This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia is not wikisource. See WP:LONGQUOTE. I really do not think you have consensus to add entire reviews. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
WP:LONGQUOTE is an essay and so is just somebody's opinion. In this case, I consider that these quotes are helpful to the reader because they describe the distinctive performances with good word pictures. We have now lost the brief films which were taken of these performers and so good eye-witness descriptions are essential in helping the modern reader understand this lost art-form. The shock of seeing bare legs dancing in this way is hard to appreciate for the modern reader who is well-used to scantily-clad dancers and so these accounts are vital in conveying contemporary sensibilities. The overall article is barely 7k in size and so we have plenty of space for these brief reviews which are now public domain but not otherwise easy to find. Andrew D. (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
A couple of other editors disagree with you on this. You don't have consensus for dumping 'interesting' reviews into the article wholescale. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:CONSENSUS, it is the "quality of the arguments" which matters. I am not seeing any policy-based argument for simply blanking this content. As the article is still in the early stages of development, I consider Tagishsimon's actions to be disruption. The time to weigh the balance of text, quotes, pictures, &c. is when one approaches a formal review such as GA. We are a long way from that yet. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Do you consider Jayron32's removal of the same quote to be disruption? Do you consider all actions which go against your inclinations to be disruption? Do you consider it impossible to write some text to explain the points you seek to illustrate by dumping entire reviews into the article? Does it help lower the temperature if I consider your accusation of disruption to be a personal attack? Do you see a lack of good faith on your part? Bar-room lawyering is not helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Meanwhile, in the interests of making some progress, you might wish to add the quotes to Wikisource, presuming they're demonstrably in the public domain. You could then point to wikisource as an external link. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
