Talk:List of Shakespearean characters (A–K)

Title change
'Shakespeare characters' is ungrammatical. This page should be moved to Shakespearean characters. Anyone disagree? The Singing Badger 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) I disagree! Seven years late, but there you go. I've just made the same point on the 'Dickensian characters' page, but I'll paste it here with the names changed to save you going to look at that.
 * No strong opinion. Shakespearean characters already exists as a redirect here. However, before making a move we should at least consider List of Shakespearean characters for consistency with the way the Simpsons enthusiasts handle it. AndyJones 21:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, List of Shakespearean characters is more appropriate. The Singing Badger 21:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll make that move tomorrow unless we get further comments. AndyJones 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"These are specifically Shakespeare characters (characters created by Shakespeare), not just 'Shakespearean characters' (characters in a similar style/setting to Shakespeare's characters)."

There's nothing ungrammatical about 'Shakespeare characters' any more than there is with 'Radiohead albums' or 'Stephen King books'. Ubertoaster (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting
This page is awesome. But I find the formatting a bit iffy. I don't like the way the numbered names appear further to the left than than the bulleted names. It's counter-intuitive. Methinks it would be better to replace the numbering with double bullets.

In other words, instead of this:


 * Berkeley:
 * 1) Berkeley and Tressell (fict) are the two gentlemen accompanying Lady Anne, and Henry VI's coffin, in Richard III.
 * 2) Lord Berkeley (hist) acts as messenger from York to Bolingbroke, in Richard II.
 * Bianca:
 * 1) Bianca is the younger sister of Katherine in The Taming of the Shrew. She is loved by Gremio and Hortensio, and eventually marries Lucentio.
 * 2) Bianca is a whore or mistress (the text is inconsistent on which she is) to Michael Cassio in Othello.

You would get this:


 * Berkeley:
 * Berkeley and Tressell (fict) are the two gentlemen accompanying Lady Anne, and Henry VI's coffin, in Richard III.
 * Lord Berkeley (hist) acts as messenger from York to Bolingbroke, in Richard II.
 * Bianca:
 * Bianca is the younger sister of Katherine in The Taming of the Shrew. She is loved by Gremio and Hortensio, and eventually marries Lucentio.
 * Bianca is a whore or mistress (the text is inconsistent on which she is) to Michael Cassio in Othello.

The latter is less broken up by spacing and easier to read, I think. Unfortunately it would be an arduous task to rework this enormous article, a task I am too lazy to do myself, but I just thought I'd raise the possibility. The Singing Badger 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. This is a late-night edit after a night out, I'm afraid, and I'm away for a couple of days (actually in Stratford-Upon-Avon doing some Shakespeare-related stuff) but I'll try to respond briefly now & then give this some thought in the next couple of days. My first thought is that I can't see the problem you identify on my screen: it might be your browser or preferences that generate that. In the examples you've given above, the indents on my screen are in the same "direction" both times. Having said that, if there's a problem for some users, I guess we should aim for something that would be consistent for everyone. I'm thinking that * then ** would work for everybody. I also think numbering has no particular advantages. It might not be so difficult as you imagine to change. * would stay the same, # would become **, ## would become *** and if there are any ###s they would become ****. Those are my only thoughts for the moment. You can take it I've no objection to your suggestion. I'll look back here again Friday or Saturday. Thank you for your "awesome" comment, by the way. AndyJones 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've had a go at that. It looks fine on my screen (but then, so did the previous version). Does the revised layout work for you? AndyJones 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow thanks, that looks way better! Sorry I didn't check to see if it looked different in other skins, that was thoughtless of me. But anyway, it should definitely be a lot clearer now in all the skins. Thanks again. The Singing Badger 14:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gonerill?
this page originally spelled the character Goneril (which feels right to me, to be honest), but I changed it here to Gonerill per the NPS edition. It was recently changed back, and I've reverted: but I'm happy with the shorter version if you can bring a source. AndyJones 12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"N" is for Nurse
Wonderful, useful list. I noticed that there is no image for "N" and so uploaded. Please use it if you feel it suits. — scribbling woman 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent one, yes. I've added that. (I've been seeking an "N" for a long time...) AndyJones 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

sorted wikitable
I like the idea of a sorted wikitable for this list, as suggested in the ongoing peer review. A sample of such a table can be found here. It would be a big project, but worth it. I would be very willing to help. Wrad 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Titus1w.jpg
Image:Titus1w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replaced that with a commons image. That should solve the problem as it affects this page. AndyJones 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured list criteria
I'm not really in any hurry, but I figured I'd post the featured list criteria here. We can go over it point by point and evaluate what needs to be done as time permits.

A featured list exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes:
 * 1) It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
 * 2) *(a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see List). For example, the list: ✅ seems to fit this perfectly. Wrad 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
 * is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and
 * contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles;
 * 1) *(b) "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.
 * 2) *(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
 * 3) *(d) "Uncontroversial" means that the content of the list is not disputed (see Guidelines for controversial articles).
 * 4) *(e) "Stable" means that the list is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. ✅ Wrad 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *(f) "Well-constructed" means that the list is easy to navigate, and is annotated with information as appropriate.
 * 6) It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
 * 7) *(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 8) *(b) where appropriate, a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
 * 9) *(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help). ✅ Wrad 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. Non-free content (fair use) images must pass the non-free content criteria.

A request regarding unseen Shakespearean characters
I'd like to add Rosaline, Sycorax (Shakespeare), and Yorick to this list. I recognize that they are not seen in the plays, but they are "Shakespearean characters". In my opinion, the list needs these articles in order to be comprehensive. However, for now I would limit the addition of unseen characters to those that have legitimate articles on Wikipedia. Wrad 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sortable table
A lot of work - but could be worth it. SilkTork  *** SilkyTalk 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Split
I have split the article into two separate articles encompassing Characters with names from A-K and names from L-Z. I preserved the existing order of characters, and duplicated sources. I have also removed most double-redirects, sending redirects to the A-K article unless it's clear that a particular character from L-Z was intended. I also corrected the template to refer to both pages, and amended the Table of Contents to link between the two articles for easy navigation. As the article was ranked #14 on the list of longest articles in the main article space, it was a good candidate for a split. The history of the page is preserved at the A-K article. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cardenio
Shouldn't Cardenio be mentioned? Even if the play is lost, it has a life in Don Quixote. --Error (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, really. When I removed the {incomplete} tag I'd drawn the line at the 38 plays which are currently widely accepted as "in" the canon. Trying to include all the apocryphal and lost plays seems to me to create all kinds of problems. Is there even a surviving dramatis personnae for Cardenio? AndyJones (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...No, but it's a safe bet that it has Cardenio in it. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting for Godot (sorry, so obvious I just couldn't resist) :-) --Xover (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Gargrave
Gargrave refers to Thomas Gargrave who actually was killed about when he was killed in the play. The play article links to another Thomas Gargrave. I started an article on the correct Thomas Gargrave, but it was rejected on the grounds of an inadequate military record. My question: would the historical Thomas Gargrave merit inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of his mention in a Shakespeare play? Fotoguzzi (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the critical editions of the play, or related journal articles, discuss the character specifically, and linked to the historical person, then, yes, they would help establish notability for the historical person. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)