Talk:Rogers: The Musical

Image

For the infobox image, we can either go with this or this. If we choose to go with the latter, we can still add the still to one of the other sections. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus I'm in favor of the latter for the infobox image since the article's title reflects on the poster. The other image can be added on the Hawkeye (2021) section. Centcom08 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I also think of those options that the poster works best for the infobox. -- Zoo (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Second image should be for the main infobox, and I was thinking of something along the first for the Save the City infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The second one works best for the infobox. I'm not sure there is a need for an image of the Hawkeye performance as an image of the eventual physical performance may be more useful, though wouldn't be opposed to it (or a version of it) being included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Structure

I'm having a feeling that we should be structuring this in a way where all the "Save the City" specific material is all together, and then general Rogers: The Musical references/the DCA show together. Seeing as we've only seen hypothetically one number from the show and the DCA show is being built out from that, it feels weird to have the Hawkeye and D23 Expo separated with the poster Easter Eggs in between. I'm not saying those two sections should be one, but it's feeling odd to me at the moment. I'm thinking something like:
== Background ==
== "Save the City" ==
=== Hawkeye ===
Production info moved here as well

=== Reception ===

=== D23 performance ===

== Disney California Adventure ==

== References in other media ==
- Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That works for me, except I think the entire "Background and production" section should be merged with the Hawkeye paragraph, and "Reception" should be its own level 2 heading at the end of the page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

For the most part, that works for me, as well. I agree that "Reception" should be level 2. I think the background, production and Hawkeye info all works as one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Mainspace

I don't know if Favre or anyone else is planning on adding more to this draft, but I'd say it's in a good-enough shape to be moved right now. Or are we waiting for the Disneyland show to premiere first? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking we should probably wait for the Disneyland show to premiere before moving so we can gather details from that to further warrant its inclusion as a real thing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think it would be fine to move it to mainspace now, but I'm fine with waiting for Disneyland. -- Zoo (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make some additions/changes probably (going through all the refs on the page already for any missing info/searching for new refs that may not have been appropriate elsewhere back when Hawkeye premiered; plus more reception maybe), but the article doesn't need to stay in the draft space for me to get to that. There's enough right now to have the article pass WP:GNG, so I don't think we need to wait for the Disneyland show to move it. I think we can assess that aspect of it if the article is in the mainspace once it does premiere. So I'm ok if this is moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Well in that case then, it should be alright if moved. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Just one scene is depicted in Hawkeye..."

@Favre1fan93: Your edit makes the article's second sentence say: "...by head writer Jonathan Igla, which featured the musical number 'Save the City'..." That's a classic dangling modifier. The edit also removed the article's only explicit declaration that the song is the sole element of the musical that appears in the show it was conceived for.

I propose to fix the grammar and give readers this key information by splitting the second sentence and writing: "...by head writer Jonathan Igla. Just one scene is depicted in Hawkeye: the musical number 'Save the City'..." Sound good? PRRfan (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

No. I already reverted that because it was a worse sentence than before and more awkward for the lead. To fix the grammar issue, it can change to this: The musical was conceived for the 2021 Marvel Studios Disney+ miniseries Hawkeye by head writer Jonathan Igla. The musical number "Save the City", written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, is featured in the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Progress! I agree with you that we should restore the "The musical was conceived" sentence to its earlier version. Let us discuss, then, the other concern: whether readers should be told that the song is, in fact, the only part of Rogers that appears in Hawkeye. I think that's important; do you disagree? PRRfan (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not the most important, especially for the lead. My suggestion The musical number "Save the City", written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, is featured in the series. is more than enough to cover the facts for the lead. And that is pretty clear in my eyes that more of the show isn't seen in Hawkeye. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, can make the second sentence: The series only featured the musical number "Save the City", written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman. though I'm still not convinced in this rearrangement "only" would be needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

"The musical number...is featured in the series" merely leaves open the possibility that the song is the only part of Rogers to appear in Hawkeye. Far better to plainly assert it, so thanks for proposing the "Alternatively" sentence.

In that sentence, we can replace the vague "featured" with the crisper "seen", which—bonus!—alludes to director's intent and audience's experience, and we can make the situation crystal-clear to readers, at the cost of just 10 characters, with: "The only part of Rogers seen in Hawkeye is the number "Save the City", written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman." PRRfan (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Given this is the lead of the article, if more parts of the musical were seen beyond the number they would be mentioned. We don't have to think too deeply about this. I'm open to the options I suggested, I still am not convinced the wording you are suggesting is better or needed. Thought more about it and this change should be made: The musical was conceived for the 2021 Marvel Studios Disney+ miniseries Hawkeye by head writer Jonathan Igla, with the musical number "Save the City", written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, shown in the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Mmm...I don't think a sentence that ends in four modifying phrases, two of which modify a third, is going to be the best way to say anything. But ah! Let's go back to your "Alternatively" suggestion and tweak it: "The musical was conceived for the 2021 Marvel Studios Disney+ miniseries Hawkeye by head writer Jonathan Igla. Only the number “Save the City,” written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, is shown in the series." That's fewer characters than your latest proposal, while being simpler, clearer, and unambiguous. Win-win! PRRfan (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I changed "shown" to "seen" and have implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Perfect! Nice working with you. PRRfan (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)