Template talk:Irish dance

Argument for the inclusion of polkas, waltzes, and mazurkas. (This was argued on my talk page, but it makes more sense to be here for future editors). 1- They are all danced to traditional music in Ireland and have for well over one hundred years. 2- While they did not originate in Ireland, neither did reels, jigs, strathspeys, flings, etc. Pretty much the only surviving original dance form is the slide, and even that is likely derived from the quadrille. 3- Just because a dance originates in one country does not give that country ownership. The three dance forms in question all spread widely around the world in the 19th century. There are polkas throughout Latin America, there are mazurkas in the Caribbean, and there are waltzes, well, everywhere.

That said, there is some fuzziness here. To a musician and a dancer, a waltz can mean different things; for a musician, it is a tune you play with a waltz rhythm, be it for dancers or simply listening, while for dancers it is the steps or choreography that go with that rhythm. My perspective is principally as a guitarist and fiddle player, so I am inclined to be inclusive (i.e., having one page for waltzes unless the rhythm is fundamentally different, etc.)

It has been suggested that there be made a page for the 'Irish mazurka', which initially I was against, but it might be a good solution after thinking about it. Unlike the waltz and polka, the rhythm actually is different. The main accent in Polish mazurkas lay on the 3 (1-2-3) (though it can vary), while the accent for Irish mazurkas lay on the 2 (1-2-3). The polka and the waltz, on the other hand, have the same basic rhythm. I would let an expert on dance distinguish the different forms; perhaps it would be better to make an Irish polka page if the dance steps were different.

Thoughts? Ideas? Dan Cottrell (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dan, I think you have a misconception what this kind template is for. This is a navigation template ("navbox"), i.e., a tool to quickly navigate between major articles which cover a particular topic. It has nothing to do with "country ownership" or any other ideas. The criterion is simple: does the article in question provide a significant coverage of the main topic of navigation or not? As you say, some dances spread all over the world. Does that mean that the corresponding article mush have a hundred+ navboxes? Of course it is against common sense, if the only info you can find in the link is "Polka is danced in rural Patagonia since 19th century". And it seems that you are mistaken that there is nothing to write about "Irish polka" I see that google gives quite a few hits for phrase "Irish polka is". Of course, most of them are probably about music, but you can write article Irish polka, which is both about music and dance, and it will be a fair entry for this template. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, in your user page Dan asked (I suspect rhetorically) "Would a reader want to read 40 different Waltz articles when one all-encompassing one would do?" - My answer is that it is not a wikipedian's job to read the mind of "a reader". What is more, there is no such person, "a reader". Rather, there are millions of readers, and "a wikipedian" cannot even start to comprehend what "a reader" may want. Some of them want a cursory "all-in-one" digest, while others may want to know "12 Things You Don't Know about Moroccan Waltz". Therefore wikipedia has what is called "summary style", so that you can have both an overview page and very specific aricles; without much overlap and page bloat, but with accessibility to all level of detail. ("wikipedia is not paper encyclopedia") Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)