Talk:Burlesque

Use of past tense

Under the section "Literary origins and development" there is a prevalent use of past tense in describing the subject, such as, "Burlesque depended on the reader's (or listener's) knowledge of the subject to make its intended effect, and a high degree of literacy was taken for granted." I wonder if it would be more appropriate to use present tense more. Granted, in writing about the origins of a subject, past tense certainly comes into play, but I think it might be better to update it. Another example from the section: "17th and 18th century burlesque was divided into two types:" then it goes on to say "High burlesque refers to a burlesque ..." so this delineation still applies and was not only used in the past to describe the two types.

I'm new to this page so I didn't want to just start changing things. Please share any opinions on the the topic. —Zujine|talk 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The term and concept are present tense, but the literary form is dead, so I would leave descriptions of it in past tense. Of course, parody, pastiche, satire, etc. still exists, but literary burlesque, as described here, and Victorian burlesque are dead forms and better described in the past tense. Any thoughts @User:Tim riley? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. If the relevant forms of burlesque were still being presented to the public now, the present tense would be the right one, but for old and abandoned forms of the genre I think past tense is correct. Tim riley talk 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Afterthought: I'm impressed with Zujine's approach: this is absolutely in the Wikipedian spirit of collegiality and consensus. Tim riley talk 17:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you all. I made a couple changes to have the literary references in present tense, like "Miguel de Cervantes ridicules medieval romance in his many satirical works." Thanks for the discussion (and compliment). Great article. I only recently learned of the history of burlesque. I'd only thought of it in it's contemporary expression. —Zujine|talk 16:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of those changes are good, but others describe Burlesque only in earlier centuries, not today, so I have made adjustments. It's like if you repaint your house: My house was blue. My house is white. It's still your house, but it has changed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, all good. —Zujine|talk 15:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Burlesk?

I've ventured to revert the addition of the purported British alternative spelling "burlesk". Neither of the two premier British dictionaries – the OED and Chambers – admits "burlesk" (nor, incidentally, does the American Merriam-Webster) and the Collins dictionary entry seems to me not only an outlier but highly suspect: it says "burlesk" is BrE, but then defines the word thus: "a bawdy comedy show of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: the striptease eventually became one of its chief elements" which is miles off the mark for British (as opposed to American) burlesque. The Bloomsbury English Dictionary (successor to Encarta as far as I can work out) is extremely clear that the only use of "burlesque" that is connected with striptease is "N Am". As the Collins Dictionary entry is outvoted by four to one I think we should view it with suspicion and refrain from quoting it. What do other editors think? Tim riley talk 16:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the best dictionary sources do not agree with Collins, and I agree with Tim riley's analysis of why Collins is not applicable here at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Duly pruned. Tim riley talk 13:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)