Talk:Casina (play)

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Query

Hi! I wonder about the identity of the genius who wrote the first paragraph under the title "History": it's all wrong!, please change it as soon as possible! Except grammatical errors, which are so many!, the explanation fails because there is not a conducting fil rouge (e.g. the reference to Pompey's theater has nothing to do with Plautus and his theater: it could be perfectly re-written on another page...); but also the historical and literary explanations are awful! Connections between Aristophanes and Menander cannot be correctly understood by the reader, and so connections between Greek new comedy and the original italic farce. It is also more than incomplete to say that Plautus and Terence wrote comedies of a Greco-roman type: what does it mean?? There are also infinite problems with the Greek originals of every extant play. Why are not all these matters in an appropriate voice, like "Roman theater"? what have they to do with a single play like "Casina"?... --82.56.29.131 (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The history section is touching on subjects a bit too broad to be relevant here, and the claims made in the analysis (er... "style" section) are pretty wild. I'm going to to strip the article down to just plot for now. If anyone objects and wants to bring some of that stuff back, let's discuss it some more here first. Ravenous (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]