Talk:Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sources/OR/POV?[edit]

I pulled out a couple of sentences.

From episode one:

"Lee also mocked the lilting delivery of Punt and Dennis on The Now Show."

From episode five:

"The ficitonal American comedians 'Cracker Sauceribs' and 'Dyl Spinks' are presumably based on Eddie Murphy crossed with Richard Pryor and Dick Gregory as well as Bill Hicks respectively."

I just rewatched episode one and didn't see/hear anything mentioning Punt/Dennis/Now Show.

The other line counts as original research. On Wikipedia we are not supposed to assume, presume, or interpret, only present what the reliable sources say about something.

Forkhandles (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comedic references section[edit]

We don't need a list of things the show has reference or a synopsis of the episodes here. I'll be deleting them soon if nobody pops up to show why this would be a mistake. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here, but I think if separate pages with detailed synopses (synopsises?) of entire episodes of other shows e.g. Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang are quite common, then the tiny ones on this page should hardly be less relevant. I may not be familiar enough with the Wikipedia guidelines to discern whether these instances are comparable however. --85.227.239.169 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of those shouldn't be here either. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if you motivated your stance based on Wikipedia guidelines rather than that "we don't need" them. I for one certainly do think they are useful as descriptions, however unsure I am of their strict propriety on Wikipedia. --85.227.239.169 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A list of things the episode references is not useful information for the general reader. They are essentially trivia. Short synopsis of the episodes might be appropriate, and it would be best if notable aspects of them were integrated into the description of the article rather than an exhaustive list created by enthusiasts. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better to integrate the current information into a more coherent synopsis but I would hardly consider topics in a stand-up show to be trivia about the same show. It would surely be trivia to talk about interesting aspects of the production of each episode but I think topics referenced in a stand-up show are inherently connected to the subject and thus relevant. --85.227.239.169 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The section is almost entirely a straight list of things he mentioned. Describing the tone and subject matter covered would be useful, but simply listing the celebrity names mentioned has no use at all. People unfamiliar with the programme aren't going to get any use out of knowing what he referenced. This is by fans, for fans and as such belongs on a fan site (along with in-jokes about Kilroy Silk's "berry brown face"). The small amount of information in that section that isn't a dry list of names/things is taken straight from the DVD commentary. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how a straight list of things he mentioned is somehow worse than nothing at all. Perhaps a description of the tone and subject matter would be useful, but "Kilroy Silk's berry brown face" is more a description of tone and subject matter than "Kilroy Silk's face" (which I think would fit better into the current text). I don't think Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X, March of the Penguins or Samuel Beckett fits the bill of "celebrity names" and in fact personally would not have known about Velázquez portrait unless it was in the list. It is still a list of subjects and why it would be useful for fans specifically is not clear to me. Do you mean that a DVD commentary is a bad source or information about a programme, or was that just incidental? Personally this seems like a clear case of "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." (from trivia) I don't think the current state of the text is ultimate but deleting things that are not good enough replacing them with nothing is not a solution. --85.227.239.169 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't get hung up on the items in the list being celebrities or not, that was clearly a quicker way of describing the bulk of the content and showing that to be inaccurate has no bearing on the issue at hand. "If information is otherwise suitable" is the part of the quoted policy that you should consider. I'm going to ask for more opinions. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I pointed it out because it seemed like "celebrity names" was meant to belittle the content which I thought was unnecessary and beside the point. If that is not so my comment was unnecessary as well and I apologize for that. I tried to convey that I think that at least much of the current information is suitable, which is why I quoted that part of the policy. Asking for more opinions sounds like a good idea and I will leave this discussion now since I have said what I had to say. --85.227.239.169 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Suitability of a list of cultural references in a TV programme's article[edit]

Should an exhaustive list of cultural items mentioned in a TV show be included in the article? Is this trivia or just badly-integrated useful information? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting one. They feel very much like trivia, don't they? Some of them are borderline original research. I would say that because these standup episodes are often based on a particular item from popular culture (i.e the "DelBoy falls through the bar in Only Fools and Horses; Trigger pulls a face" routine), they need a mention of the primary basis of a routine, but if they're just things mentioned in passing then that's trivia. To be honest, it would be better to have a brief summary of what each topic of Lee's routine is rather than an exhausive floating list of references. I also think the structure of the article could be improved - Lee's semi-ironic quote from the opening passage could do with integrating elsewhere, for example. Bob talk 22:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't care, really. I don't have a huge problem with the "Comedic references" section. I wouldn't shoot myself if it was removed. I don't see any urgent need to remove it. Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)