahoma!" when he is introduced.” While Beltzer (played by Todd Field) does in fact sing this song, he had already been introduced at this point in the film. He was first introduced when Jo Harding (played by Helen Hunt) was trying to fix the Doppler. In the specific scene, Beltzer also is not the only one singing as Haynes (played by Wendle Josepher) can also be heard singing. CallsignHyena (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the change you suggest, but the main problem is that there we need a WP:Reliable source that states this and describes how the song is used in Twister. See WP:IPC for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Additional Production of Oklahoma - Carnegie Hall, One Night Only - 01/12/2026

https://www.carnegiehall.org/Calendar/2026/01/12/Rodgers--Hammersteins-Oklahoma-in-Concert-0700PM ~2026-27682-7 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it here. Ssilvers (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)