Talk:Cirque du Soleil

Alegria award removed

Removed award mention from "* Alegria (Academy Award-winning)"--couldn't find verification (special may have won an emmy)--same source as two apparently ficitious articles. Niteowlneils 04:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do we need to have separate articles for each of the spectacles? David.Monniaux 12:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I would. They all need to be cleaned up and expanded. This is because each show is so different. --michael180 18:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

History

Cirque du Soleil's been around since at least 1984; I think it might be a good idea if we had a little about the history, things like how it started and where. If there are no objections, I'd like to add some information about this. A Divine Tragedy 22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

banquine

"Cirque creators borrow from some of circus's earliest forms (for example, banquine and teeterboard acts)"

Clicking "banquine" brings you to a page that says that banquine is a very new term, and may have actually been coined by Cirque. This seems to conflict with it being "one of circus's earlier forms." One of these is wrong, but I don't know which. I was under the impression that the earlier forms of circus were things like juggling and tightrope walking.

Music of Cirque du Soleil

Missing from this article is a discussion of the music of Cirque Du Soleil, which is interesting in its own right and published as CD's by Cirque Du Soleil. A search on Rene Dupere only brings up the article on Mystere, although he is the composer in several of the shows. Also is discussion of the musical styles, musical performers, other conductors. Someone?67.142.130.37 20:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Lou Wilson (lou@gluefish.com)

So make a new article about Cirque's music. Do not add it here, as this article should focus more on the corporate Cirque as much as possible.SpikeJones 15:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wintuk vs Winter Tale

I see that Cirque has changed the name of their MSG production from "A Winter's Tale" to "Wintuk", after one of the characters in the show. Can we confirm whether "Wintuk" will be performed each year during the MSG contract, or if "Wintuk" is the first show in the "Winter's Tale" series? In other words, is the current show "A Winter's Tale: Wintuk", and then next year would be "A Winter's Tale: SomethingElse"? It's odd, slightly, that the Cirque URL has not changed to be /wintuk/ and still maintains the original /winterstale/ text. SpikeJones 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• As of July 23, 2007, the URL has been changed with Wintuk as the official title of the show and the link-up has been corrected.

style

someone needs to rewrite this article so it doesn't read like an advertisement. "...circus like no other..." is not particularly informative or encyclopedic outside an article about ad copy. - 68.20.8.141 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

yes agreed, and the some of writing style while grammtically correct is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. badly written althought i dont have the time to change or inclination to make changes.

Especially the global citizenship part of the article. i literally guffawed when i read it. --68.147.242.182 05:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cirque related articles

I've been spending the last couple weeks creating or reworking articles for Cirque-related programs and artists (such as Francesca Gagnon and Guy Laliberté. I've put together a pretty extensive list of source material for Cirque projects. If anyone has a specific person they would like to see an article for, let me know and I will see if I have enough to write one. Trusilver 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

I'm currently working on a complete rewrite of the article. I've been working on this in my sandbox for the last month and it's close enough to completion that I feel it's time to move the article here. I have incorporated some of the previous material, but most of it has been completely rewritten. Trusilver 02:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I just read the current article and corrected a major factual error in the listing for Mystere (said it was at Mirage, but it's always been at Treasure Island), so I hope your rewrite includes that. I'm also wondering if it will separate out the shows into touring and resident shows. For that matter, since each show appears to have its own article, perhaps all the extra info should be added to the show's respective articles? Opinions? --McDoobAU93 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree -- the rewrite is much too wordy on entries that already have existing WP articles. While some of the rewrite is appreciated, I suggest reverting the show-specific sections back to the way they were. SpikeJones 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The "show-specific" section was a list with no information at all attached to it, simply the names of the shows and that's all. So no, I'm totally opposed to the state it was in. What's your opinion on creating a production section much like the current "future productions" and integrating what is currently in the productions section to "history"? However, I'm attempting to avoid unneeded lists - I want to see an article here that will pass GA and "maybe" pass FA. That is not going to happen the way it was, it won't even come close.

And just because this article now has more information than the show-specific articles concerning history and conceptual information, that doesn't mean the information is redundant or should be removed. It means the actual show specific articles need to be expanded. The informationI provided for the shows is more pertaining to the history and achievments of the shows themselves and it very condensed. I have enough material to write quite long articles about the individual shows which most of them are currently, quite frankly, badly written and almost universally unsourced.Trusilver 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not getting this done as quickly as I had promised. It has been a monster of a week for me and I am clawing at every single little scrap of time I can find to work on this. Trusilver 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also interested in an opinion on where the "legal issues" section should go. I've inserted it in about for different places in the article (Where it is now, chronologically, at the end of the productions section, at the end of the article.) and I have yet to find a place I'm totally happy with it. Wherever it goes is where I will also probably add a section on deviations from traditional circus that I'm working on now. Also, I should have Ka and Corteo up in a day or so. I'm done with them but I haven't finished with the references. Trusilver 05:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Item #3: I removed the Musique section temporarily as it was unsourced. If someone could source it and expand it, that would be great. If not, I will get around to it as I have time to. I think that's actually something that could be made into its own article. But if it's up to me to do it, we are talking four months down the road. My plate is full. Trusilver 05:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is this Musique section you speak of? You could paste it here for convenience to be worked on. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

note from unhappy reader: I much Prefered it when you had different links to each show and when you had each of the different acts and explained all the characters to us. it was 1) much more interesting and 2) if you were wondering which character was which or what their name was, it TOLD you. Please change it back thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.70.207 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to each show still exist, see Main article links directly under the headers. Details about characters belong in the sub-articles, not in Cirque du Soleil, which should be focus on the company... not on the shows. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cirque4.jpg

Is the white border a part of the original source? It would be preferable if that were removed and the image updated. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Incredible work you've done today. And no, the white border is not part of the original picture but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to get rid of it, I've tried in my sandbox for hours. If you have any luck, by all means, go for it. Trusilver 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but you're the one deserving of praise; with a solid Musique section this article is nearly feature article quality. Excellent stuff! Image updated. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cirque Musique

Cirque du Soleil Musique is a record company started in 2004 with the purpose of producing, supporting and assisting the creation of music associated with Cirque du Soleil shows, and to the career development of emerging artists around the world.

In 2005, the label released its first CD by a non-Cirque driven artist, Mouvement by Alain Vinet. Other works produced by the music label include the albums Le Best Of, Tapis Rouge/Solarium, Zumanity - Another side of Cirque du Soleil and Solarium/Delirium.

This is the section as it was comprised at the time I removed it. I think it's valid but it's going to need to be expanded and sourced. Since the article is listed on candidates for GA, I'm working against the clock here and I need to get three things done today: finish up Corteo, write KOOZA and I'm going to make a wikitable for dvd/music publications. If there's anything else you see that needs done, by all means let me know. Trusilver 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I'm primarily impressed with the article. I have a few concerns though. First of all the article needs a more in depth WP:LEAD. It could use some more internal links in my opinion. Also the article though it does have a number of sources needs more. "I like a show that's full of energy, without gaps, that's full of strong acts, funny, with a big punch at the end" Caron explained. There is a unsourced comment in the Dralion section. Honestly, I would like to see the number of references to increase to around 90. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to do a complete rewrite of the lead paragraph over the next couple days. I was concerned about it to begin with but I wasn't completely sure. I'm also going to try to fix up the internal links a little bit. The unsourced Dralion quote you pointed out is, in fact, sourced with reference #6 (which happens to be right at the end of that paragraph.)

The point we have contention on is the number of references. Sorry, there is nothing in GA criteria that even suggests that an article needs a certain quantity of resources aside from it "providing references for the sources used) done. "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles" done. and "contains no original research." done.

Now, if you suggest the "legal issues" part could use some more references, I would dig some more up as that it's the only section of this article that is particularly controversial. But the rest of the article all already qualifies in accordance with the stated policy for references. I have seen considerably longer FA articles (see TARDIS} who have half the references we have provided for this one. Trusilver 01:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done wikilinking the hell out of it. More work tommorow. Trusilver 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay realized now that ref is at the bottom of the paragraph. Perhaps you could add a ref name to a ref and reuse it directly after a quote, just so it more obvious that it is sourced. Your doing some good work just wanted to say as well. I have no concerns that this article will pass. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Oh by the way, congrats on the RFA. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :). I'm pretty busy this week, but this article is getting the priority for what little time I do have. I am adding that quote to my 'to do' list. I'm hoping to expand the lead paragraphs tonight. Trusilver 20:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and expanded it for you as I was doing copyediting below. Hope it turned out well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsure if band or orchestra is most accurate? Band seemed too small, but I've never been to a show... so I wouldn't have a clue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "musicians," since the term "band" does suggest a smaller number of performers than is present in a typical Cirque presentation (I've seen 6 of the shows, 3 touring and 3 resident; hardly an authority, but still). Similarly, "orchestra" suggests a larger number, but I guess it really depends upon the context. Speaking of context, does anyone have any better copy for the LOVE subheading? It reads just like a press release or advertisement, with lots of peacock words and the "Only at The Mirage" at the end. --McDoobAU93 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking good just a few more refs to the Lead and your done. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be home tommorow after four days at work. If nobody finishes this up before then, I will take care of it tommorow night. Trusilver 03:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks for all your help, incidentally. When I first rewrote this article, I was planning on having to do all the work myself to get this to GA (maybe FA?), I didn't even anticipate anyone else would step up to help on it. I really appreciate it. This makes the month this thing sat in my sandbox while I killed my eyes staring at it for hours worthwhile :) Trusilver 06:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :"D Once Delirium and Music sections are added... and the text is double checked for promotional/flowery language; it would be FA quality in my opinion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also got another section I will be adding on "deviations from the circus tradition" before we take it to FA. But I'm still gathering references for it and won't be ready to add it for a few weeks at least. Trusilver 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, I passed it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 15:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for working with us this last week, TRE. Trusilver 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Headers

It is not necessary to have "Production history" in each header. It is understood from shorter headers each section is describing the shows therein; also Production history is too specific... as one section may not focus as much on the historical production of a show, and may simply describe what it currently is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Founders

it says it was founded by Guy Laliberté and Daniel Gauthier but when you click on Daniel Gauthier it takes you to a person who is most likely NOT a founder of the Cirque du Soleil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasko (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template?

With all the shows and other related items associated with Cirque du Soleil, shouldn't there be some sort of template that includes all of these things? Just a thought. tktktk (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "forbes" :
  • [http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0315/100.html forbes.com]
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0315/100.html|author=Miller, Matthew|title=The Acrobat|accessmonthday=[[2 August]]|accessyear=2007|language=English}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nakheel and Cirque, Consistancy

The article needs to be updated, as Guy Laliberte sold part of Cirque du Soleil, Nakheel now owns one fifth of the company. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug06/0,4670,DubaiCirqueduSoleil,00.html

• • This paticular information has been added to the page as of September 17, 2009.

Also, I believe there should be some kind of consistancy in how the show articles are written. Currently are written like advertisments, some have soundtrack sections, some have images, some have act descriptions. The most irritating thing is that some also have touring dates, which should be left out as they are constantly out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSam (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So why...

....is this article part of the Eurovision Song Contest Project? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Having now read it three times through, I find no mention of Eurovision so i am removing that project banner. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Googling "cirque" and "eurovision" shows that Cirque performed the opening at the Eurovision final May 2009. Not saying that you were wrong to remove the tag, just that the info is out there if you look. SpikeJones (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But that information isn't in this article, is it? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I recall that there was something in the article a while back, but since they're not part of the song contest itself I'd say you did the right thing by pulling the tag. SpikeJones (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional History?

OK, I'm about to show my age. From my (possibly failed) memory, I remember seeing a performance by a group at SUNY @ Stony Brook in the late 1970's / early 1980's. The group was also called Cirque du Soleil. (This was before the start of the existing Cirque du Soleil.) I enjoyed the show a lot, which is why I remember it even after all these years.

I seem to recall that there was an agreement made between the two groups allowing the current group to use the name.

If this can be verified, it seems like the kind of historical detail that should be added to the article.

--Fredrik Coulter (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Juan Isidro Casilla

This known prankster first inserted his name in this article on March 26, 2008. The unsourced (and false) statement that Juan Isidro Casilla was Alegría's choreographer sat undetected on this page for a year and a half, until he came back and tried to take it further with a fake bio and several more blatantly spurious attempts to insert his name. Future editors should be alert to the hoax, and are encouraged to remove in a timely fashion any unsourced appearances of the name Juan Isidro Casilla, Juan Isidro Matthew Casilla, or any other unverifiable name that seems to not belong. A glance at the German version and Spanish version of this article shows that the same user has attempted the same hoax there as well. AtticusX (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ALL-CAPS titles go against Wikipedia policy

The trademarks page of the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that Wikipedia editors are supposed to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." The rule applies "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner", in order to avoid "drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others". The manual gives the following examples:

• avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
• instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

The only situation I see in which all-caps names are allowed is "if the letters are pronounced individually."

Looking at this article and the various articles on Cirque du Soleil shows, it looks like we're in violation of that rule with certain Cirque show titles — for example, KOOZÅ, KÀ, OVO, ZAIA. Cirque du Soleil's marketing uses the all-caps, so we've been going with their practice despite Wikipedia's policy. I was gonna start correcting the violations, but I figured I'd better explain my intentions first to avoid offending other hardcore Cirque fans.

If you can think of a good reason that any of Cirque's show titles should not be amended to appear with standard capitalization (Ovo, Zaia, etc.), or if you simply support correcting all instances, please share your thoughts below. Thanks. If I don't hear any sound arguments to weigh against what seems to be a pretty straightforward Wikipedia rule, I will start working on fixing them after a few days. AtticusX (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of article is falling apart

This article was apparently once organized as a chronological company history. That organizational scheme has been lost and the narrative rendered incoherent because the shows, instead of being presented in order of their creation, got re-categorized into sections by what type of show they are (retired touring, touring, permanent residency, arena, seasonal, future productions). So now we have the section on Dralion coming way before the section on La Nouba, yet weirdly starting out with the sentence "The years of work had taken their toll on Cirque du Soleil's creative team. After La Nouba..." as though we had just read the section on La Nouba. As the shows' formats change, their positions in this layout will continue to move, further scrambling the prose's logical flow.

I propose we drop the categorization of shows by show format for the purposes of this article's structure, and revert to a straight timeline of the shows (according to their premiere dates) as a frame for the events in the company's history. Simple, coherent, logical, and stable (i.e., not subject to future developments that necessitate rewriting the prose). AtticusX (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented the above fix, moving the shows into the order of their premiere dates. I used an official Cirque du Soleil timeline as a guide when chronology was in question. Some additional cleanup may be necessary. Comments are appreciated. AtticusX (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Show Template

I've been writing new show entries and added additional information where appropriate, but I'd like to ask a question to the general group before making this next decision. The shows each generally have a section related to: characters, acts/scenes, stage and equipment, music. Further more, some additional themes include tour itinerary, costumes, and filmography where appropriate. Does anyone have any suggestions on the order in which these should be displayed? My first thought is something along the lines of this:

• Stage and equipment
• Characters
• Acts
• Costumes
• Music
• Filmography
• Tour itinerary

I feel it first describes the area being utilized, the people, and then goes into specific details that further enhance the description of the production. As tour itineraries can be very long (e.g. Saltimbanco), I feel it should be at the bottom. Thoughts? Totem closely matched the list above, but has the stage information after costumes instead of at the beginning.

Secondly, would "Acts" or "Scenes" be a better choice for a word? Cirque du Soleil refers to the acrobatics primarily as acts, yet doesn't include all the scenes. More music-centric based productions on the other hand (e.g. Viva Elvis, Love), Cirque refers to as scenes.

Thanks for the help! Brent.austin (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I went through and made edits to the shows using the following template as sections were needed.

• History
• Storyline
• Set and technical information
• Cast
• Choreography
• Acts
• Costumes
• Music
• Filmography
• Tour

From my initial suggestion, it made more sense to use "Set and technical information" that way the theatre and any additional information could be provided rather than show equipment itself. Additionally, "Tour" seemed more fitting, as inside it "Arena tour" and "Grand chapiteau tour" are sub-sections. More information can fit inside "Tour", such as milestones, that doesn't fit inside "Tour itinerary." Also, some articles used "Synopsis" or "Plot", yet due to the different types of productions, "Storyline" seemed fairly fitting, although all are similar in nature with slight nuances to each. Brent.austin (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing Show Information

I'm wanting to fill the gap in 2 of Cirque's shows which are not currently listed. Does anyone know of any good referenced material for Fascination (1992) and Pomp Duck and Circumstance (1997). I'm not sure if they're worth adding in their entirety, but it would complete Cirque's show history. I know Fascination is mentioned in passing, but there isn't a show section for it. The only material I currently have for either is a couple of short blurbs in a costume book I have. Thanks! Brent.austin (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Show 'History'

Why was the Banana Shpeel history cut from this page and moved to the show's page? While the text is slightly longer than the summaries up to KÀ, it was twenty thousand times superior to that clumsy three sentence summary which is on the main page now.

I was going to write something about how articles didn't have history, but it turns out some do, but the individual show pages follow no structure. Under the topic of 'History', you actually find: Actual historical summary: Mystere, Love, Believe, Banana Shpeel Awards/inane trivia: O, La Nouba, Quidam, Zarkana. Performance dates: Wintuk. Natural disaster interruptions: Zed, Kooza, Ovo.

All other shows don't have 'History'. I would say that it would be good to revise all the articles to make sure there is a universal structure but I think they're really beyond redemption.