Talk:List of productions of The Nutcracker

Three General Guidelines
Sorry to place this at the top, but I just wanted to make sure people saw it. I have just devoted three or four marathon days to improving the readability of the article on The Nutcracker, which has been split into this list article. I believe the present article is much improved from its predecessor. In order to maintain the quality of the article, I have three general guidelines for future major revisions to the list of productions. (If the revision you're about to make is minor, such as a simple correction of spelling, grammar, or formatting, feel free to go ahead and ignore this.):

1.) Maintain a neutral point of view, include only verifiable information, and no original research - Violations of these three things (which are considered fundamental principles of Wikipedia) constitute the bulk of the material I had to remove.

2.) Observe economy of language - Convey as much as possible in as few words as possible. This was my initial motivation for revising the article. It was way too long and overwhelming. You'll notice that I have limited description of each production to no more than a single paragraph. Please observe this in future revision. In order to maintain consistency throughout the article and keep description of variances as brief as possible, I have utilized three criteria in terms of which differences between productions can be noted: Most productions can easily be described in terms of these three categories. You don't need to compared every production with each of these three -- simply the one they most closely resemble. For example, the Balanchine is an 1892-influenced production, whereas the Baryshnikov is a Vainonen-influenced production. For productions with no relation to any of these (say, Morris' and Bourne's), I've simply described the major differentiating factors (again, in a single paragraph). Also, avoid redundancy. A good 10% of the previous version was information that was repeated elsewhere in the article. If you're unsure if information has been mentioned in the article (it is pretty long), use the "Find" or "Search" feature of your browser.
 * similarity to the original Hoffmann story
 * similarity to the original 1892 production
 * similarity to Vasily Vainonen's 1934 staging

3.) Observe the present organization - By this, I just mean to observe the new 'Choreography", "Company" and "Premiere" feature, and look at the sections already in place to see where any new information would best fit. A lot of information was misplaced in the previous version of the article.

Special notes with regard to the above for AlbertSM
I'm sorry to single you out but, unfortunately, much of the material I had to remove seems to have been yours. You seem like a very intelligent person who loves this ballet and has accumulated quite a lot of information about its various incarnations and wants to share this knowledge with others. I respect that. However, I don't want you to go to the trouble of typing new material, only to have it removed because it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, so here are a few prescient points that elaborate on the above guidelines:

Maintaining a neutral point of view: Implicit in this is that you maintain a non-reactionary spirit when adding information. What this means is that you do not enter or emphasize information out of personal bias. I'm not sure to what extent you are aware of how transparently these biases were conveyed in your entries but, in the course of my editing, it become apparent quite early on that you do not particularly admire Balanchine's production (in particular, in his employing children in the main roles and the lack of dancing in comparison to Vainonen-influenced productions) or the 1993 film version based on it, and have a particular fondness for the 1977 film of Baryshnikov's production. This is all perfectly fine. It's perfectly natural to have an opinion.

However, when your disappointment with a certain production becomes the impetus for making special note of its perceived shortcomings, you compromise the neutrality of the article. Put another way, when you find yourself suggesting one production is superior or inferior to another, you introduce a conflict of interest between providing readers with an impartial presentation of verifiable information and using Wikipedia as a venue through which to advance your own personal opinion. Also, I had to remove a lot of journalistic asides ("it would seem", "curiously", "interestingly", "strangely", etc. and a lot of commenting on your source material). I appreciate that you feel strongly about this ballet but, as I mentioned previously, such commentary is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry and better suited to a personal blog or website or, better yet, a message board where you will have a ready-made audience. An excellent one that I highly recommend is [http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php? Ballet Alert's Ballet Talk].

As a personal example of what I am talking about, my own favorite version is actually Peter Wright's Birmingham production. Yet you will note that I gave this particular entry quite a spare treatment. Many critics consider this version superior to his Royal Ballet version and I even had several reviews I might have cited to emphasize this point. However, I felt a statement of such would be wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry (suggesting one production is superior to another) and decided against it. I hope you will exercise similar discretion in making any future additions.

No original research: At some points in the article, you made pronouncements about the popularity of a certain production extrapolated from Amazon's selling numbers. This qualifies as original research. What you need to have to make such a claim is an explicit statement that such-and-such recording outsells every other version from a newspaper or magazine article. Furthermore, as Amazon is far from the only merchant through which people purchase DVDs, any information culled from their inventory is liable to be misleading.

Also, when using a filmed production as a source, you do not cite a Youtube video as a reference. You need to make an actual note for the film itself, like this: Kirov Ballet. (1994; DVD 2000). The Nutcracker. Philips. Same for books (e.g., don't just link to the Google Books or Amazon page. Make an actual reference entry with the author's name and publisher).

Thanks very much for take valuable time out of your day to read this, and for your cooperation. :) LondonSword (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum
AlbertSM, I just had to remove some edits of yours from the article. Again, please carefully read my notes to you above. I don't want to have to keep doing this. Please make sure you are intimately familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, in particular, the use of unsupported attributions, editorializing, and puffery, the last of which in particular applies to your edit of the Baryshnikov entry. Thanks again for your understanding. LondonSword (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You will note that I edited the entry for the Balanchine film. Notice that the edit features specific statements, attributed to specific critics, rather than a generalized pronouncement that "the film is considered a classic" or "the film received extremely poor reviews". This is what future edits of this sort should look like. Notice also that the edits refrain from commenting on the source material; that is, I don't describe the review as "particularly complementary/scathing" or even "positive" or "negative." LondonSword (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Productions Way, Way, WAY Too Detailed and Exhaustive!
What is the point of this article when all of these productions are described in the Wikipedia article "The Nutcracker"? AlbertSM (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

reply
LondonSword suggested moving the detailed descriptions of the XX- and XXI-century revisions and revivals to a separate article (and I suggested creating separate articles for a very small number of them, the San Francisco Ballet's 1944 American premiere and Balanchine's 1954 production at New York City Ballet and Mark Morris' 1991 Hard Nut.)

List of productions of The Nutcracker was created by brute force, copy-and-pasting directly from The Nutcracker.

What remains to be done is to remove most of the now duplicate information from The Nutcracker Subsequent Productions — feel free to do so! — and in the case of the three abovementioned ballets from their respective sections on List of productions of The Nutcracker.

All the relevant Nutcracker sections have templates pointing the reader to the correspongding sections in List of productions of The Nutcracker.

Accordingly I have added an template to The Nutcracker Subsequent Productions. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the redundant text from the main article, and added some more information to this one. I personally believe the main article is now much improved and much more readable and user-friendly. I've added some information about the original production and its reception. Thanks for your hard work, Robert. It's much appreciated. LondonSword (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest Ballet's Nutcracker
I came to this article because I was looking for information on this particular production. Since this production is widely marketed as Nutcracker: The Motion Picture, shouldn't that be the heading title? IMDB lists Nutcracker as the official title, but lists Motion Picture and Pacific as AKA's. -- Brendanmccabe (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Brendanmccabe. I originally had it under that title, but AlbertSM later change it to Pacific Northwest Ballet's Nutcracker which is listed as the "complete USA title" at IMDB. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is in a case like this where a film is widely known and marketed under one name, but has a different "official" title. I've always known it as The Motion Picture, and that's what I've seen most people refer to it as. We could change it to simply Nutcracker which is what IMDB has. LondonSword (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found the relevant Wikipedia article on naming conventions for films. In the rationale it states: Titles of articles should be the most commonly used title... With this in mind, I'll go ahead and change it to Nutcracker: The Motion Picture. LondonSword (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Gorsky (1919)
I have added information on Alexander Gorsky's 1919 version of the ballet, which, according to the book "Nutcracker Nation", was the first to give the Sugar Plum Fairy's dances to Clara and the Cavalier's dances to the Nutcracker Prince. AlbertSM (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Albert. Thanks for bringing this production to my attention. I didn't know about it before. I'll have to look into what changes Gorsky made to the ballet that I may have mistakenly attributed to Vainonen. This would mean changing some of the references to Vainonen in the article to Gorsky if, for example, Gorsky was also the one who made the fantasy sequences a dream and made Drosselmeyer's role larger. I believe Jack Anderson and Robert Greskovic attributed those changes to Vainonen, so they may have not known about Gorsky. Again, thanks. LondonSword (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hard Nut
I have a couple of questions for those who take care of this page. On the 2007 DVD release for this Mark Morris production the extras included the "Arabian Dance" which was cut from the version that aired on Great Performances in the US back in 1991. This dance was also omitted from the VHS release. I am wondering whether this is worth mentioning on this page or on the article for THN. My second question is based on the fact that my cable TV service did not carry Ovation until this year so I have missed the "Battle of the Nutcrackers" which included THN (dag nab it). I was wondering if the "Arabian Dance" was reinserted for the airings on Ovation. On a side note this years five versions are interesting but ballet and commercials do NOT mix. Thanks goodness for the FF button when watching on DVR. My thanks ahead of time for anyone who can answer these questions. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi MarnetteD. Since we have similar information listed for other productions, I don't see any reason we couldn't include it for The Hard Nut. Feel free to add it if you'd like.LondonSword (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input LS. As I look at it putting the info into the section on this page for THN looks a little clunky to me. I have added it to the wikipedia article this version. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Other Productions
Is there some reason that the entries in Other Productions are not in 20th century and 21st century? — Robert Greer (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean why they're under a heading called "Other Productions"? It's simply because there wasn't enough information about them/they didn't seem notable enough to justify their own entry. If you mean why the 20th and 21st century sections don't have their own "Other Productions" section, no particular reason. Since the section is getting pretty long, it might make sense to divide it up into two. LondonSword (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of productions of The Nutcracker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117144359/http://video.pbs.org/video/2166007653/ to http://video.pbs.org/video/2166007653
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.getty.net/texts/tv-67-83.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of productions of The Nutcracker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210074206/http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/NutHist.html to http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/NutHist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210074206/http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/NutHist.html to http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/NutHist.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130222100233/http://users.value.net/cchris/Nutcracker.html to http://users.value.net/cchris/Nutcracker.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420083043/http://www.ovationtv.com/Events/battleofthenutcrackers/ to http://www.ovationtv.com/Events/battleofthenutcrackers/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715024553/http://www.ovationtv.com/search?q=Nutcracker to http://www.ovationtv.com/search?q=Nutcracker
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420083043/http://www.ovationtv.com/Events/battleofthenutcrackers/ to http://www.ovationtv.com/Events/battleofthenutcrackers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)