Talk:Contra dance/Archive 2

message: This page needs a number of improvements, some of which I'm already working on.
#The article is long enough to deserve section headers (added)
#The dance figures need to be explained - I'm working on that.
#Some of the language was unfortunately gender-specific, using "women" and "men". It really ought to be explained in terms the gender roles of "ladies" and "gents", with the explanation that both men and women can (and frequently do) take either gender role. I've fixed this.
#The early paragraphs are too region-specific, referring to "New England Contradance". While it's true that the modern revival of contra dance grew out of the New England tradition, the dance has spread far beyond its original geographic and stylistic roots. It's no longer specifically a New England dance form, and most contra dancers outside of New England simply use the term "contra dance". It also ignores the fact that contra dance also survived as a living dance form in the Appalachian mountains of Virginia and North Carolina.
#For that matter, the two-word form "contra dance" is much more commonly used than the one-word "contradance". It's unfortunate that the article is under the title "contradance" while the "contra dance" page is a redirect.
#The "History" section is far too short. It implies that American contra dance grew out of the French contredance, which it didn't. And a history of contra dance that lacks any mention of Ralph Page, Ted Sanella, and the whole 20th-century revival is incomplete. Major expansion is needed here.
McMullen 18:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements Needed *dealt with*

message: on august 11, a short essay was added to the start of the contra dance page. half an hour later it was removed; this started a back-and-forth still active at the time of this writing. constantly reverting edits can become a tad tedious, and it is my hope that the dispute can be resolved here. below are some of the issues I have in the addition; others may see different problems:
repetition: the key issues in the essay are
* that contra dancers dance to have fun,
* cooperation is important in contra dancing,
* that contra dance lacks set footwork,
* that contra dancers often make mistakes,
* that contra dance lacks set footwork,
* that dancers wear plain clothes
: and do not wear perfumes,
* that dancers may or may not sweat profusely,
* that contra dancers dance to have fun
: and do not do anything fancy,
* that contra dancers dance in whatever way they feel,
* and that though there are some dance forms designed to preserve a historic dance form contra dance is not an example of them.
the points repeat themselves, and indeed repeat the article as it stands already, with these exceptions: the explicit mention of cooperation, that mistakes are made, and the question of perfume. these shortcomings have been incorporated into the contra dance article (see my edit of august 12) (as for the final point, it seems to belong in the discussion "miscategorizations?," topic 7 on this page)
pov:
there are numerous instances of opinions which suggest an experience with a limited number of contra dancing communities. statements such as 'mistakes are not a problem,' and 'nothing "to do with how many tricks you can do,"' are clear generalizations --there are certainly dances where mistakes are noticed and frowned (though it's certainly also true that there are dances where they aren't), and there are many flashy dancers ought there for whom "tricks" are vital to the dance-- and a statement like  "the most important thing to know is..." is clear opinion.
tone:
the content of the addition aside, the tone is different from the rest of the article, and as such it distracts (rather than reading like an encyclopedia article, the article now reads like a discussion). as has been discussed by various critics of wikipedia there is a great danger of not being professional. with some editing the material introduced by the addition can be seamlessly incorporated into the article (as mentioned above)    -- Eitch 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Overview" Essay

message: historical dance
*I'm not part of the historical dance community (or I don't think of myself one, though if the following suggestion is not supported I guess I'll have to reconsider) but it seems to me that putting contra dance in historical dance is a miscategorization:
:"Historical dances may be danced as performance, for pleasure at themed balls or dance clubs, as historical reenactment, or for musicological or historical research." (from historical dance)
:Looking over the list of dances it appears that the wp criterion is closer to "dance which is not modern dance or which became popular before the 1950's." While contra dance does originate in historical dance --indeed, in a centuries-old historical dance form of the same name-- the form as we know it today (substantially different from the historical form) did not become popular until well after this cut-off.
*Similarly, the "origins and history" section states that "[contra dance] came to be associated with the American folk dances, especially in New England" - in this case, it seems inappropriate to put contra dance in the european folk dances category. Eitch 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like thinking about it as historical because it's oldfassion nature is something that really draws me and my friends to it.  It reminds me of medieval dances and old Irish things. Contrafool 08:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, contra dancing today is significantly different from contra dancing even in the 1950's. Hearing no further objections, I've made the change (note also that this puts contra dance in line with other dances which might be considered its folk dance peers, e.g. clogging, morris, sword Eitch 05:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscategorizations? *dealt with*

message: Would it be improper for Wikipedia to provide an article on
choreographies?  As far as I know, Contra dance (or however
you want to spell it) choreographies are in the public domain,
or at least the authors generally don't copyright them. While
I would be happy with an "external link," I think a Wikipedia
article would be useful as well, since it could be updated by
many people.  BobC 09:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds to me like something that would make more sense for wikibooks. --Ahc 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me -- a Wikibook on Contra dance choreographies, with a link on this page (and, presumably, a link from the Wikibook back to this article).  At the moment, there are two books in the "Dance" section of the "Arts" bookshelf, one on salsa and one on swing.  If others are interested in such a project, please send email to this Wikipedia user account.  I am highly unlikely to have great ideas on the layout of such a tome, or standards for describing the choreographies.--SFBADanceDude 04:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Warning: the phrase "generally don't copyright them" is a recipe for copyvio.  Everything with a creative component, once put in tangible form, and unless explicitly placed in the public domain, has copyright protection in the US. Failing to put a copyright notice on it does not limit the creator's exclusive rights, it just means that when they sue you for the income you've deprived them of, they won't also get back the cost of having their lawyer make you do so.
--Jerzy·t 21:16, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
Copyright issues aside for the moment, to me is seems that if people feel a collection of Choreographies is needed, it should be a wikibook.  It would probably be similar to the Cookbook (although much smaller). --Ahc 19:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Choreographies?

message: I would like to propose a gender-free convention for this page. How would people feel about using "lead" and "follow" instead of "ladies" and "gents?" 
Defenestrate
:I disaggree, based on the fact that gender-free language is not generally used at dances (at least not those I've attened).  I would suggest the article should match the standard conventions used at the events. --Ahc 05:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I so wasn't going to get involved in the debates surrounding the contradance article, but, well ... Ahc, I'm curious to know where you dance. At the dances I frequent in New England, the callers often use gender-free terms. Some people dance either role. I'm not sure whether the common usage in one area of the country warrants a change for the entire article, but perhaps there's nothing wrong with interspersing the terms. --Jkbaum 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dance primarily in New England as well, and in my experience, even in dances that are specifically labelled "gender free", callers tend to use "ladies" and "gents" (which acknowledging that these are roles, and that for example a woman can be in the "gent" role).  I've danced in Cambridge MA, at Falcon Ridge Folk Festival, and at Glen Echo.  I really can't remember any consistent use of "lead" and "follow" at any of these venues when I've been there.  Those words get used sometimes, perhaps, by some callers, so perhaps the statement "the callers often use gender-free terms" is true in some sense, but ladies/gents is clearly the standard in my experience.Cos 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language and Style proposal

message: Several individuals have pointed out that they are identifiable in pictures that appear on the the contra dance page and they insist that the pictures be removed; they did not and will not give their permission to appear in pictures there, and the person who put the pictures there was wrong to put them in without authorization. Furthermore, the photographs are fuzzy and, among other things, do not show the correct posture for the swing and/or do not show any useful information. We therefore have removed them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.15.208 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 August 2006
:The pictures were poor quality, so removing them was not a problem.  However, it is my understanding that if you go out in public you have no expectation of privacy, and therefore pictures of you can be used anyway the photographer chooses; they do NOT require authorization by the subjects.  Think of the images that the news media use of people milling around at public events, they do not then stop all those people and ask for permission to broadcast the tape.  If someone takes you picture in public that is their picture to do with as they please.  --Ahc 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unauthorized and Very Deficient Photographs

message: The recent addition of some local contra dance organizations looks to me like a dangerous direction for this page to take: There are at the least, as cataloged in the linked "Contra Dance Links" and Ted Crane's "Database," several hundred of contra dance organizations. We could move it to a new "Contra Dance Organization" article, but it is my feeling that such a listing should be left in the hands of the devoted websites; one purpose of WP is to collect all available information on a subject, but this does not mean duplicating extant well-done resources. -- Eitch 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fine to delete any dance associations that are not national in scope, leaving CDSS on the page. CDSS probably has all of the mentioned groups on their web page. - Yellowdesk 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I went to the CDSS site, and took the link (NEFFA LinkFest) they had. --Eitch 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contra dance organizations 

message: Should we move the choreography section (the figures) to its own WP article. The contra dance article is very long, pushing the limit of Featured Article criterion 4, but the article is well-written and cannot be cut down without sacrificing good content. A half or third of the article's length is due to the choreography section. I'm not sure how I feel about this proposal myself - certainly your typical non-dancer who comes to WP to find out what contra dancing is is probably not too concerned with how to see-saw, but then of course they're probably also not worried about set formations either. Thoughts? --Eitch 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a reasonably good idea.  I think the subsections could probably be effectively broken into their own article (Contra Dance Figures or some such).  I'll place the split template on there for now and let's see how the discussion progresses. --Ahc 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find that moving the choreography section motivates moving the detailed section the "Form of a contra dance" along with it.  Perhaps not a bad thing, but you may be undertaking a complete re-write of the remaining article. Perhaps the topic is "What should this article look like to someone who knows nothing about the topic? - Yellowdesk 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I was sort of getting at too - I don't think much rewriting would be necessary, but now that I look again it is nice to have all of the information concentrated in one place. It means the article is longer than some, but (today at least) I don't think it's a problem. --Eitch 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move choreography to own article? 

message: It looks like the Contra dance#Callers and dance composers section is in danger of proliferating, as the dance organizations section once did.  
Some Possibilities: 
* Don't have such a section
* List only deceased influential caller/composers
* Have a prose section on influential callers/comosers (with the same proliferation dangers)
* List only callers that have a wiki page
* Cite some external page that does review callers/composers
-- Yellowdesk 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for the first.  This problem has continued to worsen over the last few months, and it seems like we should try to do something about it. --Ahc 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me the best long-term solution is to require citations to sources, since new reader/editors will keep reviving the section and list.  A review of twenty years of CDSS's journals, and of various callers' books would generate something worthwhile, perhaps even make for a stand-alone article. But it would be a lot of effort to accomplish. -- Yellowdesk 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure the section will keep coming back, that's some of why I like the talk pages, you can send people to review old discussions of the matter.  If someone wants to try to assemble an exhustive list and create an article for it, I say go for it, but I'm concerned here that people are going to start using it as a way of advertising their services. --Ahc 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Callers and dance composers proliferation 

message: Regarding the edit of "20:40, 28 August 2007 Ghmarkie" to the "Contra dance events" section, I'm curious as to how common it is to dance barefoot. Is this widespread geographically for certain types of events, or mostly a regional practice? --rich<Rich Janis 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it quite a lot. It's pretty hard on the foot, but those who choose it do not seem to mind. It definitely has nothing to do with the type of event, the ones who choose to dance barefoot tend to always dance barefoot. 199.125.109.119 05:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barefoot dancing 

message: The picture of long lines in Seattle was unauthorized by me and other people in the picture and we insist that it be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.15.208 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 October 2007
:There is no such thing as unauthorizing a photo. Don't go to the dance if you don't want to be photographed. However there are a thousand other dance photos that can be used. 199.125.109.119 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed earlier (again, following a comment by 69.17.15.208; see above), with the decision that we might as well honor people's wishes to have pictures of them removed.  The legality and WP position are unclear— see Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Taking_pictures_of_people for and Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Images_of_people. Discussing this here won't have much impact beyond this article… I'd recommend that anyone interested get involved in those discussions or contact the editors who have been involved in them. — eitch 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's even more unusual is that the same person who uploaded the photo now doesn't want it to be used. Sooo, don't upload a photo if you don't want it to be used. Licenses are irrevocable. 199.125.109.119 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of people (again) 

message: I don't mind this being trimmed so much, other than Ted Sannella, who only appears in the reference section, shouldn't he be in the see also section if there is no link in the main article? 199.125.109.33 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you found the best approach, by mentioning him within the article. Rich Janis (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I don't want to just go revert, so I thought I'd say here: I think putting all of the categories of external links in the table of contents just makes the TOC too long, and makes it look like half of the information available in the article is the list of external links. I put the 'find North American dances' in the TOC figuring that a bunch of people coming to the article might be looking for that. Now I don't think that was a good idea. I think now that none of the external links categories should be in the TOC, so as to not take up so much space.— eitch 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- I don't think they should be in the TOC. I haven't had a chance to look through them, but there do appear (at a  brief glance) to be quite a few- is there any link trimming that could/should be done? Loggie (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links and TOC 

message: #I (To_Serve_Man) think that we ought to add a new section on contra dance culture, to which issues of changing partners, accepting the first invitation, etc., should be moved. Further, I would like to see some discussion of the important characteristic of playfulness, as well as flirtation which, when combined with the fact that alcohol consumption is not part of the dance culture, distinguishes contra dance from many other dance forms where anxiety plays a large role. In many forms of dance, one finds that drinking plays a significant role in its culture, where it is used to lower inhibitions and the anxiety of asking a partner to dance, whereas the culture of playfulness surrounding contra dance is what I believe makes it so compelling and unique.
I think a culture section is a good idea. 
Can we make reference to the type of music usually played. Is live old time music the best description.
75.28.162.189 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that we need this section. There are certain elements which set the music played at contra dances apart from the same music (whether it leans more towards old timey, québécois, irish, etc) when the musicians aren't dance musicians. I'll work on a draft of something... are any of the rest of you reading this c.d. musicians? --Eitch 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Music √, partnering √, alcohol √. We now have everything but the playfulness/flirtation/everyone hugging/friends as soon as you're introduced aspects. — eitch 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I personally don't like the description of the music as being 'old time' music. I'm fairly active in the Massachusetts contradance community (usually contradancing at least once a week) and know many of the bands (Notorious and Crowfoot, for examples) write some of their own material or use more modern music, like "Bei mir bist du schoen." (While to some people that is 'old time,' 'old time' often means older music.) Some contradances feature popular modern music, but those are less common, at least in New England. I think 'folk' music is a better generic term. The way the music is described in the article now as mostly being reels and jigs from the 1800s maps pretty well to what most of the contradance musicians I know play at the dances. Jkbaum (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (The Old Time suggestion was Jan 07, long before what's there now was added) — eitch 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture section *dealt with*

message: In Spain and Cuba especially they have Contradanza (just a redirect here for now). Are they the same, related, or what? To be comprehensive, this article should cover that if it is related. I know nothing about it, but had the feeling they were related. Thanks all - Taxman 21:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Just saw: it isn't the same, and contradanza hasn't redirected for a year and a half. — eitch 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same as Contradanza? *dealt with*

message: There seems to be a bit of a gap in the history section missing between the 1700's and 2005.  Could someone add at least a bit about dancing in New England in the 19th century, and Ralph Page's and Dudley Laufman's role in preserving and reviving contra dancing?  Also perhaps a comparison between the traditional dances (active and inactive) and the modern dances (symmetrical)? 199.125.109.11 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A minor shortcoming - what's three hundred years? =) Oy yoi. Ditto my response to the choreographies discussion just above this. I recently found a few pages of notes from antique contra dance books - here's to hoping I type it up soon! --Eitch 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the mention of my name (Tony Parkes) from the History section. This is not false modesty; Ted Sannella and Dudley Laufman were the prime movers behind the 1960s revival of contra dancing, well before I came along. I may have been the first of my generation to take up contra calling, but only by a few months; a lot of good people started soon after I did, and I don't think I should get special mention. Tparkes (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th-20th Century History *dealt with*

message: I see that there are at least two videos of the Peterborough Snow Ball this year, and one from last year, along with some from the Florida Snow Ball at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4WuzxHrZX4 199.125.109.92 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Quote from the article: "A set might start with a tune in G, switch to a tune in D, and end with a tune in Em. Here, D is related to G as its dominant (5th), while D and Em (dorian) share a key signature of two sharps."
Actually, G and Em share a key signature - 1 sharp.
D shares a key signature with Bm - 2 sharps.
I'm not sure how best to correct this, because I don't know whether the author meant to say that G and Em share a key signature or whether the author meant to say that the set might start in G, switch to D and end in Bm.
I have therefore not made an edit, but someone needs to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianKnight (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The parenthetical "dorian" is important here.  If you look at dorian mode you'll see that it's the same as the standard ("natural" or "aeolian") minor but with a raised sixth.  So D and Em (dorian) really do share a key signature.  Dorian minors and mixolydian majors, with one more and one less sharp (respectively) than expected, are common in contra dance music. Jeff (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual error in "Music" section of article *dealt with* 

message: Following up on the some prior (now in the archive) incorrect worries about copyright (in the 'Choreographies?' section).  Choreography, and Social Dance Choreography are special cases in US copyright law. Here's why:
In the US, by a California Federal Circuit Court decision in 1867 ( Martinetti v. Maguire, C.C.Cal.1867, 16 F.Cas. 920, No. 9173.), dance choreography (whether performance or social dance) was excluded from the ambit of copyright, since the law in effect then did not contemplate dance choreography, and the constitution merely states (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8): 
:(The Congress shall have Power…) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Since staged ballet (the choreography under question in the case before that Federal Court) was determined by the court to be neither a "science" nor "useful art," all choreography failed to merit copyright in the US, without an enabling Congressional law.  The settled law later became that a dance might obtain copyright status as an integral part of a "dramatic work."  There are also instances where the US copyright office in the 20th century rejected attempts to register a ballet.  Hence all dance choreography published before the changes in the US copyright law enacted in 1976, and coming into effect in January 1, 1978 are in the public domain.  The Copyright act of 1976 contemplated copyright for choreography for the first time in these sections:
:Title 17  Chapter 1  Sect. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
:(a) (4) pantomimes and choreographic works
But the report of the Judiciary committee that reported the bill out has this interesting qualification. Here's an excerpt from the legislative history, specifically excluding "social dance steps" from coverage within the term "choreographic works":
:HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
:House Commission on the Judiciary
:HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
:94th Congress, 2nd Session (1976)
: ... Of the seven items listed, four are defined in section 101. The three undefined categories - 'musical works,' 'dramatic works,' and 'pantomimes and choreographic works' - have fairly settled meanings. There is no need, for example, to specify the copyrightability of electronic or concrete music in the statute since the form of a work would no longer be of any importance, nor is it necessary to specify that 'choreographic works' do not include social dance steps and simple routines.
Further, also within the copyright law, from section 102 :
: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
I realize some specific citations are in order on this topic. To come...perhaps. Yellowdesk 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and Social Dance Choreography in the US

message: How about someone adding a description of the role of choreographers/composers and the relative prevalence of modern versus traditional choreographies?
In the contra dancing that I've done, mostly in California, I've had the impression that quite a few of the dances are modern. This is a casual impression based partly on the occasional announcement of a choreographer's name; it's also based on the fact that we do mostly improper dances, and my impression that the traditional body of contra dances consists mostly of proper dances.
--Rich Janis 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, depending on the dance series, community and venue, about 95% of dances done these days were composed in the last fifty years, and probably most of those were composed in the last 25 years. -- Yellowdesk 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, in part, the topic of the famed Big Addition I been "working" on for months now (the one I mentioned when we were thinking of going for FA status). Sounds like I ought to get on that. =) --Eitch 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An opportunity for some genuine citation, perhaps? The couple of Ted Sannella books, and those by Larry Jennings (available via CDSS), and several others, would be welcome sources to cite. -- Yellowdesk 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choreographies and choreographers 

message: "Couples consist of one lead (also gentleman, or simply gent) and one follow (or lady)." Lead and follow? Where did that come from? That sounds like Western Square dance terminology, not contra dance terminology. No one leads in contra dances, other than very rarely. If anything the lady does the leading, as in a ladies chain or in a hey. How about, "Couples consist of two people, traditionally but not necessarily one male and one female, referred to as the gent or gentleman and lady." 199.125.109.119 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now saw this comment that explains the recent back-and-forth. Lead and follow are the terms used in gender-free dances. — eitch 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? All I have seen is bands and bare. Doesn't need to be in the main article, which doesn't even mention gender-free dances. Like I said, no one leads in contra dancing. That is a ballroom (etc.) dance term indicating which partner is leading and which is following. One caller talked about teaching kids, which are inherently gender-free, cause all the boys have cootees or is it the other way around, so what they do is have the kids pick two nouns, and half of them become one and half the other. The labels in contra dancing are not dominant/subservient, they are just "the person on the left and the person on the right at the end of a swing". 199.125.109.82 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "bands" and "bares" is provincial--although a cool idea!--and that different groups simply use different names. I can personally attest, after a couple of years of contra dancing, that simply using "gents" and "ladies" is fairly common. This makes sense if you consider that, even in a mixed-gender dance night, any given dance will often involve at least one couple that is same-sex or is dancing with swapped roles. Lexspoon (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender-neutral terms

message: On 29 April 2019 (at 22:24), an unnamed editor made changes to the section Gender-neutral Trends in Contra Dance Culture. I was the editor who originally wrote those lines, and I see that the changes made by this unnamed editor actually make the statement more correct, but may mask the fact that, historically, gents were always male, ladies were always female, but that now these terms are used to indicate the dancer's role, not their biological gender. These changes reflect a culture war that is going on in the contra dance community concerning the terminology used in the calling of dances, as well as the practices of some more advanced dancers such as men dancing with men, partners swapping roles repeatedly mid-dance (it's fun!), and other practices that upset the status quo, and make many older dancers uncomfortable. A plurality of the dancers who do this are younger, but many older dancers do it too; I'm 66, and am happy to say I do all of these disruptive activities. When I have time (and if somebody else doesn't do it first), I will attempt to tactfully edit this paragraph, and do it maintaining NPOV. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential for edit wars

message: This topic began as a continuation of the "history of double progressions" topic, from which it was later separated. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess  199.125.109.119 thinks Lisa Greenleaf is not popular.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why's it crowded if no one goes? — eitch 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You never heard of Yogi Berra saying that? "No one ever goes there anymore, because it is too crowded." The point actually is that there are more contra dancers today, and in more places, but NEFFA is quite crowded, a lot of people don't like to go there because it is so crowded. With less dancers it would take everyone going there to make it crowded. With more dancers just a few going makes it crowded. There are also dances all across the country, and while there are people who notably come every year from far away, for the vast majority of dancers, traveling that far doesn't even come up as an option. And ok, not counting Lisa, and five others I won't mention, the most popular callers never go to NEFFA. Make that six others I won't mention. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The placement of NEFFA and Pinewoods: they are mentioned in reference to contra dance today, not in their historical context. If the history section is fleshed out more, I can see those two moving to an earlier spot (in the future "contra dances become huge events" sub-section). — eitch 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section would need subsections if it got any bigger. NEFFA and Pinewoods are not proportionally as important today as they were 50 years ago. For today I would write a sentence that would go something like "Today the Flurry, NEFFA and other special events like the all night Dawn dances and the annual Snowball bring together large groups of dancers." 199.125.109.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused by the flow of this section, so I split it where the subject changed to dance camps. Maybe I'm missing the point of these comments, but I removed some recent text from the article that I think blurred the historical context of NEFFA and Pinewoods. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of dance camps 

message: Five years ago, Yellowdesk said
:"What do people think of obtaining a couple of outside reviews of Contra dance? At Wikipedia:Peer_review. The article is pretty stable, although lacking almost all citation to published works demonstrating that the information is not "original research.'"
Things are well cited now, and controversies have been sorted out or at least worked through. It's been over a year since the last activity on this talk page. It's been a long long time since there were anything but small changes to the article (even though they aren't always marked m).
Looks to me like we should ask for some outside reviews, get quality and importance ratings from the Dance portal (see the box at the top of this page), maybe eventually apply for FA. Also, peer reviews of the "form" and "choreography" articles would be good to, and could be GA. What do you think? — eitch 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the path towards completeness: ratings, review… FA?! 

message: This article appears to represent a purely North American perspective on what is actually a common folk dance form in South America, Central America and Europe.  Also possibly elsewhere. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradance, contradanse, contradanza 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Contra dance. 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  tag to http://www.pinewoods.org/pciHistory.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.westendweb.com/marydart/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022125539/http://contracorners.net:80/contra/links/dancemap.html to http://www.contracorners.net/contra/links/dancemap.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102170910/http://www.dougplummer.com:80/archives/contra/contra.html to http://www.dougplummer.com/archives/contra/contra.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102205546/http://www.dougplummer.com:80/archives/newengland/contras.html to http://www.dougplummer.com/archives/newengland/contras.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the two dead links. The Mary Dart ref now points to an ebook at cdss.org. Paulmlieberman (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Contra dance. 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/20011211125057/http://www.dawndance.org/history.html to http://www.dawndance.org/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417123717/http://www.prescottvalleytribune.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=59452 to http://www.prescottvalleytribune.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=59452
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207212329/http://www.sactocds.org/NewWebsite/index.php/contra-dance-what-to-wear/ to http://www.sactocds.org/NewWebsite/index.php/contra-dance-what-to-wear/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013075435/http://www.hatds.org/contra-faq.html to http://www.hatds.org/contra-faq.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://contracorners.net/contra/links/dancemap.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dougplummer.com/archives/contra/contra.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dougplummer.com/archives/newengland/contras.html
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) 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified