Talk:Challenge square dance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dance Portal Challenge square dance is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Challenge square dance article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] number of calls

The paragraph about the number of calls at various levels, as originally written, cited several numbers which were intended to represent cumulative totals (i.e., including lower levels), and did not cite a figure for C4. Somebody added a figure of 450 for C4, which in that context could easily be read also as a cumulative total. While 450 is probably high for the number of additional calls a typical C4 dancer knows, it is clearly too low as a cumulative figure -- this made it look like you only need to learn about 50 more calls beyond C3 to dance C4. I have replaced this with "at least 700", based on the "more than 400" in the previous sentence and the fact that some common C4 lists have 250-300 calls. (Note all these figures are for calls only, not concepts, since concepts are discussed in a separate section.) But the point of this change isn't the exact number, it is the incremental/cumulative distinction.

JWD3 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the number that had been added previously was 350, not 450. Again, the point isn't the exact number, but rather consistency within the paragraph.

69.181.145.190 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)