Category talk:Dance technique

What kind of articles should be listed here?
I removed Royal Academy of Dance from this category because that article is about an organisation, not dance technique. My edit was reverted, however, because "[t]he RAD is an organisation that is built around a specific dance technique". Based on that line of reasoning, category:dance technique should include every dance education organisation, dance school, dance company, and dancer, because all of those entities are also "built around" specific dance techniques. It seems to me, though, that readers probably come here seeking articles that are specifically about technique, and the category will cease to be useful to those readers if it is cluttered with organisations, schools, companies and dancers. I think readers would be best served if this category only lists articles that are specifically about dance technique. In cases where there is no article about a specific dance technique, the category could list the article that contains the most comprehensive discussion of that technique. Comments? --Lambtron (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning, and also with your reverter. Per personal knowledge and this URS (I could find better if you want), RAD is one of the primary global styles of ballet, right up with Vaganova, Cecchetti, etc; more concretely, it's taught in many studios worldwide and not just at the Academy itself. Readers might be told that their son's new teacher is "RAD", and want to know what that is and how to compare it to the other major styles, so until Royal Academy of Dance technique is blue we should keep RAD in cat:Dance technique. There's lots of info to add about what, exactly, RAD technique is; here's a few paragraphs in an RS. I might make it a whole article, or just expand the relevant section.


 * (unrelated) I came across this page while categorizing Graham technique, a new article. I have two image questions: Do you happen to have anything suitable in your wonderful collection? and do we have any reason to believe that Nazareth College's official Flickr has any right to CC-BY 2.0-release a still of trademarked Graham choreography? FourViolas (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll address your questions and concerns in reverse order. First, regarding the Flickr image, I can't say whether the uploader has appropriate permission, but you might find this helpful if your concern is copyright infringement of choreography. Sorry, but I don't have any images that would be representative of Graham technique. As for RAD technique, the cat issue was resolved long ago by moving RAD to the ballet technique category, which is where it rightly belongs if it belongs in any dance technique cat at all. And then there's the matter of whether RAD actually belongs in a dance technique cat. If we decide that the RAD style incorporates unique dance techniques and therefore belongs in a dance technique cat, one could reasonably argue that every other dance style — regardless of its popularity — also has its own technique and belongs in the dance technique cat. If that happens, the resulting cat will be useless to readers who are interested in a focused exploration of dance techniques -- the very people this category intends to serve. I think it makes sense to include style articles in the dance technique cat only if they include a significant discussion of dance technique, and only if that technique is not also covered by a dedicated technique article. Lambtron (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry I overlooked the discussion about this on your talk page. I agree with your conclusion: WP:WRITEITFIRST, to prove it has enough RS analysis to meet GNG (which, given how thin dance scholarship is, ought to guarantee a useful level of notability). I realized, while making the Graham article, that many definitely-notable, codified modern techniques—Horton technique, Cunningham technique, Release technique, Duncan technique, Tap dance technique—need articles or lots of work, so I hope to swell the ranks of cat:dance technique with usefully deep articles soon.


 * Thanks a lot for pointing me to this paper on choreographic copyright. It's legalistically describing a muddy situation, so it's hard to follow, but the gist seems to be that as of 1993, still images of choreography are usually fair game. I'll read through more carefully to make sure before the DYK goes up. FourViolas (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)