Talk:Octet (Martins)

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 supported by WikiProject Ballet.

WikiProject Ballet To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See the Image requests page. Articles: Choo Chiat Goh, Vladimir Bourmeister, Columbia City Ballet, Michael Cook (ballet), Peter Schaufuss, Cyril Atanassoff, Post-structuralist ballet
Cleanup : Ballet Fantastique, NYCB/cast lists, re-write the whole Russian ballet article
Copyedit : Rasta Thomas, Ballet (marked as in need of immediate attention)
Disambiguation : Moscow Ballet
Expand : French ballet, Balanchine method, Cecchetti method, Original Ballet Russe, Royal Swedish Ballet, Bloch (dancewear), Turnout (ballet), Opera ballet, English ballet, Italian ballet
NPOV : Capezio
Stubs : Pas de deux, ballet tutu, Nicolai Legat, John Neumeier, Miami City Ballet, more
Unreferenced : Miami City Ballet, Oklahoma City Ballet
Wikify : Moscow Ballet (United States), Oklahoma City Ballet (in need of sections and references)
Other : Review recent changes to ballet articles.

move to Octet (Martins)

May this be moved to Octet (Martins)? Martins ballet is redundant. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation hatnotes on this page

I believe the disambiguation hatnotes currently on this page are unnecessary and my attempted removal was uncontroversial. It appears however that at least one editor disagrees and reverted my edit so I am raising the issue here.

I'm afraid I cannot agree that a disambiguating hatnote should exist on this page. The guidelines are clear and specific on this issue; WP:DLINKS says in part: "There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term" and WP:NAMB further amplifies this point. The article names Octet (Martins) and Octet (Christensen) cannot be confused as the parenthetical disambiguators refer to the writers' surnames, which are clearly distinct and distinguish the ballets one from the other. As discussed in the above pages, it may be appropriate to add the similarly-named ballets to a "see also" section at the end of the article.

Hopefully we can come to amicable agreement on this issue. Thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the same issue exists on the other page concerned, Octet (Christensen). I believe the issues are the same in each case. --MegaSloth (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMB is pretty clear. Neither of these articles is ambiguously titled, so hatnotes are unnecessary. If one were called Octet (ballet), then a hatnote would be needed on that article pointing to the other one. But as each article has a distinct title, there is no risk of confusion and no need for hatnotes.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. The disambiguators are unambiguous, therefore the hatnotes are redundant and should be removed. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at times inclined to keep hatnotes if there is any reasonable likelihood of confusion, but in this case that seems very unlikely. A person selecting to go to Octet (Martins) is very unlikely to arrive at that article and realize, oh, I actually wanted Octet (Christensen) (and vice versa). If by some stretch the two works had some verifiable relation to each other, that could be mentioned in the articles, or possibly in a See also section. But for these articles, even that does not seem appropriate. older ≠ wiser 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnotes would be unnecessary except that both ballets originated with and are in the repertory of New York City Ballet. The alternative is to have a See also section in each article, which, while it may be more appealing to those who edit Wikipedia, is decidedly less conrvenient for the reader who is not an editor. The question is, then, for whom are we writing, ourselves or posterity? — Robert Greer (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are the article titles ambiguous? That they both are part of the repertoire of a company does not make them ambiguous. If you think some cross-referencing is needed, then an entry in the article or in the see also section is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A person looking for the ballet Octet may not know the name of the choreographer nor be aware that two different choreographers have made a ballet of the same title on the same company, and a hatnote is immediately apparent; a See also section is usually far down the article. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an ambiguity based on the titles, that is additional contextual information that would be appropriate for the see also section. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that demanding a See also would be a foolish consistency, forcing a reader to crawl through the entire article before finding out that it's the wrong choreographer. Guidelines are what their name says, guides, and not rules (don't violate copyright is a rule.) — Robert Greer (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that a person might click on Octet (Martins) thinking that they would find an article about the ballet by Christenson (or vice versa). Sorry, but that seems rather unlikely and is something best dealt with in the articles themselves or as a see also entry. older ≠ wiser 03:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I said.

A person might be looking for a ballet named Octet not knowing that there are two such ballets.

They might even know that it was danced by New York City Ballet but not know that NYCB has two ballets of that same name.

And they would have to read through the entire article before coming to the See also section, which is normally located quite far down the page.

And that is to do a disservice to the (average) user of Wikipedia, one who is not an experienced editor, and is doing so in the name of a guideline, which under most circumstances makes good sense.

But not always. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would a reader arrive at either page? If a reader types either "Octet" or "Octet (ballet)" in the search box, they get to the disambiguation page where the two ballets are clearly distinguished. If a reader enters "Octet (Martins)" in the search box when they were looking for the other (or vice versa), or if they click on one link from the disambiguation page when they meant the other, that is a level of confusion hatnotes are not meant to remediate -- again that type of cross-reference is what see also entries are meant for. older ≠ wiser 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question, how is a reader going to find either of the Octet (ballet) articles?

If they type "Octet" in Wikipedia's search box they will not see in the drop-down list any of the three; Octet (ballet), 'Octet (Martins) or Octet (Christensen); because of all the octets that have been composed (coincidentally, the two ballets were made to different composers' octets.)

The search box is precisely the sort of thing that we who edit Wikipedia use — and know the limits of — and therefore assume that everybody else uses the way we do.

My concern is precisely everybody else, and they probably search for "Octet ballet" using Google — or Bing — think of them as our customers.

Google and Bing and Yahoo will return the Wikipedia entries in the midst of other search results and in a completely unpredictable order.

If people choose Wikipedia over other websites it is because we, the editors of Wikipedia, have some credibility.

If we structure our articles in such a way that it is hard to find what they are looking for, our "customers" will take their business elsewhere.

It is much easier to retain existing customers than to attract new ones, and we need to provide them with user-friendly service — and not sit around arguing how many hatnotes can dance on the head of a pin.

In which spirit I offer an alternative, the {{Distinguish}} template, which could have been designed for this precise situation.

If it can be agreed to put {{Distinguish|Octet (Christensen)}} at the top of the Octet (Martins) article and {{Distinguish|Octet (Martins)}} at the top of Octet (Christensen) — providing the text, Not to be confused with Octet (Christensen) and Not to be confused with Octet (Martins) respectively — the matter can be closed. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not quite right. Octet (ballet) does appear in the search box if you type "Octet ballet". Similarly, the specific ballets also appear if you type "Octet Martins" or "Octet Christsnsen". For an reader looking for a ballet named Octet, "Octet ballet" seems a pretty reasonable thing to search for. I don't use Bing, but if you search for "Octet ballet" in Google, the top two results are the Wikipedia articles Octet (Martins) and Octet (Christensen). If a person knows enough to pick one over the other, there should not be any surprise if they get to one article instead of the other. To be honest, I don't think the {{distinguish}} is any better, and is arguably worse as there is no facility for providing any additional context. older ≠ wiser 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]