Talk:The Rockettes

"Most-watched live show in the USA"
I thought I'd insert a comment here asking if anyone could perhaps make this more specific. "Live show" to me could include, among other things, Superbowl halftime. Perhaps this was one reason the article was recently source-flagged? --70.33.38.76 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. It should be changed to "Most-watched show in person in the US" or something like that.

Appropriateness of Picture
Is the picture here really appropriate? Notice the left (his left) arm of the sailor on the left (our left). It's pretty clear that he is feeling the behind of that rockette. Maybe it should be removed? KingOfAfrica 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Take another look - it is her own hand that is by her side. Given the perspective of the picture that couldn't possibly be his arm, unless he has a freakishly large arm! Omgplz (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Past Tense
Why is this article in the past tense? The Rockettes are still very much around in the present.
 * It isn't past tense except where it has to be... Trekphiler 07:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I originally made the comment about past tense when I was a "newbie" and didn't know about signing one's comments. I disagree, however, that the usage of past tense is "where it has to be." The sentence beginning, The Rockettes performed annually at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, for example, is in the past tense and there is no reason it should be. When I have a minute and am not so tired, I'll do a quick copy edit. David Hoag 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Best-known precision dance company in the world"
This was removed as a biased statement, but now that I really consider it, I don't think it is one. Can amyone name a precision dance company that's even one-tenth as known in the world today?--Pharos 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Without a randomized survey which representatively samples people from around the World, no one can say exactly how well-known this or any other dance company is. Even mining data on ticket sales and attendance won't reveal how well-known they are in general worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I figure the statement is true but not provable, important, or necessary. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Reaching new heights?
Can somebody confirm the min height req? I've seen 5'5.5" someplace.... Trekphiler 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC) It is 5"6-5"10 1/2  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.83.3 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hepzibuh (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Yes, I was hoping for the history of the height qualifications. Instead, I get a huge paragraph about the President Trump Inauguration. Hepzibuh (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Current and Former Rockettes
Not all Rockettes are notable...for those that are at least a stub should be created first and then the name can be moved to the article. To have such a long string of red linked names does not look well on the page. The external links should be on the individual article pages, not in a list. Doc 06:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rosalie Bowers Amoroso
 * Cheryl Homan Anderson
 * Berlinda Artzner Gordon
 * Abby Arauz
 * Eleanor Aetisse
 * Evelyn Rakovich Ashley
 * Patricia Clark Asmann
 * Lindsay Flora Babich
 * Mary Lee Dewitt Baker
 * Millie Pratt Balint
 * Linda Bartle
 * Lenore Lortz Beetar
 * Andrea Clifford Bekkenhuis
 * Dottie Belle
 * Barbara Baxter Benjamin
 * Kiki Bennett
 * Linda Berres
 * Lorraine Berry profile
 * Emma Stiffer Bishop
 * Sandy Harvey Bloomberg
 * Pokie Powers Bookless
 * Lisa Lewis Basi
 * Darla Bradle
 * Katy Braff
 * Dorothy Meachen Breen
 * Peggy Burke Brennan
 * Dee Dee Knapp Brody
 * Mary Limbach Burg
 * Linda Deacon Burrington
 * Deidre Caroll
 * Diann Mac Donald Catino
 * Kathleen Rudolph Cezer
 * Elizabeth Chanin
 * Stephanie Chase
 * Barbara Ann Cittadino
 * Barbara Reid Coburn
 * Kelli Coleman
 * Jacqueline Collins
 * Lillian Colon
 * Helen Conklin
 * Holly Copeland
 * Barbara Boho Creighton
 * Alzine Straub Cuppett
 * Mary Ann Strilka Cusimana
 * Cathy Dacey
 * Vickie Daigle
 * Betty Silva Dammert
 * Darlene Wendy
 * Cheryl Davidson-Steinthal
 * Sandy Deel profile
 * Prudence Grey Demmler
 * Irene Guerreiro Diamante
 * Cathy Beatty Di Marco
 * Gretchen Green Dodd
 * Susanne Doris
 * Becky Downing
 * Beverly Browne Duke
 * Beth Dukleth
 * Cookie Franzese Dutch
 * Carolyn Dutra
 * Jenny Eakes
 * Betty Dedrick Eckhardt
 * Rosemary Rickerhauser Elsegood
 * Gretchen Esch
 * Holly Evans
 * Angie Everett
 * Jeanne Remy Evers
 * Carrie Evers Messing
 * Dotty Hoarton Eyl
 * Janice Dinkins Ferguson
 * Betty White Fernandez
 * Patricia Linn Fischer
 * Barbara Parkhurst Forgue
 * Christina Fortenbaugh
 * Linda Christ Gache
 * Mary Anne Fiordalisi Garretson
 * Barbara DiMateo Gasser
 * Dianne Gauroy
 * Fern Dion Gedney
 * Jody Erickson Ghanem
 * Joy Wheeler Gibbons
 * Glenda Guilfoyle Vosberg
 * Heather Ginther
 * Darcy Gloria
 * Heather Goelz
 * Eileen Grace
 * Jeanne Spooner Gracey
 * Pat De Carlo Grantham
 * Mary Ellen Scilla Greco
 * Shelly Speas Green
 * Troy Greenfield
 * Leslie Guy
 * Charles Hacker
 * Nanette Brousseau Hackett
 * Joy Shelby Hairston Ward
 * Tamara Halenda Dobias
 * Michelle Hammer
 * Jackie Sloan Hanson
 * Cheryl Hebert
 * Susan Henderson
 * Ellie Thies Hevel
 * Sandie Summer Hilliard
 * Janice Davis Himler
 * Betty Hunt Holding
 * Kathy Maier Horan
 * Michelle Imor
 * Lorraine Monty Johnson
 * Linda Johnston
 * Temple Kane
 * Jerry Karsus
 * Jeri Kansas Jandrok
 * Jennifer Jiles profile
 * Mary Louise Fidmik Kaufmann
 * Sue Kays profile
 * Mary Lou Barnes Kennedy
 * Sharlene Curley Kessler
 * Natalie King
 * Bernice Hess Klebaur
 * Corinne Lawton Klemmer-Allaire
 * Bette Lou "Belle" Daley Koblentz
 * Judy Goodman Koch
 * Debby Kole
 * Laurie Kotecki
 * Barbara Kraemer Renna
 * Amy Krawcek
 * Edith Karen Kusik
 * Sandra Scilla La Maina
 * Cindy Pierce Lee
 * Liane Neumann-Pruzan
 * Eleanor Russell Leight
 * Joanne Lentino
 * LuAnn Leonard-Johns
 * Barbara Yula Levy
 * Lisa Lewis-Basi
 * Sabra Lewis
 * Arnelle Mauer Liblit
 * Eleanor Leight
 * June Anne Loesch
 * Mary Lillygren
 * Kimberly Louwsma
 * Adele Harper Lyttle
 * Linda Muhrcke Lynch
 * Elaine Bahr MacDonald
 * Anne Fair MacLean
 * Peggy Morrison Macherey
 * Melissa Mahon
 * Flip Butterfield Manne
 * Geri Marcolina
 * Jean Radzik Martin
 * Setsuko Maruhashi
 * Lisa Matsuoka
 * Elizabeth Maurer
 * Florence Kimball May
 * Barbara Vaughan McCabe
 * Mary McCatty
 * Patrice McConachie
 * Julie McDonald
 * Lori McMacken
 * Laraine Memola
 * Pat Merl profile
 * Stevie Van Meter
 * Angela Mezzacapa
 * Sarah Misiano
 * Marquis Monday
 * Sue Bono-Moore
 * Marion Block Moriarty
 * Betty Vincent Moritz
 * Harriet Rover Muller
 * Catherine Madigan Murray
 * Janet Murphy
 * Anne Murphy
 * Lucille Naar
 * Darcy Natalie
 * Kathy Westlund Nelson
 * Nancy Walker Nesbitt
 * Dorothy Laxson Nesholm
 * Liane Neumann-Pruzan
 * Jennifer Newman
 * Betty Ann Warshauer Nice
 * Peggy Fears Noble
 * Beth Woods Nolan
 * Joyce Nolen
 * Rosemary Posillico Noviello
 * Gail Paduani Oldfield
 * Eileen O'Rourke Liese
 * Pat Tully Osborn
 * Lillian Hodulick Oswald
 * Cathy Dunsmore Oswandel
 * Jill Owens
 * Dani Parish
 * Viva Reynolds Pastor
 * Jyl Perry
 * Cynthia Petrone
 * Pam Stacey Pasqualino
 * DoDo Wicker Parmenter
 * Keisa Parrish
 * Margaret Morley Pearsall
 * Keri Pearsall
 * Rita Iacurto Pelletier
 * Louise Arthur Penn
 * Susan Kingsland Peterson
 * Sandra Simpson Philpott
 * Anita Sowa Pokrassa
 * Maureen Stevens-Pollack
 * Liane Neumann-Pruzan
 * Kerri Quinn
 * Tara Radcliffe
 * Dorothy "Candy" Hart Ratcliff
 * Erica Reed
 * Carol Kaufman Reilly
 * Laureen Repp-Russell
 * Loraine Brown Rinaldi
 * Jody Robinson Buckelew
 * Sheila Phillips Rodriguez
 * Kara Marie Sandberg
 * Kathryn Kehrle Ryan
 * Lorraine Holscher Sarek
 * Patsy Brady Scalise
 * Kim Leslie Schwab
 * Tara Bradley Schweitzer
 * Melanie Seymour
 * Diane Brisson Sheehan
 * Tamlyn Shusterman
 * Marjorie Helen Siegfried profile
 * Susan Alai Sinibaldi
 * Helene Grethlein Smith
 * Amber Smith
 * Barbara Speedling Gatti
 * Jean Spouswell
 * Elizabeth Sprei
 * Katherine Steers
 * Twila Saylor Stern
 * Leslie Stroud
 * Carole Roth Sullivan
 * Lyn Sullivan-Bowers
 * Fern Fitzgerald Sweet
 * Romaine Strilka Switch
 * Carol Wilcox Tarallo
 * Jeanette Dix Tarrand
 * Nancy Bryan Taylor
 * Eileen Thomas
 * Adriene Thorne
 * Tammy Tipton Nay
 * Joan Swack Tipton
 * Linda Gumiela Toliver
 * Michelle Tolson
 * Karyn Tomzak
 * Betty Brady Walters
 * Eva Ward
 * Sara Weber
 * Carla Drumm Webber
 * Barbara Warren Anzalone
 * Darlene Wendy
 * Susan Medler Wershing
 * Marilyn Westlake
 * Tiffany Whitaker
 * Corliss Fyfe Whitney
 * Gertrude Fryer Wylie
 * Kathleen O'Connor Williams
 * Dorothy "Dottie" Williams Hunt-Kleeb
 * Laura Williams
 * Jaime Windrow
 * Suzanne Sibilio Winn
 * Sally Wong
 * Verna Pharo Yezo
 * Amy York
 * Carole Calibani Zablocki
 * Terry Burke Zukowski
 * Genevieve Connors
 * Constance Waunchope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.25.216 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rockettes work year
The Rockettes women have performed 5 shows a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for more than 75 years.

I don't feel this is accurate. Several sources including this one from the NY Times state that although they have year-long health benefits, they only work steadily during the holidays. If I am wrong please correct me.

"This is high season for the Rockettes, three solid months of steady work, solid pay, grateful audiences and all the excitement of dancing in New York with a world-famous company. But it's also a time of gruelingly hard work, of seven dance numbers and six costume changes per show, as many as five shows in a 13-hour day, and as many as six days of work a week."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/arts/dance/20domi.html

Random mom (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not every worker works every shift every day; same as any other high-demand job. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also imagine that when they're not busy performing and rehearsing, they are busy training, doing choreography, and other related activities. Jedikaiti (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Image removal
This image which was removed by  is a composite of two approved images, namely  (public domain) and  (ccsa2.0). The image stays.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street / "boycott" claims
I have removed a part of the lead section that says that there have been "calls via social media for boycotting the Rockettes..." My rationale is as follows:


 * 1) The controversy is already mentioned in both lead section & body. Additional coverage, particularly in the lead, would be undue weight.
 * 2) The article subject is a a 92-year old troupe, so to give a fairly minor controversy last month extended coverage in the lead section recentistic and, again, undue weight.
 * 3) The source&mdash;"HeatSt.com"&mdash;is a low-quality blog.
 * 4) The source's claims of a "boycott" stem only from an collection of Tweets (apparently random&mdash;no figures on how widespread they were). There is no indication that there actually was a boycott, or even an organized movement toward that end.

If we absolutely must mention "social media" in the lead (and again, I think it's unnecessary to do so, given that we already mention the controversy in the lead, and give details in the body) I would accept the following, from a much higher-quality source:


 * ...the Rockettes' decision to perform caused some, including a dancer, to express objections on social media. 

--Neutralitytalk 19:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, a boycott is in effect, and this is clearly notable and belongs in the lede. HeatStreet is not a blog.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) Do you have a source to support the idea that a "boycott is in effect"? Not "calls for a boycott," but an actual boycott?
 * (2) Just because something is noteworthy does not mean it belongs in the lead section. See Lead section: "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources..." The inauguration controversy is already mentioned in the lead. Adding more material would unduly inflate its importance relative to the century-long history of the troupe.
 * (3) Regardless of whether we call it a blog or not, it's a not a reliable source. It is, in fact, an opinion-laden source that shouldn't be relied upon for statements of fact.
 * Neutralitytalk 22:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump inauguration in lead?
I'm not sure the Trump inauguration performance has long term notability regarding the Rockettes' entire history. They have been around for almost a century, and yet I find it hard to believe that this is the most important thing they have ever done—which is implied by the statement's position in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Rockettes have been a New York tradition for years, and sometimes earned local attention, but their decision to dance and sing at the Trump inauguration brought them huge national attention, not only with the controversy with several Rockettes boycotting the performance, but the fact that most other musical groups said no. Performing for a president is huge news. ′Given the extensive and well-sourced treatment in the controversies section, a simple sentence in the lede paragraph is warranted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still not sure if the controversy itself passes the ten-year test. I boldly removed the content from Radio City Music Hall's article because it was only tangentially related because of the Rockettes, and also because of this doubt I still have. I agree that performing for the president's inauguration is very notable, especially if the president is controversial, but the Rockettes have been around for much longer than that, hence my doubts. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you for your explanation. Remember that the ten-year test is not official policy, but even if it was, I think their performance for Trump, a controversial president, will still be relevant 10 years from now. How many other presidents have they performed for? I don't see any other such performances; their performance for Trump was a first. That Trump has been accused repeatedly of being a sexual predator, and here the Rockettes are putting on a Christmas show for children and young families -- in effect honoring a man who says "grabs 'em by the pussy" -- can you see how their performance attracted national attention? And really hit a nerve? And why the Rockettes publicity people are trying very hard to downplay their choice? The line in the lede is ONLY one non-POV-ish statement that they performed at the inauguration, and doesn't even hint at the huge controversy section below. Plus the lede has lots of other spammy un-referenced stuff like what was just added so it sure looks like this article is turning into a puff piece.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I could understand how few groups would actually have the privilege to perform for any president, much less a controversial one. However, regarding the lead, it's okay to not have references if all the lead information is also referenced in the body. I do agree that this article needs a lot of work to even get to that non-biased state. epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Rockettes. 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/20100206223047/http://asiancemagazine.com/dec_2007/radio_city_music_hall_rockette_setsuko_maruhashi to http://www.asiancemagazine.com/dec_2007/radio_city_music_hall_rockette_setsuko_maruhashi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522025731/http://www.radiocity.com/ to http://www.radiocity.com/

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) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC about including Trump in lead

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the fact that they performed at Trump's inauguration be included in the lead? JDDJS (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose per WP:RECENT. They have been around for over 90 years. This single performance doesn't matter in their long term notability. JDDJS (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. How many dance companies do you know who have performed at a presidential inauguration? It's the only dance company that I know of. Not only that, their performance was accompanied by huge controversy about whether they should have performed, along with some members refusing to perform. All of this attracted national attention. As per WP:MOS, the lede should summarize what's in the body of the article, and there's plenty of well-referenced material in the body of the article about their performance. And it's ONLY one innocuous sentence -- that the company performed at the inauguration of Donald Trump -- that's all it says in the lede. What's the big deal here? Unless, perhaps now the Rockettes public relations people have changed their mind, and maybe think that now this was a mistake, to have kicked up their heels for a man who is increasingly hated worldwide? Is that what's going on here? Is the Rockettes trying to distance themselves from bad publicity? And the "been around for 90 years" argument -- well most of those 90 years were generally non-notable in terms of national attention, a NYC-local company performing around Christmastime.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do Not Include - that material is overkill WP:OFFTOPIC for the article which is supposed to be about the dance group not about Trump. That whole section is largely political stuff and should be moved to Inauguration of Donald Trump, with any mention here limited to WP:DUE WP:PROPORTION to the bulk of the performing history.  That seems more like whole sections for repeated events like the Christmas Spectacular and the Easter extravaganza, the summer dance schools, their USO tours and TV.  The individual performances of note would be a simple list of events -- the Macys parade, the Vegas tour, the GW Bush inauguration (2001), the GW Bush inauguration (2005), and finally the Donald Trump Inauguration (2017).   Should be similar to the handling of the inauguration performance at Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please remember that it was the decision of The Rockettes to perform at Trump's inauguration, a decision which brought huge national attention to the company -- much more than their Radio City performances. The Rockettes supported Trump, and benefited from huge publicity from their choice, as evidenced here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here, for starters. It's a little bit late for the Rockettes publicity people to try to bury this clearly notable support of Trump. Rockettes = Trump supporters.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (Via RFC) Weak Oppose Whilst I think it's relevant material for the article and I think the decision of The Rockettes' management to be involved in the inaguration is notable, I think the current state of the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the political controversy and doesn't highlight the history of The Rockettes in general. Right now, with the lead being all of three sentences I don't think it's relevant, but with a potentially more in-depth article/lead I would likely support the inclusion of a sentence such as "In 2016, the group controversially performed at the inauguration of President Donald Trump" -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 13:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with Alfiepates. If we had a nice, thorough lead that went into some detail about the Rockettes' history, it might well be appropriate to include a sentence about the Trump inauguration. But we don't currently have a lead like that, and tacking on a sentence about Trump to the current very short lead would be undue weight. It would look strange and non-neutral to highlight that one incident without mentioning anything about their history between 1932 and 2015. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the two above me. Given the current state of the article, it's undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Its certainly notable and worth mentioning in the body but would be WP:UNDUE for the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Imagine asking 100 people "Who are the Rockettes?" None of them would say, "Oh, yeah, um, they danced at Trump's inauguration." Instead, I'd expect to hear kick lines, Radio City Music Hall and New York City. In 10 years, this will be a mere blip in their 100 year history. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENT. Summoned by bot. A notable performance, but not so notable that it merits inclusion in the lead. Chris vLS (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced additions
Just a reminder to people that Wikipedia is not a publicity outlet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC) A deluge of unsourced additions are a violation of Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of references
It is one thing to shorten and condense information, keeping the gist of what happened, after the passage of time, but another to remove references, cutting three of them, which can gut an article. I support condensing information but please keep the references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump "the monster"
User:Tomwsulcer has added content which disrupts the WP:BALANCE of this article. Three out of 13 Rockettes chose not to perform for Trump (which means 10 out of 13 did perform). This fact has been elevated to a "controversy", and the lurid details of why those three chose not to perform for "this monster" have been included. The sources have been cherrypicked, and the tone and content violate WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:WEIGHT. User:Tomwsulcer has also forbidden other editors from removing their sources. The RfC above agreed that this should be included in the article, but did not specify how it should be included. The reasoned input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The article is balanced, well-sourced, with reliable sources. The RfC was about what should be included in the lede paragraph. That the Rockettes performed for Trump's inauguration was controversial in itself, and reasons why some Rockettes chose to perform and others didn't, are included for balance. User:Magnolia677 removed three reliable sources and chopped out much information; I do think it could be edited down a bit, but I object to the removal of sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What if the unencyclopedic bits of the section are "edited down a bit", and one of the sources no longer supports any of the content? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You need help with editing?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a rhetorical question. Let me try again.  If you asked your barber to trim your salt-and-pepper hair, but said, "and just cut the greys", your barber would think you're a fool because both the grey and non-grey get cut.  The same is true with trimming an article; both the text and the sources which support the text (which is no longer there) get cut.  So when you agree the section can be "edited down a bit", but don't feel comfortable removing any of the sources, it seems kind of...awkward.  Get it? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that the salty hairs are on the chin, and the pepper hairs are under the nose. Trim the salty, keep the pepper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you agree the section can be trimmed, but all of the sources--even those that no longer support any text--need to remain. Is this correct? Magnolia677 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the gist; shorten; keep the references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Height restriction
I’m curious as to why there is a height restriction for becoming a Rockette? Why aren’t shorter dancers with the same talent able to audition? I’m 5’3 and have all of the same other qualifications dance wise. 68.231.23.156 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Super Bowl halftime show
The article links the wrong Super Bowl halftime show. 97.119.167.88 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)