Talk:Stand-up comedy

More on etymology

Resolved

This topic already has been brought up before in the archives, but the article still doesn't address the question of when this term originated. Dictionary.com states (without citing published examples) that the term dates from the 1960s. If that's true, then it has been applied retroactively, but even as such, it seems to carry an additional connotation of post-vaudeville. That is, vaudeville performers are usually not called stand-up comics (at least not on Wikipedia) even when they essentially did the same thing (Will Rogers), unless they continued long afterward (Moms Mabley). The term as used seems to coincide with the end of vaudeville and the emergence of television and LP records.

I've added some information and citations which I hope address this.WakeUpBoo (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References are far too long

Resolved

The references in this article are far too long. On my screen, the article takes up 37 pages, of which 15 consist of prose text and 22 of references. The references take up one and a half times as much space as the entire article they're providing references for. JIP | Talk 02:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We could make a difference in this issue just by starting with the lead section; the current reference 17 is actually just a citation that leads to twelve (!) other citations (refs 5-16). If this is really a straightforward description of stand-up comedy, we ought to be able to source it adequately with a reference or two (not to mention that most info in the lead should already be referenced in the body of the article). Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Idk about you all but the very foundations of comedy and what's viewed as a serious inquiry into the subject are ethnographic (headliner advice from experiential learning), so dialogue-like, hence the need for all the long citations of others' commentary on the subject, dictated from a non-primary source NurishmentForThinking (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any active editing going on to address this issue? I don't want to offend any contributors but I came across this page recently and found it almost unreadable. The citation problem is big enough but I think the whole page needs considerable work. The ethnographic subject is valid but should be on it's own page with a link at best. There are other similar problems throughout the page, large sections are not relevant to the subject and there are swathes of text which are part jargon dictionary and part treatise on the trials of being an aspiring comic. What's the state of play?WakeUpBoo (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

after discussions and a fair bit of work I've gone through the whole page and cleared or simplified unnecessary citations. I've tried to be fair and considerate.WakeUpBoo (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Stand-up comedy as a leisure activity

I propose that Stebbins' work applies directly to stand-up comedy and should be used as a guide in understanding stand-up (both the individual and the activity) (this process applies to the transition from amateur to expert).NurishmentForThinking (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we don't really propose things like this. Inclusion is justified through the use of independent reliable sources that discuss such influences. In other words, if people not connected to this subject have written in detail about the man's influence on stand-up, you could be justified in including a mention of it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like your logic taken to the extreme means that this Jesse David Fox citation is somehow the most fundamental to the page. It is not, though. NurishmentForThinking (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry does have problems with things being taken to the extreme (434 footnotes?), but no one (and no guideline) here advocates for taking things to the extreme, so I don't think we even need to consider what comes from thinking that way. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:Stand-up_comedy#References_are_far_too_long NurishmentForThinking (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the thoughts expressed in that discussion. We have a major issue with citation overkill. However, we can shave the number of references significantly while still holding that new material needs to be supported by reliable sources. I think that part of the solution is realizing that we are writing in summary style; we're not publishing some 200-page book on stand-up comedy. Are you indicating your desire to address this issue? Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Future of the page

In the spirit of wp:bold I've gone through the page and tried to bring it back on-topic. I felt there was an excess of un-related information that was also not in wp:style. I'm not saying it's definitive but I feel there is a need for a re-start.WakeUpBoo (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Entry style.

I'd like only to comment that the entry as it stands is obviously written by somebody who knows what he's talking about. I like that. In the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica the article "mass production" was written by Henry Ford. It's the best thing I've ever read about mass production. I'd be willing to bet that today's Britannica has replaced it with something vastly more homogenized and vastly less instructive.

Alostlady (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Alostlady

Wiki Education assignment: Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 June 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Serenamonay (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Serenamonay (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)