Talk:Street performance

Notable Performers

I feel this section may need work. Many mentioned simply do not fall into the category of notable performers. For example, Paul McCartney, Sting, Joshua Bell, Tom Jones, Hayley Westenra and the likes are not notable as street performers. All notable in their field, but no more notable as street performers due to busking "once" as a stunt or for charity than they would be notable as chess players or footballers should the partake in either of those activites. On the other hand, genuinely notable street performers such as Richard "Jim Cellini" Sullivan (a hugely influential magic busking act) see no mention in the list. I propose removing *all* entries in this section who have not achieved notability as a street performer (I fear that would leave a very short list, but certainly one which can be better described as "notable". I invite discussion here before I make the edits. Jack of Many (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This article tends to attract un-notable performers looking for publicity, recognition, or sales for their books and music; I've had to delete a lot of linkspam. If you can establish notability for Sullivan et al, then go ahead, but noncommercial and reliable sources are going to be key.

As for famous one-time buskers: generally not notable. Those like Joshua Bell (due to the massive publicity) and those who actually made a living or recorded albums as buskers should stay.

I look forward to working with you! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial greeting, Pi (I trust you don't object to shortening of your handle). I can see how a lot of linkspam would find its way onto the article. Commercial issues shouldn't be an issue for Cellini as he passed away in 2009. There are living street performers who I believe are notable enough for a mention in this article, one being Gazzo (who has his own Wiki entry, as it happens). I'll hold off making any additions until I have reliable sources ready to back them up. Jack of Many (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable sources, I'll have a look in the usual places, but street performance being what it is the ones most likely to find their way into newspapers and the like are, I suspect, those who are notable for other things doing something for charity or as a stunt (more on that in my next point). Considering the mainstream press doesn't pay a great deal of attention to street performance, what sort of sources/publications/sites might be seen as reliable in this case?Jack of Many (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that Joshua Bell's press stunt qualifies him as a notable street performance. Don't get me wrong, I've read the article and couldn't put it down; I'm just not sure publicity about someone doing something once qualifies him as a notable street performer. I know notability for an article is a different matter, but it strikes me as somewhat related to the guideline in BLP for people notworthy for a single event. As an insight into culture, work-life balance and so on it's fascinating story, but in the context of street performance, I don't know if Bell truly is noteworthy. Perhaps this kind of thing needs a mention elsewhere in the article, a short section about mainstream performers dipping a toe into street performing could be worth the server space and in that Bell and his performance would certainly fit. Thoughts on any of this?Jack of Many (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally okay with being called Pi. Just as long as I don't accidentally get confused with User:Pi! We don't run across each other much, though.

Cellini is safe, yeah. If Gazzo has his own wiki article that's not just advertising then he's maybe worth a mention.

That's the very essence of notability, though: coverage in multiple reliable sources. Interviews in college newspapers or mentions in other articles are important - third-party sources where the performer doesn't have a monetary stake in the publication.

Yeah, fair point about notability. I suppose my question was more to try and get an idea of what nature of publication is seen as reliable. Self published by the author isn't reliable to establish notability. What about self-published by non-connected individuals? What about (and you'll spot my interest in street performance here) the bigger magic websites, organisations like the IBM, Magic Circle and so on? Ones that have multiple contributors and some degree of editorial oversight are favourite, I know, but where that's lacking is it worth digging through specialist sites and resources with less a formal editorial structure for references? Jack of Many (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bell I thought was interesting and notable because he did it specifically to direct attention to street performers. A 'professionals who busked once' section would be very interesting; Be Bold and add it! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Something that really jumped out of that story for me was a proof of a concept I've seen and heard mentioned by many street performers; that it's not about how good you are. Clearly it doesn't get much better than Bell, and yet he got practically no interest. A different pitch or presentation could have been very different (a music-busker local to me makes about £200/day, for contrast). I didn't get the impression it was an attention thing so much as an experiment though. I'll read more on that as it's entirely possible I missed something. Re: "Be Bold"... when I have the time I'll get on it (unless someone has a mad urge to beat me to the punch). Jack of Many (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

New York band AJR started out busking, it wasnt their claim to fame but it was their start. can we add them? LunaSparks (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a "Notable performers" section at all. A few (two to four ) notable street performers should be named in the main article, and that should be perfectly sufficient. TheScotch (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

When i created that section i called it celebrity anecdotes It should be renamed that because that is what it is. I am changing it forth with I also removed self promos by unknowns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.198 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You also just managed to remove two artists with singles that charted in the UK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This section is ridiculous. Many of the great buskers will remain lost in obscurity. To list big name stars who have once or twice gone out on the street as a publicity stunt is offensive to real street artists... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.159.92 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Troubadours?

Re: "In medieval France buskers were known by the terms troubadours and jongleurs. In northern France they were known as trouveres. In old German buskers were known as Minnesingers and Spielleute."

These are very suspect sentences. Troubadours and "trouveres" (missing accent mark here) were generally noblemen who composed poetry and song for court performance, which makes them not buskers at all. Neither were the meistersingers buskers; they were guild members, and they competed formally for awards. TheScotch (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Italian: wrong

I object to the sentence "In Italian it evolved to buscare which meant "procure, gain" and in Italy buskers are called buscarsi or, more simply, Buskers". There is no such word as "buscare" in Italian, that is Spanish. I am Italian and never heard the word "buscarsi", as to the idea that they are called simply Buskers, well, that's absolutely not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.126.228 (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I object to the sentence "In Italian it evolved to buscare which meant "procure, gain" and in Italy buskers are called buscarsi or, more simply, Buskers".

There is no such word as "buscare" in Italian, that is Spanish. I am Italian and never heard the word "buscarsi", which would at any rate not respect Italian language morphology. As to the idea that they are called simply Buskers, well, that's absolutely not the case. I do not know what might be the source for that. 81.240.126.228 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC) MarcoFant, 9/29/2012

I've removed the sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so 81.240.126.228 you say the noun Buskers (in English) are not known in Italian as either Buscarsi nor Buskers, so what are they called then, as you didn't say, thus no fix can be thought about and done by English-language speaking editors? Additionally on this, Google Translate gave me Buskers (en) > Buskers (it) (http://translate.google.com/#en/it/Buskers ) so which is correct? Also, you say the verb "buscare" is not Italian but Spanish, but what is the term for "to busk" in Italian then? Things like this help edits get done. Thanks. (NOTE: I joined the two similar comments from 81.240.126.228 under the same subtitle on this talk page.) Jimthing (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a busker in Italy for the last 26 years. BUSCARE is a word meaning to search for or procure. http://dizionari.corriere.it/dizionario_italiano/B/buscare.shtml I have never heard it used in connection with BUSKER though. In Italy we say BUSKER... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.159.92 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Modification deleted

Why the website http://www.buzzkers.com can't be add to demonstrate street musicians performance ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzkers (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This article in the past has become spam pit full of people trying to sell themselves. Adding your own link is a very clear conflict of interest; see WP:ADV which states "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". A mere repository of videos adds nothing to the article; there are hundreds of blogs with exactly the same thing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Gypsies" word

I have now thrice deleted the use of the word "Gypsies" but some person keeps reinstating this expression. The word "Gypsies" should not be used, for two reasons:

• (1) It is derogative. See Names_of_the_Romani_people, notes 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, and 32
• (2) It is commonly used to refer to a lot of different things, not only the Romani people, see Gypsies disambiguation page. Hence, where the article deals specifically with the Romani people, a "Gypsy" may be understood to be eg. any other kind of traveller, ie. not a Romani. Hence it is misleading in context.

I suspect the continued use of this word is out of ignorance, and that there is no derogatory motive for using it. Still, it may be perceived as derogatory. As the word is no way essential -- or even of lesser importance -- for the section I suggest it be avoided altogether. Omitting this one word that may cause other readers problems, will not reduce the quality of the article. clsc (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC) (original: 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC))

You suspect incorrectly, as is indicated by my various edit summaries. The vast majority of people are not familiar with the politically correct terms for the people that have been traditionally called "gypsies", and my inclusion of the term in the article is not an indication that I wish it to be reincarnated as the work in generally usage for them, or desire for it to be re-accepted, but simply to give our readers an idea of who it is we're talking about. With the lasted version, "inaccurately called 'gypsies'", I believe that both our concerns have been met, unless it is your goal to totally eliminate the use of the word in any context, even one which clearly indicates that it is not longer acceptable. (Come to think of it, I'll add that as well). BMK (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Perfect, I think that solves all issues. Thanks. (Also, I just signed my comment above, I forgot that at first) clsc (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

to: Whoever is removing all the edits...

This article is incredibly disorganized and full of irrelevant and wrong information. Several weeks ago I added (without removing any old info) a different story about the origins of the term"bottle" referring to the collected money. I also cleaned up the description of "one man band" as well. These changes were removed instantly by somebody.

Since then two other people have contacted me through busking sites that I run personally complaining that this same thing has happened to them.

The photo of Marc Dobbson the one man band is a very poor photo to represent street art! He's a festival performer with a lot of equipment and not a busker!

This article is poorly written and should be totally re-written from scratch. The next time that somebody complains to me about it I'm going to complain to Wikipedia directly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.159.92 (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you think this article is poorly written (which it is to some extent) then edit it yourself. However when you edit please see the relevant articles in the Help section of Wikipedia about WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:VER, WP:OR You should also take a look at WP:5P. Following the guidelines of Wikipedia will mean that your edits are unlikely to be reverted. As Wikipedia's editors are its contributors complaining to Wikipedia won't help much. It is for us as editors to improve the articles in the way the guidelines suggest to make it an clear, fair, well referenced, authoratative encyclopeadia. It also helps if you become a registered user rather than an anonymous string of numbers. But there is no rule on that. Robynthehode (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

column template to use for See also section

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs):

I just reverted back, preserving your wikilink fix. Your change of "|gap=4em}}" produces even worse formatting on the Android App & some other browsers.

Questions:

• Why did you NOT preserve my edit of {{Portal|Theatre}} on your last revert?

• Why, granted your choice of column template produces broken formatting in several apps & browsers, do you keep reverting back to it?

• As editors, shouldn't we choose best practice, that work for all of Wikipedia's readers?

Discussion:

• The {{div col}} templates also automatically break columns to roughly equal lengths, on those browsers that support it without broken formatting. So no need to move a template like {{col-break}} around, when items are added or removed.

• Like many newer templates, {{div col}} does a lot of "best practice" formatting that works across all browsers/apps.

• Note, I deleted my preferred "|small=yes", the first time I reverted. And switched from my preferred "||20em" to "|2" this time. Both to try to resemble the formatting you seem to prefer. — Lentower (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I just added "|gap=4em". Hopefully it gives you the look you like in your browser. It doesn't in the browsers I have in front of me today. — Lentower (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The columns are still bad, they are too far apart, vary visually inaccessible. Columnized lists should look like a single list divided up, not like two separate lists which happen to be in the same section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the Portal back.

On the browsers, I have here the gaps are narrow & acceptable (vary a bit based on window width). I obviously feel that my first edit is the most visually accessible. (Want to know why?). We are at an impasse about that. Have anything to add? — Lentower (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

the issue with the Android App & some other browsers that only display one column despite template markup

With your {{col-begin}}{{col-break}} ... {{col-break|gap=4em}} ... {{col-end}} markup the list looks like this:

• Busking Day
• Category:Busking venues
• Circus skills
• List of well-known busking locations
• Music Under New York

     * Skomorokh
     * Street artist
     * Street painting
     * Street theatre

Beyond being visually confusing, this mis-represents the list, as a 5 item list with the last item having a 4-item sub-list.

Its more important for content to not be visually confusing, then it is to meet your idea of visible accessibility.

i see these solutions:

• leave it as was & let the content be confusing.
• one of the <div col> edits i made that you reverted.
• make it a one column list, which increases whitespace & scrolling.
• remove |gap=4em.

I am about to do the last as an edit.

I hope we can find a compromise acceptable to both of us. Edit wars are not a good use of either of our time. — Lentower (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I just verified that the confusion on the Android App was removed by my edit. I see no visible change between your last edit & my current edit on the other browsers I here at my Dad's: iPad's Wikipedia & safari app; Chrome, Firefox, AOL, & Internet Explorer on a Dell Inspiron running Windows 10. — Lentower (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Street performance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mikedoughty.com/blog/archives/000789.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510152854/http://www.queenzone.com/news/a-night-at-the-opera.aspx to http://www.queenzone.com/news/a-night-at-the-opera.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Earwig

FYI: Earwig gives three very high percentage hits for pages that have copied from this article, with attribution.

• https://www.englishgratis.com/elingue/elingue/en/wikimag/serie06/11.htm
• https://kuliahkaryawan.ivet.ac.id/IT/3065-2951/street-performers_21818_kuliahkaryawan-ivet.html
• and www. 360cities. net /image/jazz-musique-de-rue-rue-kereon-quimper-finistere-7425-cornouaille

Not sure I want to add them to the exclusions list, as I don't know anything about that. Someone else who knows more, feel free. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)