Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Shakespeare page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 91 days

Nomination for merger of Template:Romeo and Juliet[edit]

Template:Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for merging with Template:Romeo and Juliet film adaptations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shakespeare's will#Link to Shakespeare's Signet Ring article[edit]

Very minor issue, but if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like discussing the WP:LEADIMAGE at William Shakespeare?[edit]

Your view is welcome at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Lead_image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice#Plot_summary[edit]

More eyes welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also some vigorous editing going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

Asperthrow has recently moved the following articles per MOS:SURNAME, WP:TITLE.

Any thoughts? Some of them might be ok but others (e.g. #3) are very jarring. What should happen? Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to an individual by their surname only upon their first mention is not what Wikipedia does. The titles should not be akin to those of scholarly articles, no matter how recognisable the name may be. Asperthrow (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnuniq this was a big change to make without any discussion (that I've seen). While I agree the new names are a bit clunkier, like Johnuniq I'd say number 3 is the only one I object to and would like to see reversed. AndyJones (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that 3 is not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Xover if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the new Shakespeare's sonnets is very good either. Like with SAQ, it's very WP:COMMONNAME, see for example [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could use this argument to justify renaming Shakespeare's own article to simply 'Shakespeare'. Or to justify renaming The Walt Disney Company to 'Disney'. Asperthrow (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions should have been consulted here because this has been proposed in various forms and rejected previously multiple times (i.e. these moves are against a standing consensus). In addition to #3 being outright incorrect (and obviously so, which makes that one kinda egregious) the rest are horribly stilted and artificial and not how these topics are referred to in any other context (as a reading aide: "Shakespeare" isn't used here as a surname, but as a topic; "Shakespeare studies" and "William Shakespeare studies" mean two completely different things). Please revert these moves. Xover (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Previous discussions should have been consulted here because this has been proposed in various forms and rejected previously multiple times (i.e. these moves are against a standing consensus)."

I was not aware of this nor could I reasonably have been. Compliance with Wikipedia's manual of style should be prioritised over pretentious, pseudo-scholarly titles.

"In addition to #3 being outright incorrect (and obviously so, which makes that one kinda egregious)"

You ought to explain why, rather than postulate.

"...the rest are horribly stilted and artificial and not how these topics are referred to in any other context"

You again fail to explain your reasoning. "William Shakespeare's sonnets" is hardly bad English.

"(as a reading aide: "Shakespeare" isn't used here as a surname, but as a topic"

I'm sure that the "Shakespeare's" in "Shakespeare's sonnets" refers to the topic rather than the man. That's a lazy argument conceived after the fact.

""Shakespeare studies" and "William Shakespeare studies" mean two completely different things)."

Why is this relevant?

"Please revert these moves."

No. I don't know how to, and I also have things to do. You're free to click through and revert them if this is sufficiently important to you. Asperthrow (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was an unacceptably large change to make on an extremely high-profile topic without any discussion or consensus, especially since the moves resulted in literally hundreds of articles suddenly linked to double redirects. In addition, as others said this change was previously proposed and did not receive consensus. I have undone the moves and also temporarily protected all the pages from being moved again. Since I took these actions as an admin, I am not weighing in on the merits of whether or not these moves should be made, only that proper procedures were not followed by first gaining consensus. I suggest people discuss the issue here and come to a consensus on if these moves should be undertaken. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to festivities, but for what it's worth, I agree with everyone else - this was far too big a change to be initiated without any discussion. And as others have pointed out, several of the new titles are simply inaccurate. Some of the renames were fine, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis. Bertaut (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]