WikiProject iconDance
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
WikiProject Dance To-do list:

Ballet companies[edit]

Is there a compelling reason not to list The Australian Ballet in this navigation box? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think not. I just listed a couple of "notable" ones I could think of off the top of my head, it's not meant as any sort of authoritative list. -- DmitriBichko (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical mass[edit]

This template is getting rather large. Is it practical and necessary to list all ballet companies and ballet schools here? One alternative is to convert these embedded lists to stand-alone lists (e.g., List of ballet schools and List of ballet companies), and then replace the template's "Schools" and "Companies" table rows with a single row (e.g. "Organizations") that links to the stand-alone lists. Lambtron (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

articles would definitely be useful, no matter what happens here. As far as this template goes, a couple other options (1) collapse the schools and companies section (2) split the template into a separate one for schools and a separate one for companies. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and split the template into template:ballet companies and template:ballet schools. I can make it so this template transcludes those, but for now I will just update all the transclusions in the company and school articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Less is more. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open and shut case[edit]

At the moment, the template appears on each page in its expanded form. On short pages this rather dominates, as things stand. I wonder if it might be preferable to have it showing up closed, with readers clicking to open if wanted? Tim riley (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

default closed would be better in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to set the default to "collapsed", and although it works here, it doesn't seem to be working on linked pages. Maybe it takes more time to take effect. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixed it, you had noinclude around the collapsed, so it wasn't including that in the articles. the better construct is to use includeonly, so that it does not appear collapsed on the template page, but does appear collapsed in the articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you to both for doing this. It really does look better, I think. Tim riley (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BU Rob13 bot removing template from linked pages[edit]

see User talk:BU Rob13#Removing Template:Ballet as per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL -- Paul foord (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]