Talk:Edinburgh Festival Fringe/Archive 2007

&larr; Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 | Archive 2009 (no 2008)&rarr;

General Revision (18th June 2007)
General philosophy has been to: perform some restructuring; remove or alter overt adverts; remove or alter any obvious POVs; remove any repetitions; and move some pieces that belonged in other sections.

Revision made by BAK 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Structure
Most of the sections came under Fringe Today which now seems inappropriate, eg the Venues and Criticism sections cover the 60 years of the festival, not just today. All previous sections are now at the same level and some of them have been divided into sub-sections. The Sections have re-ordered in an attempt to improve the flow (although I am not convinced about it as it stands). BAK 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

History
expanded slightly, principally by moving bits from other sections.

Venues
This was previously a fairly straightforward section with no "politics" or views. It has been gradually altered over the last 9 months so that it includes various views and faintly disguised adverts. I have changed it back to how it was (more or less) and moved some of the views to the Criticism section.

I am still unhappy with the lists of venues. We had a debate on this last year. I have decided to leave them for the moment but if it deteriorates again I am tempted to remove them.

-I'd like to add my voice to the call for deletion of this section. The problem is deciding where to draw the line. In my view venues should only be noted in this article if they materially affect the Fringe. The 'supervenues' are probably notable with reference to their commercialised nature, discussion of Edinburgh Comedy Festival, fears of excessive power etc. as are the Free Fringe venues for their alternative yet (from what I hear) relatively successful financial model. Beyond that, I don't think there's any place here for lists of venues. I do think that a separate venue listing page is a good idea, if only to de-clutter this page so that only those interested in comparing the size of their venue to others view that page. Such a venue listing page should include some basic details of venues/spaces e.g. capacity, use of venue outside Fringe time etc.

Let's be honest: who is ever going to consult Wikipedia wanting to classify a particular venue as 'middle tier' or 'lower tier'? I've worked the Fringe for long enough to know that it's just not something that is of interest to anyone. -84.203.42.128 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Sub-divided. Removed a couple of POVs

Revamped (and much reduced) overt piece for Free Fringe and Laughing Horse.

Reviews & Awards
sub-divided into 2 sub-sections. General editing to alter overt adverts. Once again, not happy with lists of sources of reviews, particularly as they are already mentioned under external links. I have decided to leave them for the moment but if it deteriorates again I am tempted to remove them.

Box office system
Somebody just expanded a sentence about venue box offices not being linked to the Fringe system, and ticket allocation. I have removed the whole sentence, because: --ColinFine 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it is unreferenced (so is much of the article, I admit)
 * Its main claim is dubious - how can you be sure that all 'major venues' were using electronic and computerised ticketing systems?
 * it is incorrect (it seemed to say that no venues' box office systems were linked to the Fringe system in 2007, which is not true. Some were not).
 * While the fact (if we have the fact) of a particular number or proportion of venues being computerised, and another number or proportion being linked to the Fringe, might be encyclopaedic, I don't believe the details of the Fringe allocation is.