Talk:Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream)

Shakespeare High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare 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.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

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.

Merge?

Seems to be the same fairy/goblin from a number of other stories, could be merged. Stevezor 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, however Shakespeare's Puck is markedly distinct from the mythological Puck by virtue of the character's multiple adaptations in thousands of performances and status as a literary figure rather than the property of folk tales. I think Harold Bloom and/or Daniel Fischlin would agree. Marccameron 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt be merged. Shakespeare's Puk is very different to that of the mythology Puk. The section on Shakespeare's Puk should be expanded.

Merge, this is the same elf and the same archetype that Rudyard Kipling wrote about, and many others did. Shakespeare's Puck deserves his section in Puck article, but not his own one. Garret Beaumain 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Puck should have his own page. I also think that all of Shakespeare's main characters should have their own pages, discussing who they are, what they do in the play, and their part in everyday Elizabethan times, or whatever period their play was set. NimbusJDF 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Surely there is enough critical commentary on Puck in shakespeare to merit a separate article. Someone just has to have the desire to write and develop it. Wrad 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add more?

I developed this page some a little while ago, what more should be done?Sydneysaurus 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been developing some pages for more minor character. Maybe they can give you some ideas. Take a look at the Rosaline and Sycorax (Shakespeare) pages. Wrad 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Name

This article should be titles "Robin Goodfellow," not Puck. The character from the play is not also known as Robin Goodfellow, he is Robin Goodfellow. This character is also known as Puck. This should be changed to be a more accurate representation. Locke (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion either way, other than that I've almost always heard of him as Puck. Can you build a strong case for the change? Wrad (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to build a case for this issue, mainly because the simple fact is that the name of the character is Robin Goodfellow. I have to go to my copy of the play, which I do not currently have access to, and look up their opinion on the issue. Locke (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream) → Robin Goodfellow –

His name in the play is Robin Goodfellow. He is referred to once as "a puck" but in the character list, the dialogue and the speech prefixes he is called Robin Goodfellow Bertaut (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original texts of Shakespeare's plays do not have a character list, which sometimes makes it difficult to decide what the "correct" name of some characters is. I have checked the original text of the First Folio, this is a particularly difficult case since it changes in the course of the text, but there might be a slight majority of the references for "Pucke". We should not engage in original research, we should follow how serious editors have resolved this problem, particularly in the big 3 versions: Arden, Oxford and Cambridge. PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we should follow what reliable third-party sources call the character. For example, the "Shakespeare For Everyone" volume on Midsummer calls him "Puck" throughout, only referring to "Robin Goodfellow" once. Certainly I think "Puck" is more recognizable to laymen, and probably to scholars as well. Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, I oppose this move. Powers ^T 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I tend to agree, but we should do further research about what reliable sources call him. However my own somewhat subjective judgement is that Puck is the more common name, if only because Robin Goodfellow is a bit of a mouthful. PatGallacher (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the First Quarto appears to be similary confused, see http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/plays/MND.html PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The role is most commonly known as "Puck". Film Fan (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the Arden Shakespeare edition of this play, the introduction acknowledges that the original versions of the play did not always name the characters consistently, but this is a particularly awkward case. However it plumps for Puck, calling him this in the cast list and "correcting" his name e.g. in his first entrance in act 1 scene 3. So unless it can be shown that most other editions adopt the opposite approach I oppose this move. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to the view that he should be the primary meaning of Puck, but that's another discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream) → Puck
Puck → Puck (disambiguation)

– Clear primary meaning, one of Shakespeare's best known characters, the others are rather obscure. I am aware that the mythological figure is in a sense the original meaning, but this does not determine primary meaning, he would be even more obsure if he did not inspire the Shakesperean character. PatGallacher (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Hockey puck, which probably should be at Puck (hockey), is probably the strongest contender for primary topic, in my entirely unbiased opinion. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Because of hockey puck, Shakespeare's Puck is not a primary topic.--SGCM (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although it grates on me to have a sports term equalling a character from Shakespeare, I reluctantly have to agree with the above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree that as characters, A midsummer night's dream is the best know, however a puck far eclipses the character.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kipling

Puck features prominently in Rudyard Kipling's work Puck of Pook's Hill and its sequel, Rewards and Fairies, where two children accidentally summon him into existence by performing A Midsummer Night's Dream on Midsummer Eve. Once present, Puck himself then both summons historical figures for the children, to tell their stories, and narrates to the children his own fantastical tales.

I removed the above, I haven't found any source that clearly states that this Puck is Shakespeare's Puck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Cardinale image

Vince Cardinale as Puck from the Carmel Shakespeare Festival production of *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, September 2000

This image was the leadimage for quite awhile. Recently, an IP replaced it with a painting from the article, which I don't really mind. However, I do think think we should keep it in the article. And if there's a consensus to restore it as leadimage, I don't mind that either. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I restored the image of Vince Cardinale after the IP deleted it, I kept it out of the lead out of an instinctive desire to compromise with the IP. But IP doesn't seem to be interested in collaboration, and the photograph is, in my opinion, the most striking image in the article, and it was the lead image for years and years, so I went ahead and restored it as the lead. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. WP:LEADIMAGE offers no firm guidance, so WP:CONSENSUS is what we've got. Perhaps more editors will chime in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we have semi-protection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, IP is back. Will you keep an eye if they continue? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you merry wanderer of the night. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of assuming good faith I've tried to figure out why someone might object to the image, the only thing I can figure is that it might be seen as promotional (the person who added it to commons is the same person who added it to the article, and it's reasonable to assume that they're connected in some way with the theatre where the image comes from). But the image is good enough quality that I don't particularly care. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had some less AGF ideas, but that's not important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]