Talk:Fire performance

message: There doesn't seem to be a fire juggling page; only fire-dancing and an article on the prop 'Torch (juggling)'. Should fire juggling have its own page? Just as Juggling and Juggling clubs are seperate, surely 'Torch' and 'Fire juggling' should be separate. I don't know anything about the history of fire juggling etc. so I can't really start the page myself (but will if someone points me in the right direction).
Posting here as there are more people and may get an answer :) Thanks.
Prolinol (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to start one up yourself.  Just make sure the topic of fire juggling meets our notability guidelines by including discussion of the concept from reliable, third-party sources. If the topic is allowable, and the content is verifiable and neutral than the article should stick around. ThemFromSpace 19:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Fire Juggling page?

message: Adamrice,
The link you removed from this page was to a fire safety section on a webiste.  It's not self promotion.  Home of Poi has link to their HOME PAGE, which is designed to funnel users to their shopping section.  What's so bad about having fire safety as an external link?  I"m just gonna go ahead, and put it back there.  It's the easiest to digest safety information around.  If you can find a better safety article,  change the link to point to it, don't just delete it.+
thanks.
:Since every link in your edit history has gone to the same website, it's hard to credit your assertion that it isn't self-promotion. Since you don't have a Wikipedia account and we don't know anything about you, that's all we have to go on. There is a link to HoP here, but it wasn't put here by anyone at HoP--despite being a commercial site, it's an important resource, and the merits of including it have been argued before. Having taken a look at the link in question, I see no actual safety information that isn't mentioned at the NAFAA site (also linked here) as well as a dozen other places. Some of the suggestions at that site are arguable, and there's considerable conversational fluff to plow through to get to the point. adamrice 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a person comes into Wikipedia and creates a bunch of links to his own website, that is considered link spamming, and yes, it is annoying. The "external links" section of a Wikipedia article is typically limited to a few canonical outside references on the subject. Your website doesn't qualify in these cases. If you do have a website that is widely recognized as being the place to look for information on a certain subject, then go ahead and link to it, if it hasn't been linked already--though it would probably raise fewer eyebrows if you let somebody else recognize its greatness and link to it instead). Also, you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes in a row (like this, without the spaces: ~ ~ ~ ~). adamrice 14:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: That's true, but the fact that you posted a bunch of links in different articles, all pointing to the same website, with which you are obviously well acquainted, suggest that either it's your own site, or you are shilling for it. adamrice 14:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links Removed

message: Yes, I think they should be merged. This article explicitly refers to "fire twirling" as an alternative name for the same thing. The "fire twirling" article is staff-centric and makes some POVish assertions. adamrice 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Figureguy--fans, clubs (in some styles), palm torches, and finger wands are all fire tools that are not spun; if anything, these emphasize the "dance" aspect of the performance more. In the Firedancing article, I made this distinction between "rhythmic" and "non-rhythmic" tools. adamrice 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I was about to Be Bold and follow consensus, and merge the articles, but I couldn't find any information contained in the "twirling" article that wasn't included in the "dancing" article, with more detail being located in the dancing article.  With that in mind, I propose that the twirling article be simply made into a redirect. Fieari 20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Phidauex 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Do not confuse "Fire Twirling/Dancing" to "Fire Knife Dancing".  Although you may think it's one in the same, it isn't.  Here's a site that explains each "fire dancing" styles and techniques... (various fire dancing).  I am going to add this link to the article.
The birth of Fire Knife Dancing was around 1945, founded by Freddie Letuli, Father of the Fire Knife.  By tying strips of towel at each end of the Samoan knives and soaking it with kerosene, the first Samoan Fire Knife was born.
Fire Knife Dancing is known as "Siva Afi" in Samoan.  It originated from the "Knife Dance" (Samoan nifo 'oti).
I will add more information later, as it is getting late.
--Webmistress Diva 10:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Firedancing" is a pretty broad term that covers a number of specific tools, techniques, and traditions. Despite your objection, I do believe it covers fire-knife dancing. What is your basis for saying it doesn't? adamrice 14:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it, and I am about to do it again. Self-linking is against wikipedia policy. If your site is really worth being linked to, I am sure third party with no stake in it will do so. adamrice 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Knife Dancing 

message: Based on about a month of silence on the issue, and no obvious objections, I've merged fire-twirling with fire dancing. Fire-twirling included basically no information not already dealt with in fire dancing, and was definately staff-centric. If at some point people wish, they could begin elaborating on various fire tools by breaking the unordered list into a collection of ====subsections==== with more detail on the design and construction of each tool, potentially including images of that tool. Phidauex 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAM - Merged 

message: This article has too many images that look the same... We should pick one, or two of the standard 'long shutter time' fire pictures that are of exceptional quality, and then remove the others. This isn't a photo gallery! If we want more pictures, I'd suggest we break the unordered lists in the fire apparatus section into individual subsections with close-ups of the tools in question. I will begin work on this at some point soon, but I wanted to toss it out there in case anyone would like to start contributing properly licensed images to the wikimedia commons, or wants to start breaking the unordered list up for more details. Peace. Phidauex 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess images 

message: I've just placed merge tags on both articles to start some discussion on this.  The new article Fire fetish seems to be more suitable for inclusion here than to be on its own. Robotman1974 11:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tied up the loose ends.  Thanks Fireninja. Robotman1974 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Fire fetish]] into this article

message: Kerosene, parrafin, paraffin oil, jet-a, avtur, lamp oil, jet fuel ARE ALL THE SAME BASIC FUEL.  If you are the mong that put in seperate entries for kerosene and paraffin oil, go and have a word with yourself. Ever heard of 'research'?  That sort of thing drags wikipedia down. *rant out* MrFire 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuel

message: Sections fuels needs to be edited, as is there is currently a rant that enters first person and references the fact that this is a wiki; the paragraph beginning "NB:" in the middle of the list needs to go.  Regardless of the quality of the point, it looks out of place.  Someone with more expertise than me should evaluate the point being made and incorporate it into the section if necessary, but as is, it can't exist. ThunderkatzHo! 05:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuels 

message: I tagged the section with Citation Needed, but I'm worried about devoting an entire section to Revolution of the Flame. I'm certainly not convinced with zero sources that they deserve to be here any more than non-notable band pages belong over in the music articles. If I don't see any discussion crop up on this soon, I'm just going to delete it. WP:NOTE, WP:NEUTRALITY, WP:SOURCES, WP:IAR. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution of the Flame 

message: I'm not sure if the Cirque du Soleil reference is appropriate, and seems to follow along the lines of self-promotion as some others have been talking about. I recommend removal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.231 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cirque du Soleil 

message: Just moved some fire-specific safety information here from the poi article, as it is an important fire dancing topic and not unique to poi.
Wordscratch, 13 September 2011  —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added safety info 

message: This page seems to be a general page about fire performance and fire arts not just fire dancing which is a specific term used for a type of fire performance. I propose to move this page to one title 'fire performance' or 'fire arts'. If there are no objections put forward on this talk page within a month I will do this without further notice Robynthehode (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Move for this page - new title

message: I propose that Fire troupe be merged into Fire performance. I think that the content in the Fire troupe article can easily be explained in the context of Fire performance, and the Fire performance article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Fire troupe will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Robynthehode (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a merger would be good.  In addition, Fire art probably fits here somewhere. Cxbrx (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Support merge. In its 9 years of existing Fire troupe never seemed to have much potential for expansion so I think it should be merged here instead. Sro23 (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and  Klbrain (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Klbrain for doing the merge. However the fire troupe text, I believe, should not be in the lead. I have moved it to its own section and renamed another section to make it more consistent. Whole article needs more work and references but no time at moment.Robynthehode (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, Robynthehode; thanks for keeping an eye on the page. I've ammended the Fire troupe redirect so that it now links directly to the section you've made. Klbrain (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: At the bottom of the History section the article claims that the Maori soaked poi in fuel and lit them on fire. This is not true, and the source [4] that is cited actually says the opposite, noting that "Contrary to popular belief, traditionally poi was never actually lit on fire. The art of dipping poi balls into fuel and lighting them on fire did not occur until the mid 20th century, as a progression of the Samoan fire knife." 75.164.190.127 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in History/Poi 

message: "Unlike a fire fetish show, this performance is generally more low-key, slower in tempo, and may be performed by a solo dancer in front of a small and select audience, often a spouse or romantic partner."
To me this sounds exactly like a possible fire fetish show. The description of the fire fetish also fits the erotic fire show. Doesn't sound like there's really a difference , no? Biofase flame| stalk  05:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire fetish & erotic fire