Talk:Computer-generated choreography

Proposed move

"Algorithmic Choreography" seems to be a WP:OR fabricated term -- a concern I first mentioned in RFC for the draft version of this article. The term doesn't appear in sources, which widely refer to this topic as "computer-generated choreography". This is apparent even from the titles of some references (e.g. "Computer-Generated Choreography Revisited"; "Towards Computer Generated Choreography"). I propose moving this article to Computer-generated choreography, and converting Algorithmic Choreography to a redirect to the moved article. Lambtron talk 15:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No opposition, so article has been moved. Lambtron talk 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No artist on this page, aside from Beaman was properly sourced. I propose either page deletion or redirect to the dance technology wikipedia page, where the information about Beaman was merged. WikiTickyToomba (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Notability

To satisfy our notability requirements, the article must be based on detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources independent on article subject. I do not see any so far. The independent sources cited barely mention the subject. --Altenmann >talk 04:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Copied from user talk page:

I read the Dance Magazine article on Julie Cruse, and as a dance historian, I found it significant that the computer-generated choreography page included a bunch of people who actually didn't do anything related to the subject, but did not include one of the great female trailblazers in this space. She singlehandedly coded the software and launched a public browser AI-enhanced version of it. That seems important to include. WikiTickyToomba (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The article describing Julie is by Julie itself. In Wikipedia, the article must be primarily based on independent sources, to sarticfy the requirement of neutral point of view. I do agree that what she did looks notable, but we have policies. --Altenmann >talk 04:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. I get miffed when I see wikipedia editors not applying rules consistently. For example, numerous choreographers listed on this page were left untampered with even though they did not belong on this page. Additionally, on the related dance technology page, numerous names were added without citation and left. It appears from both page histories that one person is being targeted for removal again and again. But no one else - regardless of whether or not they were cited. That raises my suspicion when policies are not applied consistently, and in fact look weaponized against a specific individual who is then being systemically erased... for what purposes, other than a personal agenda, I cannot fathom. WikiTickyToomba (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Going over all the page's sources with a fine-tooth comb, I'm not sure why anyone but Beaman is there, considering that nothing was properly sourced at all. Because there is only one person there, I would nominate this page for deletion, given that I merged the content into the dance tech page.

There has been much difficulty in computational choreography ever being historicized or documented independently. And if there is going to be one policy targeting one artist, it must apply to them all. Otherwise, wikipedia editors are showing bias.

I say, remove the page and let Beaman have her spot on dance technology's wikipedia page. WikiTickyToomba (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you nominate the page for deletion, I will support this move. --Altenmann >talk 06:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• wikipedia editors not applying rules consistently - Wikipedians are mostly amateurs and not all of them are Adrian Monk-like obsessive-compulsive with keeping things in strict orderr. Consistency of rules is achieved simply by many editors working together correcting each other. Some subjects are simply not interesting to many. Some 15 years ago I was interested in covering dance topics, coming from ballroom dance background. Heck, I even started the page Dance technology afresh, to prevent from recreation the previously deleted version written by a zealot and fan of what was "dance technology" in their opinion, 99% original research. Since then there was absolutely no improvement worth talking about. <sigh> --Altenmann >talk 06:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

one person is being targeted for removal again and again - there is a simple explanation without any microconspiracy theories: when an article enters someone's watchlist, not everybody scrutinizes the whole previous state of the article, if only out of generic laziness. However when new changes pop up in the watchlist, it is usually a relatively small change and it is quick and easy to judge it for proper referencing, undue promotion, relevance, etc. In this way a sloppy article may stay in a sorry state for years despite its very long edit history. I have started some 7,000+ articles, (including some 200 about dance and music; counted before 2009), and 90% of edits in them are mostly by wikignomes, a comma here, a typo there, references formattted, etc.--Altenmann >talk 06:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• By teh way, a cursory search gave me this 2007 DanceMag article with some overview of "the age of dance and technology", May be you want to use this ref to add some info for Dance technology page, because I no longer have a passion for this. --Altenmann >talk 06:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• P.S. If one thinks dance technology is the cutting edge of tech, how about Death tech ? =|:-( --Altenmann >talk 07:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)