Talk:Victorian burlesque/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Someone threw this page together, although I am not sure what it adds to the Travesty article. Also, it seems to miss some of the good information in the Burlesque article about the history of Burlesque. -- Ssilvers 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone with more time than me should spend some real time on either fleshing (pun intended) this out or combining the two pages in a way that makes sense. Just going through all the links that inappropriately point to the other article is more work than I can handle. I'd be careful not to conflate "travesty" and "burlesque" though. In literary circles, the two are often used with very dissimilar meanings. 67.103.5.26 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And what about Burlesque/Burleske as a musical genre? Bach, Telemann, Richard Strauss, etc. all wrote pieces that they characterized or actually called "burlesques"... 204.152.13.192 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say those burlesques are far more similar to literary burlesque than modern burlesque shows. That's just one man's opinion, though. 67.103.5.26 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any justification for this as a separate article?

We have Burlesque and Burlesque (genre). Is there really any justification for having them as separate articles? -- Kleinzach 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Split

On second thoughts, perhaps this article here needs to be split into two different articles: Burlesque (literary genre) and Burlesque (musical). --Kleinzach 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that would only make it harder for people to find what they are looking for. In any case the dramatic burlesques were not what anyone today would call a musical - they burlesqued opera, classic literature and other forms of art. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It is difficult for the reader now, that's the point, see above. The reader will go the Burlesque article not Burlesque (genre) - which in any case covers two disparate subjects. Anyway if you want to make the effort to join them all up into one overarching article that's fine with me. P.S. The article doesn't mention musicals at all so I don't understand your other point. --Kleinzach 07:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult problem to solve because the articles on Burlesque and Travesty have no in-line references (nor does the "literary" section of this article). There is already a Burlesque disambiguation page, but I agree with you that the most likely first stop for anyone is the Burlesque article. Nevertheless, I think that splitting the article would just compound the problem. I think the best thing to do eventually is to merge them all into an article that explains the connection among them and gives adequate references. I have been able to expand and reference the section about musical burlesques, but someone else who is working on those areas needs to adequately reference the other sections. Then it will be easier to combine them. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

These problems always require work. If you want to do it, that's fine. please go ahead, but doing nothing and leaving everything in limbo is the least satisfactory option. See merging ( "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed." ) and splitting ( "If . . . a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out.").--Kleinzach 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: an article called Burlesque (literature) has been created. The main Burlesque article now attempts to describe the various forms of burlesque and cross references the more detailed articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you, Ssilvers, created it on 21 September 2008. --Kleinzach 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you requested it, and then I did it. Is there a problem? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What is says above. --Kleinzach 06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Burlesque and travesty

Someone has just added "also known as travesty" to the lead, implying that the two words mean the same. I thought they were distinct. Would someone like to explain? --Kleinzach 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See note 1 to article. Tim riley (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Going forward

Victorian burlesque was not the first form of burlesque to develop. Also, WP:MOS prefers parenthetical commas to parentheses, unless necessary because of a plethora of commas in a sentence. I'd suggest that any further changes to the Lead be discussed here first. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it important that the main Burlesque article be linked somewhere in the lede. Any objections? Neelix (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not from me. --GuillaumeTell 22:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently it is under "See also", so that will need to be deleted if you add a link in the Lead. Can you set forth the change you suggest for the Lead? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just thinking about linking the first instance of the word in the second paragraph: "Like ballad opera, burlesques featured musical scores..." Neelix (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

But that would be an incorrect link. The burlesques described by that word in paragraph 2 are specifically the Victorian burlesques. I believe that the "See also" link further down in the article is the best way to go here - that's what it's for. Perhaps you and/or G-Tell can come up with a way to refer back to the compilation article Burlesque in the Lead here (which would require us to delete the See also link), but I think this is a good example of WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is broke; this article is broken off from Burlesque. The main point of moving this article from Burlesque (genre) to Victorian burlesque was to demonstrate that Victorian burlesque is a subgenre of burlesque rather than an unrelated entity that is coincidentally referred to by the same term. It must be made clear in the lede that Victorian burlesque is one point in a continuity, the full scope of which is burlesque. Neelix (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree with some of what you just wrote, but there's no point in rehashing it, since, as a practical matter, I think we can compromise on what to do. I have linked burlesque in the Lead and removed it from "See also". How's that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we can compromise as well, but the way that you have added the burlesque link to the lede does the opposite of what I am suggesting that it should. Putting the word in quotation marks and referring to it as a term rather than a concept again suggests that Victorian burlesque is not a form of burlesque but simply an unrelated entity that happens to be called "burlesque". How about the following phrasing: "Victorian burlesque is one among several forms of burlesque that have been recognized in English literature and theatre since the 17th century." Neelix (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

[moving left] The sources say that Victorian burlesque is a form of theatre descended from ballad opera and pantomime, and one can fairly interpret them to say that the term "burlesque" described the parody aspect of the entertainment. American burlesque did, as we have seen, evolve partly from Victorian burlesque, but I do not think our sources have established any continuous evolution from literary burlesque. Frankly, I think that what you are saying is OR. Let me ask you this: Can you cite a reliable source that says that Victorian burlesque is part of such a continuum? I think we may have implied that there is such a continuum (or invited people to jump to that conclusion) in the burlesque article, but I do not think it is true. I think that the term has been applied to various forms of entertainment, literature and music, some of which have a connection with one or another aspect of burlesque, but which are not, in fact, a continuous evolution. For example, note our treatment of Travesties and musical burlesque in the burlesque article. These have nothing to do with American burlesque. We need sources in the body of this article in order to state in the lead what you want to state, but I am not sure you can find one. Maybe I'm wrong, but we need a source. If you can't find one, how about this compromise, which uses part of what you wrote above: "Victorian burlesque is one of several forms of burlesque." I think that's sorta silly, but at least it gets in the crossreference that you want. I really think that the right way to do this is to have the crossreference in the "See also" section, where it was before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I find your newly suggested compromise quite acceptable. I have changed the wording in the lede accordingly. Neelix (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your flexibility. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote coding problem

Why are the footnotes bullet-pointed instead of numbered? It would be better if they were numbered. Can someone figure out what is making them show up this way? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

???Footnotes 1-36 are all present, correct and numbered. Below them are bulleted sections for References and External links, but they aren't footnotes. Or am I missing something? --GuillaumeTell 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird! No, it looks fine now. It may be that my computer was temporarily taken over by aliens. Thanks for the reply. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender Reversal/Female Sexuality

There are two sections recently added to the article that I think should be removed. There are three reasons for this: first, some of the material is repetition of what is already in the article; secondly, some of the material is unreferenced and seems to be Original Research; thirdly, and least importantly, such references as there are do not match the article's existing reference formatting (see WP:CITEVAR). I should be glad to know what other editors think. Tim riley (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A large part of each section is Original Research, and the rest either repeats material already discussed or seems to be pseudo-intellectual language lacking much meaning: "These reversals allowed people to distance themselves from the morality of the play inciting more joy than catharsis, a definitive shift away from neoclassical ideas.[24]" The following sentence could be said of female performers today or in most eras (and is introduced by a poorly written clause): "The idea of female sexuality in Victorian burlesque was a major example of the connection between women as performers and women as sexual objects.[25]" The one useful thought here, about how "polite society" viewed female performers during the mid-Victorian era, was true of all Victorian theatre, not only burlesque, and deserves a better treatment somewhere, but probably not here. It is alluded to here and here. In addition, the two references given are inaccessible. I recommend that this all be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)