Talk:Entertainment/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Is anyone up to writing some decent text for this page? Just link lists are not that helpful and a good intro to entertainment would be great--BozMo|talk 13:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page also seems a little Japan-centric (anime, j-pop, geisha) should be written up to include entertainment from other cultures.

I removed geisha altogether. She is not entertainment in herself, but a performing artist who sings, dances and drinks with her customers. --Himasaram 13:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commercial ticket brokers

Is it appropriate to link to commercial ticket brokers? I see a fourth link has been added. Willmcw 22:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Guys: If you are going to merge Entertain and Recreation, please attack the problem at the Category level FIRST! It is too easy to just merge the pages. Look at the categories. THAT is where the real work is. You want to merge? Go ahead, but do the real work first: the categories. -- Fplay 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't Merge - Entertainment is different than Recreation SirIsaacBrock 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge - Recreation is participating in the activity to the effect of entertainment, where as entertainment needs no participation in order to be enjoyed. Sach'Moe 21:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge - Entertainment is a for-profit industry. Recreation as a term on its own, does not necessarily include the profit angle. (sr, March 3, 2006)

Don't Merge - These concepts may be related, but they are very different. (March 16, 2006)

Negative Merge - I've just expanded the entertainment article, so perhaps you all can take my lead from here. FrankB 16:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge - Compare "History of Entertainment" to "History of Recreation". The former would be about, for example, people in the 18th Century rushing out to buy the latest poetry to read. The latter would be about, for example, the establishment of ski resorts. The concepts are different. However I don't agree with "sr" above that entertainment is a for-profit industry: playing chirades is making entertainment, and nobody profits. "Entertainment: the act of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment" vs "Recreation: activity done for enjoyment when one is not working" (Source: Oxford English Dictionary) One is clearly reflexive where as the other involves transmission. RPTB1 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Ok: I think the bit on physics is located in the wrong article. It would be better placed on a disambiguation page. Unknown Man 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure that it isn't a hoax anyway. A sinusoid is the most fundamental component of any signal, so one cannot create a single sinusoid by the combination of two other signals. Dontdoit 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's surely a joke! I can't find a single physics entry for the word entertainment in Google. So I've removed that section entirely. Perhaps whoever wrote it could explain what they meant. I've parked a copy below:
==Entertainment In Physics==
Entertainment is much like Resonance. Entertainment is a process in where the frequency of one system is combined with the frequency of another system, to generate a single wave. This can been seen in electroencephalogram (EEG) waves, where combinations of separate frequencies combine to form a single sinusoidal wave. This can be an instance of two objects with multiple frequencies, achieving the same frequency. - Adrian Pingstone 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I've totally rewritten the article because the text seemed jammed on talking about participation all the time, and the writing style was poor. For the definition of entertainment I've used the Oxford Dictionary. I know the article can be improved further but it's a start - Adrian Pingstone 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC) yeah g-star!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of "Examples of Entertainment"/Animation

There's no reason for the current order of these examples; they should be ordered either alphabetically (in which case Animation should come first) or by order of relevance/popularity (in which case Cinema, Reading, Games, Music should be up at the top).

I also have a problem with Animation: It is just a subtype of Cinema, Reading, Games, etc. I don't think it is relevant at all; at most it could be mentionned in these sections... —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.nelson (talkcontribs) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No History section?

Entertainment is hardly new.--Zerothis (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

-It is essentially a list, with randomly selected topics chosen to be elaborated upon, regardless of importance -The list is far from full; I don't think there should be a partial list like this at all (the List of basic entertainment topics is much better) -Japan-centric topics (such as animation, manga) -general poor-quality writing (things such as "circuses are a great place for families :)")

The List of basic entertainment topics is far better than this page; I figure that for this one there should just be a definition and a link to the other, or this one should be removed entirely. The list of basic entertainment topics says "The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to entertainment", which is essentially the goal of the Entertainment page, except that page achieves it. Or, someone with a little time on their hands should nuke the entire article altogether and rewrite the whole thing, in a different format.

Regardless, something's gotta be done. M.nelson (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text here</nowiki>


Is entertainment an activity ? I was of the impression that it is a form of amusement; thus more of a feeling or emotion rather than an active thing. Look into it


Any ideas on an outline on this article? MahangaTalk 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Entertainment; Don't you ever remember being told by adults when you were younger to "Go find something to entertain yourself with" ? Entertainmnet can consist of many things as well as amusement or activity. It is truly in the eye of the beholder as to how you want to interpret the word. Based more so on ones opinion. DRGNMSTR76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgnmstr76 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Pro wrestling aka sports entertainment

It's nowhere mentioned but it should be — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


We should really discuss some sort of organization before we dive into this. How should this article be organized. We could write an incredibly large amount of information on various forms of information, but I don't think that is the correct way to go about this. I can think of two major ideas that should be presented in this article. The History and the Significance of entertainment. How did people change the way they were entertained during the Great Depression? How has entertainment been used during wartime? How has it been used in peace? Why do we need to be entertained psychologically. I think the list of types of entertainment should go, except for how we can look at these critically and how they relate to more important concepts. The lists belong at Outline of entertainment and List of entertainment industry topics which needs to be merged into the Outline article. Ryan Vesey 20:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What would people think about splitting the article into sections for each century? "Entertainment in the 16th century", "Entertainment in the 17th century"... The 20th and 21st centuries should have their own articles that can be split into "Entertainment in the 60s" "Entertainment in the 70s"... Ryan Vesey 20:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would be incredibly difficult to organize it this way either. Here is a great source on "Voices and Instruments: Soloists and Ensembles in the 15th Century". Ryan Vsey 20:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you have provided some really good ideas. I support those suggestions. AutomaticStrikeout 21:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think an issue that we will have to face is the fact that entertainment, being such a fundamental human concept, can be analysed through the lens of many different discourses - historically, culturally, racially, or by the individual arts which make up "entertainment". I'm not quite sure how to approach it but here is some stuff that I found which can help us when discussing how to organise the page.
There is some useful information on the psychological aspect of entertainment here - plus there are a huge collection of sources in the Google and GoogleBooks results pages. Some articles on the history of entertainment are here, here, here (entertainment in the 1950's), here (Roman entertainment), here (Black entertainment), here (The "secret" history of entertainment... whatever that means..), here (violent entertainment), here (Turkish entertainment), here (Roman Empire entertainment), and here (street entertainment)
There is also here (Freedom and Entertainment - rating new media), here (entertainment and education), and here (Product Placement & Brand Strategy in entertainment)--Coin945 (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Animals and entertainment

Just thought about more interesting angles: animals in entertainment (zoos/aquariums etc.), and also animal entertainment, I.e., wgat animals do to enjoy themselves.--Coin945 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Operating principles

I have been working on this article quite hard as it is such a core topic and so unsatisfactory before. There are obviously lots of ways it could be organised but as I worked on it, it seemed that it was better to go with themes as an organising principle rather than time or place because entertainment is so universal and ancient that the themes would have to be repeated over and over if it was organised by time or place. So I have been trying to incorporate the times and places under the themes at the same time as ensure that it offers a global view.

Given that entertainment has affected everyone for forever (especially when they had none), and this is an overview, one of the things I have also been trying to do is avoid repetition. This means using different examples to illustrate the themes. Thus, every example of say, bat and ball games, cannot be included and the number of references to a country needs to be balanced. There are so many, they are going to be lucky to get one reference. So I try to find the best place for them. For instance, it is probably better to use Canada’s ice-hockey as an example of the effect of climate on entertainment, rather than add that country to a list of baseball fans. For the same reason, adding lists of countries to one type of entertainment is likely to force the article into vast amounts of repetition. My approach has been to seek a representative, broad-ranging set of examples. Hence, as well as Chess, the Chinese game of Go is included. Also, to avoid repetition and wasting words, and since we have the advantage of links, it is not necessary to repeat the obvious things that will be seen when the reader goes to the links, such as, for example, that basketball is played with a ball.

Whenever there is chance to use a different place/time for a theme, I am trying to use it in order to give the flavour of a subject that goes back for thousands of years. This is a topic that could be easily affected by WP: Recentism. "Recent" in this context is at least a couple of hundred years. Somehow it needs to be able to accommodate lots of regions, lots of types of entertainment, the difference between watching and doing, the present and the past, the special case of children etc etc. So far, the article refers to China, Japan, America, Bhutan, France, Ireland, Scotland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Australia, England, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Persia and Mesopotamia. So it is already quite global. Cricket is particularly useful because it is the choice of entertainment for the whole subcontinent. Used as an example, it ensures the inclusion of India and Pakistan. Furthermore, along with Association Football, there are far more people being entertained by it than are actually playing it, so it keeps the focus on entertainment, which is part of the challenge here.

The other principle I am operating under are that this article is likely to be referred to by very young people, possibly as part of their schoolwork, so it needs to set things in context and indicate aspects they might not have had time to learn yet, such as that there are more card games than the ones they have already heard of, and that the use of animals for entertainment has a long history. It's an encyclopaedia, after all! The other audience for all Wikipedia articles is people looking for references to assist them with further research. So the references ought to be good, comprehensive, reliable ones to which they could go to broaden their knowledge rather than random links to websites.

It's quite challenging but that's how I have been approaching it. Certainly not perfect, but done in good faith. (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think that is the point - there are universal themes and although they have evolved and been affected by cultural and technological changes, underneath it's the same as it has always been. The chief thing is that this is an article about an idea and the way that idea manifests itself. Any activities are illustrations of the idea. So we have to avoid the temptation to expand on our favourite entertainment (especially when it comes to sports), or engage in a competition about one over the other, or describe any activity in detail. Any examples should be used to illustrate the idea of entertainment or make a different point about it. Comprehensive lists of entertaining activities should go in list articles. (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Structure and everything

I have had several goes at structuring this article and I have expended considerable effort in working out how to present a concise and coherent overview of such a big, universal topic. It is a topic that covers a whole spectrum of other big topics such as leisure, tourism, culture, sport and media, as well as every period in history and every country and culture. The potential for repetition is huge, so conciseness is important. The potential for bias towards a particular form or place or time is also huge, so the history and the manifestations of the different forms need to be carefully chosen to illustrate the different aspects. The lead needs to indicate that entertainment goes on pretty much the same as it always has but it has the capacity to blend and shift its shape as a result of changes in fashion, culture, technology and economics. Since its shape is shifting fast in our own time, history is as much about the present as the past.

Ideally, I think anyone reading the article, from any place in the world, ought to be able to recognise themselves and their culture in it. It should be possible to translate it and have it still represent the topic.

Currently, I am thinking that the main forms such as music and drama should have their own headings where their primary versions can be considered. The ways that these important forms contribute to other forms especially "performances" is why I have made performance as a subheading. The blends can be considered there. The medium seems to be less important than the form - "new" media is simply a new way of presenting the traditional forms. I moved children to its own section because children as an audience have special needs that are also universal and independent of culture. (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of organizing the content into detailed sections about each specific topic. Also, do you think we could expand this article using the versions from the other language Wikipedias? Most of them are just lists of entertainment with a short summary, but some may have new content to add here. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
On the "do list"! (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The featured article for today (Hadji Ali) is pretty interesting. Maybe performance art and vaudeville can be mentioned here? - M0rphzone (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was a timely and fascinating FA, wasn't it? Performance art is definitely a kind of performance, but vaudeville is a kind of theatre and so could perhaps it should be fitted into that section along with the other largely superseded form of music hall. Thanks for the obsolete electronic forms. I am trying to work out whether they should be a separate section because of the range and relative newness of the medium; or whether they are really the same as the rest because they are still contain stories and games; or whether their rapid obsolescence is so remarkable that the heading should be obsolescence of electronic forms. Thinking, thinking ... (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To do

  • Music - develop section
  • Pilgrimage as a place of storytelling
  • Architectural/design concerns for entertainment venues eg fast egress and safety sightlines, acoustics
  • Parades - "Triumphs" of Caesar, Trooping of the Colour as a ticketed event
  • The speed of obsolescence of electronic form
  • Effect of entertainment obsolescence on domestic and institutional architecture (eg homes and hospitals)
  • Check other language editions
  • Shopping as entertainment - mediaeval fairs, malls, World Fairs, trade displays (Mark Howard Moss, Shopping As an Entertainment Experience, Lexington Books 2007)
  • Fireworks - China, Europe, courtly entertainment, New Years (especially Millennium) around the world
  • Remove company brands

Explanation of new structure and content

Over the last few weeks, as a result of this article being nominated "today's article for improvement" I have completely rewritten it. Below is a bit of an explanation of the new structure and the thinking behind what has gone into it. The single most important change I have made is to refocus the article around the audience as the criterion necessary for entertainment. It is NOT an article about the individual forms of entertainment or a set of lists. It is about the concept of entertainment itself. Therefore, the guiding principle is to focus on the audience's involvement and I have tried to make the article a coherent whole.

It would be very easy for this article to end up as a mere list of every kind of popular entertainment - with people fighting over how frequently their favourite sport, their country or TV show gets mentioned. So, I have tried very hard to give as many countries as possible a specific mention and to classify entertainment format broadly rather than create a comprehensive list of anything.

To me it seems that there are three core entertainment formats – music, theatre and dance – they've always been there and probably always will be, either as "pure" stand alone entertainments or combined in some way. Storytelling and drama, which create narratives for use in all types of entertainment, are important components but not entertainments in themselves, so I have put them under "Performance" along with sections on the other kinds of performances that entertain people. Each section is accorded roughly three paragraphs, containing what it is, how it works as entertainment, where it came from and how it continues, some famous and some varying examples, cultural balance both overall and in the section. Examples used in the article, from whatever culture or time, often refer back to the chief types. This is why there is a relatively long list of sub-sections within the performance section. The particular technology used in any of these main forms is irrelevant - it is just a new medium. That is why there are not worked-up sections for say, iPods, Walkmans, cassette players etc. What is important about these is the rapidity of its obsolescence and commercialisation, which is why the "entertainment industry" and "electronic media" sections are at the end.

Galleries and images
Experienced Wikipedians will notice that there are a lot more images (and image galleries) than normal. Also, that most of the images show the audience more prominently than the performers. The thinking behind the images is that firstly, "entertainment" is an inherently visual subject. Also, the images represent the audience involvement in the main types of entertainment, rather than the activity itself. The criteria for image choice is representativeness of a particular aspect of the main types of entertainment, the image quality, and its balance overall in the article among different cultural examples.

The larger galleries are limited to the core entertainment formats (music, theatre, dance), while the other sections have fewer illustrations. I have integrated the gallery images directly into the text as specific examples of the core entertainment formats rather than use them as merely pretty pictures. I kept having to cull and re-choose to select the ones that gave the the best quality and also provided the diversity both in the section and in the article overall. For example, if there was a good example from an unrepresented country, I chose that over a good example from a country already represented. (The same principle was applied to examples of the different aspects of entertainment.) Therefore the galleries work as a "set" that demonstrate how some things are similar and some things are different across all cultures/examples. I'm fully aware of WP:NOTGALLERY but believe that the galleries are useful because: a) this is a high-level broad article with many different aspects; and b) this is an article about a concept that is abstract yet simultaneously universal. Thus the images aim to make it not just "pretty" but to ground the idea/theory in specific and diverse examples.

There are two sorts of "history" here. The first sort is the sort that is "in the past" - such as public punishment as entertainment and media formats that continue to be replaced. The second sort of history is the ongoing process - being entertained by the main forms (music, theatre, dance etc) and also the content of entertainment (stories etc) which either persists or is remixed. The section entitled "history" at the top of the article therefore only refers to the first sort. For the rest of the article, the history is ongoing: it is part of the present and therefore written into each paragraph. Otherwise, the content would very easily fall prey to WP:RECENT.

Content, links and references
As with the images, I have tried to use the links to enrich the subject as much as possible - the idea was that readers would find in the article both information about what was most influential in "entertainment" broadly speaking, as well as information that was unique. In other words, I have tried to take advantage of the potential of a good encyclopaedia to be a place to find what is educative or expected as well as to discover the unexpected or enlightening. Readers of the article ought to be able to see examples of the most influential content (such as Shakespeare, for example) as well as discover how other cultures have used the forms to be entertained. Globally entertaining events and culturally specific examples both need to be fitted in.

Sport and art
Sport is not necessarily entertainment (people can play sport for their own pleasure or recreation) but more often than not, sport is played in groups or teams and becomes entertainment when audiences are engaged. There is, now of course, a lot of encouragement from business and sports themselves to make them entertaining via every sort of marketing, broadcasting and reporting. So, while they are a part of the entertainment scene, they are more their own thing. So the sports section in this article needs to stay lean and avoid outweighing everything else,in my opinion. While giving an indication of the range of sports that entertain different types of audiences, it should resist listing them all or adding favourites.

Art, on the other hand, more often than not is done as an individual effort. The audience, if any, comes much later via the involvement of galleries and museums or whose job is not primarily to "provide entertainment" but to care for the works and make them available. Artists will continue to be artists whether or not they have an audience. So I have put "performance art" for example, under "See also" because it is more art than performance.

Sincerely, (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you've done a very good job of expanding the article. The article structure seems effective, and this article's certainly a lot better than before it was selected to be worked on. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! It's been an interesting challenge. (A bit more tidying up and adding references to do yet.) (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, just amazing. As I said on my talk page, a sprinkling of psychological and philosophical context would be the icing on the cake....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Following your suggestion, I have added short sections on psychology and philosophy to the section about what makes entertainment different from education etc. This gave the chance to connect the beginning of the article with its end and incorporate some links to hitherto unmentioned things like Wii and poetry. (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this very encouraging comment. At the moment I don't feel as if we need an article on the History of Entertainment, because it seems to me to be so continuous - the past reappears in the present or it just morphs somehow. However, I reserve the right to change my mind :) (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Role of YouTube or other services in modern entertainment

The role YouTube plays in modern entertainment is quite influential, so I think there's a good chance of writing a good, comprehensive section on YouTube its influence on the entertainment industry and entertainment itself. Here's a small summary of some points that maybe you could elaborate more on and write in better prose (I'm not great at creating original content):

With the increasing prevalence of technology and the Internet in everyday life, websites and services such as YouTube serve as a sort of portal to different forms of entertainment, whether it be comedy, shows, games, or music. Just like the influence of iTunes on the music industry and popular culture, the influence of YouTube has also effected the entertainment, film, and music industry. Many new songs and music videos by mainstream and indie musicians or singers are released through YouTube, with movies and television shows also being released in online streaming format. Websites such as YouTube have enabled anyone to create their own form of entertainment, rather than only be a silent recipient of media, reflecting a change/shift in how entertainment is created/received., so what do you think about a section on something like this? I think a lot could be written about this topic, and some aspects of it is already mentioned at social impact of YouTube and other articles. We could also just merge this into the electronic media section, but I think this topic has enough specific content to merit its own section. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You have made two good points, M0rphzone - about user-generated content and about the release of commercial entertainment via video hosting services and I will add them to the article. User-generated content "that enables anyone to create their own entertainment" is an important shift in the way entertainment is generated and used and should be noted in the electronic section, as you say. I'll put that in and hunt out some references to support the claim, so that it is not original research. The release of new commercial products on video-sharing sites is part of the convergence idea, isn't it? Yesterday, just before I read your note, I added this: "Today, ... a series of exhibition 'windows', such as DVD, pay-per-view, and fibre-optic video-on-demand are used to maximise profits". I will add your point about release of commercial products there.
I don't think that YouTube and similar sites are any more influential as entertainment than books were when they became (relatively) cheaply available, or television was when it was relied on everywhere for cheap/free entertainment. They are only newer media that offer stories and poems and parodies etc. just as before, although obviously, the visual media have been able to include dancing and singing. The real (and rather amazing) difference is the fact that YouTube content can be user-generated and this has democratised entertainment, whereas before it had to be funded and supported, originally by wealthy patrons and then by wealthy corporations. That makes a connection to the point that was made in the Peer Review that courtly entertainment needs to be added. Royal Courts supported entertainers enabling their skills to be developed, so I have to find a concise way of writing and referencing that. More detail about either Courtly entertainment or the influence of video sharing sites ought to go in the articles about them so as not to unbalance this one.
YouTube isn't mentioned in the article because all the proprietary company names have been removed so as not to advertise them. For example, I took out Cirque du Soleil from the circus section and Nintendo from the video game section because they are company names; YouTube is the name of another proprietary company. The YouTube article is itself quite extensive; the article on video hosting service is not so good and I will use your text to develop it, if that's okay. Cheers, (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yea it's better to avoid mentioning specific names so they aren't given undue weight. I attempted to explain how sites and services such as YouTube are significant, and what you said about the increasing ease and ability to produce user-generated content is exactly what I mean. This content will need refs of course, and again, I'm not great at creating original content, so thank you for writing about these topics.
Also, since you brought it up, do you think we could write an article on the effects of new forms of entertainment/media when they become available to the public (example: books, radio, television, the Internet, portable entertainment devices, ebooks, etc.) All of these are part of entertainment, but I checked their respective articles, and they don't really go into the sociological impacts and studies, so maybe we can create a new section or new articles specifically addressing the effects and impacts. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a great idea and there is a need on WP for these types of article, IMO. It is not for lack of source material that such sections are missing. Much academic work has been done on the impact of these various forms of information dissemination and entertainment. For example, extensive studies have been done on the social impact of books and the history of reading. The reason for such omissions in the encyclopaedia is, I think, that it takes a lot of work to grasp that research, and then write representative and concise articles that take account of it. (My experience with this Entertainment article, which I am still trying to "finish", reinforces my opinion on this.) Adding sections on the social impacts is certainly necessary but it would need a lot of work and much more time than I have at the moment. Creating one comprehensive article that covers the impacts of all these forms is even harder. Such an article could perhaps be developed as a break out one after each of the types has its own section. I see that at least there is already an article on the Sociology of the Internet. If you are keen, choose one form and start researching! :) (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, your point about impact is similar to the point in the Peer Review about context and is relevant to this article too. So I'll have to think how to add it. The impact of electronic entertainment is already there but the impact of books could go in the literature section for example. (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So should we split off these aspects into another article, and then link them as a "main" link in a summary section in this article?
This is a big undertaking, but I found some sources/articles that may be helpful (I don't know if the latter one is completely reliable, but it can be a starting point): Media and Society into the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction, How Radio Changed Everything, and Influences: Music and Society. Of course, the scope of these sources go far beyond that of plain entertainment, but if you want, we can expand the content of other articles on those topics to encompass the sociological impacts or provide analysis on the history using some good sources besides the ones on this talk page. By the way, I think we should stick to using books as sources the way it is right now, as they are a lot more comprehensive than online articles are (not that I can even find good enough articles that address these topics anyways). - M0rphzone (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't mean I wanted to start on this new article right away. I have more to do on this one. I meant that I have incorporated your suggestion about impact into the literature section, and also realised that the entertainment aspect should more appropriately titled "reading" since that is the medium by which the entertainment comes. I will consider impact of the other sections but try to keep them tight so they don't wander off too much from the point of this one. That is likely to lead to additions to other articles. In fact, it already has. Only after this is all done would I want to see whether "impacts" could be consolidated into a new article but really, not now. Sorry. Your ideas are good but I have to keep a grip on the scope of this article (and on myself). (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review suggestions

I have worked through the suggestions made in the Peer Review archived here and incorporated them into the article, including making links to many other relevant articles that explain the various concepts and provide examples of them. (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the article have a section examining the commercialization of entertainment? I'm not sure, but I think there were 2 types of entertainment before commercialization began: the royal/imperial entertainment, and common/community entertainment. Both of these didn't seem to incorporate the notion of tickets or charge fees, but I'm not sure. Did people get charged for viewing entertainment performances, (besides street performers)? For example, people had to pay to go to Shakespeare plays, right? It seems that major commercialization occurred along with technological advancement in the 19th century in the form of fairs, increase in number theaters, increased ability for common person to pay for entertainment, etc. But then again, this may just be a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution and general increased wealth of the populations in the Western world. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added the section on Royal courts and that includes how they helped to support entertainers and their skills. The point has also been made that the relation between court entertainment and entertainment for the people seems to have been quite a variable one in different times and places, sometimes sort of oozing from the court to the world, and sometimes a court entertainment disappeared when the court did or morphed into something else or was sustained by popular songs and games. It wasn't so simple as royal entertainment versus people's entertainment. I have tried to show these things throughout the article (for example, the early examples of tickets to the hanging and tickets to the Accession Day events show that we have been selling places at entertainments for a very long time), and in the electronic section, to show how it later became computerised. I added some more on electronic ticketing, including a link to barcodes, for example. I added how the 19th century made theatre more respectable as well as providing more variety (although this is partly a result of the growth of a middle class who, as you say, had an increased ability to pay as well as more leisure time) and also professional published critics. I added them too. Researching this has showed me that there apparently have always been commercial aspects to entertainment - that's how roving players and minstrels made a living; aristocrats commissioned entertainers to write or perform; and if you count in-house royal performers, entertainment was their paid job. It's been the usual long slow process - I don't think there was a moment where it wasn't commercial and suddenly was. It's been going along, as entertainment seems to, building on what was always there, so at the moment, I don't think it needs a separate section, but that's not to say that it couldn't one day be a separate article. I am trying to incorporate all these processes and issues in this overview article. Cheers, (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Entertainment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wadewitz (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Review in progress. Wadewitz (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Need to do for GA

  • Copyediting. In general the article is written well, but I found myself starting to want to copyedit as I was reading. This article needs a thorough copyedit. Here are some examples:
    • People probably started entertaining themselves by telling stories around a fire in prehistoric times, and storytelling has been an important part of most forms of entertainment ever since. Stories are still told in this original form, for example while camping or when listening to the stories of another culture as a tourist. Entertainment is provided for mass audiences in purpose-built structures such as a theatre, auditorium, or stadium. One of the most famous venues in the Western world is the Colosseum where spectacles, competitions, races, and sports were presented as public entertainment. - This paragraph lacks cohesion - switches topics in the middle. All of the paragraphs at the beginning of the "History" section are like this - they need to be better ordered. Look for this problem throughout the article.
- Rewritten. These problems result from the long development period of this article and its complexity (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Radio and television, often broadcast live, is a 20th century version of theatre entertainment that exists alongside the traditional forms.[70] Plays, musicals, monologues, pantomimes, and performance poetry are examples from the very long history of theatrical entertainment and performance art.[71][72][73] Stand-up comedy is a type of performance usually given in a theatre.[74] - This paragraph is just a list - there are several like this. Fleshing out the paragraphs like this will make the article better.
- Rewritten this and am developing it. Have to be careful with "fleshing". The trick is not to write what ought to be in the article on the form itself. For example, this article should not include too much of what should be in the article "music" or the article "dance". Also, for the same reason, it needs to focus on the audience, rather than the form, which is why the images, as much as possible, are chosen to show the audience being entertained rather than the form itself. Sometimes this objective is compromised by the other effort to show a wide cultural or historical range (breadth and depth). (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • One-sentence paragraphs should be avoided.
- Done. (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Avoid bullet points, as in the street performance section.
- Done. The street performance section has been rewritten to tighten it and remove the bullets. (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Organizational structure. I'm not sure that all of the sections are necessary. For example, the fireworks section seems out of place, as it is about the same size as dance. Dance seems much more important. I would try to combine some of the sections or perhaps delete a few. For example, could "Circus and animals" be combined? "Revelry" is also hard to get a grip on. Perhaps just a large "fairs" section?
- "Animals" seem to have had a usage in entertainment quite independent of circuses and their involvement has been even more controversial in general entertainments than in circus entertainments. For example, horse racing is a serious industry and a major source of entertainment. (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Revelry" started out as a section on the the hazards of entertainment, especially at big concerts. The heading has been changed to "Safety" to better reflect this section's purpose. (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The "Fairs" section has a different focus from the "Safety" section. The article is trying to show how they developed from the early market fairs, which also provided entertainments, to the big trade fairs, which had a similar mercantile purpose and also provided entertainments but grew much, much bigger. Both the local, small type and the huge, global type are still going strong. (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I see. I feel like the section headers for this article are very difficult to decide on. Wadewitz (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Images. I would recommend far fewer images - the galleries make it hard to see the flow of the article. Also, make sure that every image has a very descriptive caption.
- I agree that the galleries interrupt the flow of the text but I worked hard on selecting the images, so that they would: a) provide a representative view of the breadth and depth of this topic; b) allow readers to recognise their own culture in the article; and c) be directly transferable if the article was translated.
So, as a solution, I have tried out drop down galleries for the sections that needed a range of examples, such as the different types of engagement that musical entertainments offer and the fact that banquets have been an important entertainment in every century and culture. (The Banquet gallery manages to show ten centuries and ten cultures, which I think is a good thing). Do you think the drop down solution works? (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that is a very good solution, yes! Wadewitz (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

General comments on the article

  • When talking about how entertainment changes, you might also mention how what is considered entertaining in one culture is not considered so in another part. So, for example, dancing has been banned in several cultures.
- There was already a point made about how "Society's attitudes to female dancers depend on the culture" with a reference to an analysis of this issue in a book chapter. However, I have developed this section and provided a number of examples where dances or dancing has been banned. (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The architecture section definitely needs expansion.
- Done. This section is expanded and divided into architecture FOR entertainment and architecture AS entertainment. (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The "Electronic media" section seems to tilt the article towards a modern bias.
- It is not so much a modern bias as an attempt to show the issues that are currently affecting entertainment, which are largely technological ones, while the forms remain basically the same. I have separated the components of this section to show the main issues. It would be unbalanced not to try to address this set of changes and their impact. (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
This makes more sense to me now. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What about a video and audio clips, especially in the music section?
- Two audio clips added - one showing the reaction of a notable composer to the idea of recording music, and the other showing the normal reaction of audiences to entertainment. The challenge, as with all this article, is not to privilege one form over another and to continue to represent the audience being entertained, as opposed to the form itself. (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Video clip of McKinley's inauguration completes the parade section - it shows a different type of ceremonial, shows a parade on horseback and is both rare and short. (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- A video of a large audience's response to a performance would be appropriate (still looking for a good one) but a music video of any particular performer or performance would be hard to justify - specific types should go in the articles about the performer or the genre etc. Here, I think we should focus on the entertainment effect on the audience. (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It is good that you have such a strong conceptual view of the article. It really helps you keep it under control! I'm going to recommend that strategy to others working on similar articles. Wadewitz (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Overall, the largest issue I see with this article is that many sections broadly define the type of entertainment they are discussing and then make reference to one or two examples. It is hard to know why these examples and not others were chosen. The representativeness of these examples is not assured and the history of change over time is lost. GA is not require this depth of research, but it is something that the editors should be aware of. It is also gives the writing a very stilted feeling.
- On the point about why an example is chosen, I have tried to select examples that show a different point about the idea of entertainment on behalf of the whole article, instead of repeating things. The idea is to make it a coherent overview with as rich a set of links as possible. Some comments on the principles behind the choice of structure and content are on the article's Talk Page. (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- On the point of change over time, what seems apparent as I work on this is that mostly it hasn't. The history in continuous and I have tried to show that in each section. The main change comes with the technology that is in the last section and even then it's only a medium - the forms seem to be the same as ever. (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This may just so my bias as well - I'm interested in historical difference. :) Wadewitz (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful and please feel free to ask me any questions you might have! Wadewitz (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I will read over the article again today and tomorrow. Wadewitz (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Magic and Safety sections lack any references at all. You might consider adding a few. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see anything "likely to be challenged" in those sections, myself. If you intend to take this to FAC, however, you'll have to add citations to those sections. Wadewitz (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have developed the Circus and Magic sections and added some references to show the linkage with, and differences from, the earlier forms of this entertainment. (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have added further comment and a reference to the Safety section. (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional comment You might think about foregrounding Greek theater a bit more in the "Theater" section rather than the introduction of women to the stage. Wadewitz (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have restructured the theatre section a little to put the Greek tradition more logically first and added another reference. (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Image copyright check - I just checked the images quickly for basic copyright compliance. There are several that need some attention. Note that many of the images will need their details enhanced if you go for FA.
    • File:1001-nights.jpg
      • This picture is used in dozens of articles and is certainly PD, but has no provenance info in Commons and would be virtually impossible to trace. Perhaps you can use something else from the Commons category Category:Scheherazade? Wittylama 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Image exchanged. (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • File:Phoenix ThomasMars1.jpg
      • This was uploaded directly to commons with a free licenses, and includes EXIF data, so it seems fine to me. Are you worrying that it might have been stolen from somewhere else without permission? I checked TinyEye reverse image search and came up with nothing (not even Wikimedia, oddly...) [1] Wittylama 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Jumping in randomly... using Google Images' new TinEye-like search (click the camera in the search box) the image does appear here. Hover over, and it includes (C) logo, for "Andrewn551". The Wikimedia upload, which is larger, credits an Alex. Not sure how a larger version of the image would be lying, but conflicting names. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Indeed - very odd. But well found. The Wikimedia Commons image is, like you say, much larger than the one on that website. Also, the name Andrewn551 appears to be credited in several of the blogpost at that website[2]. Given that the Commons version is 4,368 × 2,912 pixels, file size: 4.46 MB then that is likely to be the original image - direct from the camera that took it. I'm guessing, but my hunch is the Commons version is the original and the other website is the copy. Wittylama 06:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I take it then that the crowd surfing image is okay as it would not be possible for this high res version to be a copy of the low res version. I wanted to include this image because it provides a good example of a level of audience participation in musical entertainment that is hard to illustrate. (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone fill out the basic summary info, then? Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • File:Banquet scene in Huya's tomb.png
      • Another case of almost impossible to trace attribution. This is a new drawing of a PD original so it's not self-evident that it is also PD. This is actually the case with everything currently in Commons:Category:Tomb of Huya which, if I was being picky, should all be listed for deletion IMO... Not sure what to do about this. Wittylama 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have replaced the Ancient Eqyptian banquet scene with another. (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have replaced the image with the newer version - better quality and attribution. (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Once these are fixed, GA is yours! Wadewitz (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

- All suggestions have been incorporated now. Thanks for your time and attention. I hope our readers find it informative and encyclopaedic! (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead too long?

Is a lead supposed to contain no more than five or four paragraphs? --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy as entertainment

I reverted the deletion of the examples" in the “Psychology and Philosophy” section (summarised as “may not be good representatives for these mediums and will need more than 1; take note of systemic bias") for the reasons that the deleted examples provide citable illustrations of philosophical themes as popular entertainment that the section needs. Although Hamlet is essential in the article, the other examples were specifically included to counter systemic bias and their removal leaves Hamlet as the only example in that section.

The Hitchhiker series was chosen to exemplify both the theme of philosophy and also the range of media through which a story can be told. The fact that it started as a radio play also works towards countering the likely systemic bias towards books or film - an aural medium is quite unusual as a beginning point for popular diversification across a range of media. These examples were not challenged by the Good Article reviewers. I am also not convinced that more examples are needed since, in order to keep a tight rein on the length of the whole, every point in this article can only be supported by one or two. So any example needs to do double or triple duty. The Hitchhiker one serves as a citable example of an entertainment based on philosophical topics (meaning of life, ethics, artificial intelligence, multiple worlds, God, and philosophical method) which are not commonly tackled explicitly, as well as the almost complete range of media (radio comedy, novel, film, television series, stage show, comic, audiobook, LP record, adventure game and online game). Furthermore, its literary conceits have entered the language (see Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and there are many translations.

I can think of other long-standing entertainments but they do not exemplify so many things. For example, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is an obvious choice for philosophy but it is mostly famous as a film. Medea (play) is very old but we already have references to Greek plays in the article and again, although it is famous in theatrical versions (live and filmed) and as a text, it doesn’t come in as a wide range of media.

Hence, Hitchhiker is a very good example of philosophy as entertainment, media cross-fertilisation and multi-lingual popularity. (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the section will need to be greatly expanded if it's more than a summary section. Article length should not be an issue now, and there are more than 200 articles that are longer than this one, which is at 122,000 bytes. A few more examples (maybe max 5 for each) with brief topic summaries will not significantly add more than 50,000 bytes.
There should be more than one example for each category, otherwise there will need to be some justification for why we choose these specific examples out of the countless books, movies that examine philosophy and psychology besides being entertaining. And these three examples cannot represent the broad range of acclaimed or popular literature/films that exist, but ten examples may be able to be more representative.
I mention systemic bias because these examples may not be particularly known outside of the Anglosphere and technology-oriented users (specifically The Matrix and Hitchhiker's Guide). I know you mainly have a background in English and European history, and may not know about other examples, but we could use book examples from non-English literature such as from Romance literature, Chinese literature, Islamic literature, Indian literature, Greek literature, Japanese literature, etc. For films, the Matrix may not a good film example as it's generally a sci-fi action film and not well known outside of technology/sci-fi-oriented consumers or the US/UK/Canada/Australia. I know there are other (critically acclaimed/popular) films from earlier years that explore psychology or philosophy (and not necessarily from the US as well). Hitchhiker's Guide is ok as it addresses a wide range of topics, but the other two examples are not. I don't know many (non-English) examples or films specifically; anyone who does should post possible additional candidates. This article really needs more experts in non-English/European history fields so we can include other historical examples, and people from outside the Anglosphere so we can add some other popular culture examples.
Also, this is a WP:VITAL article; article length should not be an issue until it gets to 250,000 bytes. For comparison, the article on British literature is more than 262,000 bytes; this one is not even 123,000 bytes yet. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Will think on this. Yes, Matrix is a bit obscure (even when watching it!) However, The Tale of Genji and Arabian Nights are mentioned. They are pretty famous and the latter helpfully has been much translated as well as filmed and spoken. The African film Xala is mentioned and has been recognised by film people. I am reassured about the article length. I thought we would be killed if it got much longer. (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Some additional examples I can think of/found are Journey to the West, Ramayana, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, Shahnameh, etc. I just wikilinked all the literature I mentioned in my previous paragraph; there are some great examples in the articles. I think pretty much all of them encompass philosophy (and maybe some psychology). - M0rphzone (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Good oh. I'll see what I an do with more of these epics. I just found that The Matrix was released worldwide and have added a reference to that fact. So it is a better example than I thought. (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe some of these would fit more under the reading or storytelling sections. Also, did we mention the fairy tales by Hans Christian Andersen? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added the other epics - they improve the balance. Well found! No, we didn't have Andersen. We had Grimm. Now we have Andersen too. (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know many films, but we could choose from some of these lists: List of Academy Award-winning films, Palme d'Or, Asia Pacific Screen Awards. Maybe we could choose one every decade starting from 1920 to 1980, and maybe 2 each decade after. They could go under the film section as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, the Chinese novel I linked, Journey to the West, has philosophical topics in it; it could go in the philosophy section, and then you could add to or revise some of the rhetorical questions as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking about your suggestions re films. I am not convinced that we need to give many examples of individual films because insofar as entertainment is concerned, films that are intended as entertainment (as opposed to documentaries, which we have already mentioned in the section) are basically just another medium for a story. Their themes and content go on as they always have done. Films interpret stories just as poems, plays and novels do. We have named a few films for specific reasons, such as the one that uses film to give a history of film; and the two that are political critiques (one African, One American) in an entertaining form. The different film industries (Hollywood, Bollywood etc) are already discussed. We could give any number of great directors, their films and their influence - Alain Resnais's Last Year at Marienbad; films by François Truffaut, ones by William Wyler or John Huston; Ang Lee; or Nikhil Advani who did Kal Ho Naa Ho all come immediately to mind. But this is not an article on the history of film and the list is huge. We have to restrict ourselves to content that makes a specific contribution to the idea of entertainment. So thinking about it, it struck me that what has changed is CGI. So I added some content about that with a couple more film references. Will keep thinking about it. If we want to get this article to FA, what is really needed is more references. (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Added a range of bodies who give awards for excellence in film entertainment, using your suggestions. (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional topics

I was thinking about more types of entertainment, and I realized that we haven't mentioned practical jokes as entertainment (pulling physical pranks, online trolling, watching people pull pranks or troll, etc). We also haven't addressed streaming video games as entertainment, or just streaming any kind of media. Virtual reality (VR) as entertainment is another aspect to address, and also the convergence of video games, CGI, interactive movies, 4D films, virtual reality in the coming decades. Also the Internet of Things may involve entertainment as well. Maybe there should be a whole section on technology and entertainment, and how computers, mobile, portable devices and the Internet have changed the way we watch TV or films (streaming through Netflix, Hulu, etc through computers and portables), the way we listen to music (media players, smartphones), and how it has enabled new forms of entertainment such as video games, watching video game gameplay, and virtual reality? Right now, the article mainly addresses conventional types of content delivery at physical locations and doesn't mention content delivery through portable devices and the Internet. Also, have we even addressed the emergence of home theaters rather than watching at traditional movie theaters? - M0rphzone (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have integrated "home theatre" into the film section and related it in the text to the type of home theatre formerly used and already mentioned - that is, the ones where people used to create a stage for domestic play acting. There is an image of one of these already. Virtual reality and convergence are already there as is CGI and its impact on entertainment. Will think about streaming etc next. (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the article addressed banquets in formal and high society, but what about regular parties by common people (historical and modern)? We can also have a section on celebrations and mention various holidays and festivals celebrated worldwide, although they may not necessarily be entertainment but include entertainment. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Commercial banquets" are already mentioned as part of everyday entertainment to celebrate events like birthdays; fireworks are considered and different festivals are linked. We have articles on specific festivals and Festival was recently a TAFI article, as a result of which it is a bit better now. We can't really add in too many specific parties because other articles rightly deal with them (see for example birthday party). This article is about the concept and tries to pull it all together using links to examples rather than all-inclusive lists . (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Playing may also be a form of entertainment. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Play is covered (and linked) in the children's section and for adults in the games section.
Good suggestions. I will try to integrate them. I am trying to work up another article to GA at the moment, so I will come back to these ideas and work through them one one at a time when I can. Also, real-life work has just intervened. (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok that's fine. I'll try to think of some more suggestions for improvement. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply Rhlsnhpiy (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)