Talk:Rimini Protokoll

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Portrait Rimini Protokoll © David von Becker.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

RP as a group vs. label or collective

On User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Rimini_Protokoll we had a short discussion about how to categorize Rimini Protokoll: As a group (of three directors / playwrights) etc or as a label, under which theatre productions appear - or, (third option:) as a collective. I guess all three options can be found in the theatre studies-literature, so it is a bit contentious. So it makes sense to write about this issue, sketching out the different options and the reasons for it briefly in the text of the article, citing reliable sources, which I will do in the next days.--Olag (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I announced [my revisions] here, and had notified User:Revirvlkodlaku of my plan. I now worked on a thoroughly sourced new version, which actually took some trouble of research and writing (using The Wikpedia Library access and free online sources, so everything should be verifiable for other active users). I guess it would be the job of someone who deletes the text to give a little more detailed reasons, why they consider my amendments to the article "not improving". See User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Rimini_Protokoll. So before the next "revert", I would like to get [|a third opinion], ideally by someone from contemporary art or theatre who can substantially evaluate the text and validity of the sources. Could we agree on that?--Olag (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Olag, here's what I object to in your edits:

1. The term "label", as you would use it in the article, may be appropriate within the theatre world, but as far as I can tell, it is much too abstruse and of low relevance to the average reader, and I don't think that kind of detail should be included.
2. The paragraph where you say "They develop their works in different constellations..." is, again, quite abstruse, not to mention that it isn't properly referenced. Anyone can create a "reference" like , but how does the average reader verify its accuracy? In fact, you provide only one searchable link throughout all the content you wish to add, that in reference to the "label" thing. To me, this is not sufficiently referenced, and in addition, all this new content is far too technical to be of any real interest to most people.
3. Lastly, this page has a history of being edited by users with a clear conflict of interest, such as here, and while I'm not accusing you of having a COI in this case, I think that whoever is monitoring this page, such as myself, must be on the lookout for this type of motivated editing, and this is why when someone like you comes along and makes edits that are extremely difficult to verify, I think it's safer not to admit them, unless they provide good value to the page—which your content doesn't, IMO. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Revirvlkodlaku, for you valuable criticism, after all. I think that I can try to adapt the text according to your objections. As I am only editing (or should only be) in my pastime, I would be nice if you could give me two or three days to diversify the sources, explain to ordinary readers not familiar with modern theatre what is meant by a "lable" in this case and will try to make improvements to the text in the sense of "encyclopedic" style. However, it may be that the whole subject of the article is rather specific or "technical", but still Rimini Protokoll got and gets a lot of attention, both by the public and academia, so it should be possible to write a Wikipedia article that exceeds the size of a mere stub.

Btw I guess you can read the French version [1], which is well sourced and covers many of the issues I also addressed. Best regards --Olag (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Olag, my main concern is that the article not contain unnecessary or overly technical content not relevant to most readers, and I'm hoping you will do your best to address this.

I'll also point out that this page doesn't actually get very much attention, comparatively speaking, which says something about the subject's notability among English speakers.

Perhaps if the French article contains credible references, you could use them to bolster the verifiability of the enwiki page content. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for further specifying your concern. I guess the "horizon" should be on a reasonable level of specificity, but in general I agree WP-articles should be way more basic and general than, say a typical article in a journal of theatre studies (of which quite some exist about RP). If we write about e.g. theoretical physics, our articles should be comprehensible to someone who did physics in high school, but not necessary everyone else.

As concerns notability, according to page view stats the en-WP-article is with an average of 10 views per day somewhere between Soulpepper Theatre in Toronto (8 views / d) and Beanfield_Theatre (16). And it has been covered in many newspaper articles the Star, The Globe and Mail, Torontoist, NYT, Guardian, The Times, The Irish Times, Le Monde etc. Many more listed on their website.

I will leave it here, again thanks for the feed-back and I will address the issues soon.--Olag (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen that you have reverted again, for the fourth time, Revirvlkodlaku, I hope we can continue to discuss constructively how the article could be developed from a stub to fully fledged article that gives readers some information about the theatre collective. I guess being featured in the biggest and most influential newspapers around the world (NYT, Le Monde, Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais, Toronto Star etc) and even academic journals is an objective sign of notability, which cannot simply be overruled by our on subjective opinions. So we should in principle agree that it is worthwile extending the stub.

I will make a few edits about basic characteristics with easy and clear examples which may serve as compromises with view to your main concerns.--Olag (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I just made a list of the relevant issues with sources, but I will elaborate a little on each of them giving examples in due course.--Olag (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Olag, I reverted, as we hadn't agreed on the content to be included, and you had promised to make improvements. In the meantime, I deemed it more appropriate to leave the page in its previous condition. I've reverted once more, unfortunately (despite what you might think, I don't actually get a kick out of undoing your work), because it seems to me that we are still disagreeing on a fundamental point about what should or shouldn't be included. You seem to want to add all kinds of arcane, esoteric content that is probably relevant to a theatre crowd but not to the average reader. I think we need to find a compromise on this issue before proceeding in the manner we have until now—you adding content I find inappropriate and subsequently remove. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep talking about what we can agree upon as improvement. Actually, I think that is what this project is about, finding some sort of consensus even about contentious issues (I actually had not expected this to be so, but one never knows). As I announced earlier, I will still explain what is meant by these characteristic which you deem esoteric or arcane. I still agree that this should be as comprehensible and simple as possible, but it comes with the subject that it is not too easy going. People who want to read about this kind of avantgarde theatre will expect it to be less easy going than say, Hollywood block-busters. In will further work on this the next days and am genuinely interested to get feed-back by other Wikipedians and readers. Your "watchlist" will keep you posted, I presume.--Olag (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that explaining the function of the protocol is "unnecessary detail", even if it should be explained in a way that is understandable. As already becomes clear in the Name of the group, the "Protokoll" has an essential function and should thus be addressed in the article.--Olag (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Olag, with "meaning a script that has been developed in rehearsals cooperatively and sets a loose framework for the performance", are you attempting to distinguish from a script that is written in advance of rehearsals? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)