Template talk:The Comedy of Errors

Dispute
This is ridiculous, we can't have a discussion about this via edit summaries. We need to sort it out here. As a Shakespearean scholar myself, to argue that Classical unities and Epistle to the Ephesians are not relevant is ridiculous. You say they don't mention the play so they aren't relvant. Ok, well then in that case we need to remove Amphitryon (play) and half the material in the related sections on both historical tatralogies templates. We can't have multiple standards operating across these template. There two links are relevant to the play. Pick up any critical edition (or actually read The Comedy of Errors article) and you will see that. Bertaut (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't question your expertise. A navigation box is generally for the purpose of sending the reader to an article that has related content. The fact that these are related to the play makes them things that should be linked in the article. However, I would suggest adding a sentence or two to these articles about their relation to this play if you want them to have relevance for the navbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay, I can see that. Fair point. Well, I added a line to the Unities page, which was fairly straightforward. I'll add it back to the template later. The other one is tougher though as there's no section in the page as it exists for "Cultural references" or something along those lines. Most critics would accept the Epistle as a source, although personally, I don't really think it qualifies as a "proper" source. It's referenced, I think, seven times in the play, and there are some thematic parallels, but it isn't a traditional source as the others would be. So I'll just leave that one out. Glad we got this sorted. For future reference, I do plan on working on some of the other templates you created, so if any disagreements arise, we can just have a chat about them before starting to revert each others edits. Bertaut (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Amphitryon (play)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean should it be removed from the template? I only mentioned it (in Devil's advocate mode) as an example of something within the template that doesn't mention the play. But, no, it absolutely shouldn't be removed. It's a vital source for the play. The fact that the play isn't mentioned on that page doesn't really matter does it? I mean, I can totally see your argument regards the "Related" section, it makes perfect sense. But sources are sources whether their page mentions it or not. If you look, for example, at Template:Titus Andronicus, which I created, Ab Urbe Condita (book) is listed as a source. It doesn't mention Titus, but to leave it out of the template for that reason doesn't seem correct. I think, as rule of thumb, if something is an accepted and acknowledge source, whether its mentioned on the items page itself, its okay to include it. If that make any sense at all! Bertaut (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)