Talk:Cyberformance

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Original post-hoc claims of cyberformances?

The list given in the article strikes me like an odd compilation of events not referenced outside this article as cyberformances. VG ☎ 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (but haven't looked closely) that many of them are coming from the cyberformance.org timeline. I do agree that it should be tidied (though at least the Upstage info should stay in some form). --Zeborah (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. It's not WP:OR, but the source seems a bit dubious (to me) since it's essentially a personal web site. VG ☎ 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the history/context section to focus it on fairly well-known events in the history of cyberformance-- mainly events and groups discussed in the literature. Probably some refs need to be added when I have time. I eliminated some redundancy in the 'features' section. I tried to address any non-neutral language that might have led to the 'advertisement' flag; if I didn't succeed, it would be helpful for future commentators to be more specific with criticisms.Valli Nagy (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Cyberformance" anything more than HVJ?

Hi - reading this article, I find it really strongly oriented around HV Jamieson, who seems to be the only author pushing the word "cyberformance". I'm aware that various groups have used network technologies in performance, but it seems they're being dragged post-hoc under this umbrella. Does this article represent a one-person project? Not clear. --mcld (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as representing any project which fits the definition whether or not it uses that precise word or not to describe it. Because it's still an emerging phenomenon, terminology hasn't settled down yet. "Cyberformance" is being used because that's what the article was originally called (and, not that it makes a difference, I really like the word) but if it turns out that another term becomes the norm then the article can be renamed. --Zeborah (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Machinima

Should this article mention or link to machinima? Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it could refer to it, however the significant difference is that machinima is recorded work, whereas cyberformance is live, real-time events. Frock (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting

I am tempted to propose this for another deletion review. My rationale is that wikipedia is not a place for emerging ideas or new concepts. If, several years from now, "cyberformance" as a topic in and of itself becomes widely cited and written about, it ought to have its own article. But right now it still seems to be a neologism that is not in any sort of currency, and finding the term mentioned in passing here and there does not mean it should have its own article.... -Surfer83 (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having the article here has been useful to me on two separate occasions when someone has been talking about the concept and I've been able to point them to this information about it. The term itself doesn't seem to be widespread so I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article - I just don't know what other term would be better - but the concept is something that very much needs an article. --Zeborah (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Merge it with Machinima perhaps? Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about this but the concerns raised previously seem valid. If you think there is a good place to merge it, by all means... Surfer83 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a merge with Machinima would work - they just don't really overlap that much. Machinima is a technology for creating computer animation which is mostly used in asynchronous media like games, movies, etc; cyberformance is performance art as carried out online in real-time with technologies ranging from animation back to just plain text. I'd suggest merging it into Internet art as a section titled something like "Internet performance art"; and keep Cyberformance as a redirect. --Zeborah (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can we take off the "reads like advertising" tag?

i had a look at the article to try & see what might be making someone read it as advertising, & found that last year someone added a reference to a theatre show which used facebook as a kind of adjunct to the theatre production. from the information provided in the reference (a radio interview), it didn't seem like it was really cyberformance. the facebook component was not a live performance, rather a way to continue the story, provide further information, & facilitate audience discussion. whoever entered it had misspelled cyberformance (as cyberperformance) so obviously wasn't very familiar with the term, & it seemed like they were just using the page as a way to promote that particular show. with that removed, does the page still read like an advertisement to anyone? (if so, an advertisement for what ... ?) Frock (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok i will take silence as consent - my note has been here for about 3 weeks without further comment, & the only content i could find that might possibly be construed as advertising has been removed, so i've taken off the "advert" tag. Frock (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Varley Jamieson

I am surprised that as the creator of the term cyberformance, Helen Varley Jamieson does not yet have her own Wikipedia page.What are people's opinions on this? I am in the process of creating my own Wikipedia article on Helen Varley Jamieson and her work. She is notable not just for her cyberformance work but also her theatrical work. A timeline of her performances can be found here Franbundey (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyberformance. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 Pandemic

There is obviously a whole new dimension of cyberformances now after the pandemic. Perhaps this could be incorporated into the article. Chillpadde (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]