Talk:List of dance companies

to do

Margaret Jenkins Dance Company—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgreer (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please do not add dance schools to this page. This listing is for dance COMPANIES! Also, I have spent a long time trying to unify the formating. Please look at the other listing and make your additions look the same and do not [[ ]] a word unless you are sure it links to Wikipedia. I will remove excessive red links. Thanks! THDju (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ground rules for editing this page

Hello all -

I understand that everyone wants to add companies or information to this page. It would be a heck of a lot easier on all of us if we have some ground rules and style points. I am open to suggestions but I am going to lay these out based on how the page has flowed.

First, submission rules -
-This page is for dance companies. Please do not add dance schools. A company with a school attached, okay.
-Please cite the company. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information. It is a researched site that accepts information on NOTABLE organizations and people. There must be some information on the internet (reliable information) about the organization. Please cite this when you post a new group. If you are posting a historical company (prior to the internet) but you have information on notability in print, please cite that as a reference.

Okay, now style points -
-It goes
Company, Style, Based in city/region, Country, Founder/Artistic director (AD)/Choreographer, Active
-Please list the company's full name
-Please do not [[ ]] wiki link it unless there is a current page for the company. We do not want red links.
-Do not make up a style. Please use a term that is understandable. Also, please don't discuss what kind of shows are produced. We are looking for the style of dance. I.E. ballet, contemporary ballet, modern, African, belly, Broadway, theatre, Native American, Christian, performance, etc. You get the idea. You don't need to put the [[ ]] to wiki link unless it is the first time it appears on the page. Every time ballet is listed doesn't need to be blue linked.
-Please list the city and state and [[ ]] wiki link it. UNLESS it is NYC or another city that is mentioned a lot. Only the first occurrence should be linked.
-Please list the country but do not [[ ]] wiki link it unless it is the first time it appears on the page. USA doesn't need to be linked 700 times.
-Please list the Founder/AD/& choreographer like this -

  Founder Bob Smith
  AD Suzie Jones & Karen Marks
  Choreographer Bob Fosse

-Only [[ ]] wiki link them if they have a page (remember, no red links!)
-If it is a strange listing modify based on the formula.

  I.E. Founders & ADs Bob Smith & Karen Marks

-NO dashes, no colons, no nothin' between the word "founder" and the name (same for AD or Choreo)
-Active - Please list the years like this: 1992-present

 - No spaces between the dash
 - Lower case "p"
 - If there are odd details to the dates (see Aspen Santa Fe) list that in ( ) after the date.

Just a few last notes -
On some computers, the lines of the tables don't show up unless every box is filled. I know sometimes we don't have exactly all the information so I suggest adding a period (.) to that box. Hardly noticeable and keeps the integrity of the table.

Remember!!! Don't add someone who isn't notable (I know you love your childhood ballet teacher but you can't just add her to the Encyclopedia Britannica for fun. There has to be rules here.) and be sure to note where you found the info with a reference.

Remember!!! Limit the red links!!! Don't [[ ]] unless you are sure they are on Wikipedia and even then, be sure it links to the right person. There are many people with similar names in the world.

Thanks all! This will really help keep this page clean and usable as a resource. THDju (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NJB

What about New Jersey Ballet? 74.105.193.227 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed merger of List of modern dance companies and List of contemporary dance companies into List of dance companies

Is it agreeable with all concerned to hold a combined discussion of these related proposals to merge List of modern dance companies and List of contemporary dance companies into List of dance companies on the talk page of the last named? — Robert Greer (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and thanks - easier if discussion is in one place. I am in favour of this move as it provides a single list with dance company information. The moved entries would need to be expanded where possible to complete the other fields in the table. I can volunteer to do this -- I have already been doing some tidying up of the proposed destination table. ̣Mirokado (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Merge the main list is much more comprehensive in coverage and information. Paul foord (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Merge done. New entries now added here. I have not added Signature (contemporary) as I don't think a two-person group qualifies as a dance company. Mirokado (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Generally speaking, a company in this list should be sufficiently notable to have its own page on the English Wikipedia with references verifying the other criteria mentioned below (sometimes, the page of the founder, or other prominent member, also describes the company).

The company will also be significant historically, internationally or within its country (what is "significant" for a smallish country might not be "significant" for a larger country) or be a recognised leading exponent of a particular dance genre.

Please discuss on the talk page if you think a removed company should be restored, but be prepared to explain why this should happen in the absence of a well-sourced wiki page...

Comments on or improvements to the above of course welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would the companies need to meet a higher standard of significance than the general notability guideline? The most common selection criteria in this case is to include all dance companies that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Neelix (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read the whole of the section MOS Selection criteria where, for example, the third of three questions to ask reads: "Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" (clearly addressed by the criteria here) and there are several mentions of the need to keep lists to a sensible size.

I can't without a bit of programming find out exactly how many dance company articles we have: there are 90 or so ballet company articles just for the U.S. and the UK, so many hundreds in total at the minimum. It is clearly impracticable to include them all in one list.

The criteria here are chosen to be verifiable by content supported by reliable sources in the linked articles and easy to check for each new addition. They are formulated rather generally so that (for example) a prominent company in a third world country is not excluded merely because it is not as famous as the New York City Ballet, but sufficiently strictly so that an included company is one of a few rather than just one of many. The criteria have been stable for several years so accurately represent the current consensus (that can of course change with time...)

The list introduction has not been updated to reflect the details of these criteria. This was an oversight which we should perhaps now correct for greater clarity.

There is nothing to prevent other lists being compiled differently: for example we already have List of dance companies in Oregon where the restrictive geographical scope means that it is less necessary to apply additional criteria. Clearly such a list can be a valuable reader resource and is relatively easy to maintain. Perhaps you would like to create and populate a similar List of dance companies in British Columbia or whatever?

We have already found that in general segregating companies by dance style is impracticable since many companies cover or combine several standard dance forms although there are separate lists for some styles such as ballet or folk dance, also in some cases restricted by geographical area. --Mirokado (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that the specific citation you use supports the course of action you recommend. Nonetheless, if your concern about this main list is length and you recognize the need for sublists, surely the simple removal of entries is not benefitial. I recommend reformatting this main list to be like List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford. All articles about dance companies should be listed either on the main list or on a sublist of the main list, each sublist of which is summarized on the main list. State-specific and province-specific lists seem too narrow, particularly considering the very short List of dance companies in Oregon. How would you feel about country-specific sublists? Neelix (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well size is not the only concern. You are welcome, as I have already suggested, to work on a geographically-arranged list, which of course should include all the provincial companies, but that would be a different article (or set of articles). It would be a substantial amount of work to do that for the whole world and I don't think the benefit would be worth the effort. It would be different for someone with a particular interest in an area to produce and maintain a list of dance companies for that area.

If you think BC would be "too narrow" you can create one for Canada but again I warn that to do a good job on that would be a substantial commitment. I certainly have more productive things to do. You would not be free from decisions about what to include or exclude in such a list: you would have to evaluate for example the distinction between "company" and "society", "group", "club", "school" etc. Bear in mind the comment in the AfD discussion about List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver: "I happily withdraw my nomination provided it's maintenance remains diligent and it doesn't become an indiscriminate list outside WP:CSC" (original markup). Maintaining a list is a significant ongoing commitment, the size of which depends on the size of the list, its quality, any inherent variability of its target contents and the number of new entries. You will notice that I had to correct three quality problems in the Jesus College list you linked above, for example.

Although I mentioned the Oregon list as an example of a geographical list, that is clearly inadequate as it stands, with no reliable sources for items without an article and very little added value accompanying each item. It appears that nobody is particularly motivated to maintain it, and that would be a problem with any other local list, so please consider the necessary work involved before starting on a new list. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles do not need to be perfect as soon as they are created, and there is no requirement for the initial creator to bring the article up to perfection; I do not need to commit to maintaining a List of dance companies in Canada in order to create one. Also, List of dance companies is not an island; if subarticles were created (such as country-specific lists), then that would change how this article was formatted. My recommendation is that we use List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford as a model. I may not have been sufficiently clear before, but I suggest that it would not be appropriate to remove a blue-link entry from this main list without adding it to a sublist. That way, our common selection criteria (WP:CSC) would be followed; at present, this list does not follow WP:CSC. Neelix (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have a couple of ideas which I hope to look into over the weekend: I will also look again at the Jesus College list and one or two other lists. I'll post here again to report progress. --Mirokado (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see the next section #New geographical list for any discussion about developing the new list I have prepared. --Mirokado (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To do

list of dance and ballet companies

Company	Style	Based in city/region	Country	Founder Artistic director (AD) Choreographer	Active
Balé da Cidade de São Paulo	contemporary	São Paulo	Brazil	Jonhy Franklyn AD Mônica Mion	1968–present
Ballet National de Marseille	ballet	Marseille	France	Founder Roland Petit	1972
Balleteatro Nacional de Puerto Rico	ballet	Guaynabo, Puerto Rico	United States	AD Miguel Campaneria
Ballet Preljocaj	contemporary ballet	Aix-en-Provence	France	AD Angelin Preljocaj
Egyptian Modern Dance Theatre Company	modern	Cairo Opera House	Egypt	AD Walid Aouni	1992–present
Giordano Jazz Dance Chicago	jazz and contemporary	Chicago, Illinois	United States	Founder, Gus Giordano, AD, Nan Giordano	1963-present
Hip-Hop Dance Conservatory Repertory Company	hip-hop	New York City	United States	Artistic Director Safi A.Thomas Associate Artistic Director Yasmine Fequiere	1994–present
Margaret Jenkins Dance Company	postmodern	San Francisco, California	United States	Founder Margaret Jenkins	1973–present
Seán Curran Company	modern	New York City	United States	Founder Seán Curran	1997–present

Possible entries for which a company page is needed. --Mirokado (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC) updated Mirokado (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New geographical list

I have created a sandbox for List of dance companies by location with some entries to get it started. Anyone else is welcome to add entries to this, we should have at least a few from each area before moving the list to article space, and be able to demonstrate that the list will continue to be improved after it goes live.

I suggest that looking through Category:Dance companies by country is a good way of finding companies from various countries. I have so far added some from China and one from Denmark, plus one French company from the "to do" list here and a certain article about a Canadian company. Details of the table format, sorting for continents and countries and so on can be addressed out once we have more entries.

The format is based on this list, but adjusted for the geographical main organisation. We have already changed this list to have just one sortable table so it will be better to stick with that general format. The geographical organisation lends itself to splitting into sublists by area and/or country as necessary.

I have enjoyed adding the entries so far: I hope some other editors will help fill out the table.

I suggest we add entries from other lists a bit later (in some cases that can be done automatically. It will be beneficial to collect the details of the companies which have so far not been addressed at all. --Mirokado (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to maintain a single, sortable list, but if List of dance companies and the proposed List of dance companies by location are both sortable, what will be the difference between the two? We can already sort List of dance companies by location, which, as far as I can tell, would make a List of dance companies by location redundant. Neelix (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The contents of the current list are clear from the section #Criteria for inclusion and I have already explained the rationale. You have suggested "that it would not be appropriate to remove a blue-link entry from this main list without adding it to a sublist." so I have been thinking about various ways in which other lists can be organised. I have already suggested a list based on on an area you seem to be interested in that you could easily create yourself, but of course the scope of something you create, and the extent of your involvement with any article, are up to you as you have pointed out.

Whatever list you (or whoever) decide to start it can be integrated in to a more comprehensive list structure as (if and when) editors create that. Looking around I can suggest List of ballet companies in the United States as another pattern to follow, probably easier to compile. That shows that the current list can happily coexist with other lists (sublists or symmetrical heads is a question of outlook I guess) organised differently and with different criteria. The reader can visit whichever list seems most convenient for the current need and they can all interlink just as categories do. The use cases for lists include "seeing the list contents as a whole" not just "being able to locate one entry with no interest in any of the others" so several different lists with some overlapping contents certainly have their place.

The only requirement I envisaged for the draft list I started is that an entry is a dance company (which as I have already mentioned would exclude clubs, schools etc and could be defined more precisely as necessary) for which an article has already been created. This list could become quite long with time and the organisation based primarily on location would be necessary to allow a natural hierarchy of subarticles as it grows. List of ballet companies in the United States has a geographical basis and a different format, which would also be fine as far as I am concerned, and, probably because the number of expected entries is restricted both by type of dance and area, includes some entries without an article. --Mirokado (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am contesting the criteria for inclusion that you have written in the section above; they do not comply with either of the sets of common selection criteria, and are, at present, highly subjective. Creating a list such as the one you drafted in your sandbox would be redundant to this list. The one you have drafted in your sandbox should replace the current article, not supplement it. Neelix (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I will respond on Saturday (sorry, a busy week and it's too late tonight) --Mirokado (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)]]

I'll bullet things to make sure I cover all your concerns:

• WP:LSC and WP:CSC: I think (see above) that the criteria comply with these taken as a whole and mentioned two specific aspects which are relevant here: the third question about "canonical example" and the issue of length which is mentioned several times. I have also explained that lists need to be both maintainable (which is one motivation for LSC and CSC) and maintained (I am sure you are as aware as I of the background of drive-by edits adding inappropriate entries to many lists). Your wish to widen the scope to a single (perhaps nested) list including every notable dance company (even if limited to companies with articles) would itself fail CSC, in particular it would be "too large to be useful to readers". The resulting list would be so unfocussed that it would be in my view be a complete waste of time compiling it.
• replace by draft: Expanding the list in this direction would be a great deal of work and so far nobody has said they will even start on it (I provided a minimal draft as one example of how, but I am not going to be the only person to try to expand it). It would be entirely possible for people to start building parts of such a list in parallel, each of which could meet LSC and CSC in the context of a geographical area. Such local lists cannot (in the forseeable future) replace the current list, and would clearly not provide the same overview as at present, but once a reasonably complete alternative existed, editors at the time could reconsider the disposition of the lists on their merits. So no, the draft cannot replace the current article any time in the near future.
• at present: I think it is clear that the text above can be improved to better describe the current criteria, and the article also needs to be updated to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Lead. I will now start to think about that, without prejudice to any subsequent substantive change to the scope of the list which may be decided.
• subjective: disagree. If you look at other recent additions to the list, La Cebra Danza Gay and Prince Dance Group, you will see that they mention a specific and distinctive contribution to dance from that particular company (in these cases in a country or region), supported by one or more reliable references. The criteria deliberately do not try to enumerate or limit the ways in which a company can make a distinctive contribution, but the presence of such a contribution is objective.

I will now start working on the quality of the lead (along with anyone else who joins in of course). Clearly there is no consensus on this page for any change of scope. If you still wish to have this changed, you will need to widen the discussion. An obvious starting point would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance. If you start a conversation or whatever anywhere else please notify me and the project. --Mirokado (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with my concerns systematically. My main issue with the article is that its title suggests that it is the general list (such as List of airports in Europe) when the content of the article is, in fact, a "top 100"-type list (such as List of the busiest airports in Europe). If you can clearly define what the inclusion criteria are for this list, I have no problems with it being a list on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be the general list at the "List of dance companies" title; it should be called "List of the most culturally productive dance companies", if degree of cultural productiveness is the chosen inclusion criterion. The list located at "List of dance companies" should be a nested list, by virtue of being a list of notable items that cannot all be included on one list. Otherwise, this list is never going to be featurable. Neelix (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sortability

I will remove the multi column alphabetical headers. They relied on a "clever" use of class="sortbottom" to push them to the end of the table once it was sorted, but this was not the intended use of sortbottom as we can see from Help:Sorting#Excluding rows from sorting. A subsequent update to the sorting code has broken this table, with all but the first such row pushed to the end of the table even before it has been sorted. In any case having all those headings display at the end of the table after sorting was not entirely satisfactory.

I will leave the A-Z targets for the contents list attached to the first item for each letter. This may be an occasional maintenance issue, but is probably better than nothing. --Mirokado (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

New inclusion criteria and structure

At present, this list does not follow our common selection criteria (WP:CSC). The criterion that a dance company must currently meet in order to be listed on this article is significance relative to the company's country. The result is that the article title suggests that this is a general list (such as List of airports in Europe) when the content of the article is, in fact, a "top 100"-type list (such as List of the busiest airports in Europe). In addition, the current inclusion criteria are so vague that the article cannot be renamed to demonstrate what the inclusion criteria are; the title "List of the most culturally productive dance companies" would demonsrate that the inclusion criteria are highly subjective. In order to remedy the current situation, I recommend that this list be brought in line with WP:CSC. In order to do so, this list should include every entry that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Because the number of notable dance companies would bloat a single list, I recommend making this list a nested list, like List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford. The subarticles could be country-specific, such as "List of dance companies in Canada" and "List of dance companies in Australia". In this manner, dance companies will be better-documented on Wikipedia and this list will conform to the Manual of Style. Neelix (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that finding a suitable different title is difficult! The current table serves a particular purpose not addressed by nested per-area lists of every company with an article. Perhaps the starting links for the per-area nested lists can be placed in a subsection between the main lead and another section for the current table with its own introduction. See also the extensive discussion above which mentions (warns about) the amount of work involved and suggests a couple of possible structures for such new lists. Neelix, will you start the ball rolling with Canada? --Mirokado (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the particular purpose you mention of the current list that would not be addressed if the list became nested with sublists? If we linked the sublists in a separate section, we would not have a nested list at all. I do not understand why you oppose formatting this article in a manner similar to List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and other featured lists that are parent lists to multiple sublists. I have created List of dance companies in Canada as you recommended. Neelix (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have explained several times in several different ways the motivation for the criteria for the current table. The lead for List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford mentions some particular people for various reasons. Do I have to ask you why? I think not. I suggested a subsection for "starting links for the per-area nested lists", not having every table present in the one list as in List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford. You appeared already to have accepted that. Please do not keep asking the same question again and again.

Well done with the list for Canada. I have linked to that from the country column of the current table, which seems a more useful link than to the country article and illustrates how all these lists can become an integrated whole once they are more complete. I'm not sure how undeletable a list would be if we only have a few articles for a particular country and so far I have been able to avoid gratifying the hobby of deletionism, but I will be thinking about how to make further progress. --Mirokado (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

We must be miscommunicating somehow. I don't see anywhere that you have explained why we should not make this article a nested list like List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, and I certainly haven't accepted that the articles should be formatted differently; I see no reason why they should differ in that respect. If you would like to simply copy-and-paste the parts of our conversation that you believe to indicate these two assertions on our respective parts, that may help to clarify things. I also do not understand your question "Do I have to ask you why? I think not." What are you referring to in these two sentences? Neelix (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)