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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Dance and
Dance-related topics 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.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles
A fact from Houston Ballet appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 August 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
The bit on Marshall Strabola is self serving and self promotional. The entire section was suspiciously added. This needs cleaning up. Formerly of Gensler is more accurate. But going on and on about his design approach is not relevant to the article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.128.83.160 (
talk) 03:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I suspect this should be raised at
Requests for Comment, but it appears several other ballet companies have similar listings. If sports teams do it, the logic goes, then everyone else should too. If that is true, then
2001: A Space Odessey is lacking several hundred names, since special effects teams are "performers" too, aren't they?
In such an article, there are no doubt
notable performers, past and present, which should be mentioned and linked to their corresponding biographical article. But to list the whole company (or so it seemed) would be unlikely unless it happened to be a very special ensemble. The article is about the group and—to comply with
WP:UNDUE—should mostly focus on the group. —
EncMstr (
talk) 04:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
A nearly identical matter was raised quite recently.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 'Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep.
User:Arxiloxos' comment best captures the rough consensus here. — Kubigula(
talk) 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
And:
Keep all. After some reflection, I don't think any of the NOT arguments that have been raised apply here. This is certainly not "directory" information, in the usual understanding of what a directory is, nor is it indiscriminate. I don't think there is any policy reason requiring these articles to be deleted. Instead I think it comes down to editorial discretion; while I can understand why some editors might think this is information overload, I think that Robert Greer, DGG, and Jjwatt have articulated good reasons why this information is valuable and enhances the encyclopedic coverage of dance on Wikipedia. At that point, the editorial balance should come out in favor of making this information available for the audiences that are interested in it. And one might also consider that Wikipedia has not, as a general matter, done as good a job covering the fine arts as we have with popular culture. I would hope we could do both. —
Arxiloxos (
talk) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The difference between the dancers of the Oregon Ballet and the special effects technicians on 2001: A Space Odessey is that the former are performers and possess much the same unique talents as the New York Yankees. Special effects technicians would be more aptly compared with the grounds crew and clubhouse attendants at Yankee Stadium or the stagehands at the
Keller Auditorium or
Newmark Theatre, and nobody proposes adding the latter to this article — or the former to the Yankees'.
Nor does anyone propose deleting the players' names from the NY Yankees article, and the only difference between that article and this is that more people watch baseball than go to the ballet. —
Robert Greer (
talk) 21:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
End of cross-posting
Subsequent discussion of performers list
Neither are the words "including several who have won gold and silver medals at major international ballet competitions" either "weasel word[s]" or "puffery". Accordingly I have restored the
Composition section. —
Robert Greer (
talk) 12:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Per others above, this violates
WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't list each Yankee, either, but they all meet N, for better or worse. Discuss the important members in the prose. I will revert. Feel free to RfC.
Novaseminary (
talk) 14:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You appear to be ignoring the keep decision in the related discussion quoted above as well as the clear opinion of at least two until now (and clearly now three) editors of the article. It is entirely acceptable for you to try to persuade the community to accept your opinion, that is how consensus evolves, but there is clearly no consensus to remove this information at present. I will respond to at least some of your concerns by looking at the earlier content you also removed and if I restore that I will probably tidy up the Houston bio references a bit. I have looked at that version and your edit summary suggesting that the reference format was incorrect seems completely unfounded, although I think we can improve the presentation a bit. There is also at least one wikilink to be added. I will post a further update here a bit later. --
Mirokado (
talk) 21:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I didn't ignore anything. An ed reinserted material removed in August. I disagreed, reverted, and noted it here. I'm not sure what an unrelated AfD discussion has to do with whether this article should contain an embedded list. If several of the performers meet N (maybe even if not), it seems a
SAL might be appropriate. But listing current apprentices on a main article that doesn't mention the contributions of particular stars in the prose strikes me as odd.
Novaseminary (
talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Assuming we keep this list, do we really need a reference to each performers page on the Ballet website? I think a single ref to the list would suffice.
Novaseminary (
talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your reply. I have more-or-less finished the tidying up I was mentioning, there may be one or two more wikilinks to be added. I agree that so many bio refs get a bit out of hand, particularly in that in makes it more difficult to notice any other refs and perhaps reduces any motivation for other editors to find better refs. In an award article I look after from time to time I tried quite hard to find good third party refs for each person mentioned, which I think adds more value to the article. If we remove the individual bio refs, we should add a note to the single remaining ref that it has links to individual biographies. --
Mirokado (
talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
What about spinning this off into an
SAL? That would take care of any UNDUE problem within this article; and it wouldn't favor current performers over past performers in the discussion unless current performers have reason to be mentioned more as the story is told. (I do think the ”keep” AfD discussion noted above is relevant to an SAL discussion here, if not as useful in deciding content for a particular main article.) That way the main article could stay focused on the Ballet's narrative. That sould also more naturally allow for listing (in separate sections) the performers from past seasons, or at least those past performers with WP articles (or who should have WP articles). While the
New York Yankees might have a current roster (though I don't think it should), I wonder if a better analogy isn't to faculty at a university. None of the Featured Article university articles list faculty, but they all have SALs of faculty.
Novaseminary (
talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
YDone The two list articles have now been created (
List of Houston Ballet performers &
List of Oregon Ballet Theatre performers). Now I think it entirely appropriate to add prior seasons at those lists. Also, currently none of the Oregon list's performers are have articles. But I noticed several of the principals are mentioned in other articles and lists, too, and are probably notable if anyone wants to cretae stubs or articles. I'll redlink the ones a quick search makes me think pretty clearly desrve an article (others might, too).
Novaseminary (
talk) 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I think we need a section in the main article covering the dancers in general which could include information about the company's structure (which grades of dancer, responsibilities of each grade, recruitment and training practices and so on) which can then have a {{
main}} link to the list. There is also currently no information about the repertoire in the article. --
Mirokado (
talk) 08:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
That makes sense to me. I'm not a huge fan of ”see also” sections housing links like this (or pretty much most links) for the long term, but as I alluded in the edit summary, I just saw listing it there as a placeholder until a better place could be found. You idea strikes me as just right.
Novaseminary (
talk) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Houston Ballet. 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.