Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 1

Wikiproject Elizabethan Theatre issue

The main issue here is that this is closely related to the above state wikiproject. It even has a portal directly devoted to Shakespeare, their main portal.

However, Shakespeare did not write only for the theatre, and besides this, his influence extends beyond the bounds of theatre in other ways, such as film, culture, etc. This project, I think, would be better able to get Shakespeare out of a secondary position in a theatre "box" and out into wikipedia in a broader variety of ways, while still being able to maintain conformity between articles.

So, the question is how to resolve the current issues with Elizabethan theatre. Most importantly, I think, the portal issue. It is a very nice portal. Wrad 23:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nice portal. We don't have to get permission to just start maintaining the portal as part of our project. It doesn't look like anyone is really maintaining it right now, anyway, though one of the creators of the portal invited people to write him about it (I would write him myself but I can't figure out what to write). Curtangel 01:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm certainly not for duplicating projects and think we all rushed a bit. As the former portal is already set up very nicely (we all agree), for the time being I am removing myself as one of the 5 signees of our project and will make any suggestions for Shakespeare article improvements on the older portal.Smatprt 06:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the central argument for retaining this project despite overlaps (other than that overlaps occur all the time without conflict) is that Shakespeare covers more than just plays. The sonnets will require just as much work to standardise and categorise as the plays, if not more. It's like the relation between Wikiproject Mammals and Wikiproject Dogs and Cats. VanTucky 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think Shakespeare portal should be cut out of the Elizabethan theater portal. We could be affiliated though. The Elizabethan theater portal has a very academic draw to it, this one much less so. Also, it's not like the two portals are dead opposed to each other like the Montagues and Capulets, or competing for subscribers. ;) Mandel 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have seemed a bit flip with my "we can take care of the Shakespeare Portal" comment, but I really don't see anything on it suggesting that it "belongs" to the Elizabethan Theater project. It doesn't link back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre -- its simply under their "similar project" heading. Which I suppose is where we would go, too. To me, it looks like someone went "Shakespeare needs a portal" and then put it together(there are fewer than 50 edits and none since January of this year). For goodness' sake... there's a Gilbert and Sullivan wikiproject. Nothing against them, but I think Shakespeare deserves his own WikiProject as well. This is wikipedia, we're supposed to be bold and nothing is supposed to "belong" to anyone. I don't want to step on toes, but we're almost being silly here. There is plenty of Elizabethan Theater to go around and plenty of playwrights who deserve attention who aren't Shakespeare. If anything, we're giving those participants the chance to focus on plays and authors who are less... famous. Am I making sense here or am I just rambling? Curtangel 02:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I hadn't thought of it that way . . . Wrad 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An important policy for this project

I think the most vital wiki policy for members of this project to remember is no original research; i.e. no editorializing/analysing of plays and sonnets that are not published sources. zero. zip. It's like the policy central to Wikiproject Wine (wikipedia is not a wine guide). For us, Wikipedia is not a forum for your interpretation of the Bard. VanTucky 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! New information should provide a scholarly source. This is the only way to remain credible. Wrad 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this template on the Desdemona (Othello) page:

I thought it had some good points. We may want to use something like this on a few talk pages. Wrad 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal for overall format, based on many existing pages

It's great to see this discussion, as these are the edits I have been making for a while. Here is the ordering I propose. It is very close to a number of pages, including several I worked on over the last few weeks:

1 - Intro paragraph with graphic to the right (as recommeded in the MOS).

The basic info that most of the pages have now.

2 Sources

Where Shakespeare got the story

3 Date and Text

When he did it and how he wrote in (in colloboration, revisions, other versions, etc.)

4 Performance history

Early performance

5 Characters

Introduce the characters

6 Synopsis

plot summary with spoiler notice

7 Themes and motifs

what is it really about...

8 Critical comment

what various critics (and other notable persons) have said about the work.

9 Adaptations and cultural references

what the world has done with it...

9.1 Literary versions

usually literary adaptations came first.

9.2 Musical adaptations

and music, including opera and musicals

9.3 Film versions

then film

9.4 Television versions (a selection)

then tv

9.5 Cultural references

and now everything from rock bands to ipods.

10 References

11 External links

- Check out R&J, King Lear, MacBeth, Hamlet for examples of this ordering. The first 4 sections makes sense from a historical and chronological standpoint. From a theatrical standpoint Characters going right into Synopsis makes good sense. Following that with Themes and motifs then seems to be helpful. Comments?Smatprt 18:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is good, except for one thing. The trivia section is being aggresively phased out across wikipedia. We might do better to call it "in popular culture" or something like that to avoid having long trivia sections that we have to re-intergrate into the article. VanTucky 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing about trivia. (See WP:TRIV) Wrad 19:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia may not be unimportant, but are often too long. Mandel 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank the lord! I hate the trivia sections.Smatprt 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - Any way to encourage turning all these lists into prose? Lists of movies and novels do not make for a good article. If we could encourage a nice prose paragraph explaining some film highlights, for example, then linking to an offpage list of all the movie versions, it would be a lovely thing. Same with lists of notable actors who have played the role, and other lists. Smatprt 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - back to trivia. Most of the trivia falls under cultural references - they are anecdotes from film, stage, tv productions, things like that. Good editing can incorporate most of that stuff into the article...or off the page.Smatprt 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...a comment. I agree for literary/musical adaptations, but TV and films based on one play should be branched out to a separate article. They are usually too long, and clog a main page. We could try to keep each play at say, 60 - 70K in byte size.

I'm no fan of the "Themes and Motifs" section. It invites lazy writing and plenty of middle school quality edits (plus vandals). We should give free rein to Wikipedians to write critically otherwise. Mandel 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an absolutely necessary section. The key is to be extremely strict about the need for citations and stamping out original research. Thoughtful academic commentaries on Shakespeare are easier to find than just about anything else on the bard. VanTucky 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could stay, but the name "Themes and Motifs" must go. It invites regurgitations CliffsNotes style, and ought not be encouraged. Mandel 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, just be strict. Also, just about all of these sections could (and some should/must) have sub-articles going in depth, with the main page summarizing key points. Wrad 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this for the most part. I think turning lists into prose is a good idea... Branching is definitely going to be important for these articles. My main concerns with this format would be with the Cultural References subsection and Trivia sections. Others have dealt with the trivia problems, but I can see Cultural references becoming a dump section like a trivia section. I see its necessity... but it could get out of hand in a way the others would be less likely to. Not saying don't have it, just something to think about. Curtangel 02:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References subsection and Trivia sections could be branched out. Mandel 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we seem to agree that the Trivia section is undesireable. Should we strike that section out, or make a note discouraging it? Wrad 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree - we should strike it out and encourage editors to find somewhere within the prose to make their additions - or to create another page if quantity dictates.
- I scanned thru a bunch of play pages and there is a fair amount under the heading "Critical Comment". There is quite a bit on numerous pages and it does seems to fit the title of "Critical Comment" best. I suggest we lose Trivia and put in "Critical Comment" in its place. I will make the change above in my original posting and all can comment.Smatprt 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support striking it. VanTucky 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Move to Cultural reference page. Mandel 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the above format has the approval (or at least no stated dissapproval) from the above comments. I would not want to see a hard and fast "rule" being dictated by this or any other group, but shall we say this format is a reasonable starting point for continuing work on the Shakespeare play articles?Smatprt 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "critical comment" may do better before cultural references--right after themes. Wrad 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - thats the logical place for critical comment.Smatprt 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I made that change to the proposed format above. Now how does it look?Smatprt 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm going to add some of the info on the main page to it, as I think it is also important. Wrad 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance scale

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Ummm...all canonized works of Mister William Shakespeare are top importance by default, as we like it :) Mandel 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. This may be redundant, but I'll put it here anyway. Importance is usually measured by the likelihood of wikiusers (or anyone) to see the article, basically, guessed popularity. Thus, Romeo and Juliet is more important than, say, Mercutio, or Tybalt articles. (No offense to either one, though, especially Tybalt). : ) Wrad 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created an assessment page for the project... I'm not liking my choices for articles for examples on the importance scale... I tried to make it one article about Shakespeare as a person, and one about Shakespeare's work in some form. I welcome others who might have more (or a better) perspective on what importance levels various articles should be to make more appropriate choices. Curtangel 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is usually measured by the likelihood of wikiusers (or anyone) to see the article, basically, guessed popularity. This is debatable. Popular doesn't mean important. Britney Spears hardly affect the world. On top of that, how do you "guess" popularity? Mandel 10:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Assessment. Importance scale will probably be the hardest thing to hammer out here. Wrad 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting wikiusers to the project

The best way for a project to die, is that it doesn't have enough users. The best way to reach a consensus, is to have lots of members chipping in. So, how are we going to get them? Here are some of my ideas, although I think many will come of their own accord.

Every time we edit a Shakespeare page, perhaps add a talk section with a link to this site and invitation to join (especially main pages).
Put templates on all talk pages within the project.
Put the new userbox (thanks Curtangel) on our userpages.
Invite specific editors who seem to have an interest in/knowledge of Shakespeare.

Any other ideas? Wrad 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have we extended an invite to people from the Elizabethan theatre project? VanTucky 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is also an invite, I believe, on William Shakespeare. Wrad 23:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry standards

How about poetry standards? (Sonnets, etc.) I've posted invites on the poetry project for help on this. (I've also noticed that this area has issues, as well as his plays.) Wrad 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can take our time...after all the project is only three days old. :) Mandel 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the project

Are we including directly derivative works (such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and (on the less famous half) Gertrude and Claudius)? What about people who were important in Shakespeare's life? People who are considered nominees for the "Dark Lady" and "Young Man" of the sonnets? I know this is a bit early... I just looked and Shakespeare's page doesn't have a template yet. But, I think the sooner we get this settled the few problems we'll have in the long run.

If we do intend to include these articles, I propose that we create a task force for each of Shakespeare's works as well as one for the man himself. This might see a bit early, but I wanted to get the idea out there. Curtangel 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely include these articles. Surely somewhere there is an expert on such things. Task forces are also a definite possibility as the project expands. Wrad 03:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for any related works to be included they need to state independently the direct deriviation from Shakespeare before we try and cover it in the scope. That way we dont start forcing the project on articles through our personal opinion of similarity or something. VanTucky 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to Template:Shakespearesonnets

To avoid discussion in more than one place, please see my comments at Template talk:Shakespearesonnets#New_layout. -- Chuq (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shakespeare.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Are we all aware of this wiki project? [[1]]Smatprt 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. This looks like an offshoot of wikipedia, rather than a project, although it would be useful as reference, possibly. Another example of this would be Wookiepedia, an offshoot of wikipedia dealing with the Star Wars universe, but not really part of the official encyclopedia, so there should be no problem. (These pages use the wiki software, but are not part of wikipedia.com, in other words, so no worries.) Nice find, though. Maybe we can learn from their style. Wrad 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations

I just put the project template on a lot of articles, and noticed a few things:

Some articles have trouble with putting all play titles in italics
There are several very small character pages which may need to be merged or expanded.
Trivia sections (already discussed)
Some articles divide the Synopsis into acts. This seems to make the synopsis more readable. It might be a good idea for all synopses.

Just some observations. We don't want to take to much onto our plate right now, though. Wrad 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Authorship discussion

I wanted to let everyone here know that there's a discussion going on at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Consensus_on_authorship_section about how little or much of the questions around Shakespearean authorship claims to include in the main article. I hope everyone will join in the discussion. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn main article into a featured article

I'm glad this Wikiproject is gaining steam and getting down to do some greatly needed work. I wonder, though, why no one has mentioned the need to bring the main William Shakespeare article up to featured article standards? Obviously, this article must be at the center of this project. In addition, the article is extremely high visibility and is already at Good Article level. Would people be willing to set our sights on this goal over the coming months?--Alabamaboy 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason I can think of for its not being mentioned is that it's so obvious. Wrad 04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare is now our collaboration for FA status. Wrad 15:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Shakespeare Editions

Could anyone access this site? At ise.uvic.ca/ then browse around. It always hangs on my browser. Mandel 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Wrad 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on the links? Try it, it doesn't seem to work.Mandel 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean within the site? I explored the site and it seemed to work. Wrad 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work for me. Looks like it can be used as a source edition, but I've tried everything. I'm on IE 6.0. Mandel 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Firefox. Maybe that's it. Weird. It's a very good site. Wrad 04:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play infoboxes

There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox Play about whether or not templates should be used for plays in wikipedia, and if so, how. Members of this project are strongly encouraged to participate as consensus and settlement is needed on this issue. Wrad 04:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

I see this page has been quiet for a few days, so I suggest we pick our first article to collaberate on. I know what I would suggest, but I'm going to leave this comment up for a few hours to see what other members of the project think, first. AndyJones 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alabamaboy has suggested Shakespeare's article, I think that's a good nominee, although I think the Hamlet article would also be good. Wrad 23:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are both pretty weak. Hamlet is embarrassing. The online SparkNotes are better.Smatprt 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The Biography article works for me. Shall we start a project "to do" list, here? AndyJones 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Wrad 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Revision to page layout for the works

Following is a suggested revision by User:Wrad to the page layout suggested above. On the whole I approve it. AndyJones 12:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Intro paragraph with graphic to the right (as recommeded in the MOS).

The title of the play should be given in full, bold, modernized spelling, as printed in the Quarto or/and Folio. Follow WP:LEAD.

2 Sources

What works influenced the play or poem?

3 Date and Text

The play as it survives to us. Are there Quarto versions? What is its relationship with the Folio text?

4 Performance history

What is the first known recorded performance?

5 Characters

Very brief, NPOV description. Should not attempt to analyze characters in this section but give, briefly, who they are and their relationship with a protagonist. No spoiler details should be added here just the character as described at the start of the play or in the first scene. Characters in need of a more in-depth analysis should have their own article.

6 Synopsis

Accuracy and a lucid style.

Wikipedia policy asks for plot synopses to stay within 500-700 words, with a ceiling of 900 words in special circumstances only. The summary is not to be subdivided in further Acts and scenes. Acts and scene divisions do not exist the earliest Shakespeare texts and were probably added by later editors. Furthermore, sub-dividing synopses into acts and scenes could make this section too long.

Key idea here: synopsis means to summarize the vital plot points of the play, not to re-tell the entire plot in your own words.

7 Themes and motifs

what is it really about...

8 Critical comment

what various critics (and other notable persons) have said about the work.

9 Adaptations and cultural references

what the world has done with it...

9.1 Literary versions

usually literary adaptations came first.

9.2 Musical adaptations

and music, including opera and musicals

9.3 Film versions

Where there are numerous versions, there should be a separate article, eg. Macbeth on screen, which will allow fuller coverage. That should have a {main article} tag and a brief prose summary on the play's article, and a {main article} tag and a brief list summary at Shakespeare on screen.

Where there are only a handful of versions, these should be covered in a prose section on the page, and in list form at Shakespeare on screen.

9.4 Television versions (a selection)

then tv

9.5 Cultural references

and now everything from rock bands to ipods.

10 References

11 External links

Sounds great, y'all! Smatprt 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and move this to the main page, since the changes were pretty small and it is mostly Smatprt's already-approved version anyway. We can discuss it more as time goes on. Wrad 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]