Talk:Branle

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles

WikiProject Dance To-do list:

To nominate at WP:FAC:
To improve to Featured standard:
To nominate as a Good article:
To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance
To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow
To unbias:
To check for copyvios:
To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion
Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs
To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more
Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine
To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more
Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images

Article source

Most of this text is from the excellent Cunnan article, which is licensed under GNU. Jokestress 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous bransles by Praetorious should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.121.156 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Vandalism

The edit 06:43, 30 October 2014 by User:Jerome Kohl trashed an immense amount of technical detail as to the music, not available anyplace else on the web, in the name of demanding reference sources. This practice is counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.193.44 (talk)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it is Wikipedia policy that all claims not of the "sky is blue" variety must be verified by a reliable source, and those were flagged for a very long time without anyone coming up with supporting sources. As for "trashing", all of those unlikely claims are still accessible in the edit history, from where they may be retrieved and restored to the article, if and when reliable sources for them have been found. I have made a good-faith effort, but have not succeeded in finding any. You may know of better places to look. Upon checking those edits from over a year ago, there were just three short and rather dubious claims removed. If you think removing misleading and probably inaccurate statements constitute vandalism, then I suggest you think again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]