Talk:Dulcitius

Untitled
This article is well structured and informative. There are some small typing issues in the synopsis section - a dropped pronoun in scene two " kitchen so “can visit them oftener.”[2]" and a missing space at "Scene 4:In the darkness." There might be an issue with the way the synopsis is presented as a list of scenes. The rule is that you shouldn't use a list if the information can be understood easily in paragraph form, maybe it would be better if you change the title from "synopsis" to "scenes" or something like that because synopsis implies paragraphs for me. The list of characters might be better suited in an infobox than an entire section, but I don't see it as problematic. The article's voice is objective and the statements are concise and contain sufficient references. I don't know if the article needs an entire section on Hrosvitha since she already has a rather large article linked to this one. The section on feminism is very good, as well as the section on Dulcitius the historical figure. Since there is very little information for this subject, I believe this article does not need to be any longer unless there is any useful information available about productions of this play. Otherwise, I would say this article is very close to being complete. Jackpmattern (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshuachasegold. Peer reviewers: Jackpmattern, RaineRules.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?
The article is about two different people with the same name. It should be split into two stubs, with a DAB covering the two historic figures and the play. Monstrelet (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Picking up this thread, years after the fact, I agree that the article would benefit from restructuring. One has to read past the opening paragraph to find Dulcitius #2 at all, which may lead brisker Wikipedia users to overlook him, or to assume that Dulcitius #1 and Dulcitius #2 are the same man. Unless there are additional sources which didn't make it into this article, splitting the text would make two stubs with no prospect of being expanded. I don't know to what extent that is frowned upon. Two alternate approaches suggest themselves to me:


 * A) Merging Dulcitius #1 into the article about Hrotsvitha's play. Dulcitius #2 would then be a potentially non-expandable stub, but at least there would only be one.


 * B) Starting the article with an explicit statement that it discusses two different men. It would be, in effect, a disambiguation page, but with the full content on its two subjects instead of two links.


 * Do either of these approaches have merit? ManuelKomnenos (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the page history, and note that it was previously split from the article for Hrotsvita's play, so merging the governor into the play article doesn't seem like the way to go. I have tried out my second option, an opening paragraph that turns the article into a kind of disambiguation page. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)