Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 2

Plot length

I should have checked my sources better, but the plot length guideline is not really official policy, it is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot, although I think it is more than reasonable and reached by a consensus of members of that project. I don't see many differences lengthwise between films and play synopses. Wrad 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something like this to the synopsis section: "Plot summaries should summarize the plot as is, and not include any additional interpretations by scholars or wikieditors. Such commentary is best placed in the Criticism section, and given a scholarly source."

What do you think?

Also, I'm seriously considering a plot-summary improvement drive. Right now, our plots are not meeting these guidelines at all. However, I'd rather it not be a one-man show. Anyone who wants to help is welcome to join in. Wrad 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Do members of this project think that spoiler tags (warnings that plot or ending details follow) are necessary in the sections called "Plot" or "Synopsis"? If yes, why? Kusma (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In that regard, folks here might want to peruse the spoiler discussion that's been going on for a few days now. -Ebyabe 12:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would encourage those of us with an opinion to contribute there, rather than here. We can reconvene the discussion on this page if/when that discussion reaches a consensus which affects us. AndyJones 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Shakespeare project has no opinion on this matter, I will continue removing the tags from Shakespeare's plays when I see them. Kusma (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care what you do, but the opinion of the project is to wait on a decision until the above "Spoiler warning" discussion has reached a consensus. Going against that will cause problems. I can guarantee it, although I won't have a part in it. Wrad 07:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Troilus: request for help from

Hi, I've posted this already in the poetry project, but maybe there is someone here who can help with the Shakespeare bit.

I'm currently in the middle of an expansion of the article on Troilus to cover the developments from ancient to modern versions of his myth. I've covered all the ancient sources, literary and art and the romance tradition of Benoît and Guido. I've even written something on Boccaccio

Unfortunately there are still a couple of minor (g) sections to cover, namely Chaucer and Shakespeare (and possibly Dryden too).

If anyone is interested in helping with either of those, then please let me know at Talk:Troilus. Thanks --Peter cohen 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref format

Question: Do we want to have an established referencing format as a project (MLA, Harvard?) Several articles within the project have conflicting styles, not only between but within articles.

Also, how do we want to cite the plays? I myself lean toward the Act.Scene.Line style, as that is what I have seen in other publications.

Also, in regards to creating a template for all play citations, I think I have found an excellent webpage for it: Internet Shakespeare Editions, a scholarly website with searchable text versions of all quartos and folios, as well as a modern version of each play. The template, in theory, would work like the ones used for the Bible and the Quran on wikipedia and would help bring conformity to Shakespeare sourcing. See the Bible and Quran templates at these links: Template:Bverse, Template:Bible, Template:Cite quran

Our version of the template would allow editors to cite to a specific line in any version of any of the plays through a simple template. Let me know of any ideas or concerns you may have. -- Wrad 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have begun construction of this template at User:Wrad/template:Shakespeare. Please adjust and discuss as you see fit. Wrad 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I finished the template (It works, but may need a bit more tweaking). You can see it at {{Shakecite}}. Here is a sample: Romeo and Juliet 1.1 (M)

Wrad 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea - New Category

I think we should create a category of "Shakespearean stubs." This way, all our stub articles could have an additional label to the preexisting "theatrical stub." Besides making them better organized, this could also give the general public more incentive to expand them (though this may honestly be a vain hope). Any thoughts? BeastKing89 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There already is one here. If you want to expand anymore articles, that would be great! Wrad 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bardolatry

Has anyone seen this? I think the anon at the top of the talk page may have a point. AndyJones 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Puck

I worked on the Puck character page a little bit but more needs to be added I think. But just to let you know, I worked on it. Sydneysaurus 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Baconian Theory Did You Know

Why has Baconian Theory (10th June 2007) been added to our list of "did you know"s? The 9th to 10th June diff is here, but I don't see it. I'll remove that, pending someone correcting me. AndyJones 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked the user who added that about it on their talk page, but got no response. Wrad 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article up for deletion

List of English words invented by Shakespeare is up for deletion. If you wish, please add to this debate. Wrad 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion discussion

List of Shakespeare's works is up for deletion. Input is desired. Wrad 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare bibliography

I'm thinking of making this page, if one doesn't exist to the purpose already. It's possible there's page like it around under a different name; if there is, could someone tell me, to prevent duplication? qp10qp 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is: List of Shakespeare's works. Although it's still under construction. Wrad 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean something like List of books about Jesus or List of Adolf Hitler books. There's a need for it, I think, with Shakespeare. qp10qp 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nothing like that, yet. Wrad 01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes update

I have created/expanded the recent changes watchlist for this project. This page runs like a watchlist for all the articles in the project, showing the most recent changes for all Shakespeare-related articles. Should be a great asset to the project. It is available here.

Applying for Featured Article Class

I think we need to apply William Shakespeare for featured article status. After all, according to the page's checklist that's all we need to do. It should almost definitely pass. Meldshal42 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're really close. We actually already applied and nearly passed. We have a few issues to work out and then we'll apply again. They're all listed at the bottom of the talk page. Wrad 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have applied once again, and I believe that this time we shall pass. "May your swords stay sharp",

Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to wait a few weeks, Meldshal, because there's a whole lot of work we need to do before we can be sure that it will pass. It's a bit too soon to reapply, because it only failed the other day. I'm glad you're interested in the article; it's one of the most important on Wikipedia.qp10qp 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll stop it. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Shall I die? Shall I fly"

In the mid-1980s, there was a lot of publicity about a supposedly newly discovered Shakespeare poem known as "Shall I Die? Shall I Fly". I don't know what the scholarly consensus about it was, but I don't see it discussed anywhere in Wikipedia -- not even in Shakespeare Apocrypha, where presumably it belongs if nowhere else, since it did get attributed to Shakespeare. --Metropolitan90 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I just found a good article discussing this very issue. We'll have to figure out where to put it. Wrad 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article

If this article is confined to only citing "academic sources" there would be no article. It is, by its very nature, a controversy. Contributors to the controversy are not usually in academic institutions but this does nor mean they are too stupid to assemble a cogent argument. Neither does it mean their standards of investigation are necessarily lower than those in academia. Usually, Wikipedia does not attempt to evaluate arguments, it being sufficient that they originated from a scholarly source. That will not work here. These controversial arguments must be evaluated and, of course, they must rely on cited evidence (which is different from citing academic opinion). The best one can hope for is a balance of conflicting views, and space must be allowed to state the arguments of all sides. The danger is that a supporter of one of these controversial viewpoints might attempt to force a particular point of view (bias the article). In this case, I recommend issuing a warning and possibly a ban because this behaviour destroys the efforts of the group to balance the article. Another idea is to revert the changes and then freeze the article for a couple of weeks to prevent further attack. (Puzzle Master 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Cultural references

As requested, I would like to start discussion by saying that I feel this section (as in many articles that do not fall within the remit of this project) is becoming a terrible nuisance. If you actually included all references to each Shakespeare play, the section that results would be longer than the rest of the article and it would not constitute any real contribution to our understanding of the play. Except in a very small number of cases, any helpful cultural references can be found out about simply by using the "What links here" facility. Deb 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, for the most part, although I would point out that for many Shakespeare plays there are scholarly sources available discussing cultural references made to the play and influences of the play. Maybe the answer is not to eliminate the section (or maybe just temporarily), but to confine it to scholarly sources. If none are available, maybe the section isn't needed. Wrad 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is boring and useless. Why give article space to cruft and trivia? RedRabbit1983 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt's destructive behaviour

To Smatprt. When I was here months ago you were trying to skew the Shakespeare Authorship article towards Oxford and I see that you've now progressed to skewing the main Shakespeare article too. You've been asked not to by others but you've simply ignored these requests. Clearly, you are the one who is at war with everyone else here. You evidently have no interest in working with others and seem obsessed with fashioning these articles towards promoting Oxford. I have experienced your aggression first hand. I added a perfectly acceptable referenced addition about Bacon to the header in the interests of balance. However, you changed the name incorrectly from "Michell" to "Mitchell" and the date incorrectly from "2000" (which is on my copy) to "1996". Then, presumably because it didn't suit your cause, you removed my reference altogether and rewrote the header to favour your candidate. You appear not to have the slightest concern as to whether or not the reader obtains a balanced view. Sadly, I don't see anyone in authority on these forums who is attempting to restrain your cancerous destruction. People just quote rules at each other without any attempt at enforcing them. I think you should identify yourself instead of hiding behind a pseudonym and your sockpuppet Ben Jonson so that we can all see who you really are. I, personally, would like to see you banned from this forum. (Puzzle Master 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Just found this on my talk page written by Smatprt from April. "Thought you might like to know that the Strats are quickly building a concensus to cut down the section on authorship on the main William Shakespeare page. These cuts include the summary on Bacon (as well as Oxford and Marlowe). The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Shakespeare#Consensus_on_authorship_section While we are on opposite sides (officially) of a three sided question, I have always thought that Bacon and Oxford were more connected than most will even consider.Smatprt 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)". I thought editors were not supposed to covertly elicit support from others. May I suggest locking the Shakespeare Authorship article and a handful of editors (not including myself) edit it down (e.g. remove the 1604 Oxford argument) towards balance. (Puzzle Master 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article

As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and many are sickened) by my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.

Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.

In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out. Smatprt 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

still away

I regret to announce that I will be unavailable here on my computer for any time consuming activities until the school year begins again. My summer is simply too busy, and I really don't think I can help you guys out with anything until then.--Romeo in love 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Character articles up for deletion

Several Shakespeare character articles are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Bottom. Please take part in the discussion. Thanks. Wrad 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. Will members of the project please show up at AfD and educate these people. AndyJones 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Shakespeare}}

I am going to overhaul this template. I'm thinking of using a design roughly similar to the template at the bottom of Book of Mormon Hopefully it will be less intrusive and scatterbrained. Wrad 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dunno. I guess everybody has a different sense of aesthetics, but I think the Shakespeare one is vastly more attractive as it is. Sorry. AndyJones 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which one? I think that {{Latter Day Saint movement}} is quite nice, but {{Latter-day Saints}} is a bit ugly. Do you plan on nesting the various sections, or just converting to {{Navbox generic}} and tidying it up? — mholland (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I agree with Mholland. It's {Latter-day Saints} that I took exception to. AndyJones 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I liked the one you all hate. I don't like the color, but I like the nesting. Nesting was all I had in mind. Wrad 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It is odd thanking a whole project, but I feel that such thanks are in order for the wonderful William Shakespeare article that all of you have produced. It is a great testament to Wikipedia's ability to produce high-quality articles that are still accessible to the average, educated reader. Well done all. You have set a very high standard for the rest of us writing literature articles! Awadewit | talk 04:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you very much for also including the alternatives of King Lear. I personally was in one of the alternations and it was quite an experience. Cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catgirl07 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Project citation format ideas

I've noticed that citation formats within the project have recently begun to follow the format used by the William Shakespeare article. I'm also aware that several editors, including myself, would prefer something different. Perhaps we should hammer out a bit of a guideline so that we can all be on the same page within the project next time we do a serious collaboration. Any ideas? This isn't intended to be an unbreakable policy, just a guideline to make things easier on ourselves. Wrad 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I opposed a bibliography of referenced books on the WS page because of length, I suggest that all other articles should have such a list. This would then make it possible to follow professional style in distinguishing note citations from bibliography listing. In essence, this means that the bibliography should follow the template form, with full stops, and the notes should use a slightly different form, with commas. This would at last mean that shortened refs would match any longer refs in the notes rather than clashing with them as they do at WS.qp10qp 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you point us to a sample article using this format well? Wrad 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary: A Fiction.qp10qp 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that is the kind of style I would be very much in favor of. Much easier to understand and organize. More in line with what you see in the professional world. Wrad 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Comedy of Errors

May I request that The Comedy of Errors come under the wing of this project? I copyedited the introduction but could go no further. RedRabbit 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we already have a bit of a collaboration going on Romeo and Juliet, which is actually pretty close to GA. Once it gets there, we should probably take suggestions, have a bit of a poll/discussion, and decide what the next collaboration should be. Wrad 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, though, Comedy needs some serious work. Wrad 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in Category:WikiProjects

I notice that the Shakespeare WikiProject isn't listed in Category:WikiProjects. I couldn't figure out how to add the necessary tag. -- Scartol 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is listed there, but it's difficult to find. Within Category:WikiProjects there's a sub-category called Category:Culture WikiProjects, and within that category there's a sub-category called Category:WikiProject Performing arts, and within that category there's a sub-category called Category:WikiProject Theatre, and within that category - hey presto!

Or you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare, click on the category Category:WikiProject Shakespeare at the bottom and work your way up via Theatre, Performing arts and Culture to Category:WikiProjects. Phew!

(BTW, if you want to talk about a category on a talk page such as this one (or list one on a WikiProject page), you need to put a colon just inside the left-hand square bracket - otherwise it won't appear in your text and will appear instead at the bottom of the page!) --GuillaumeTell 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thanks for the info. -- Scartol 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arden Shakespeare

Hi there, I've just reported the article Arden Shakespeare as a copyright violation from [1], but as the subject is within the scope of your Wikiproject, I wonder if any of your participents would be interested in writing a new article in replacement? Cheers, DWaterson 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Next Collaboration

So, now that Romeo and Juliet is a GA, what should be our next collaboration? A few obvious possibilities are Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear, since they are very famous. However, we may want to do a comedy, just to be well-rounded (and to be sure we don't get too depressed :) ). Comedy of Errors has also been suggested. Anyway, let's hear some ideas! Personally, I am leaning towards Hamlet right now, since it seems to be a popular page on wikipedia in terms of how often it is edited. Wrad 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear all appear to be nearly to good article standards, so why don't we do them in that order. After all, they are Shakespeare's three biggies (so to speak).--Alabamaboy 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I guess that's two votes for Hamlet (as if we were voting on this :P) I would fully support that collaboration myself, anyway. Wrad 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet seems like a good choice to me. I was thinking it might be good to start a separate page for performances of the major plays; does anyone have any thoughts on that? Jlittlet 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Hamlet is a good choice, too. I'm not sure how much I'd be able to contribute, though, as there is much of a very poor quality in the theatre pages, which shames me into action there as a priority. I can offer an analysis of the 'speak the speech' in terms of contemporary performer practice from Patsy Rodenberg. There is lots of material on Hamlet in Robert Weimann too, with which I'm very familiar. At a stretch I could also look at some of the soliloquies in terms of the differences between quartos and folio. Bertolt Brecht is a very demanding German at the moment, though. DionysosProteus 04:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet is OK by me, but I'm not sure how much time I'd be able to spend on it. My skills, such as they are, are in areas such as organisation, copyediting, picking holes in things and problem-solving rather than matters relating to the text, performances, critical viewpoints, etc. The article as it stands looks rather unbalanced to me (and the synopsis is, um, odd). IMO, attention needs to be given at an early stage to the content, sequence and length of the sections, and the relationship between the main article and the numerous sub-articles. --GuillaumeTell 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

All too true, perhaps those with copyediting skills would wish to focus on fixing up Romeo and Juliet? Wrad 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I endore this suggestion. A good copyedit there would do a world of good. It's starting to look like it has FA potential. AndyJones 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should go with Hamlet also because a lot of people will look at it. Sydneysaurus 15:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet is popular, and popular is good by me. :) However, I believe that Hamlet needs improvement, and work on the article should work out. Yes, I think Hamlet should be the collaboration. Thanks, Meldshal42 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be a play article?? I think we could choose a character article instead. Any ideas of character articles that need work?? Bardofcornish 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a play article. The only problem is that most character articles can be handled pretty well by one editor, while play articles take a lot of work by a lot of editors. Those characters that would need more work, such as Prince Hamlet, would probably be best handled after fixing the main Hamlet article first, in my opinion. Wrad 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one. I've always said to myself that when the project got to Hamlet I'd sit-it-out and rejoin when the project moved on again. However, if the consensus settles on Hamlet I can think of things I can usefully do: Hamlet on screen might be my first and main contribution. Also it seems the consensus is drifting towards a shorter synopsis with no copyright problems, and I'm probably able to help there, too. (FWIW I'm not editing wikipedia with anything like the regularity I was in the first half of the Shakespeare featured article drive, due to other committments). On the whole, therefore, I'd support Hamlet as the next collaboration. AndyJones 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I am very confused about what sources to use for Shakespeare articles. I know that most content on the internet is copywrighted, but books are too. Or, are you only supposed to use books published before 1978, so you couldn't use, say, A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare? Any answer would be greatly aprecciated. Thanks. Bardofcornish 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Copyright only applies to text itself, not to facts or ideas. You have to write wikipedia in your own words, but you should do so using the best and most up-to-date sources available. Note that we never simply copy text out of our sources, merely quote facts or ideas, giving a citation to the source to show where we got it. (An exception is that a short quotation, fully cited, isn't a breach of copyright.) AndyJones 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifacation. Bardofcornish 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Often I find myself using short quotations, with appropriate references and quotations, to bolster entries that are written without support. Tanstaafl28 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinions sought on Shakespeare redirect

Someone brought up the redirects to Shakespeare in performance for a RfD. This is not a valid RfD, as I've said at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_23#Redirects_to_Shakespeare_in_performance and the RfD template is messing up the main redirect the article (the Shakespearean performances redirect, which is how Google still lists the article). Please join in the discussion and voice your opinion. I'm hoping we can speedy keep these redirects. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Standardization of play articles

Hello all. I've just spent a while looking through the Hamlet page, its comments and those here. I believe that the process of standardizing the play articles is at an early stage, which is why I thought I'd offer this observation: I'm very comfortable with scholarly, textual investigations, but even my eyes begin to cross and blur at the sight of all those Qs and numerals, moments into an article. The sources and textual history sections are very important, I agree, but is it necessary or wise to hit the reader with all that at the start? I know it makes sense in a coldly analytical way and is in conformity with the introductions offered by most major critical editions. But, be honest, if you pick yourself up a new edition and open up, don't you just skip past that stuff? At least first time round? From a purely rhetorical or pleasurable consideration, it strikes me that jumping straight into the characters and story is a more satisfying read for your 'average' browser (whoever they may be). Isn't where the story came from a secondary consideration to the story itself? Even more so for the textual history, even when that is as central to a consideration of a play's significance as it is with Hamlet? I would suggest considering a move down below the performance history or analysis; its the plot, meaning and performance that's the juicy stuff (IMHO). I don't mean to stir up hard-won debates (if there were any), or to impugn the suggested structure; I'm kind of assuming that it's followed from the editions of books, and the that the thought that a web page article might organise differently wasn't obvious. We're writing about theatre, so I guess all I'm suggesting is a little theatricality or razzamataz (in an encyclopedic and verified way, of course) in the presentation. I suspect the audience might start shuffling and a-coughing. Just a thought. DionysosProteus 06:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I love the way you just expressed yourself. That was entertaining to read.

Second, you're right in guessing that the standardization outline is a young child, still relatively untested. I don't know though, that I want to break from a tradition of many Shakespeare publications to discuss sources and texts first, even if many do skip them. I think the reason is that it can prepare the reader for what he is about to see. It helps communicate where it all came from. Analysis and performance, however, come after the plot since they are what the writing led to (analysis, portrayals, adaptations) So it is also a more chronological way of presenting the information. If readers want to skip, it's a simple matter of clicking "Synopsis". All in all, I think this is a matter of taste, though.

With Hamlet I think the text section is long enough to be summarized and the more specific information given its own sub article. That should diminish the coughing a bit. Wrad 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Although, chronological only from the author's POV (and even there, that's not strictly speaking true; the published history of the play-text doesn't come before the story, for example). From an audience member's POV, source and textual history would be considered part of analysis; it can prepare, but doesn't in most experiences (most watch or read the play without that information); it was developed from here and we have it in these material formats are kind of 'where from's, which, from another POV, follow on from what and why. The notion that source material is an 'origin' is a very Aristotelean rendering of the creative process, too; of course, in the wider sense, writing came before the written, but we know almost nothing of his processes of composition, so only being able to talk about 'sources' gives a strangly 'unbalanced' account of the writing, as if from where elements of the story came is the most important thing about that process (even if its the only thing we're able to say about it). The article on Joyce's Ulyssess, for example, begins with his first acquaintance with the story, but not with an analysis of how The Odyssey reached through history; similarly, the textual history comes later. I just realised I should be comparing with other featured articles, but the listed ones don't offer many point of comparison (The Country Wife and The Relapse being very different beasts, textually; one without sources and the other in far more intent dialogue with its prequel). Your observation about the navigation box is well-taken; my queries, though, are based on an assumption that there should be a path of least resistance approach. We aren't merely offering an anatomy, but something more akin to Gunther von Hagens' demonstration... we observe the specimen, make the first incision... Anyhow, more thoughts at least. DionysosProteus 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters in Romeo and Juliet

I took the time to create the Minor characters in Romeo and Juliet article specified in the "To Create" section of the WP:BARD page. I put in all the information I could, but I have never seen a page for minor characters and thus had no precedent to work off of. A more knowledgable Wikipedian can point me to a style sheet and I can get on it, if there is one. More importantly, though, I would like to propose deletion (or maybe we could just turn them into redirect pages?) of the following articles: Lord Montague, Montague family, and Capulet family. A more knowledgable Wikipedian would again be needed to replace those three (and "Other Characters") in the {{R&Jchar}} box and replace them with a link to the new minor characters page. Thanks! Nowah Balloon 07:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You could look at Minor Harry Potter characters. AndyJones 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than deletion, I would suggest merging the smaller pages into yours and redirecting. They may eventually get big enough for their own article. Wrad 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deleting articles within the project's remit is never a good plan. Deletion should only be used for abuses of the encylopedia: nothing within our remit is in that category. If pages have some worthwhile material, merge them. If pages are unsalvageable rubbish, turn them into redirects. Deletion should never be needed. AndyJones 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sonnet layout

is there any reason that some sonnets have different layouts form others?Blacksmith ^talk 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Our project hasn't really delved into the sonnets much yet. I've done some work on Sonnet 18, but that's it. I'd be interested in hearing what the situation is with layout, though. Do tell. Wrad 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember i am slightly colour blond so dont shoot me for getting colors worng k. right ok lets start with number one, sonnet is a grey single line border box in middle of page, introduction is above the sonnet and it has a title and By william shakespere wirtten in bold just above the box,.sonnet 2 is the same except no title or author, and the box is above the introduction. i wont go over every sonnet, we can make a list later. most other sonnets are a yellow box off to the righyt side with a thick clear border and title asd author in the box ill use sonnet 3 as an example,since this is the most commonly used i suggest we should use it, note that 1 & 2 arent the only different ones, there are others also like that, may i also bring to your attention that we dont have any pages for sonnets 117 121 and 122. {| align=right border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2 style="margin-left:1em" style="margin-bottom:1em" |- align=left style="background:lightyellow"

|Sonnet 3

by William Shakespeare Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest
Now is the time that face should form another;
Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest,
Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother.
For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb
Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
Or who is he so fond will be the tomb
Of his self-love, to stop posterity?
Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee
Calls back the lovely April of her prime:
So thou through windows of thine age shall see
Despite of wrinkles this thy golden time.
But if thou live, remember'd not to be,
Die single, and thine image dies with thee.

|} Blacksmith ^talk 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the sonnet articles have been growing lately. There's only three left without articles now? Wow. I would suggest that you draw up a proposal for standardizing them, similar to the way done for play and character articles on the Shakespeare project page. Put the proposal up here, and then users can discuss it. I think you're definitely right, these articles need some guidelines to follow. However, I am also colorblind, so who knows :) ? Wrad 05:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

well im not so colour blind that i cant see they are different, hmm how would i set out this proposal. Blacksmith ^talk 06:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Title change

As part of the Hamlet project, I'd like to propose moving the Literary criticism of Hamlet article to Critical approaches to Hamlet; the literary emphasis is limiting, and Freud, Nietzsche, Weimann, Rayner, and many others wouldn't count under that umbrella (as they're doing philosophical & psychological criticism, or performance studies). Besides which, that designation makes people from drama, theatre, and performance studies departments the world over fume.

DionysosProteus 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd support that, subject to the views of people who've worked on that article. AndyJones 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not too familiar with the differences between criticisms. Could there be a theatrical criticism page? But then "Critical Approaches" could have subpages anyway, I guess, if needed. Fill me in on the differences. Wrad 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, literary criticism treats the play as a piece of 'literature'; Duh, I know, I don't mean to sound obvious and simplistic, but rather to point to the historical process involved; 'literature' as an organising category is invented much later, and carries its own assumptions about and methods towards the play (literature doesn't exist until the 1800s, although the word begins to take on some of those valences thru the c17 & c18ths). To treat as literature both values and evaluates the play in certain specific ways; it tends to focus on the linguistic dimensions of the play, to the exclusion of the multi-medial dimensions and the interaction between them; it tends to confine itself to the autonomy of the dramatic fiction, in an anachronistic projection of 19th & 20th century theatrical conventions, so that in Shakespeare the locus is privileged and the platea systematically excluded (and consequently missing incredibly significant interplays between them); it's notions of cultural value, too, mean that certain elements of the texts are judged to be superior to others, certain genealogies underlined while others are neglected. This last point is true for all types of evaluation of course; my point, however, is that to assess as 'literature' implies those values and assumptions invisibly. All of these definitions, however, really only apply to old-fashioned literary criticism, it has to be said. The difference being in precisely the adoption of these neglected areas from theatrical and performance theory analysis, along with the critique of cultural values that flows from the cultural materialist and new historicist projects. The reason I bother mentioning all this, then, is that the article in its present form is pretty Romantic and New Criticism orientated, and they are the approaches to whom these critiques are most applicable. Freud and Nietzsche aren't really doing literary criticism; they are using Hamlet as a springboard to develop their own philosophical and psychoanalytic ideas. Contemporary critics working in literature departments do bring an awareness of these other disciplinary approaches these days--I'm thinking of people like Patricia Parker or Stephen Orgel--but what they do is still palpably distinct from what Robert Weimann, Alice Rayner or others that work in the theatre and performance studies way do. I don't know that I've really made anything all that clearer. You could say a literary criticism is like examining the notes of a symphony on the page without reference to the sounds they presuppose; but that'd be pretty extreme. It's not merely that there is this further dimension, that follows on from the text later, once it gets interpreted and embodied; the 'literary' form of the text is a critical invention (starting with Jonson's Works project). What is there on the page is in reciprocal presupposition with its performance, not a expressed-expression relation; the multimedial, audience-interacting dimensions are built in to the text from the start. The literary approach, as I've tried to detail above, ignores those dimensions.

DionysosProteus 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're describing formalist literary criticism. There are actually other forms of literary criticism that cover psychoanalysis and other philosophies. I don't mind changing the name, though. Wrad 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, New Criticism is the most obvious, but the more recent ones too. Yes, they do incorporate an inter-disciplinary approach, which is (often) an improvement on the former (though sometimes I do wonder). It's not that they don't use that stuff--you can hardly move for a Lacan this or Derrida that--it's more that there is a problem in wanting to give literary criticism exclusive rights, as it were, over speaking of Hamlet (for example). The discipline is limited by its own assumptions (as all are, of course); specifically, 'textuality'--even when the hierarchical cultural model of New Crit is displaced into a Foucauldian discursive field in the New Historicists, it's a field of texts. Similarly, when the semioticians promise to overcome the literature/performance division, the latter is rendered as a 'performance text'. This enables some things but excludes many others. But this is, I fear, a tangent to the issue at hand (I get easily distracted). I'll make the move, though it will take me a little while to gather some decent material to supplement what's already there. I have some students launching into soliloquies in a few weeks time, so I think I'll be focusing on the iambic pentameter and more practically-orientated Shakespeare articles right now. DionysosProteus 01:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Shakespeare's family

I might be missing something, so I figured I'd bring it here for some input.
Could someone explain to me what makes Richard Shakespeare, Susanna Hall, John Hall (physician), Hamnet Shakespeare, and Mary Arden notable? There's a few others from the {{Relatebard}} template I'm not really sure about either... --Onorem♠Dil 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

They are related to Shakespeare. Thus, there is a large amount of scholarly research on each of them. I won't go into detail here. Right now they need development, but are definitely notable. Wrad 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like a better explanation here. The simple fact that information can be found for these people does not make them notable. That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article. --Onorem♠Dil 18:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To W.H.

This is a stub article on a British play performed in 2006, written by Stuart Draper and apparently part of Fringe Theatre. This play is about the controversial issue of the existence/identity of W.H., who may, or may not, have been the young male object of Shakespeare's affections. It's speculated that W.H. is Willie Hughes, among others. Anyway, I removed the prod based on having found sufficient sources (I think) to establish notability, although some are more about about the concept of W.H., and not Drapper's play, per se. Any one know enough about this subject to suggest what is the best thing to do with it? See the talk page. Crosslisted with Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies — Becksguy 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

Can we discuss external links to versions of the plays? I've generally found that if I need the text of a play, following most of the links in Wikipedia is pretty futile. In fact the only one I've found useful is the project at MIT, which has the advantages:

1. it's in HTML, therfore easily searchable, and copy/paste-able;
2. it's been edited intelligently (although I've no idea what their source was);
3. it contains the usual act/scene divisions and line numbers, so having found something you can cite it

...and it amazes me how many of the online versions don't have these somewhat basic features.

I suppose my questions are:

1. Is there a "better" site out there and if so which?
2. Is it advantageous to have a consistent set of external links (e.g. every page for a play could link to Project Guttenburg and to MIT and to no other versions)

Sorry, have to abandon this posting for some real-life stuff. Is this enough to set the discussion rolling? AndyJones 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I normally go to Open Source Shakespeare for all my needs. It is incredibly comprehensive: act/scene/line numbers easy to navigate through, and my absolute favorite resource - you can see all of an individual character's lines and cue lines standalone from the plays. I would recommend OSS if we decide to standardize external links. Nowah Balloon 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I usually use, too, although I have also created a template for this sort of thing as well {{shakecite}}. Wrad 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)