Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 3

Titles of the plays
In practice, we have been keeping the play articles' bolded portions in the first sentence according to the common title of the play, not the quarto versions. For example, we say "Romeo and Juliet is a play...", not "The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet is a play..." However, on our play guideline, we say we want the quarto play titles bolded. Which do we want?

I, personally, would like to use the common titles. Quarto titles are long and unfamiliar to most people. They aren't really official, and each early edition of the plays used a different title, so it isn't even consistent. I think we should change the guideline to match what has been naturally going on in practice. Wrad 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was certainly a time (a couple of years ago) when this was the case, so we had The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet and The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark etc. Personally, I think that having the full titles is necessary and the only way to have the Shakespeare's plays articles comply with WP:LEAD (the actual articles should, of course, reside at the common name). More to the point, it offers more information, which is surely what an encyclopaedia is all about. There is, of course, the issue of conflicting full titles, but a quick glance at virtually any of the Arden editions of the plays will find that the hard work of establishing the correct full title has already been done (which is what we did with Romeo and Juliet). - Green Tentacle 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Arden is just one of many editions of Shakespeare's works. There's also Cambridge, Oxford, Riverside... What do other editions do? My Riverside Shakespeare simply calls it Romeo and Juliet, but it isn't even consistent within itself. The Table of Contents lists it as The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. If professional editions don't really agree, why should we conform? There's nothing to conform to. No set rules, nothing. Also, the declaration that the Arden Shakespeare makes, that the Second Quarto is the most authentic, is shaky at best. Wrad 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Arden editions often include an actual section of research about the full title of the play. In the same way that they try to reproduce the 'definitive' version of the text, they also try to reproduce the 'definitive' version of the title. Usually, both will hail from the second quarto, which is probably what the current guideline refers to when it recommends writing the title 'as printed in the Quarto or/and Folio'. - Green Tentacle 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Common title. There's no such thing as a full, correct title, and even the Folio isn't free from internal inconsistencies and false genre assignment (e.g. The Tragedie of Cymbeline).  Extended titles should be noted in the text ("First published in quarto as ..."). The Arden editors can be as rigorous as they please, but even they can only speculate as to how many apostrophes ought properly to be in Love's Labour's Lost — mholland (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree. I'm sure Arden did a lot of research, but from what I've read, the idea that the Second Quarto title is most authentic is not really a scholarly consensus. Wrad 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the current guideline calls for 'modernized spelling', the apostrophes thing is a bit of a mute point as it would be written in today's standard English anyway. I am by no means pushing to just use Arden's preferred title, it's just that their editors, as far as I know, have spent the longest time trying to find the most authentic text. By the way, Arden by no means always use the Second Quarto as their source - it just happens to be the most authentic for a lot of plays.


 * Nevertheless, I do, like mholland, think that extended titles must be included somewhere in the text of the article. (Given the amount of trivia in some of these articles, it seems odd not to include something as important as an alternative name!) The lead section seems the most appropriate place to put this, as it ties in with general Wikipedia policy, but it could perhaps be included in the date and text section.


 * On a related note, does anyone know why the Twelfth Night article resides at Twelfth Night, or What You Will, given that the simple Twelfth Night is by far the most common title? - Green Tentacle 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Twelfth Night is there because there are other uses. It ought to be at Twelfth Night because the dab page is at Twelfth Night (disambiguation), but there's been a scuffle in the past.  I would suggest moving it back to Twelfth Night (play).  Love's Labour's works both with and without the second apostrophe in standard English: Q2 uses none, so editors are always forced back onto their own subjective judgement. — mholland (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Twelfth Night should be moved. Also, for the more developed play articles, we include the alternate titles in the "Date and texts" section. So we could make that an established guideline... Wrad 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wrad on this - basically because there are conflicting play titles between quartos and folios and even the 1st folio has one title on the contents page and a different one on the play page itself. Also, it has always been my understanding that "The most lamentable.." and other phrases were more marketing techniques than "authentic" titles.  Since no one knows for sure which is which, I think it would be a good compromise to go with the common titles, and then within the date and text section, mention the longer titles in context of which quarto/folio they were attached to.Smatprt 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, can I suggest we just make it:
 * Ye pleasant and conceited tragedy of HAM-LET, DANE OF DENMARK as it hath been sundryie tymes performed by the Lord Chamberlayne his ser-uants before her pleasant and conceited majestyie Quean Eliza-beth & at ye Globe & else-where &c. (unauthorised reproduction by all means whether electronic or otherwise hereby prohibyted by order of Sir Edmund Tilney) to be sold at Ye sygne of Ye cocke (knocke thrice and ask for Doris) -/4d (© Francis Bacon, 1598) is a play by William Shakespeare.
 * AndyJones 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the idea that there's a 'most authentic' text is itself flawed. The common name is what an average browser would expect to find, so I think we should go with that and, as Wrad suggests, note the variations of title in the Texts section. Twelfth Night should definitely be moved, but I would suggest simply to Twelfth Night, since there is a disambig page and the play is certainly the principal use of the phrase. DionysosProteus 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a reference to the full title of the plays in the first section. Perhaps " Hamlet or The Tragedy of Hamlet: Prince of Denmark is a play by...". In any case, without such a reference the page is incomplete and as an encyclopaedia this is unacceptable. Wikipedia is often considered the definitive source on such issues and to omit something as significant as Hamlet's full title is not right. I think that the title of the page should be "Hamlet", while the opening line should be The Tragedy of Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, reflecting the second Quarto title. SolomonFreer 04:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wish it was that simple. Which full title would you use? For Hamlet there are three different versions. None of them are absolutely authentic and some of them are ridiculously long. The one you seem to favour, the second quarto, isn't any more favoured than any other title by scholars and to list them all wouldn't really add anything useful to the encyclopedia at all. They're fine in the "Texts" section, in my opinion. Wrad 05:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I still agree with Wrad and Dionysos on this - stick with the common title in the lead, and then list the variant titles in the text section in context of the quartos that they were attached to. This will allow for a uniform approach to all the plays, regardless of how many titles they might have or how extensive those titles might be.Smatprt 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Solomon, I'm not even sure you're right that The Tragedy of Hamlet: Prince of Denmark is the Q2 title. My edition suggests that it's a Tragicall History... (etc.). Besides, all these extra words are publishers' puffery, not necessarily the name of the play. I agree though that a mention of the title as it appears on the authoritative early texts is good in the "texts" section. AndyJones 08:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A cri de coeur: I thought this morning that I might be able to do the Project some service by swapping Twelfth Night, or What You Will with Twelfth Night (via an intermediate stage), as there seems to be a consensus about the move up above here. I started - at about 1130am GMT - by moving the latter to Twelfth Nights, which worked OK, but when I tried to move the former to Twelfth Night (with a view to then moving TNs to TN oWYW), there was a red error message saying that I couldn't do it. I waited 5 minutes or so before trying again (on the basis that WP needs time to update its files), but same result, so, as I was due to go out to lunch, I gave up and moved Twelfth Nights back to Twelfth Night, which, again, worked OK, though it's left an unnecessary redirect in its wake (sigh!). Should I have waited longer for the updating stuff to take effect? Would another time of day have been better? Or did I make some fundamental mistake? There I was, all ready to deal with double redirects and so forth, so it was all a bit frustrating.... --GuillaumeTell 22:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if you want to move a page to an already existing page name, you have to get an administrator to do it. Wrad 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request and the page has been moved to Twelfth Night now. DionysosProteus 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the page, per the request at WP:RM, fixed the resulting double-redirects, and updated one template. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Most popular Shakespeare play articles (by number of edits)
This is just for future reference. I found it interesting:


 * 1) Romeo and Juliet 4000+ edits
 * 2) Hamlet 3000+
 * 3) Macbeth 2700+
 * 4) A Midsummer Night's Dream 1280+
 * 5) Othello 1220+

All other articles are below 1000 edits. King Lear weighs in at a dismal 680 edits. These are interesting trends. Wrad 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the huge gap between R&J and the rest, and in general those are probably the five texts that get studied in schools most. Though I think Julius Caesar is on it's way up to the top of the pack. Nowah Balloon 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that what you're editing now? Wrad 23:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that Caesar is getting read more often in schools. I haven't worked on WP:BARD in, like, a month. :( Nowah Balloon 19:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested revision to template
I wanted to get the project's opinion on my suggested change to the Shakespeare template. So what do you think?Remember 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Bardofcornish 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it too. I notice that it looks better on a high-res monitor, since on a lower resolution the pic has quite a lot of while space above and below. Also, have you tried centre-aligning the text in the middle column? AndyJones 12:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally don't like to center text in templates (and I don't know how) but someone else is free to tweak it. With this positive feedback, I am going to change the template. Remember 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now someone has shown a preference for the old one. If you prefer the new old (or prefer the old one) please speak up at the template's talk page (where I am moving this discussion).  Remember 13:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Shakespeare play articles
I notice that an infobox has appeared on Romeo and Juliet. I'm not so fond. Is this covered in the project's standardization guidelines? If not, perhaps we should agree on a standard for or against? DionysosProteus 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been several debates on adding infoboxes to Shakespeare articles. One of the main pages for the debate was on the discussion page of the Template (here Template talk:Infobox Play).  Long story short - no consensus has been reached and people have differing views on the issue. Remember 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove it. I was in favor of infoboxes, but if we're going to do it, we should do it right. Wrad 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed those discussions I notice that there is an aspect that did not appear to arise. I am in support of infoboxes, but only under certain circumstances--namely, where the information that they provide is "buried" in large blocks of text, or where an article is under-developed and the information they provide has not made its way into the main body of the article yet. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, however, I don't see either of those situations. It repeats the list of characters, which is laid out in almost identical format further down in the main body and the rest of the info is provided in the first paragraph of the intro. Those are the 'neutral' reasons. Against inclusion, it doesn't look as good as the previous layout to my eyes. We also have two templates at the end of the article that summarise info in a visual way. I'm going to leave it for the moment to wait to hear what others think. DionysosProteus 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was the biggest advocate for infoboxes last time, and I don't even like this one. Go ahead and take it out. (Also, that actually was brought up. Most of the discussion actually took place on the Hamlet page. Should be in the archives somewhere.) Wrad 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise but hadn't seen this discussion before creating a few infoboxes on some Shakespearean tragedy pages. I would argue that they are useful visually as they are at the top of the page and are easily digestible. It also means that it falls in line with many other wikipedia pages. I don't see much point in purposefully holding back Shakespeare pages while other pages become more advanced. I also think that they will be helpful for the large amount of students who come to wikipedia to find out information about these plays. I think that wikipedia needs to have more of a uniform approach to give a "user-friendly" look. If you are dead against this, I apologise and please remove them should you feel that it is necessary. Wikiadam 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My objections are two things: first, the list of characters is a bit long, and second, rather than adding a new picture, we should just put the picture already at the top in the infobox. After that, maybe we can use them if they look good. Wrad 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not in favor the last time for most of the reasons Dionysos provided above. Specifically - in Sh's case the info is almost always repeated in the first paragraph or as a special section (like characters). Also, from a visual standpoint I have always found that a classic painting or historical document was far more interesting and appealing than an infobox. Don't get me wrong - I love them for sports and other uses where "quick stats" are important, but in the case of Sh, I don't think it serves a useful purpose.  Also - when we don't know the first performance, the first theatre it played, all but 1 or 2 actor/roles, the number of performances, gross revenue, etc - I wonder what kind of useful information could be put into such a beast (that isn't readily apparent in the article). Smatprt 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm going to have to go with Smatprt here (*the ground shakes*-*Wrad hopes Smatprt is sitting down as he reads this*). Before, when all the play articles were pretty lame and the intros were lamer, the infoboxes looked good, but now they just don't serve any purpose. What we need is better intros, not infoboxes (*Pigs fly over a frozen hell, etc, etc.*) Wrad 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow - I finally got up off the floor! Pigs do fly!Smatprt 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare in the Private theatres
Hello all. A quick question that I have been asked and don't know the answer to: Were any of Shakespeare's plays first performed in a private theatre? I know Macbeth might have revised for indoor, but are there any clear examples of a Shakespeare première at Blackfriars? DionysosProteus 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Many thanks, DionysosProteus 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The late romances are the place to look. Ard3 The Tempest says it was "probably" written for performance at Blackfriars. Two Noble Kinsmen was "Presented at the Blackfriers" according to its title page. AndyJones 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there are no verified examples of a Shakespeare "premiere"- indoor or out. Lots of "maybes" and "probablys". though.Smatprt 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Next collaboration for GA
Right now we have Hamlet going strong for FA status, and we may want to have a new GA project collaboration. The most logical one right now seems to be The Tempest, since several editors are already working on it. Shall we have that article be our GA collaboration and Hamlet our FA one? Wrad 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tempest sounds good, because it's already being worked on, but perhaps we want to do a history (I was thinking Henry V), just to well-rounded? Bardofcornish 12:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to continue with the big four and look at either King Lear or Macbeth. If the consensus was for a history, my preference is for Richard III first and foremost, followed by Henry IV, Part 1 or Richard II before H5. If a comedy, Twelfth Night, or What You Will (we must get that title sorted out), As You Like It, or, although I know it'll not be a popular choice, Love's Labour's Lost. DionysosProteus 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted to do Macbeth next, but things seem to be moving naturally toward Tempest despite this discussion. I think it would be best to just do that one next. We have unprecedented participation there already, and usually that is the hardest thing to get. Wrad 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After that, though, how about Macbeth? Wrad 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Ojevindlang (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Philip Sidney query
Hello all. My sources are proving a little contradictory with regard to Philip Sidney's Defense of Poesy. I know that it was written sometime between 1580-1583, but it is its first publication date that's tripping me up. I'm referring to Marvin Carlson's Theories of the Theatre, which says on p.80 that it was first published in 1593 but then on p.82 gives it as Defense of Poesy (1595). The other sources I have here aren't much help (Dramatic Theory and Criticism, The Cambridge Guide to Theatre) as they give the date of composition rather than publication. Might someone have a source to hand that settles it? Thanks, DionysosProteus 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Literature proposal
There is a proposal up for a project focusing on general, basic literature articles here. Please add your name if you are interested. Thanks, Wrad 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dating Hamlet
I asked for some help regarding Dating Hamlet, at the help desk, here: Help desk. There seems to be a view among some of the help-deskers that an article on that subject is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Does anyone here have a view? See also the discussion I initiated at Talk:Hamlet. AndyJones 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Burbage
I think it is time that we applied it for at least B-class, the quality of it at least meets that. I myself, would like some support before I go for B-class. Please give your OPINION. Thanks,  Meldshal 42  00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's B-class yet. It only has two sections. Surely there's more to be said about him... Wrad (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Characters Split
I have split the List of Shakespearean characters 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. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss it, but I've no real objection. AndyJones (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What are they ranked now? Wrad (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Section order
I am bringing this conversation over from the Hamlet discussion page [] as it may effect more than just the one play. I think it important we have a good discussion on this and see what we can come up with. Smatprt (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So what is up with the section ordering? I tried to put the article into the project format and was reverted. Happy to discuss (again), but haven't we hashed this out? The following order, developed on the project page [], worked very well for R&J, yes?Smatprt (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1 Sources 2 Date and text 3 Characters 4 Synopsis 5 Analysis 5.1 Dramatic structure 5.2 Language 5.3 Themes and motifs 5.3.1 Love 5.3.2 Fate and chance 5.3.3 Light and dark 5.3.4 Time 5.4 Other approaches 5.4.1 Psychoanalytic 5.4.2 Feminist 5.4.3 Gender studies 6 Influences 7 Performances and adaptations 7.1 Stage history 7.1.1 Shakespeare's day 7.1.2 The Restoration 7.1.3 19th century 7.1.4 20th century 7.2 Music 7.3 Screen 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Smatprt's posting ends here


 * Yes, worked well, there. Could work here, also. I'm hoping Awadewit or Roger will comment here, since I think the reordering arose from the peer review. I'll look back on this discussion, tomorrow. AndyJones (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As to sources, how about:

? Sources

?.1 Origins in Legend

?.2 Ur-Hamlet

Yes? AndyJones (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, good work.Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have tried that. AndyJones (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having worked a lot with both articles, I've noticed that Hamlet doesn't fit as well in the framework we used in R&J. A "Themes" section would make the article too long, and doesn't provide as much insight as a context section does, in this case, by my feeling. I do, however, think that sources, dating, and text should go before the plot synopsis and character lists. That is a format used in just about every book I've read. I think it works, and I think we should stick to it. Wrad (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Wrad about soruces, dating, text. But, I do think consistancy within the pages is also very important. Shouldn't every play have a theme section? (Admittedly, it's a long article and should perhaps be under consideration for division.) Maybe "Themes &/or Context" would be an easy fix? Anyway, I'm not sure "it's already a long article" should be a deciding factor in these discussions. Articles will grow and eventually be split.Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In this instance, the synopsis, which puts plot elements into context, appears well after many of the same plot elements have been pre-discussed, out of context. While this might work for R&J, it seems impractical in Hamlet where the Sources, Date and Texts amount to more than 2000 words. Lacking context, people will find the earlier sections very difficult to understand. I have just had a look at film featured articles - several dozen of them - and they place the plot in the first or second section. I know that this is not how literary criticism is usually handled but these articles are not really literary criticism, so that it probably not a good analogy.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing (Directed to Smatprt). The article has grown and already has been split. Themes used to be in this article but are now only found in the Critical approaches to Hamlet article. There simply isn't room. I don't think it's that big a problem. I kind of expected each article to be a bit unique, especially Hamlet. I do think that a basic standard is necessary, though. If we move the plot in front here, such a big move would need to be echoed in all Shakespeare play articles. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my concern. In Hamlet's case, should we expand on Andy's idea and consider making a seperate article for Sources, Dates and Text (perhaps as part of his good work on the dating) and then reduce those sections to a more reasonable length? If those sections were shorter, that would address Roger's issue of length. The context argument goes both ways and knowing a little history up front about where the stories came from also makes sense. in any case, I'm all for consistancy, which was my main concern. It would be nice to stick with the project guidlines until we come up with something else. A lot of good discussion went on when they were developed. Smatprt (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be a pity to split up a good and comprehensive article - which is within length and very close to being FAC ready - simply for the sake of consistency. I read the project guideline archives earlier and most of the discussion revolved around the trivia sections and without any examination of first principles of ordering. In late August, DionyusProteus had this to say:
 * Both Awadewit and I, in the peer review, coming to this afresh, reached the same conclusion as DionyusProteus. On reflection, it probably 'is' worth moving the plot on all the plays. Shakespeare is of hellish complexity and the plot has to be the logical starting point for a general article discussing the play.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Let me explain. I think it might be reaching for us to believe that the article will be a starting point on the Shakespeare highway. I think it more likely  a secondary (or later) stop. Another editor brought this up earlier and I agreed. The thought was that most visitors to the page will already be familiar with the characters and plot.  Hitting them right away with a long list (in a prose article) and a long synopsis might do just what you quoted above - the coughing and shuffling might occur and turn the reader off.  For much the same reason it might seem to be talking down to the audience, telling them what they already know. I think we thought that a little history, and framing the article chronologically, might be a more interesting approach. Of course that would require making the source and text sections interesting, and therein lies the rub.  IMO the real problem with those sections is the writing, not the placement. Smatprt (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also - looking at articles from various genres (From The Magic Flute (opera) to The Sound of Music (musical theatre) to The Birds (classic comedy) to Star Wars it seems that many of the more interesting articles give a "background" or "overview" section before jumping into the synopsis. Smatprt (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should move this entire section to the project page for further discussion. I would hate to decide on this page something that will undoubtedly influence other articles.Smatprt (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are examples of both in Shakespeare literature. Many editions like to explain source, date, and text before telling the story. Many others just jump into the story before commentary. We just need to decide on one.
 * Also, one reason that I didn't feel that themes were as important in this article, was because Hamlet criticism, especially recently, focuses a lot more on context than it does on themes. Even when themes are discussed nowadays, they are discussed in terms of context. Romeo and Juliet criticism is very different in this respect. I feel that whatever we might discuss theme-wise is covered well enough throughout the article, even if it isn't focused on in one section. Wrad (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, one reason that I didn't feel that themes were as important in this article, was because Hamlet criticism, especially recently, focuses a lot more on context than it does on themes. Even when themes are discussed nowadays, they are discussed in terms of context. Romeo and Juliet criticism is very different in this respect. I feel that whatever we might discuss theme-wise is covered well enough throughout the article, even if it isn't focused on in one section. Wrad (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be locked into following any guidelines. They are usually suggestions and I noticed that the WikiProject Shakespeare guidelines in particular are listed as "proposed". Standardization for the sake of standardization is not generally helpful when it comes to article sections. I'm also not sure that we want to be making the argument that Shakespeare's plays are so cookie-cutter that the same format applies equally well to all of them. That would seem to detract from the originality and genius of them, in my opinion. I think that each article should be designed in the interests of making the material on that play comprehensible. To me, for example, the history plays will end up looking much different than the comedies or the tragedies, as they will require some historical explanations.


 * That leads us to, what is the best structure for this article? I have never been in favor of character lists, as I think it makes the articles look like SparkNotes and I think any important character information can be conveyed in the plot summary. My personal preference would be to delete that section altogether. However, I have seen a strong preference for these sections from other editors. A separate page with more substantive descriptions is another option.


 * This article has changed a lot in the last few days and I haven't had time to reread everything again, but I do feel that moving the plot summary to the beginning of the article is a good choice. Readers who need to read it can and those who don't can skip it. Many readers may have read Hamlet, but they may also need a refresher before continuing. This section provides that. Certainly one needs to know plot information before reading the "Source" material. Not offering the reader at least the opportunity to review the plot would be poor writing on our part.


 * The "Analysis and criticism" section needs a more specific heading as the "Context and interpretation" section is also "analysis and criticism", but the grouping seems fine to me so far. Again, I would have to read more carefully to be sure.


 * The "Context and interpretation" has been reorganized in a more coherent fashion, in my opinion. Labeling interpretations "other" has a decidedly negative cast, as if somehow they are not worth their own title. To include "feminist" and "psychoanalytic", two of the major approaches to analyzing Hamlet, as "other interpretations", is misleading. Awadewit | talk  02:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally have less respect for guidelines than most, but I think that this is a major decision. I think the synopsis should be in the same general place for each article. That much at least we can do. The focus of interpretation will differ for each play will differ, as has been pointed out, but general positioning is still important in my mind. Wrad (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A few observations in no particular order:
 * I share Awadewit's view that there should be as little project structure as possible. I have never liked writing to numbers, it creates issues of unweight weight, insufficient length and so forth. I doubt that realistically we can sustain either real interest or high literary standards for ±37 x Sources, Dates & Texts sections. The raw material is too similar as readers flitting from one to the other will soon discover. In the minor plays, these sections will perforce be stubby, leading either to unnecessary material by way of packing or insistence on section mergers at FAC. Good writing in the synopses will really bring the play to life and cause its characters to jump off the page (screen?).
 * I share Awadewit's disinterest in the character section; characters should be introduced in the synopsis. (In Hamlet, they are discussed there, so Characters introduces unnecessary duplication.) Major characters all deserve their own articles: criticisms and interpretation, character analyses, notable performances, cross-referencing between plays and so forth. And redlinks will spur us to action, to fill the gaps.
 * I noticed Smatprt's remark about "many of the more interesting articles give a 'background' or 'overview' section before jumping into the synopsis". While that might be true, and while noting that "more interesting" is not the most objective of tests, most featured articles—the standard to which we aspire— for film and novels cut straight from the intro to the chase. For Shakespeare, I believe the synopsis should be as close to the intro as decency will allow :) It is not as if we leap straight from the title to the synopsis; we have the intro to bridge the gap.
 * This is not to say that I believe the proposed strucure is without merit; merely, that a formal structure is too rigid to be practical. However, the contents of the proposal would serve as an excellent checklist for the content of Shakespearean articles and could be formally included into the project's Good Article/Peer Review structure. Here is would ensure that all bases are considered.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As an example of how varied sections can be, compare Hamlet to The Tempest, both of which we are working on. Hamlet has multiple textual issues and a wealth of scholarship on dating and sources, causing us to have a divided sources section and separate sections for Dating and Texts. The Tempest was never published in Quarto before the First Folio, and thus has very few text issues. Sourcing and dating issues have proved to be an entirely different story, but The Tempest article will never merit a separate Texts section, as Hamlet clearly does. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support removing characters sections. They are starting to look less and less needed now that we are improving synopses. Wrad (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally agree, but it might be good to keep them on a seperate table with a link from the main article - for those who are looking for a quick character list.Smatprt (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's always the template at the bottom. I think the best example can be found at Romeo and Juliet. Wrad (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. the most logical place though is probably a see at the head of the synopsis.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be good location. Wrad - did you mean the a-z character list? I was thinking about alink to just the play cast list as it is now.Smatprt (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Romeo and Juliet has a template listing R&J characters. All of them are named. Even those without enough info to merit an article are featured in a Minor characters in Romeo and Juliet page. A cast list would make a poor article, in my opinion. I think a separate article would be a bad thing to create. How would such an article be structured? If it was just a simple list of characters in that play I would be the first to nominate it for deletion. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The R&J template is great. Works for me.  It would be nice, though, if more editors would chime in on this.Smatprt (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The template works for me. Awadewit | talk  09:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the template you're referring to now. Excellent! Much better than a hatnote.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Character sections
I'm going to go ahead and take the characters section out of the guidelines if there are no objections. Wrad (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On reflection I am reminded that first and foremost these are plays and many readers will look for a complete character list with minor descriptions. I notice the character template links you back to the character list that you will be deleting.  Will this leave only links to individual characters and not a whole list? If so, I don't think that would be a good thing. Again - these are plays, and every play has a Character list that is useful to refer to as a whole and not individually.Smatprt (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We could put them all on an infobox. Just kidding! I don't really like the idea of listing all the characters in an article. I just don't see how that would make a good article. I'm trying to reconcile it... Let's go back to Hamlet as a clear example. Is there anything you don't like about how characters are represented in that article? Wrad (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok - here are some examples - say I am a costume designer and I want to see a cast list to determine cast size and basic structure. The article does not help me - I'm certainly not going to read thru a synopsis picking out each character one by one. Or I am a casting director or show director and want to see a complete cast list to quickly determine how many men and how many women I need.  Article does not help. Or say I am an actor and want to see a full list to see what parts I might be good for - while the synopsis will help, it does not give me a complete picture of my opportunities. That is why I said these are plays first and pieces of literature second. Every play has a cast list and it is one of the most read (and referred to) pages of any play. Now contrast Hamlet with R&J (where the cast list is intact - right before the synopsis where it is most helpful.) The idea of completely eliminating cast lists from all Shakespeare articles seems more and more ridiculous.  What about keeping the cast lists and just hiding them with a hide/show button - with the button right at the begining of the synopsis?Smatprt (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you are no longer operating upon this assumption? - "I think it might be reaching for us to believe that the article will be a starting point on the Shakespeare highway. I think it more likely a secondary (or later) stop". It is important for us to know the basis of your arguments. You now seem to be arguing that the article can be all things to all readers - that is actually not possible.
 * Can we stay on point? REgurgitating snippits of prior discussions rarely is useful, IMHO. For the record, NO, I have not changed my thinking on this point.Smatprt (talk)

(unindent) I'm not just regurgitating, I'm trying to figure out what the assumptions of your argument are - they seem to be shifting. Your new position seems incompatible with that assumption to me. Awadewit | talk  08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having worked in community theater and high school theater myself (at the lowest levels of professionalism), I can assure you costume designers and casting directors, etc. have cast lists because they have copies of the play. Shakespeare's plays might be plays first and foremost but people's experience of them is generally no longer as performed plays - there are many more people now who encounter Shakespeare's plays in written form than in a performance.
 * Having worked in all levels of theatre, including 27 years in professional theatre, I can assure you that more directors, producers, actors and managers are on the road, using their laptops for all possible uses. Hauling around multiple scripts is no longer the fashion. Also, considering that Shakespeare's plays are the most performed plays in the WORLD, seen by millions annually, you might want to reference your statement that more people read Shakespeare plays than see them. You may be right of course, but I would like to know your source.Smatprt (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) But this is not just about the mechanics of producing plays (and I really find it hard to believe that professionals would need to rely on wikipedia's list of characters) - this is also about what an encyclopedia is. It is not just a listing of information. As I stated before, there are more appropriate venues for that, such as wikisource, where the play itself can be copied. An article about the play does not need to have a dramatis personae. Awadewit | talk  08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On this we will simply disagree. While a short article about a play does not "need" to have a character list, I firmly believe that an in depth and thorough article should have one. And I think our readers should not have to click on a link if they do not have to.Smatprt 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Think about the number of people who read Shakespeare plays this way: almost all high schools in the United States require their students to read at least one Shakespeare play, British secondary schools do as well, the more well-to-do schools in India do the same.... This is simply logic - the number of people required to read Shakespeare outstrips the number of people who have the means or opportunity to attend a Shakespeare performance. Awadewit | talk  08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds rather unscientific to me. And I'm not sure that "almost" all high schools actually have that requirement anymore (sad to say), and it is debatable how many students actually finish a play off instead of going to Cliffnotes, Clicknotes, WP, etc. In England, it has been my experience that the giant theatres are chock full with students. It is an interesting question, but it might be nice to back up what you say with some real stats instead of "simple logic", which means very little on these pages.Smatprt 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think having the cast lists is counterproductive to improving the quality of wikipedia's articles and improving its image in the world. I can tell you exactly what I thought the first time I saw a character list on wikipedia: "This was written by a high school student who thinks that an encyclopedia entry is supposed to be like CliffsNotes." Such lists do not lend credibility to wikipedia's articles, nor are they particularly useful. I strongly suggest we move the list elsewhere or delete it altogether. (Obviously, any link to a wikisource text would have such a list as well. That is another appropriate place for such a thing.) Awadewit | talk  15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that to have PLAYS, without even a button to a CHARACTER LIST does a disservice to our readers, and the author. Smatprt (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(unident) You're not really responding to the argument here about wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia or its credibility, which I feel are important considerations as well. I stand by my suggestion that moving the list to another page or relying on wikisource are the two best solutions. Awadewit | talk  08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, all right - I think your are dead wrong. How on earth does having a character list detract from Wikipedia's credibility? I just think that is an absurd notion.  And are you saying that encyclopedias should never have lists, tables, graphs, etc?  I'm sorry, but I just don't get your thinking.Smatprt 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor characters in Hamlet has an overview of main characters (cut and pasted from Hamlet) as its first section and it can be piped however we like. Hidden or not, a character list in the main article just adds to the noise. The article can't be all things to all people and the struggle is condensing it, not expanding it.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to be constructive. While I don't agree that a hidden list "adds to the noise", I do agree and have said before that a Cast List link in the lower template would be a good solution.  Since Minor characters in Hamlet has all the characters in it, then why not give it an appropriate name (Character List), and then within that article link the major characters, as now, and then keep the minor character section intact. At least the template would then guide readers in this regard.Smatprt (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably true that the Wiki article isn't the first place readers go, but probably is used to find information that they may be missing, so I think it's important to have a character list. However, the template idea seems a little too overwhelming to the reader because the characters would be in two different places, no? Bardofcornish 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried a few very minor changes that may solve this in a way that everyone can support. Keeping out the character list, I changed the title of Minor characters in Hamlet to Characters in Hamlet (since the article starts with an overview of the major characters and then moves on to list the minor characters, this seemed like an easy change). The template now informs readers that this is a quick link to the full list of characters. I also added a line to the beginning of the Characters article to state that it contains an overview of the major characters (which it did). This solves my objection of not having a quick reference to the full list, and it does not clutter the article with the list itself. Any objections?Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I, for one, have no problems with that at all; in fact, I was probably inching towards doing it myself :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that works effectively, also. Incidentally, although I haven't chimed into this conversation before, it seems to me that an article has to get quite mature, like Hamlet, before breaking-out the character list seems appropriate. In the less developed articles, I'd favour keeping it. AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet FA?
Has the thought occurred to anyone else that if we put R&J up for FAC now or soon, we might be able to snag the front page for Valentine's Day, 2008? (Well, I think it'd be cute...) -Malkinann (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It would, and is probably next on the list. Right now we're pushing for a Hamlet FA and The Tempest GA. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My 2p Worth
I've followed the above discussions with interest, whithout chiming in much, but I find I have two things I'm bursting to say:

1. Our articles MUST be useful to the person who doesn't know anything about the subject. We can be brilliant if we absolutely have to, but the core purpose of an encyclopedia, especially a populist one like Wikipedia, is to get the main points over for the complete beginner.


 * Isn't there a simple English wikipedia or something? Please define "complete beginner". Someone who hasn't read the literary work in question? Someone who hasn't heard of Shakespeare? Awadewit | talk  14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Math wikiproject has struggled with this as well. How much of a beginner should we consider our audience while still keeping our article comprehensive? I'm sure you don't mean a toddler, but what exactly do we mean? Personally, I think we get a feel for it as more and more editors contribute and express concerns, especially those who don't know the subject. Wrad (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't have to be simplistic, and of course we must assume the reader is literate. But for the hypothetical reader who doesn't know whether Hamlet is a play by Shakespeare or a brand of soap, the article has to tell him. It needs to say that it is a play, who wrote it, what characters are in it, and what the plot is. He needs to be told when it was written and in what social context. He needs to know why the play is important. He needs to know what major issues the critics have raised, and he needs to know what important performances, or performance traditions, there have been. It's wrong to believe that the reader will have picked up that information somewhere along the way, and is ready to dive, with us, somewhere into the middle of the subject.
 * My take on it is this: if our reader is only ever, in his life, going to read ten thousand words on a topic, then our article should be the best ten thousand he could choose to read. And that is because that is what an encyclopedia is for. People who want detailed treatments of a subject will buy a whole book, not read an encyclopedia article. It is comprehensiveness that is the unattainable ideal, in relation to a topic such as Hamlet that has engendered literally thousands of books. AndyJones (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that and hope you know that by "comprehensive", I meant "doesn't leave out anything that should obviously (or not so obviously, at times) be there". Wrad (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

2. While it's not wrong to have a project framework, it is absolutely wrong to stick rigidly to the framework as it stood when it was thrashed out, rather than learning from the experience of editing articles and updating the framework accordingly. AndyJones (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Article expansion
Wow. Has anyone else noticed some excellent article expansion going on in several play articles lately? Take a look at recent edits to Richard III', A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Taming of the Shrew, and Titus Andronicus. Several people seem to be taking the guidelines on this page to heart! Wrad (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My bit
I'm pleased to report that I've finished "my bit", that is to say, the Afterlife section, of the collaboration on the Tempest article. I don't mean that that bit is perfect or finished, just that I've done as much as I'm going to do. I'm probably switching my attentions back to the FA drive at Hamlet for a while. AndyJones (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work! It looks like The Tempest is closer to GA than anything else right now. Wrad (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nurse (Romeo and Juliet character) deletion
There is a deletion controversy going on here, please take part on its talk page. Wrad (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian up for deletion
Just letting everyone know. Wrad (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Up next for FA
Now that Hamlet has reached FA status, what's up next? I personally think A midsummer's night's dream would be a good choice, simply because so many people are already working on it. Other suggestions would be Romeo and Juliet it already has GA status, Twelfth Night...what do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardofcornish (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies and I have already started work on R&J, but Midsummer is my favorite comedy and I would love to do that one next (after R&J) for FA, as it is the most-edited Shakespeare comedy on wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: FA by 21 June 2008? And longer term: I'd like to see Twelfth Night on Twelfth Night (6 Jan), 2009.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may even go faster as we streamline things. R&J, for example, wasn't anywhere near as hard to get to GA as Hamlet was. some plays just aren't as big as others, or are big only in certain areas. Wrad (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Plus, there was a great deal of agonising involved with Hamlet, setting the style for the others. But it would be nice to do some comedy ... -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If only we could decide :) . To be (comedy) or not? Wrad (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want us to end up speard too thinly. How about:
 * Romeo and Juliet as the new FA drive;
 * The Tempest continues as our GA drive; And we ask Tom Reedy to get over there and do some work on it, as promised ;-)
 * A Midsummer Night's Dream as the next GA drive (with the intention of following up with an FA drive, as we did with Hamlet);
 * Twelfth Night on the back burner? AndyJones (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lovely! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Lists in Play Articles
Can we revisit the issue of Character Lists in the play articles? We made the exception in the Hamlet article and deleted the list (then turned it into a button way down at the bottom of the article), but I still believe that was a mistake. Is there a Wiki-wide policy that applies to plays in general? (not that all rules should be automatically followed!). In any case, in the Hamlet discussion, only 3 or 4 editors chimed in who wanted to do away with the Characters, but that was enough to create a (small) consensus so the character list is no longer part of the main article. Before this slowly happens with every article - or instead of revisiting the issue another 36 times, can we attempt a discussion with more participants? Also - should the discussion happen here - or on the theatre project page which, I assume, would apply to many more plays here on Wikipedia?

For the record, since the works are first and foremost, plays, I think it an essential ingredient to a good theatre article to have the character lists, as given to us in the First Folio, included in the entry. I do not believe having the lists clutters up the article, but rather is an essential guide to making the overall article more understandable and easier to follow (especially with the larger casts or plays with similar sounding character names, of which there are many. I also find the lists an excellent reference tool for students, teachers, actors, designers, directors and anyone who travels with their laptop instead of hauling around plays and other reference books.Smatprt (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think that first and foremost they're great works of literature. We manage without integral character lists for great novels. Both Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet currently have a hatnote linking to the character list at the head of the synopsis section (repeated in the template) so it's easy finding the character list. Nobody is talking about deleting character lists altogether. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a big fan of character lists, as anyone who has read my article List of Shakespearean characters will attest. I was intending to raise the issue here on the project page anyway, so I'll take this opportunity to do so:
 * I don't think it's right to use character lists from the folio. I'm working from memory but I think I'm right in saying that not all folio plays have a dramatis personnae, and I'm sure I'm right in saying that the folio lists are imperfect. Besides, there's an argument that would be WP:OR (working from a primary source where secondary sources are available). Instead, I think the list should be compiled from a modern edited version of the play.
 * I believe the less-mature articles should always contain a character list: it's only the longer and more detailed articles which have had GA or FA drives where another approach needs to be considered.
 * I believe that when the article gets quite mature, a separate article, Characters in... is needed, rather than a section in the main article. I agree with Smatprt that the information needs to be on Wikipedia.
 * Here's my view that might be a bit controversial: I'd like to propose that stub articles for characters get merged and redirected into Characters in.... I think it's more useful for the reader to have one article including the stub information for Toby and Andrew and Feste and Viola, and so-forth, than to have to search the encylopedia to find the separate article on Toby Belch.
 * Following on from that, obviously I'd envisage characters breaking out of that structure again, per WP:SS, once enough material becomes available.
 * I would even approve, I think, the logical conclusion of my ramblings above, namely that where a play article isn't mature enough to have a sepatate Characters in... sub-article, character stubs should be merged to the "Characters" section of the play's article. AndyJones (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that, and particularly like the bit about merging stubs. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed people term the inclusion of character lists as imitating sparknotes, but we have to think in terms of what will be most useful to the reader. I agree that we should take character lists from modern editions of plays. However I don't think merging stubs should apply to all stubs, because a few have the potential to become real, developed articles, there's just been a lack in interest for that particular article. Bardofcornish (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my suggestion that we merge stubs does not in any way imply that they shouldn't be broken out again, the moment a wikipedian thinks he has enough material to do it with. (I wasn't making a delete !vote.) AndyJones (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. However, there is one bit which hasn't quite been spelled out--that is, let's say the article Characters in the Tempest were created. Ariel already has his/her own article, so how would we represent him/her on the Characters in... article? Bardofcornish (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Put a decent summary paragraph in the charcter list with a hatnote and link to the main article? It's probably the only way to adequately handle the meatier characters, and Falstaff, for example. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that this discussion be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre for a more centralized discussion across theatre related pages. It would be good to have all related projects involved. I think mostly all of the projects will be in support of character lists and this discussion will help unify all of the performing arts articles. I am placing similar notices at otehr related wikiprojects. Thanks.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There may be links to this discussion from various places. Rather than moving, why not just copy-paste this discussion there, then add a link at the bottom here to show us where it is. AndyJones (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the discussion [] - which is currently showing an overwhelming majority (100%) in favor of keeping character lists.Smatprt (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in Shakespeare articles
I see that a bot has added a string of fair use queries to Shakespeare on screen. Does anyone have a view on whether these images should be retained and, if yes, what should be done?

There seems to be a general tightening-up on images in the last few days. I notice the commons image at Romeo and Juliet on screen has gone, too. AndyJones (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair use is a bit of a mystery to me but I understand that claiming fair use for a film is likely to wash only to use in the article on the film itself. I'd be very grateful for some advice on this too. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Film / Screen
Can I direct your attention to the discussion I've started regarding a recent page move, at Talk:Hamlet on screen? (Perhaps discuss there not here?) AndyJones (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nom = Banquo
There's a backlog at WP:GAN and Ga reviewers are calling on wikiprojects to chip in more and more. I just put Banquo up for GA and would like to invite anyone in this project who hasn't previously edited that page to review the article (or any other article at GA, for that matter) in order to help with the backlog. Besides, Banquo is pretty cool! Especially when he's a ghost. Wrad (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating "Importance" of biographical articles?
What rule of thumb would you suggest for the Importance rating for articles such as Judith Quiney and other family members? My initial thought is that these would be rated High importance, but as you may or may not have noticed, my primary interest is in the purely biographical articles, and the purely biographical bits of general WP:BARD articles; such that I don't entirely trust my instincts on this.

Any thoughts on what rating these merit? --Xover (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of judging importance by category. I'd say just judge each article as it compares to other bio articles in the project. Shakespeare in this case would be top, and the others would be at some lower level. Wrad (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cymbeline on the template
User: Mywood2004, who is translating William Shakespeare for a Chinese wikipedia, has pointed out to me that Cymbeline was wrongly listed as a comedy rather than a tragedy. I have moved it on the William Shakespeare article lists, but I don't know how to edit the "William Shakespeare and his works" template. Since the other plays are listed there as per the First Folio, I think Cymbeline should be too. It also looks like there are other articles where the listing is wrong.qp10qp (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I made the change.  In the future, to edit this template, go to Template: Shakespeare. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm rather unhappy about this. It's fine to list Cymbeline under Tragedies in First Folio - though there ought to be a footnote there - and, arguably, in the list at William Shakespeare (where there is an asterisk to indicate "one of the romances"), but it's no more a tragedy than The Tempest or The Winter's Tale.  Surely the arrangement in the FF isn't Holy Writ?  Can't the "romances" (I prefer "last plays") be listed separately on the template? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that struck me, too. Unlike the article, the template does not say that its categories are those of the First Folio. But, apart from Cymbeline (until now), they obviously are. The trouble is, any categorisation will be debatable. Even a chronological list would be debatable. The only inarguable listing would be purely alphabetical. I would favour some sign on the template that the categories are First-Folio based. qp10qp (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had thought there was general agreement at the Shakespeare project page that the First Folio classifications, are as close as we can come to the original author/playing companies intent as to what what kind of plays they were actually supposed to be. (Personally, I have problems with much of the FF as well, but my personal beliefs don't enter into this discussion). What I do know is that "romances" and "problem plays" are genres created by modern editors and were certainly not contemplated as genres by the author or the playing companies who owned and/or helped create and classify the works. (I have no problem with adding asterisks and footnotes.  "Last Plays" however strikes me as pretty silly, given that even orthodox scholars greatly disagree as to when any of the plays were actually written). Smatprt (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Qp10qp to add note that template is based on FF. Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * May I try to clarify the issue here? My starting-point is that the FF divides the plays into three categories, Comedies, Histories and Tragedies, and that Cymbeline, though listed in the FF as a Tragedy, is not, by any meaning of the term "tragedy", a tragedy.  Does this apply to any of the other plays listed in the FF as Tragedies?  No, it doesn't.


 * Are we agreed that all the plays listed in the FF as Histories are histories? Yes, we are.


 * What about those listed as Comedies? Are any of those Tragedies?  No.  Are any of them Histories?  No, they aren't.


 * I am happy to ignore non-FF classifications such as Romances/Last Plays. I am even happier to ignore Problem Plays (and Roman Plays, while we're at it). But if each of Shakespeare's plays is to be classified under either Comedies or Histories or Tragedies, then the only one that is quite demonstrably in the wrong category is Cymbeline.


 * Now, who is going to make a case for Cymbeline as a tragedy?
 * --GuillaumeTell (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as we've seen all too often, "logic" simply does not apply to articles on Wikipedia. In answer to your question, I'm afraid you will have to consult the editors of the FF, or find a source that explains why they listed Cymbeline as a tragedy.  Having said that, let's hear from some other project editors on this issue before we go any further, yes? Smatprt (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You could make the case for The Winter's Tale as a tragedy. qp10qp (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version of William Shakespeare
Hi! Following a request from Wrad over at the Spoken Wikipedia project, I have started to produce a spoken version of William Shakespeare. Progress has been reasonable so far, although I also have an article up for WP:FAC so I can't devote all my time to it at the moment. Anyway, although I'm reasonably familiar with Shakespeare's works, I may just need some clarification on a few pronunciations. If project members could watch out here for any requests for help, I would be grateful! (I am comfortable with IPA transcriptions.) Thanks,  Hassocks5489 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have finished recording, and am now ready to edit and upload. However, I would like to have confirmation of the accepted pronunciations of these names from the text, before I start the editing process. (I think I've got them right, but want to make sure!!)
 * Sejanus (as in Sejanus His Fall)
 * Coriolanus
 * Lucrece
 * Timon
 * Locrine

Thanks in anticipation! Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this site. I also asked a Latin scholar friend of mine and Sejanus is pronounce "Sey-on-us". Lucrece is based on Lucretia and I assume is pronounced "Loo-crease". Wrad (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wrad. I have uploaded and added the spoken version just now.  Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated Act 1, Scene 5 of "Romeo & Juliet" for deletion, thought you might like to be made aware of it. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Book query
Does anyone have access to volume 5 of Shakespearean Criticism: Criticism of William Shakespeare's Plays & Poetry, from the First Published Appraisals to Current Evaluations, for making a Critical history section for Romeo and Juliet? Thank you. -Malkinann (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of! I just used it to add a section. Wrad (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Witches
I've been working at this article for awhile and it's starting to really take shape. These characters are some of the most unusual and versatile I've dealt with so I'm wondering if a few of you could drop by and have a look and offer suggestions. Wrad (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonnet pages
First off, hello WP:Bard! This is the first Project I've joined and I'm looking forward to working on it.

Second: I'm planning to go through all the pages on the individual Sonnets and standardise them, as they're currently quite heterogeneous. The main things I've noticed that need doing are:


 * 1) Putting the  box at the bottom of all of them
 * ✅ Well, at the side actually, not the bottom. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Standardising the appearance, labelling and justification of the text of the Sonnets themselves (probably to the format used in Sonnet 98 18 if no-one has a better suggestion)
 * ✅ using . Thanks Wrad for pointing out the GA to standardise from. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Ensuring every page has a sufficient lede (many have none at all)

Additionally, some of the poems lack analysis which it would be nice to add. I've also seen at least one (I forget the number) which refers to the Fair Youth as male in half the article and female in the other. I'm sure other things will come up, too.

So, if anyone has comments or suggestions or wants to help I'd love to hear from them.

Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The best one we've got is Sonnet 18, a GA. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare referenced in Historical pederastic couples
"Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton Oxford and Southampton, besides having been lovers, are also thought by many to have been - the first - the pseudonymous author of the works ascribed to the historical William Shakespeare, and - the second - the youth known as the Fair Lord to whom most of the Sonnets are dedicated. [27]" --anyone care to comment on the accuracy of this? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wowee. All of that is definitely speculated. But that's all it is, speculated. I've never seen so much speculation packed into one sentence. Wrad (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, do you believe it would not be accurate to say "are also thought by many to have been..."? (I have never heard this theory before/trying to get a sense of how fringe it is). -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to Shakespeare is accurate as far as it goes (though "thought by many" might be better expressed as "thought by some"). However, I notice that neither the article on Oxford nor the one on Southampton mentions any sort of relationship between them, and the ref that's given for this in the HPC article is clearly about the authorship question.  I think it's a hoax.  I would be inclined, at the very least, to spray the para with fact tags, but the best course might be to delete it until someone comes up with a proper citation, if one exists. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton as Shakespeare scholar
Could some of you please check whether Howard Staunton gives a reasonable picture of him as a Shakespeare scholar. Please leave comments at Talk:Howard Staunton. Many thanks, Philcha (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To give a bit of background, Philcha and myself are members of the WP:WikiProject Chess are we are trying to raise Howard Staunton to GA-class level, and possibly even better. Howard Stauton was notable on two aspects: he was a chess champion, and he was a Shakespeare scholar. While we can care about all the chess aspects, we would definitely need your help on the Shakespeare aspect so that you can tell us if the treatment in the article is appropriate or if some important bits are missing. Thanks in advance! SyG (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that sounds a bit direct but...is this WikiProject inactive ?! SyG (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, although our most recent collaboration is moving really slow. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we want to implement this? Wrad (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The category is already there, but the Project Banner template needs to be updated to put articles into the category. So long as we adopt the WP 1.0 criteria wholesale (which we do, as best I can tell), all that should be needed is an update to the template. If anyone really wants to they can go through all B and Start class articles and see if it should now be C instead, but I hardly think that's necessary; it'll sort itself out over time.
 * I could try to take a stab at the template changes, but I've not used MediaWiki macro syntax before so all kinds of caveats apply. I wonder if the sensible thing to do wouldn't be to convert it to use Template:WPBannerMeta, which gives us all kinds of goodies with very little code.
 * I'm inclined towards doing so—and judging by the lack of discussion on this for over a month, nobody feels particularly strongly one way or the other—so anyone with reservations had better speak up ASAP or I'll just implement whatever seems sensible to me at the time. :-) --Xover (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lingering Talk page for Talk:List_of_Characters_in_The_Tempest?
There seems to still be a Talk page for List of Characters in The Tempest even though the article itself has been merged into The Tempest. Anyone know how to go about fixing that? Xover (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just move the talk page to an archive of Talk:The Tempest, then redirect Talk:List of Characters in The Tempest to Talk:The Tempest Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I put a speedy delete request per CSD G8 on it. There's nothing on there except the project banner. --Xover (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

“part of” vs. “in scope of” for Project Template?
I notice on the WP:BARD project template the text reads “ […] is part of WikiProject Shakespeare […]” where, e.g., the Biography project uses the phrasing “[…] is within the scope of […]”. I think the latter is better as it doesn't imply ownership as the former does. Unless someone objects I'll change the template accordingly. --Xover (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Wrad (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed accordingly.--Xover (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

R&J collaboration
This article is undergoing a peer review right now on the way to FA status. Wrad (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's been a couple of nibbles at the peer review, and I've duly tagged up the article with their suggestions. Collaboration would be much appreciated! -Malkinann (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Baconian theory
I happened to read the current version of Baconian theory today, and I have to say it's looking very good. Does anyone want to take a look and perhaps propose it for GA? AndyJones (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty good. I'd just suggest that the lead get expanded first. Wrad (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just made it a GA nominee and I plan to review it when I get time. (Bodleyman (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi Wrad! I think all necessary information in this article is already present. The lead could be expanded (I typed "expended" first time!) by moving material from the Overview (which follows close behind) but is there a vital advantage? Best Puzzle Master (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I love answering my own questions ... so "yes" because then it follows the style of the Oxfordian and Marlovian articles which have the Overview in the article lead. So ... task completed! Puzzle Master (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More to the point, it then would follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Lead sections. --Xover (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost
Hi! I'd like to interview your project for the Signpost. It would basically work by me asking you a few starting questions on this page, adding a few as we go on, then editing the conversations down into a newspaper-style interview-article (I'll link the original thread at the bottom). The purpose is to point out the good work you're doing to the project in general, and hopefully to attract more people in. Would you be interested? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Wrad (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 532 articles are assigned to this project, of which 129, or 24.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Unless someone objects I'm inclined to try adding WP:BARD to this thing. --Xover (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)