Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dance (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Patrick Corbin[edit]

RM to place the baseball player over the dancer. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dranza[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dranza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no refs, no ext links since Dec 2009. A google search reveals no usable hits. Lots of mirrors of this article of course, which are just poisoning the well.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I have just prodded it, then noticed that it did not have a project template on the talk page, so notifying explicitly here. Mirokado (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


I have just archived manually up to 2011. This more or less fills archive 6. I will set up automatic archiving for messages older than six months, starting with archive 7, adding {{dnau}} for one or two messages we may want to keep longer. The first run of the archiving bot would only affect one or two messages I would also have archived manually already, so anyone who wishes to tweak the parameters, or doesn't like automatic archiving and is prepared to do it manually, has ten days or so respond before "new" old messages would be affected. If we wish to keep messages for longer, we can add the dnau template to them. Any sections without timestamp are also not archived. --Mirokado (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. It is also set up to keep at least 20 messages, which might cause messages to stay longer than expected. --Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dance categories and lists[edit]

I wonder whether some of these could be made more clear:

  • Categories: It is unclear to me why dances are in multiple "main" categories, for example:
  • These lists are similar, but different:
    • List of dances
    • List of dance style categories
    • Why are they so different? Is (a) the only intended reason for difference the sorting order? Or (b) is dance supposed to refer to something different than dance style? In case of (a) the pages might be able to merge to a sorted list page and in case of (b) the difference may be clarified better.
  • I am willing to help so far I can, but first I wonder whether there is any support for addressing this and/or whether you know whether I am missing some relevant background. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've diffused cat:dance and made other changes to resolve category issues, but the matter of cat:dances vs. cat:dance_styles remains. Please see the following RFC for a possible fix. As for the lists, a possible solution is to consolidate both lists and make it sortable by dance name, category, etc. Lambtron (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC: dances category vs. dance_styles category[edit]

I've discovered an organizational problem in two dance-related categories: Category:Dance styles is a subcategory of Category:Dances, but many dance forms (48 to be precise) appear in both categories in violation of WP:SUBCAT ("a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory"). I think this should be fixed by having specific dance forms appear only in cat:dance_styles, but I'd appreciate the opinions of other editors before proceeding. Lambtron (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused (owing less to the way you phrased things and more to the convoluted nature of the situation). Are you suggesting that, within the main category, we include only divisions of dance which do not concern the form of movement being referenced or that we only include only genres and then specific dance styles within those genres? In other words, do you want the category/article branches to look like this:
  • Category: Dance
  • (sub)Category: Dance styles
  • (sub-sub)Category:modern concert dance
  • (sub-sub)Category:Hip-hop dance
  • (sub-sub)Category:Latin Ballroom
  • (sub)Category: Historical Dance
  • (sub)Category: Sacred Dance
or more like this:
  • Category: Dance
  • (sub)Category: Concert dance
  • (sub)Category: Hip-hop dance
  • (sub)Category:Latin Ballroom
  • (sub)Category: Folk Dance
  • (sub)Category: Historical Dance
  • (sub) Category: Sacred Dance
? Snow talk 01:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for showing interest in this, Snow. Yes, it is very confusing, in large part because there are no standards for terminology or classification. What's the difference between a dance "type", "genre", and "style"? Is hip hop a type of dance, a dance style, a street dance genre, the name of a particular dance, or some combination of these? Should fanga song be in cat:dances or cat:dance_styles? Before answering, consider that template:dance shoehorns all dances into "types" and "genres", where "types" are very general classifications and "genres" are everything else. At this point I'm certain of only two things: cats should be logically organized so they are useful to readers, and no article should appear in both a cat and its supercat. Lambtron (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In that event, I'd suggest the following layout/hierarchy:
Sub-cats of [Cat:Dance] would include any of a number of subcats for genres ([Cat:Classical and concert dance], [Cat:Ballroom dance], [Cat:Hip-hop dance], [Cat:Jazz dance], [Cat:Swing dance], ect) and a number of subcats for topics which are not subtopics of any particular genre, including contexts ([Cat:Sacred Dance], [Cat: Historical dance], [Cat:Dance by country]), and other miscellany ([Cat:Dance companies], [Cat:Dance competitions and events], [Cat:Dance music], [Cat:Dance venues], ect.).
Each genre cat would then include articles representing the parent subject (Ballroom dance for [Cat: Ballroom dance]) as well as any articles relevant across the genre (for example, Dancesport for [Cat:Ballroom dance]).
Each genre cat would also include subcats for any major divisions/subgenres within the genre; so, [Cat:Latin ballroom dance] and [Cat:Standard/Smooth Ballroom dance] would both be subcats of [Cat:Ballroom dance], while [Cat:Ballet] would be a constituent of [Cat: Classical and concert dance].
At the lowest level of cat for any given branch -- be that a genre cat or subgenre cat within a genre cat -- we would add all articles which relate to that genre or subgenre at the most specific level at which they can be applied, including specific styles/dances (Cha-cha would be found in [Cat: Latin ballroom dance] and not in [Cat:Ballroom dance]), specific moves/techniques or compilation pages of such (Glossary of partner dance terms would be found in [Cat: Ballroom dance], while Gancho (dance move) would be found in [Cat:Latin Ballroom dance]; Glossary of ballet terminology would be found in [Cat:Ballet] and not in [Cat:Classical and concert dance]), specific dance personalities (List of professional ballroom dancers would go in [Cat: Ballroom dance], List of hip-hop choreographers would go in [Cat:hip-hop dance], and Fred Astaire would be listed in [Cat:Musical theatre and broadway dance]), equipment (Jazz shoe would go in [Cat:Jazz]), or any other topic which obviously belongs that genre/subgenre alone. At the lowest levels, we might make a handful of exceptions to the general rule of not having an article be linked in a cat another cat subordinate to the first; for example, I think it makes sense to link the article Ballet in [Cat:Classical and concert dance] next to Contemporary dance, Modern dance, and Lyrical dance as well as in [Cat:Ballet].
At some point briefly I will put together a sample tree to hopefully clarify the above structure some.Snow talk 09:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

List of dance companies[edit]

I have proposed new inclusion criteria and structure for the List of dance companies article. The two of us who have been engaging in this discussion have not been able to come to a mutually satisfactory decision on our own. If you would be willing to add a third (or other subsequent) opinion, it would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page[edit]

I have updated Missing topics about dance - Skysmith (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Libraries 2013 - Portland, Oregon[edit]

Portland Art Museum Mark Building - Oregon.JPG WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013!
You're invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 1–4pm on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library, located on the second floor of the Museum's Mark Building (formerly the Masonic Temple).
The edit-athon will focus on the local arts community (but you can work on other topics as well!). It will also kick off the Oregon Arts Project, an on-wiki initiative to improve coverage of the arts in Oregon. Details and signup here!

FYI for project members. Even if you are unable to attend in person, online support and participation is welcome and much appreciated. Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons gallery rewrite[edit]

I've completely rewritten Commons:Dance to produce a useful, high quality image collection. It has individual galleries for various aspects of dance, populated with images selected during an extensive Commons survey (I uploaded a few additional images to fill things out). To be included, images were required to have high resolution, good clarity and visual impact, and not be too similar to other selected images. I may have gone a bit overboard with gallery styling, image sizes, or both, but I couldn't find any guideline or MOS that discourages that and, after all, those further my goal of creating a notable collection. Any feedback from fellow editors would be appreciated. Lambtron (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ekaterina Krysanova and Ekaterina Krysanova[edit]

Dear dance experts: Is the material in the above old abandoned Afc draft something that would be appropriate to add to the mainspace article, or is this excessive detail? (Of course sources would need to be found, but deletion of the draft could be delayed if it would be beneficial). —Anne Delong (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Joan McCracken[edit]

I've just considerably expanded the article on Joan McCracken, 1940s Broadway and film star and dancer. Problem is that there is only one good source, a biography from 2003. It's a very good and authoritative source, but I hate to base an entire article on one source. The problem is, except for obituaries of questionable reliability, I can't find much else. Any help with sourcing or the article would be great. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Women in dance for International Women's Month 2014[edit]

Every year around this time I try to pick an area requiring development in connection with International Women's Day/Month. Last year it was female architects or women in architecture. The year before, it was photography. This year I think it would be worthwhile trying to develop female dancers or women in dance. We could try to develop a world list along the lines of List of female architects and write up the missing biographies. We could also write an article Women in dance like Women in architecture. I'll probably make a start myself within a week or two. We should also alert other pertinent WikiProjects. Anyone interested? --Ipigott (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already started on a List of female dancers. Please contribute. We need many more biographies for most of the countries.--Ipigott (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to many new articles on female dancers for Women's History Month (March 2014), as far as I can see, 31 of them became DYKs. For the full status report, see Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/Outcomes. There is, however, still a lot of work to do, especially on creating biographies of the principals of the main ballet companies. I suggest we should try to work on Mariinsky_Ballet#Principals, Royal_Danish_Ballet#Principal_dancers, Dutch_National_Ballet#Principals, Royal_Swedish_Ballet#Principal_dancers, and La_Scala_Theatre_Ballet#Principals. There are also some gaps in the major North American companies including National_Ballet_of_Canada#Principal_Dancers and American_Ballet_Theatre#Principals.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To do lists[edit]

Our to do list was getting far too long, and still is really. I have tidied it up a bit and moved a few comments here -- that list needs to be for links to a few articles needing attention, not a long series of user comments.

I found it rather confusing to have the page redirecting to the talk and the actual contents in the talk page. I would like to tidy this (and the corresponding ballet to do list) up so we have the contents on the page itself and the talk with a soft redirect to this talk page. This would need to be done in two steps since the wikiproject template is protected. Any comments? --Mirokado (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

While I was adding the wp template to a new article I was seeing only the expanded to do list in the preview, but it defaults to collapsed once the page is saved, in which case the list at its current length is OK (I'd still like to tidy up its location though). --Mirokado (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments moved from to do list[edit]

-Agutman (talk) Plans to explain the mission and history of Dance Alloy, And the types of events that Dance Alloy holds.

-ealangan (talk) Plan to talk about Dance Alloy outreach and profile each staff member and their dance experience.

-jdk2010 (talk) Plan to disscuss the Dance Alloy Company and the Dance Alloy School. Although performed before the Beatles' broke up,wasn't Drive my Car performed by McCartney alone, like Blackbird? (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk to myself... Danni is to do Over the Rainbow (Karen Carpenter version) Lisa is doing Hanky Panky from Dick Tracey, according to It Takes Two. (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aparna B Marar[edit]

Dear dance experts: This article at Afc has been waiting four weeks for a review. Any comments? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Dance At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines[edit]

I'd like to work with other Wikipedians to establish notability guidelines for dance related content. Please let me know if you're interested in collaborating.Mwacha (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm hoping to work on this as well. Perhaps we can first create a 'Resources' section on the WikiProject Dance page that links to reliable, non-paywalled sources for dance references and/or other online dance Wikipedias where we can draw notability from(?) OR drohowa (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Also, examples of useful WikiProject resources that we could replicate are:
A Reliable Resources section would be a very valuable asset indeed. Aside from its usefulness in the area of notability, it would really help editors (like me) who frequently encounter poorly stated--sometimes even obviously false--facts in dance articles, but can't correct them due to lack of RS. I'm not sure I can be of help building such a resource, but I would certainly make good use of it. Lambtron (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I saw OR drohowa's note on the ballet talk page. I'd be interested in this as well. I see this as an issue in the "former dancer" sections of ballet companies (ex: American Ballet Theatre#Former dancers). Clearly, not all former dancers should be listed or the section would take over the article. Which dancers, then, should be listed? Since ballet often uses its tradtional heirarchical model, as a starting point for ballet at least, I would suggest that dancers that reach the principal level or who leave the company and reach the principal level at another (major?) company should be listed, as well as those who go on to achieve similar distinction. Modern dance companies could use a parallel model. Dkreisst (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that many of the bios on American dancers lack sufficient notability. Nevertheless, it seems to me that from a global perspective there is still a huge amount of work to be done to cover all the current participants in the world dancing scene, not to mention historical players. My main concern is therefore to attract more editors to take a serious look at the overall picture and contribute to more and better coverage of ballet, modern dance and evolving trends. I'm always surprised to see how few of the budding stars reported in the press are documented on Wikipedia, whether in London, New York, Paris, Copenhagen, Berlin, Milan or Moscow. Let's keep our eyes open and try to give them all the credit they deserve.--Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
A notable dance company is composed of and thus bestows de facto notability upon its current members, whether they are independently notable or not. However, former dancers lose that automatic notability because they no longer contribute to the company's notability. Consequently, I'm in favor of deleting former dancers who are not independently notable. Lambtron (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
But notability is not temporary. Are you suggesting that articles on dancers be eliminated upon their leaving dance companies? Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Articles on dancers are inherently articles about notable dancers, otherwise they would not have articles about them. I'm talking about dancers who are not independently notable, who do not have articles. Lambtron (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly take it as a good sign for this project, which often seems half-defunct, that people are seeing a need for this degree of discussion in dance articles, there's a a couple of points we need to be mindful of, setting out here. First off, in terms of outright policy, we can't establish arbitrary standards of notability of our own here for any article we perceive to be within the purview of our project; we have to solicit broad community input and that's going to be difficult with the relatively low degree of traffic and editor involvement we have across dance articles in general. Remember that there is a significant difference between a notability page that is an official guideline, such as WP:Notability (sports), which contains more stringent criteria that are applied on top of the minimum standards for notability found in WP:GNG and an essay constructed to provide the insight of a limited number of editors on how general notability standards can be applied to a given field or topic, but which applies no new refinements of notability standards that can be said to reflect broad community consensus. Moving from the latter to the former is not a small or quick project. None of which is saying that it can't be done, just that it's likely to be an uphill effort and it will be immeasurably helped if we are clear at the outset the basic types of standards that we can apply and expect support from the community and those that will be soundly rejected. All standards of notability must operate in concert with WP:V and WP:N and it's all going to come down to the sources. So some of the suggestions made above that we set notability to a standard of those who have attained a certain status within a company or association with certain companies, are untenable; first off because that approach is in direct conflict with the Wikipedia approach of establishing notability and weight via reliable sources rather than arbitrary standards of success and further because plenty of notable dance personalities and phenomena have no relationship to formal companies.

In general I have to say that, while we should always keep notability clearly in mind when authoring or evaluating dance articles, I don't see specific notability guidelines as our most pressing need right now. Frankly the biggest problem we have is at the other end of the proliferation spectrum as we have difficulty in that we have many subjects of deep significance for which we do not have articles (or have only poorly written articles), owing to a lack of quality reliable sources or editors to write the content; patrolling standards for non-notable articles taking root is a much smaller problem right now, by comparison anyway. Of course any kind of new community discussion to set standards would be helpful, if only in getting the members of this project and other editors of dance articles galvanized and motivated, but I tend to feel that the suggestions of Lambtron on compiling resources (in particular, those regarding reliable sources) and those of Ipigott as regard generally expanding the scope of our coverage to the many notable global dance influences which lack coverage (and attracting the necessary editor involvement to generate this content) are both great examples of where I think our priorities ought to be first if we are to make a genuine push within this project to structure and augment dance articles better. Notability standards will become central in all of that, of course, but I don't know if they are the ideal starting point. Though I should like to point out that I say this respectfully with regard to Mwacha, whose point is still very much valid and OR drohowa who has gone through a lot of effort to bring us here, through various means, to where we might finally begin to discuss the central issues which have limited this project and dance articles in general for some time now. Snow talk 00:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability is always an issue because it is the main point which decides whether or not an article is suitable for the wiki. Lack of accessible and reliable sources can be a big stumbling-point.
In dance, ballet is no problem. There are so many ballet encyclopedias and biographies and dictionaries that cover every stage of the art except the most recent period. Also, the dance correspondents of serious papers are usually former ballet dancers, and most of their reviews are of ballet. If there is a problem with our ballet articles, it is the way commentary on the music tends to overshadow discussion of the dance.
The problem of sources increase with other forms of dance. Some other forms of dance do get reviewed occasionally, for instance flamenco and kabuki, but are less well supplied with printed reference material. Lastly there are some forms of dance which are never reported in the main press, and which are never reviewed by the quality newspapers, and which have few printed sources, at least in the English language. Examples are international ballroom dancing, and quite a few of the south-east asian dance forms. In African dance even the idea of a named notable dancer is strange, so communal are the traditions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to everyone for their responses and engagement with the topic! You make a lot of good points. I agree, Snow Rise, that the lack of reliable resources and editors, as well as a general lack of coverage of dance content is a huge issue. I'd like to think that establishing notability guidelines will give new editors (and editors new to dance!) a solid foundation with which to approach the topic. OR drohowa and I envision this as the first step in a greater movement.
When the International Encyclopedia of Dance, the first multivolume encyclopedia, was published in the late '90s, the editors chose not to cover many dancers. This was done for a number of reasons, and I imagine the space limitations of a print publication was one of them -- a limitation we are not subject to. In addition to dancers, I'd also like to address notability guidelines for choreographers, performance companies, etc. Is this best done on wiki or off? Mwacha (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the lack of coverage of dance is pretty distressing. We have so much junk on Wikipedia, so many self-serving articles about unimportant companies and idiotic video games. But important dancers and choreographers often get short-shrift. Just to pick up on one point, as I was away for a few days: if a dancer has an article because he or she belongs to a particular dance company, and then leaves the company or retires, the article remains. Notability is not temporary. Also it seems kind of cruel, wouldn't you say? Their careers are over, and they even lose their Wiki article. Ouch. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I may be mistaken but I don't think anyone has proposed deleting articles about notable dancers. A dancer who has his/her own article is independently notable -- that's a fundamental tenet of WP:N. And as you pointed out, notability is not temporary, therefore notable dancers continue to be notable regardless of what they do later in life. I think the original question was about dancers who do not have their own articles, who are merely named as members in company articles and do not warrant having their own articles. Should those dancers continue to be listed as "former members" in company articles? Lambtron (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh OK, I misunderstood. No, I don't see why they have to be listed as former members, unless they are notable. By that, I mean either they have an article but are redlinked but likely to have one. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest that dance is so underrepresented on Wikipedia that instead of spending time debating notability we make use of it to develop articles? — Robert Greer (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not to butt in, but if it's underrepresented, then this might be of interest... Dancing with the Stars request for deletion.

Dancing With the Stars article RFD[edit]

Just making this group aware. Dancing with the Stars request for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Could use some input at Talk:Undisputed World Bboy Series[edit]

Hi there, WikiProject Dance! An article on a breakdancing competition, Undisputed World Bboy Series, could use some focus. I happened upon it a while ago in my capacity as a WikiGnome, so I'm not too familiar with dance competitions. Right now it has a little prose, but the bulk of it comprises playoff trees. I don't know if there are any examples of how similar articles should be structured, but I was hoping to get some extra voices to potentially help direct the scope. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)