This article 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.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles

WikiProject Dance To-do list:

To nominate at WP:FAC:
To improve to Featured standard:
To nominate as a Good article:
To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance
To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow
To unbias:
To check for copyvios:
To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion
Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs
To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more
Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine
To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more
Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images

Are "fridge" and "bulldozer" technical terms?!!

As I understand, they are descriptive ones, traditionally used for comparison with objects over movement of which you have little control: fridge is a stationary one, a bulldozer is a moving one. A number of exercises go like: "stand in front of the fridge..." Frankly I don't know why it couldn't be "stand in front of a wall...". Tradition (of American ballroom) maybe... In addition, chair and mannekin are used to depict passive followers. Mikkalai 15:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've danced all of the styles mentioned here, and find the analogies unhelpful and non-encyclopedic. I've rewritten the article and removed the analogy. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

Fridges are easier to push around than walls (well, in UK anyway - in US YMMV)! The trouble with talking technical is that people in different disciplines use the same words (eg 'leverage') to mean different things: most of us can agree on the behaviour of bulldozers and fridges !

Frame is the position maintained by dancers

I would say

Frame is the action of skeleton and muscles used by dancers to maintain their relative positions

and

in swing dances, outward directed pressure is used to maintain the position.

As a swing dancer (well, Modern Jive & West Coast Swing ... ) that means nothing to me !

Like a spring, the further from desired body position, the greater the force should be.

seemed much better !

We are unusual in MJ, as we move together and apart regularly most of the time. Kind of an oscillating rubber frame, squashing & stretching !

Not sure if it's worth modding the page yet - it might just get re-encyclopedicified again !

I doubt very much anyone has done many of the different forms of dance in the categories listed. It seems a little arrogant to assume that because you've done one kind of Swing Dance you know them all ! MJ & WCS are completely different in technique ! --195.137.93.171 10:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I don't remotely see the relationship between frame and connection? I think this article needs revamping. If anybody is up for a conversation I'm happy to. Javacaliente (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not written by conversation, but basing on references to reputable sources. Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia rules wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:CITE, and "no original research". Any uncited material may de deleted at any time. - Altenmann >t 17:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is my "conversation" in the discussion page outside of Wikipedia policy? I thought this is where conversation is suppose to take place. I didn't think the "counter argument" to frame was a "conversation". I thought it pointed out a false statement and premise to Frame. And I'm failing to see how my lack of citations is worth deleting versus everything else that is also lacking citation is not deleted. Are you even reading what I'm writing? If so, you don't seem to give any thought to the merit of the content even if there is not a citation. Because if you are I would think adding to the discussion is much more helpful than purely enforcing Wikipedia policy. I'm a new user and if this is how the wikipedia community treats people I could care less about the standard WP has. Javacaliente (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Besides, like everything is empirical. psh.

Staying on the discussion, even with "my" theory disagreement on frame I don't believe it to be helpful to define it differently than everybody else in the world. I still think it should be kept "pure" in its entirely. So the section Altenmann added in order to remove my "weasel words" I think makes the Frame article more convoluted. But still add a section pointing out the discrepancy in the different theory's regarding frame. And dude! You didn't add a citation with your edit so its rather hypocritical to harp on me when you do the same. And while I'm on it, did you go back to the original content poster and harp on them for "contributing" to the WP project without ANY citations? Or just the new guy trying to make it better? To sum up what I said, so do you think the frame theory disagreement should be written into the definition of frame or in a subsection? Javacaliente (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have references about "everybody else in the world" you are welcome to use them in this article. Once again, wikipedia is not a discussion board, it is encyclopedia which has its own rules. I am aware that the article is incomprehensible and confusing. It is not exactly wrong, but also not exactly right It still waits for a person who takes a dance book is spells it correctly, basing on reputable publications. Until this happens there is no sense to carry out any discussions, which are useless at this moment, since the article has no references, and opinions of wikipedians cannot serve as a basis of an article. What I did was an attempt to slightly decrease the mess of the existing content. - Altenmann >t 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, ". Once again, wikipedia is not a discussion board" You keep on accusing me of trying to have a "discussion" When and where did I do such a "crime"? I THOUGHT THATS WHAT THIS PAGE IS FOR! Am I wrong? I did not attempt to have a discussion on the article page yet you tell me I did. No I didn't! I was attempting to discuss what should be posted and how it should be organized on THIS page. Do you understand the difference?

"If you have references about "everybody else in the world" you are welcome to use them in this article." well, you didn't seem to add a citation either and keep on raking me over the coals. You are actually not very helpful contrary to the "help" you think are you doing because you are unfair in your treatment and accusations of me. If you treated me fairly I would appreciate your input and knowledge. On a side note. If you really loved dance you would care more about the article being correct and later "verified" than leaving it as is until somebody with citations falling out of their rug sack comes along and finishes the mess. So far you just seem to care about Wikipedia policy and act as tho its God. If thats the case delete all content without proper citations and be done with this article.

"Until this happens there is no sense to carry out any discussions, which are useless at this moment, since the article has no references, and opinions of wikipedians cannot serve as a basis of an article." Thats not true. There's a logic error in your statement. And if that is your view or Wikipedia's view than I kindly ask you to stop meddling in other peoples affairs and currently this article is my affair. If you want to help than help. But stop being a nuisance. Because that does not put you as a helper but rather a hindrance to the correctness of the article after which it can be citationed. Nobody puts citations before the content.

Here's the changes I made today but didn't get a chance to post. Again, you cleaned up the article good but your comments are unfair.

Traditional Frame

Dance 'Frame' is the position of the upper body of the dancer relative to the rest of the dancer's body and the body of the dance partner. Dance frame is a stable structural combination of both bodies maintained through the dancers' arms and/or legs. While not the same as rigidity it requires internal muscle tension to ensure that the connection between partners is not lost.

Usage theory

Frame allows the Lead to transmit body movement to the Follow, and for the Follow to suggest ideas to the Lead.

Connection

Connection occurs in both closed and open dance positions (also called "open frame" and "closed frame"). It is essential in all partner dances, especially in modern ballroom dance and swing.

Body position

Frame is a the body position maintained by dancers during partner dancing that provides connection between the dance partners, for leading and following purposses.

Styleing

The required frame varies according to the style of dance. In some forms of dance, it may involve body contact. In street Latin style dances such as salsa, arms are held more loosely.

Javacaliente (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]