Talk:Edinburgh Fringe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
WikiProject Scotland
 Edinburgh Fringe is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

This is definetly a high importance article in terms of WikiProject Scotland as it Scotland's leading cultural event of the year. The article itself has lots of infomation but lacks citations that would be needed to be nominated for Good article status. Franko2nd 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I have restructured this page with the idea that the discussions for each year will be kept together, as it seems obvious (to me) that there is an annual cycle of changes which is based around the staging of the festival every August. BAK 10:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 2007 Discussions

[edit] General Revision (18th June 2007)

General philosophy has been to: perform some restructuring; remove or alter overt adverts; remove or alter any obvious POVs; remove any repetitions; and move some pieces that belonged in other sections.

Revision made by BAK 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Structure

Most of the sections came under Fringe Today which now seems inappropriate, eg the Venues and Criticism sections cover the 60 years of the festival, not just today. All previous sections are now at the same level and some of them have been divided into sub-sections. The Sections have re-ordered in an attempt to improve the flow (although I am not convinced about it as it stands). BAK 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

expanded slightly, principally by moving bits from other sections.

[edit] Venues

This was previously a fairly straightforward section with no "politics" or views. It has been gradually altered over the last 9 months so that it includes various views and faintly disguised adverts. I have changed it back to how it was (more or less) and moved some of the views to the Criticism section.

I am still unhappy with the lists of venues. We had a debate on this last year. I have decided to leave them for the moment but if it deteriorates again I am tempted to remove them.

[edit] Criticism

Sub-divided. Removed a couple of POVs

Revamped (and much reduced) overt piece for Free Fringe and Laughing Horse.

[edit] Reviews & Awards

sub-divided into 2 sub-sections. General editing to alter overt adverts. Once again, not happy with lists of sources of reviews, particularly as they are already mentioned under external links. I have decided to leave them for the moment but if it deteriorates again I am tempted to remove them.

[edit] Further Reading

New section added.

[edit] External Links

Several sets of people have been "playing games", moving links up a list - presumably ahead of the perceived competition. Order reverted to how it looked in Sept 2006, with any additional items added to the end of the appropriate list in strict chronological order. BAK 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Discussions

[edit] Guy Masterson

A user deleted a selection I wrote about Guy Masterson's recent high profile productions at the Assembley Rooms. I've now provided several external links at appropriate points establishing the notability of these plays: they all attracted a relatively huge amount of press coverage. I have, however, restructured the opening sentence to locate the emphasis upon the plays rather than upon Masterson. I hope this addresses th point User:DJ Clayworth made in his edit summary. The JPS 15:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't address the point for me. I I've just looked at the page for the first time, and was a bit surprised to see a section on 'High profile shows', but assumed this was going to be about controversial shows such as Corpus Christi or Jerry Springer the Opera. Though I acknowledge Guy Masterson's prominence, I cannot see why a couple of particular shows he directed at one venue should be singled out among the thousands. I am very much tempted to delete this section. ColinFine 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd much rather you add to the section by including shows that you think are notable rather than delete them. The JPStalk to me 15:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes but ...
  1. Two (or three or four) POV's don't make NPOV
  2. If the section gets any kind of balance it'll be enormous.
  3. I really don't see the value of the section. What makes a show notable? Aren't all the shows that win Fringe Firsts ipso facto notable? Is a show that gets no audience notable? etc. etc.
ColinFine 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted a slight watering down of the section but I generally agree that the Guy Masterson-related material is out of proportion ... BAK 12:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venues

It seems to me that the Venues section has got out of hand. As a former director of a couple of venues not listed, I'm tempted just to add them, but then why not every other venue? I'm not sure what to do with this, but on the whole I think the section should go, or else be a separate article which has room to accommodate every venue anybody wants to add. ColinFine 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if we only included venues notable enough for their own article. The other section that we need to keep an eye on is the list of performers: this started a short list of things like Beyond the Fringe, but is like a light to a moth for any group wanting publicity. The JPStalk to me 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that will help for a bit. Of course there's nothing to stop other venues creating articles ... ColinFine 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the section should go, except for the provision of a link where they can find venues, eg Fringe web site ... BAK 12:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Further thought - here are some drafty words for this section that I would need to edit ... "No history of the Fringe would be complete without a brief mention of the venues; there were 261 in 2006. In essence, use is made of every conceivable space from proper theatres (Traverse), custom-made theatres (Music Hall in the Assembly Rooms), to lecture theatres (Pleasance and George Square), other university rooms and spaces, (disused) church halls, schools, a public toilet, the back of a taxi, or even in your own home / place of rest. In the 1950s and 1960s there was typically one hall per group. Sharing then became popular as a means of cutting costs with a single performing space being used for up to 6 or 7 different shows per day. Super-venues with many performing spaces, such as Assembly rooms, Pleasance and Gilded Balloon, took this idea further in the early 1980s. The Circuit, another super-venue, came to set up a tented “village” (including one space with room for 400 punters) at the previously mentioned “Hole in The Ground”, where the Saltire complex, which now houses the Traverse, was subsequently built" ... I would remove the current venue list and point to the Fringe web site and/or I have a list of 30+ venues with web site addresses (Fringe web site does not provide web site addresses for some reason) that I could expand to the full number and point people to them. I do not consider that Wikipedia is the place for a full list of venues even if there was a separate article. What do you think? If I have not heard any voices to the contrary by 16th September 2006 then I will go ahead and implement the words (albeit slightly modified) and point to the Fringe web site (in the short term) ... BAK 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be more appropriate. When you have done it I shall probably add a paragraph about the groups who run the venues - not particular venues, but just about how and why some of the venues work. ColinFine 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the '(disused)' in front of 'church halls'. Some may be disused, but others are not. On that point, churches are also used as venues - there are quite a few, some letting their space and others actually organising acts. I have edited the article accordingly.Ewan carmichael 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe Legacy

I think that the list of performers at the end of the section should be dispensed with, as indicated by The JPS and anybody of particular note can be added in the body of the text ... BAK 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

I am minded to alter the final sentence and list to the following: "More recent comedy performers to have been 'discovered' include: Reduced Shakespeare Company, Steve Coogan, Jenny Eclair, The League of Gentlemen, Al Murray and Rich Hall." This means that Janey Godley, Dave Gorman, Gary Le Strange, The Sitcom Trials and Count Arthur Strong will be deleted. I will implement this change on 16th September unless anybody has any strong views. BAK 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] External Links

I considered that there were so many items in this section that some structuring was required, ie links that may of interest all year round, those that are primarily of interest around festival time - for previews and reviews, and mention of national papers that provide fringe coverage ... BAK 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the recently added link to the C Venues. I do not consider that this is the place to advertise individual venues. Other venues have previously been removed as it was apparent that venues were simply adding their names to the list. With regard to C Venues, a link to this venue (Wikipedia article) has already (reasonably) been added to the text. BAK 08:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting lack of information on the first Internet TV station for the Fringe in 1997-2002, called The Festival Revue it broadcast from the Ross bandstand and could be seen live on the Internet, on cable TV and on 2 giant screens in London, all live. The Festival Revue was the first of its kind in the world and helped pioneer Internet TV. In 2000 it evolved into Worldart Media Television (WAMtv) http://worldart.com the UK`s fist 24 hour Internet TV Station and currently shows a massive mixture of arts from around the globe including many of the acts you mention from the Fringe and International Festival. It has an archive of over 5,000 hours of Festival acts whichj it rotates and adds to all th time. (Just an additional thought.) (WAMtv) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.89.73 (talk)

[edit] Criticism

I have revamped this section. Summary of changes can be found in User_Talk:BAK.

BAK 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box office system

Somebody just expanded a sentence about venue box offices not being linked to the Fringe system, and ticket allocation. I have removed the whole sentence, because:

  • it is unreferenced (so is much of the article, I admit)
  • Its main claim is dubious - how can you be sure that all 'major venues' were using electronic and computerised ticketing systems?
  • it is incorrect (it seemed to say that no venues' box office systems were linked to the Fringe system in 2007, which is not true. Some were not).
  • While the fact (if we have the fact) of a particular number or proportion of venues being computerised, and another number or proportion being linked to the Fringe, might be encyclopaedic, I don't believe the details of the Fringe allocation is.

--ColinFine 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)