Talk:Swan Lake (Bourne)

Mid vs. low importance

Matthew Bourne himself is well worth mid importance, but not his individual ballets.

Use of music by S.H.E.

An editor added the sentence 'The music has been dubbed by Taiwanese girl band S.H.E. with Mandarin lyrics, entitling the song "Remember".' I've reverted the change because it's not clear what "music" is referred to – if the song simply made use of music from Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky, what is the connection with Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake? Also, no reference was provided. It may be appropriate to reinsert the sentence if more information is provided. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding references

Hi, Epanalepsis, I notice you've recently beefed up "Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake" with some information from the DVD synopsis. May I suggest that you refer to the DVD in footnotes in the article? What you need to provide are the full title of the DVD, its place of publication, publisher and date of publication. If you know how to, you may want to use the {{Citation}} template to organize the information. If you need help with this, post a request here with that information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, JackLee. I added to the synopsis from the DVD because the info that the Secretary is von Rothbart, who is scheming to marry his son to the Queen, clarifies the Prince's torment. I considered using footnotes to cite the DVD and decided not to because:

to cite each piece of info that comes from the DVD would clutter the text (though perhaps one initial footnote would suffice); and

I cannot find a citation template specifically for DVDs. The video one doesn't really suit. So for now I added the info in the reference section. Is there a template for DVDs? Epanalepsis (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a special cite template for DVDs at the moment. I would deploy the main {{citation}} template, using the "title", "location" (i.e., place of publication), "publisher", and "date" or "year" parameters). It should be all right to insert a single reference after the sentence "This synopsis is derived from program notes and the synopsis provided on the DVD" instead of referring to the citation throughout the "Synopsis" section. I think you should also refer to the same citation after the information that you added about the interview with Matthew Bourne in the "Politics" section. You can make two footnote numbers refer to the same footnote by using <ref name> tags. I hope you know what I mean. If you're unsure, feel free to ask. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I can handle that. Thanks. I notice there are an idem, an ibid., and an op. cit. in the existing notes. Should they be edited as well since they're all contrary to current style? I left them alone for now because I'm not sure that they originally referred to the sources they appear to currently.

In any case, using a portion of this article in my testing page I've been experimenting with ways to avoid the op. cit. problem with my own references. In the process I added a couple of explanatory notes (nos. 2 & 3) and a reference for the interview. If you want to take a look and give some feedback before I transcribe them to the main space, that would be great. I hesitate, however, to use this sort of linked citations in the main space article because they differ from the style of the existing notes. — Cheers, Epanalepsis (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should remove ibid, id and op cit where they appear. They were probably inserted by me some time ago – a spillover from my legal training, I'm afraid. I had a look at your testing page. I think {{ref}} and {{note}} tags are generally to be avoided. If I'm not referring to individual pages within a source, I usually reference them like this:

This is the sentence that requires referencing.<ref name="Telegraph">[Citation goes here].</ref> Here's another sentence that cites to the same reference. Note the oblique ("/") after the reference name.<ref name="Telegraph"/>

However, if I'm referring to individual pages within a source, I do this:

This is the first time the citation is used.<ref>{{cite book|last=Smith|first=John|title=My Book|location=London|publisher=Personal Books|year=2005}}</ref> Thereafter, I set out references in the following manner.<ref>Smith, ''My Book'', above, p. 25.</ref>

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Jacklee. I made the changes eliminating the idem, etc. in a separate edit so that you can easily revert them if you like.

– Cheers Epanalepsis (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a review

This is a difficult article, and to me reads too much like a review with all kinds of attempts to perform original research interpretation. In point of fact, Bourne's Swan Lake is to me entirely obviously a portrayal of a man coming to terms with his sexuality and going through that experience and - perhaps suitably for the composer's period - pays the price as he does. But this is literary criticism, not an encyclopedia entry. This article should say what happens in front of your eyes and perhaps give a few review comments from secondary sources. All the other judgments are inappropriate, not only for what they say, but for what they don't say. Bluehotel (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swan Lake (Bourne). 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/20080124045754/http://www.ladramacriticscircle.com/awards_1990_1999.htm to http://www.ladramacriticscircle.com/awards_1990_1999.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)