Talk:Puppetry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Puppetry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Theatre Top‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Craft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft 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.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Comments

Puppetry has been linked to the 'Puppeteer' page.(haha lolz ) I think this has been confusing, and discussions on the Talk:Puppeteer, and Talk:Puppet pages has confirmed this. I've therefore decided to recreate a Puppetry page. I accept that there is a danger of repeating information that more properly belongs to one or other of the related pages, but on the whole think it better that anyone searching for information can read the current entry and then choose to follow the link to either Puppet or Puppeteer as necessary. Bob 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page doesnt have very much info on puppetry so It didnt help me very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.236.133 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major change

Back in mid-August I posted the suggestion on the Puppet discussion page that the history and cultural definitions of puppetry were moved to the Puppetry page, and that the Puppet page covers types of puppet. Seemed more logical, and there haven't been any objections so I've finally got round to making these changes. I hope this will gain improved recognition under the WikiProject Theatre, where I think puppetry has been grossly under-rated. Improving referencing and citations on this page will also help the process. Bob (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, thanks. Man vyi (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Mr Squiggle.jpg

The image File:Mr Squiggle.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more links

Whilst traditional puppetry has been covered quite well, I think that this needs more connection to contempory puppetry. For example, it's barely been mentioned that Puppetry is a large element of contempory physical theatre, or even that it has links with mask works as they're both forms of object theatre.Sebbi (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sebbi (talk) - but why don't you edit this aspect of the article yourself? I'm happy to help. Bob (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puppeteers on puppetry

144.134.177.15 has reverted the change made by Sarah on 11th September, which has meant the return of the 'Puppeteers on puppetry' Level 2 heading andcontent. Personally I was glad to see this go, and I think that it probably needs to be deleted permanently.

It's clearly not an encyclopedic sub-heading, lending itself to unreferenced opinion. I would prefer to see any notable comments currently included in this section to be placed within the body of the article where they can extend and comment on properly referenced information.

Before taking any action on this I would like to see whether my opinion on this is supported or not. Bob (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, thanks for your note. I agree the section is problematic and it's not written in an encyclopedic manner and that was the main reason I removed it. The other reason is a bit difficult to discuss freely on-site, but the section and this article, and a number of other articles, were being used to spam and promote a self-published book and unfortunately the spammer is the fellow on the dynamic IP 144. I originally came to the article when cleaning up his walled garden of spam which was deleted in its entirety via AFD after an ANI discussion reached a consensus for a community sanction against this fellow, and on reading this article I basically reached the same opinion as yourself about the section being unencyclopedic. I completely agree that it would be better to incorporate any relevant and useful quotes into the text of the article rather than just pasting together a collection of quotes (and slabs of pure quotes that comply with policy really belong on Wikiquote, not here). Pasting together a bunch of copyright quotes without any commentary or discussion is very problematic in terms of our free licensing policy and the fair use doctrine and also likely violates WP:NOT. Quotations and fair use talks about the limitations the Non-free content policy and the fair use doctrine places on use of quotations and says: "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations, rather than grouping all the quotations together, or constructing articles out of quotations with little original prose." It also says that any fair use quotations must be "useful and aid understanding of the subject". I don't think those quotations are very useful or aid understanding of the subject of "puppets" and having a dedicated section which just pastes together slabs of quotes violates our licensing. It also creates a big problem for deciding which (and whose) quotes will be included and pretty much invites spamming. With all the notable puppeteers in the world, why are these two people considered so noteworthy that we have their quotes pasted into the parent puppet article? We have articles about a number of notable puppeteers and if we need quotes for this article, they need to be from clearly notable people in the puppetry field and to comply with the fair use and non-free content policies the quotes really need to be incorporated into the article and contribute significantly to understanding puppetry, not simply slabs of quotes pasted together without discussion or explanation. Whether we have quotes from puppeteers and if so, which puppeteers and which quotes, is a decision that really needs to be made by uninvolved people who aren't trying to misuse Wikipedia to promote themselves and their books, not forced on the project by 144., so I welcome any discussion from the regular editors here. Sarah 04:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thanks for the full explanation. I entirely agree with everything you say. Best wishes Bob (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands

puppetry was used for hundreds of thousands of years to entertain kids of crowds of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.112.2 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Specific puppetry in Aotearoa New Zealand

There is a singular case of puppet in this regional area. Some tribes of Aotearoa New Zealand has their own puppet. The Europeans named them jumping jack but their indigenous names vary depending on the areas. The most often used name is Kareteo. Few information is known except the Maori puppet are string's puppet and has their own repertory of songs. This singular puppet has certainly its place in the Oceanic section.
reference

BEST Eldson,1976 (reed.)- The Game and The Pastime of the Maori. Wellington, AR Shearer
BARROW Terence, 1964 - The Decorative Art of the New Zealand Maori. Auckland, Reed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georges Bureau (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun? They're instead of Her

I don't mean to sound sexist but men also do puppetry as well, so for someone new to puppetry they might conclude only women are puppeteers and this is just not the case. I think this article needs some adjusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Sue Hastings Marionettes & Kathy Burks Theatre of Puppetry Arts

I believe both troupes deserve mention in American History and Contemporary sections, respectively. Thanks for any response. FaerieShaman77 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Higantes Festival 2017 - Angono, Rizal 02.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

A suggestion is coming up that this page be merged with Puppet. Does this mean to have "Puppet" be a subtopic within the "Puppetry" page, or something else? This seems like a big change. I don't mind but are you sure? --Nellas Galadhon (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]