Talk:Dance of the Vampires (musical)

On 26 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Tanz der Vampire. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Tanz der Vampire

How about a seperate article for Tanz der Vampire? I've created a redirect page already, but the multiple productiosn mean this page is getting a bit clustered? What do people think? If there's no objections in a week or so I'll make the changes. The JPS 15:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. In my opinion, they should be separated, because many regard Dance as inferior to Tanz. But then again, two pages for the same stuff would be superfluous, don't you think? EliasAlucard 11:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm dragging this point up again. In my mind, Dance is a version of Tanz. Unlike all the other non-German versions, Dance isn't a straight forward translation. I think this article should make that clear. Maybe it's a good idea to split the article in two: a Tanz article with the basic stuff (plot, characters, various versions) and a Dance article that explains that it is a completely reworked version, lists the changes, reasons why it failed, etc. Thoughts? Evil Nickname (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support the split. To me, the situation is akin to a "remake" of a movie, perhaps a remix of album. Given the numerous differences in both the two shows and the reactions to them, separate articles are, in my opinion, warranted. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to advise against splitting the article. I understand that fans of this particular show consider the English version sub-par, but it's still the same show. Placing them in separate articles implies that the productions were so radically different that they can't be considered the same material, which, as far as I can tell, is not the case. There were some drastic differences, but it's nothing dissimilar from what a show like Chess (musical) went through. If the article ever reaches a point where it becomes too large to contain both versions, then we can re-address the issue. Furthermore, keeping them in one article makes it a little easier to address the differences between the versions, as well as an analysis of what worked and what didn't and the various critical reactions. — Music Maker 5376 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie's Little Bombardier connection

I've just seen the Warsaw production and I swear a song in the second act was largely identical with the song Little Bombardier that David Bowie sang back in the 60's. I realize that for this musical Jim Steinman recycled some earlier work of his own, such as Total Eclipse of the Heart. Is the Bowie song also one of Steinman's? Does anybody know what the connection is? — Stumps 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis copyvio

I just removed the synopsis as it was taken word-for-word from http://www.old-hickory.demon.co.uk/synopsis.htm, which is a copyright violation. If anyone would like to contribute a new synopsis, feel free to use that page as a reference, but please use your own words. — Music Maker 5376 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical Flops?

Should this article really be under that category, when it's only the Broadway version(that's hardly even the same show) that flopped? The majority of the time Tans der Vampire is a success. Mazz0626 (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dance of the Vampires. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dance of the Vampires. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dance of the Vampires. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193132/http://www.stage-entertainment.fr/media/accueil/Annonce%20LE%20BAL%20DES%20VAMPIRES%20en%202014.pdf to http://www.stage-entertainment.fr/media/accueil/Annonce%20LE%20BAL%20DES%20VAMPIRES%20en%202014.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question of proper citation re: fact correction

Hello to all -- I'm the person who wrote most of this article's section on the American version, including the infamous heading "Casting Crawford, 9/11, and other disasters" (no, I'm not the one responsible for changing it back, and the first thing I'll do is revert that to its replacement when I get past this sticky wicket).

I am also the co-host of a forthcoming podcast entitled A Good Nightmare Comes So Rarely which dives deep into the circumstances surrounding the show, its creation, and its failure on Broadway. As part of the podcast's production, I've had the opportunity to interview several of those involved in both its developmental and final phases, including John Caird, who directed the reading and departed the project following its 9/11-related postponement. He read this article to fortify his memory before our interview and had a bone to pick with me about my characterizing Jim Steinman as co-directing the reading. Both John and one of the cast members of the reading deny that that was the case, John going so far as to say that he would have dropped out of the project far sooner had that been insisted upon (not out of ego, to be clear, but for the reasons of Steinman's implausibility as director cited in the article itself). He implored me to edit the article to reflect the reality of the situation.

Now, everything in the article that I wrote does have a source; Jim absolutely announced himself as co-director on more than one occasion, and that was also reflected in a Variety article regarding Michael Crawford's hiring, all of which -- I believe; it's been a bit -- are cited. However, I also want to honor John's wishes, as reflected in an as-yet-unpublished interview. How do I handle that citation, assuming I can? Backoffbugaloo (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Per lack of participation, uneligble for moving as unopposed per RMTR objection. NPASR. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 21:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Vampires (musical) → Tanz der Vampire – Swap the two pages (WP:SWAP): Tanz der Vampire is the WP:COMMONNAME for the successful worldwide musical, the english "Dance of the Vampires" production failed and is not renown Raladic (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 15:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some more evidence of common usage here, than just the assertion that the German title is the more common. Given that the musical was released in English under an English name, and this article covers both the international run and that, I'd expect that to be the default title, even if it is the opinion that "production failed and is not renown"... — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=Tanz%20der%20Vampire,Dance%20of%20the%20Vampires&hl=en "Tanz der Vampire" has a constant search Worldwide, whereas "Dance of the Vampires" is near zero, thus "Tanz der Vampire" is the WP:COMMONNAME, even in English speaking countries of the United States and UK.

So I'd suggest that "Tanz der Vampire" be the default title, whereas "Dance of the Vampires (musical)" redirect there and be listed as alternative English name in the lead per WP:DONTUSEENGLISH.

In fact per the talk page many even argue that the English production should be split out, as it was an entirely different show (which is also why it failed) [1] [2], often referring to the "good" show by the German title "Tanz" to differentiate from the bad English one (as seen in the Vulture article linked).

So hence my suggestion to rename the existing article into Tanz der Vampire as common name of the successful musical. On further reflection, I think splitting out the failed US production may be a follow up from that. Raladic (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been parked here for 5 days now. I think the best way forward is a formal discussion so that any consensus can be documented. Dr. Vogel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.