Talk:Cirque du Soleil

message: I see that  has re-removed some content that I'd removed as unsourced, but citing copyright concerns. If there's a copyright problem it'll need to be dealt with, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Moxy, what source or sources do you see copying from? If you could tell me that I can check who had it first and so on, and if necessary ask someone to sort it out (I won't do that myself because of my previous edits here).
Of course even if there turns out to be no copyvio, there's no excuse for re-adding disputed unsourced content without also adding adequate independent reliable sources – , please read WP:BURDEN on that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry wrong editsummary (wrong default oNE used).....was removed as completely unsourced.--Moxy (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for that. There seems to be some mistaken idea that unsourced content is acceptable in this group of articles – there's still plenty at Volta (Cirque du Soleil) and Crystal (Cirque du Soleil) that I know of, and probably in others too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Justlettersandnumbers is referring to tour stop information which is only temporarily available on the website he wants to be sourced. The unreferenced nature of this section is standard protocol as per the layout of all tours including but not limited to: Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour, 24K Magic World Tour, Witness: The Tour, Beautiful Trauma World Tour and the ÷ Tour. I should mention that I do not disagree with the removal of the content from the main Cirque page due to lack of sourcing as it is facts that can be easily sourced (I had an issue with its removal due to false claims of copyright breaches). However tour pages are a different issue. What is your view on this  Tom1819 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Best not revert unsourced stuff as per WP:BURDEN until there is sources....  - lists or anything for that matter  may be deleted at will until there is a source as per WP:V..... its one of only 3  Wikipedia:Core content policies . Just need to find a source if you cant then most will say  that information is—by definition—not important enough to include as per WP:DUE . That said the source does not need to be online.....like as a member of the website they do mail out advanced ticked sales listing  all the dates for members to pick tickets for...this would be an example of a non -online source....tour poster... etc.. --Moxy (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem? 

message: To make the opening section's chronology more consistent, I was tempted to move this:
Several more shows are in development around the world, as well as a television deal, a women's clothing line, and possible ventures into other mediums such as spas, restaurants and nightclubs.
...to the end (before the TOC). However, I see it's based on a 2011 article—are its details still relevant? (For example, is Cirque still considering a clothing line?) I'll hand it off to someone else. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology; details current? 

message: Not enough references or content to justify a separate page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge; there is plenty of independent coverage of Bazzar; I've added some. In my view there is sufficient to justify a separate page. The tour is distinct because of its new targeting of India, the middle East and Africa. Klbrain (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Bazzar (Cirque du Soleil)]] 

message: The tone of this article does not seem remotely appropriate to an encyclopaedia – stuff like "This full-length, custom show was developed exclusively for Expo 2017, being inspired by the focus of the expo" sounds as if it comes straight from the company's press materials. In some cases, that is apparently because it does: "Safewalls: An artistic project curated by Cirque du Soleil that brought time-honoured circus posters into the 21st century" is essentially identical to SAFEWALLS - An artistic project curated by Cirque du Soleil bringing the time-honoured circus poster into the 21st century" – that is a copyvio, I'll remove it in a moment.
There are swathes of unreferenced content here, and a lot more that is sourced only to company press-releases. There are 34 instances of "cirquedusoleil.com" in the page; that number should be much closer to one – a link to the website in the infobox (or two if you think that link needs to be duplicated at the foot of the page).
In my view the page needs a major overhaul – unsourced and promotional material should be removed, as should all press-release sources, and the text rewritten where necessary in an encyclopaedic tone. One way to bring that about that might be to start a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. What thoughts do people have on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone, sourcing, copyvio 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Before being called "Cirque du Soleil", the founders group called themselves "Les Échassiers" in French. It referred to the fact that they were using stilts ("échasses" in French) in their shows. It was not a reference to the shore-wading birds. So the translation at the beginning of the article as  "The Waders" is erroneous in this context. It should be "The Stilt Walkers" or something similar. Jjffbb (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English-language translation of the original name of the "Cirque du Soleil"