Jump to content

Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial comment

ok so who went to go see the play romeo and juliet i mean what kind of people went to see his plays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.81.126.107 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2002 (UTC)

Secret marriage

Changed this sentence-

The young lovers decide to marry without informing their parents, because they would undoubtedly disallow it due to the ancient grudge between the two families.

The real reason they couldn't marry openly is because of the intended Paris-Juliet marriage. It was common practice in the city-states of medieval Italy for the children of feuding factions to be married off to each other in the hopes that this would result in a cooling of the rivalry. If not for Paris, a Montague-Capulet marriage would have been just the thing to put an end to hostilities. This would have been the case even if the two were not in love, since the children's wishes were rarely taken into account. Sources: Asimov, Dorothy L. Sayers. Ellsworth 22:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I revised my own comment for clarity. This is not a breach of Wikiquette, is it? Ellsworth 22:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Earlier stories

There's a paragraph in Verona describing in detail the various retellings of the story before Shakespeare got his hands on it. Should it be moved here, or is there somewhere else more appropriate? --Paul A 04:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the absence of advice to the contrary, I've moved it here. --Paul A 06:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expand characters description?

Hi

I have seen in the Hamlet article that the characters' descriptions are quite large. I was wanting to know what people thought about doing this for Romeo and Juliet. I say this as the Mercutio article seems a bit small and could be better merged into the main article.

What do people think? -- Master Of Ninja 11:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I say go for it! The Singing Badger 13:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Influences

This is not my field of expertise, but shouldn´t it be noted that the story ¨pyramus and thisbe¨ strongly influenced Romeo and Juliet? I point to the fact that the story was well-known and pre-dates R&J by, like, bunches of years. Also that the plots/characters/everything are very similar. I would make the change myself but i wouldnt want to potentially mislead people.

That's probably true, since R&J was written at the same time as A Midsummer Night's Dream which has the comc version of Pyramus & Thisbe. I say go for it. The Singing Badger 14:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

romeo

tell me every thing about romeo

Expand:

I noticed that Romeo's exile was not expanded on. Also, Lady Capulet's death wasn't mentioned.

Go for it, dude!Ellsworth 22:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

radiohead

Why are there references to the same radiohead and dire straits song in the musical AND the trivia section? and why is one of the radiohead references contradictory to the other?

What is the significance of the date 29 January 1595 in the first paragraph? If it's the date the play first opened, then the article should state this. --Mintie 02:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ages of principals

Is it actually a common view of the play that it was scandalous for Romeo to marry such a young girl? I thought they were both like 12 or 13. Bonus Onus 23:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Romeo is much older, IIRC. -- Natalinasmpf 22:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Juliet is 14, Romeo is 17, or so I believe. It could be interpreted that it was scandalous for them to marry so young, since one of the recurrent themes in the play is the foolishness of young love. 69.51.77.162 14:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (Reediewes, but I'm not logged on.)
Juliet was 13, Romeo was...17 I think. And no, it was quite normal for marriages of that age (Juliet was going to marry Paris, rememeber - an event arranged by the parents)--Joewithajay 13:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Juliet was two weeks from her fourteenth birthday (Nurse talks about her being two weeks from Lammas (Aug1) eve, Juliet's birthday - making Juliet 13 years and 50 weeks, and the date being two weeks before July 31, July 17th, when nurse makes this speech (the evening of the party/banquet) Crescent 12:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Lady Capulet says that it is 'a fortnight and odd days' until Lammas (August 1st) and the Nurse says that Juliet shall be 14 'come Lammas Eve [July 31st]'. So while we can be pretty sure that her birthday is on July 31st (though there is some doubt due to the fact that the Nurse says she shall be 14 'come Lammas Eve at night', which could indicate that she will turn 14 at midnight, which would be August 1st), the Capulet banquet cannot be on July 17th, due to the 'odd days' over a fortnight until Lammas and the fact that they were referring to the time until Lamas, not Lamas Eve. - Green Tentacle 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not at all scandalous for Romeo to marry such a young girl. Juliet's mother chastizes her daughter, saying that girls younger than she are already mothers. Apparently, marriage at that age was a convention of the time.Smitty Mcgee 19:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The only scandal as far as age went, in this period, was that Juilet was about to turn 14 and had not yet married. Her father was about to marry her off to Count Paris, a much older man, and her mother does in fact say that she herself was already wed by Juliet's age.
It is a common myth that girls were generally married as young as this in Shakespeare's time. It usually only happened with dynastic marriages, and even then the marriage was usually not consumated until the parties had reached 16. Even Capulet himself starts the play thinking his daughter is too young to marry. It is correct that Juliet's mother says she was married at Juliet's age (and also that there's a hint that the nurse lost her virginity at 12). It's wrong, though, to assume Paris is a far older man: he may be so (and the fact that he can have man-to-man conversations with Capulet support that view); however the text is silent on the point and in performance he is often cast as a youth. AndyJones 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: the text is silent as to Romeo's age. The people above suggesting he is 17 are conjecturing. Stanley Wells says that Romeo should be played as not much older than Juliet, for what that is worth. AndyJones 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was always told that Romeo was exactly 16 and that Juliet was about the turn 14. Princess Roxanne Aquaviva 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the spoiler warning really warranted?

Its not like there's anything to spoil. You're telling me that there's still a reader that would get the experience "spoiled" by knowing (the generally well known fact) that....*GASP*...THEY DIE?!! I don't think knowing the ending "spoils" anything, considering it IS Romeo and Juliet and the thing that gives most pleasure is watching the drama, not being held in "suspense" (I mean, you probably won't ask subconsciously when seeing Romeo and Juliet, "are they going to die? Or are they not?"). I'm sure as literature students, a lot of us have probably studied a lot of Shakespearan texts and probably knew the ending even without reading it or seeing it before. And that didn't spoil the beauty, did it? ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 22:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus the Prologue comes right out and says it in the first fourteen lines of the play: "Two star-crossed lovers take their life..." 69.51.77.162 14:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (Reediewes, but I'm not logged on.)

Yes, I feel that the spoiler IS required. After all, if assumptions are made about the audience of an encyclopedia's previous background reading, then the project should only cater for those with an education that sees Shakespeare taught (and in particular, the play 'Romeo and Juliet') Certainly, the feeling that this play is 'generally well known' is understandable, but for those who are new to Shakespeare (for whatever reason), the enjoyment should not be spoiled. Are we to assume also, therefore, that everyone knows other texts, just because it is assumed they are well known? The prologue offers just that - it does not say why they die, how, or for what reason - and thus, the story (akin to the more recent Baz Lurhman film 'Moulin Rouge') is not tainted but added to by knowing part of the plot. The emotions that are gained by the audience entering into the play with foreknowledge of the developments only serve to add to the receiving of the play, not hinder it. Crescent 01:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that he tells the plot so that the audience gather more emotions throughout the play? He doesn't exactly spoil the ending but he gives insight into it?

Also, in the time period, most everybody knew the story Shakespeare's Italic textRomeo and JulietItalic text is based on, Italic textThe Tragicall Historye of Romeus and JulietItalic text. Everybody knew Romeo and Juliet were going to die, and if they didn't, the Chorus tells us in the Prologue.Dachshund2k3 00:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

first sentence

the first sentence says:

  • "Romeo and Juliet is a famous play by William Shakespeare concerning the fate of two young star-crossed lovers. January 29, 1595."

What is that date? Kingturtle 02:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Secret marriage

Back before this talk page was blanked I changed this sentence in the article-

The young lovers decide to marry without informing their parents, because they would undoubtedly disallow it due to the ancient grudge between the two families.

The real reason they couldn't marry openly is because of the intended Paris-Juliet marriage. It was common practice in the city-states of medieval Italy for the children of feuding factions to be married off to each other in the hopes that this would result in a cooling of the rivalry. If not for Paris, a Montague-Capulet marriage would have been just the thing to put an end to hostilities. This would have been the case even if the two were not in love, since (as is now noted supra) the children's wishes were rarely taken into account. Sources: Asimov, Dorothy L. Sayers. Ellsworth

The Paris-Juliet marriage is definitely reason, but the feuding families may also be a big reason for the secrecy. Juliet's line "My only love sprung from my only hate" suggests that a marriage between the 2 families would not have gone over well, and neither Montague nor Capulet seemed all that intent on mending the problems between the families. Pnkrockr 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

where was romeo and juliet set

In Verona mainly, but also partly in Mantua. JackofOz 13:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem with maths/time in the play

Can anyone assist with the problem that I have come across to do with the friar's potion? He gives the potion to her Tuesday night + 42 hours (the length specified in text for drug to trake effect and wear off) makes it... Thursday 6 hours before Juliet retirs to bed on Tuesday (assuming this is around 10pm, she wakes two days later around 4pm).

Yet she wakes up in the night, moments after Romeo commits suicide - nighttime - because it is dawn when the families arrive...

Any ideas anyone? Crescent 12:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Metabolism

don't think about it too much - its a story!

I think Shakespeare was way ahead of Douglas Adams and Andy Warhol on this one. He didn't choose 42 out of thin air, did he now? Let me explain. Assume night arrives at 7pm and ends when dawn breaks at 4:30am. Since Juliet's scheduled to wake up at 4pm, at the very least she needs 3 more hours worth of the drug. And maybe up to 12.5 more hours worth. So, if Will was going to get it wrong, why choose this particular number? Well, our attention has certainly been drawn to 42, so maybe that's the point. This voice from 1603 (or whenever) is saying, like, "Next time you people see 42 again, sit up and take notice of it. And then maybe look with new eyes at this little passage from my play. (slight pause for reflection.) Now back to the time-line. Mid-way is 7.75 hours longer, or 11:45 pm. Fifteen minutes to midnight. Enter Andy Warhol, stage left. He read Shakespeare, but he puts his own twist on it. Andy said, "In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of fame". Sounds almost cool. But what I think Shakespeare was really saying is, "You will only have 15 minutes in which to achieve fame." What a tough world we're making for ourselves. Think about it. (Thus endeth Jack's metaphysical rant of the month. JackofOz 12:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You maketh my head hurt.--AimeeLee 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there was any problem with this, so, just forget about it!

Supposed Inconsistency

Quote (from the article) : "the Friar's messenger is unable to reach Romeo due to Mantua being under quarantine ...An interesting inconsistency in the story. How did the servant get back into Mantua if he saw Juliet's "funeral"?".

As I understand the play, the Friars messenger is actually stalled *before* he reaches Mantua, in a house that is itself under law of quarantine. Therefore there is no quarantine on the whole of Mantua, and no inconsistency in this part of the plot.

hmm

phrase removed

I removed the following from the write-up of the 1983 film: " and more naturalistic line delivery than was used in Shakespeare's time." This makes no sense--if the implication is that acting in the Renaissance was unnatural or mannered, that assumption is of course false. The link is to naturalism, a disambig page. Chick Bowen 18:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?

To Hugh7 or anybody else who wants to pipe in: What's the evidence that the popular misunderstanding of the word "wherefore" to mean "where" comes from this specific line of R&J? Hugh7 says "nobody thinks therefore means there", which I think weakens his argument. I infer he's saying that if nobody thinks therefore means there, then why would anybody think wherefore means where. The point is, they have had that mistaken view, which is why we're are pains on this page to point out the error of their ways. We've all seen the iconic image of Juliet on the balcony, palm flat above her eyes, searching despairingly into the distance for her beloved, and crying "wherefore art thou, Romeo?", assuming there is a comma before Romeo, which there's not. The assumption of the comma goes hand in hand with the wrong idea of what wherefore means. However, in Shakespeare's time, the meaning of wherefore would not have been mistaken, either by the actress playing Juliet, or the audience, and it would not have been spoken as if there were a comma there. The misunderstanding has come along some time later, presumably around the time that "wherefore" ceased being a commonly used word, whenever that was. Surely, th

Accuracy issue

Regarding the 'Source' section:

"It ultimately derives from the 1476 story of Mariotto and Gianozza by Masuccio Salernitano, in Il Novelino."

According to Masuccio Salernitano, Salernitano died in 1475. Unless it was a posthumous release, something's wrong. Deltabeignet 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper title

Wikisource calls this play The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet - which I believe is the correct full title. I'm not suggesting that the article be renamed, just that the opening sentence display the full title in bold. Is this correct? —EatMyShortz 04:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem, here, is the tendency for Quarto and Folio versions to have different titles from each other. The article title should always be what the play is known as today, however, so Romeo and Juliet is right. Let me do a bit of research on the other point. If I find anything I'll post it here, today. AndyJones 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the first quarto (a bad quarto) calls itself "An Excellent conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet". Q2, a good quarto and the usual source for modern editions, calls itself "The Most Excellent and lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet". The Folio (reprinted from Q2) has "The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet" which may be why Wikisource has the same thing in modern spelling. I think we may either need to incorporate what I've just said into the article, or leave the opening as it is. (My source was the Folger edition. The NPS edition modernises the spellings but then gives fuller quotations. I don't have the Arden or Cambridge R&J, though, which could be counted on to provide the detail.)
I have the Arden edition (Second Series, the most recent available). It declares the second quarto to be the most authentic. The title page of the Q2 edition reads:
THE
MOST EX-
cellent and lamentable
Tragedie, of Romeo and Iuliet.
Newly corrected, augmented, and
amended:
As it hath bene sundry times publiquely acted, by the
right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine
his Seruants.
LONDON
Printed by the Thomas Creede, for Cuthbert Burby, and are to
be sold at his shop neare the Exchange.
1599.
The Arden edition translates the title into modern English on its own title page, making the title 'The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet'. I will update the opening line of the article to reflect this. - Green Tentacle 12:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Allusions?

I think the Allusions section should be renamed with a more acurate title. An allusion is an indirect reference, but a songs which are actually called "Romeo and Juliet" are hardly indirect. Perhaps it should be renamed 'Popular culture' or something similar? Tartan 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Or simply "References" or something like that? --213.237.94.61 02:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tartan; we should make sure all the "allusions" are really allusions. Also, "allusions" sections seem to focus almost completely on those in popular culture, forsaking surely more common literary ones. However, I wonder about the need for an "Allusions" section in the first place. I mean, isn't Romeo and Juliet surely one of the most alluded-to works of literature in the world? How could we even compile a somewhat-comprehensive list of all allusions to it?TysK 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed the title to 'References in popular culture' which is more accurate. The Singing Badger 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

what are the character flaws of romeo and juliet

Romeo and Juliet: 1968 version w/ Olivia Hussey

Do they REALLY appear naked? Cause, we saw it in our school, and I think our teachers should know if that is true.--71.225.142.197 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Sorry: --AimeeLee 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did. Because Olivia Hussey was 15, they had to get special permission for her to appear naked (event though her nudity only lasts for a split second). Leonard Whiting was a bit older, so there wasn't an issue with him. - Green Tentacle 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Leonard was 18 when he made the movie if I'm remembering correctly. My class didn't get that far in the movie apparently...Princess Roxanne Aquaviva 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Significance, interpretation

I really miss a section on the significance of the story of Romeo and Juliet. Why is this play so famous? Which message does it express that is so important that makes it probably the most well-known play in Western tradition? Something about how culture and tradition (symbolized by the families of the lovers) alienates the individual subjects (symbolized by the lovers themselves)? I know these questions often have many different answers, depending on who you ask, but there must some degree of consensus on some of it. --213.237.94.61 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Romeo and Joliet?

I believe that I have sometimes seen Juliet's name spelled "Joliet". Does anyone have any information about this difference in name? Conrad Devonshire 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What time period?

What time perioud did this take place in? Akako23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Difficult question. The honest answer is that it's a work of fiction, and that it takes place in any era the director wants to set it in. The play was first published in 1597, so Shakespeare clearly had in mind an era around that time or earlier. The first known written story of the two lovers was written by Masuccio Salernitano in Italian in 1476. (It appears to be a myth that it's based on true events in Verona.) Does that help? AndyJones 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A rose by any other.....?

In the article, it says that "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet" is often misquoted as "...by any other name would...". However, Wikiquote and Wikisource both say that it is the latter. I have only ever heard of that one. Maybe it depends on the edition? Could somebody with access to several editions of the play please check this?

The NPS edition says "word". Its footnote says "the Q1 reading name was included in many of the older editions of Shakespeare, and so became usual in the proverbial saying." All modern versions of the play are based on Q2, for the reason that Q1 is a "bad quarto", while Q3, F and later editions are derived from Q2. AndyJones 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The Arden edition (also based on the Second Quatro) has a long footnote on this and passionately (and convincingly, with a cross-reference to Twelfth Night) insists that it must be 'word'. Nevertheless, it is misleading for the article to state that the line is misquoted when it is, in fact, just quoted from a different edition. Therefore, I've removed that sentence from the article. - Green Tentacle 00:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bawdy?

Paragraph about the nurse. I'd regard her anecdote as tedious rather than bawdy. Coriolise 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I can't stop you finding it tedious, if you do. It's definitely repetitive and I can't deny (having tried, at a workshop, dressed in drag) that it's difficult to act. It's definitely bawdy, though. "Dug" means nipple, "stone" in this context means testicle, and "fall backwards" means something like "into a position for sex". AndyJones 19:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In universe

This article reads like a plot summary of Romeo and Juliet. As per Manual of Style, the article should concentrate on explaining and dicussing, rather simply repeating, the plot. See Twelfth Night, or What You Will for an example of better writing. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The plot section does spend rather a lot of time on the plot, but the other sections include the other desirable material. Improving the other sections (...especially the original research...) would be a good thing of course. rewinn 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Rewinn. Still shocked by these references to Twelfth Night as "better writing". (BTW, for an explanantion "in-universe" - one that I don't wholeheartedly endorse - see the link to "Manual of Style" in Smurrayinchester's post, above.) AndyJones 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

In the trivia section, it says that Romeo is a Capulet ("Juliet is asking the heavens why Romeo must be Romeo; that is, a Capulet and therefore her enemy.) That is not true, right? | Tgwizard 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it. Cheers! rewinn 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism!

Why, pray tell, must an article on the best play ever be so cruelly vandalized? --74.129.222.94 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because It's time for the high school freshmen to be studying it in school. But you have to admit there have been some pretty funny acts of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.96.83 (talk • contribs)

  • Yeah, absolutely hilarious. What were your favourites? Here are my top three:
    • Jools is a noob
    • Cock, cock, cock, cock, COCK!
    • Romeo and Juliet was written in 1973.
  • Isn't vandalism great? AndyJones 09:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, my favorites were the substitution of all of Act I with the word "POOP" and one desperate guy who wrote "CALL WILL KNIGHT AT 1847-331-1750" over and over again. PollyNim 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Story of Romeo and Juliet untouched on wikipedia?

It's my understanding that shakespeare's play comes from a very old italian folk story about a young man named Romeo. Shakespeare's story is largely different form the original tale as I understand it, but there is no reference to this original story anywhere on wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am not the man to make the article, knowing as very little about the matter as I do. Is there someone who could make an article about the original story, and perhaps link to additional literature versions of this story? For instance, isn't the Romeo found in Dante's Inferno also based on the same folk lore character? That Romeo seems to be part of a story with no Juliet in it. Is this because they're two different figures, or is this because one of Shakespeare's liberties with the story was the character of Juliet? It seems unfortunate, to me, that any search for Romeo on the site brings us nothing but Alfa Romeos, Li'l Romeo and this play.

Friar Laurence's potion

Are there any non-fictional substances which might be able to produce a death-like coma? The wikipedia article on fugu mentions reports of poisoned victims, assumed to be dead, waking up at their funerals. 62.25.106.209 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a fish the name escapes me he's a delicacy in Japan however he contains a poison used by shaman in fugi or fugu this simulates death and people are declared dead by doctors and can wake up in the hospital or at there funerals or wherever and they can be presevied as zombies. --Riraito 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet essay

I am in the 9th grade, and doing a paper on how romeo and juliet foreshadow their own deaths. could you help me? Rinnie204 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)rin

No. Brickie 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, in the interests of being nice and helpful and whatnot - go to Google and search on "Romeo & Juliet Foreshadowing" and the top link should be what you're after. As a general rule, these talk pages are used for discussing the article they are attached to - so, talking about formatting and style and good English and arguing about obscure points of detail. There will be some sort of Shakespeare Discussion Forum about - I'm not aware of one but I'm sure they exist - where you can ask questions if your Googling doesn't come up with the goods. Brickie 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya i can.....wad do ya need?Chokeabo 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Chokeabo

Haha - I think the kid has turned it in by now - notice the time stamp - it's been over two months.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Should Romeo have his own page?

The Romeo page links back to this page. Because all of the other characters have their own pages, I think that Romeo should have his own separate page. --Must WIN 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree he should--Riraito 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Wish I had time to do something about it. Any volunteers to make Romeo a page? Crazykid777 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, does Juliet have a page? Princess Roxanne Aquaviva 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) ^^^^^ yes Juliet has her own page Chokeabo 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC) chokeabo

OK, Romeo has a page now, but it's really, really lame. Someone needs to expand it drastically - give it a picture, etc. If you want a model, take a look at what I did to Mercutio's page. BeastKing89 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Second printing

Something tells me it wasn't done in 666. Brunbb 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Theme: Haste leads to doom

When we read Romeo and Juliet in class, one of the themes that we discussed was the idea that haste led to doom. For example Romeo and Juliet's haste to get married led to their demise. TehNomad 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A) If you recall there was a reason it was so accelerated - Juliet would've married the other guy if they didn't marry quick - only a slight problem though.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nurse should have her own page

She is an important character in the play and provides comic relief Crazykid777 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So why not write one? Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point.....both of you......ya she needs a page of her own but if you feel strongly enough you should write one yourself.
Chokeabo 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Chokeabo
Thank you for joining in. Perhaps you could write it yourself? Yes. You could make the opening sentence "DUDE GAARA IS HOTT!!!!!!!", or something.
Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

how did you know that was me? lolChokeabo 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)chokeabo

Is there no page on Romeo? I mean as of now if you search romeo it redirects you to Romeo and Juliet ...Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) - NM, this has been discussed...Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who Is the main character? Romeo or Juliet?

well its hard to tell.....it is called Romeo and Juliet but it also says at the end: "for there never was a story of more woe then of JULIET and her Romeo" so its hard to tell. What do you think? Chokeabo 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Chokeabo

Though of course it wouldn't have rhymed the other way round. FWIW, I don't think there is a single Main Character - it's Romeo AND Juliet. Brickie 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That qualifies as the worst question ever for so many reasons.... but yes, there can be (and in this case there are) stories with multiple characters. - and for future reference the order of names isn't usually a factor. Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mercutio's Death??

I happened to be reading the article on Romeo and Juliet. It says "By doing so, however, Romeo inadvertently pulls Mercutio into Tybalt's rapier, fatally wounding him." As far as I can tell this is not part of the script of the play, though some play directors may include this. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.125.241 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Romeo's poison

"he buys strong poison, sometimes held to be aconite, from an Apothecary"

This links to a disambiguation page, anybody know which one of these links is correct? I would guess Aconitum.

My first ever attempt at adding to Wikipedia, so I hope I really can't kill anything :?

Hugothehermit 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's an unsourced comment, and the name of the poison is NOT referenced in the play. Even if there is a good and thoughtful source, that source could only have been speculating what poison Shakespeare had in mind. It's better to remove it, which I've done. AndyJones 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

???

How did the poison kill Romeo immediately? It takes time for the poison to actually have a real effect on the body. JustN5:12 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy about Virgin Mary in Commentary: 23 March 2007

In the first paragraph of the Commentary section on this play, the statement is made that the opening sonnet "figures Romeo as a blushing pilgrim (palmer) praying before an image of the Virgin Mary, as many people in early-sixteenth-century England did at shrines such as the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham." How is this statement really pertinent to understanding the play?

"Romeo and Juliet" is set in Italy and not England. The statement also seems to confuse the reader into somehow thinking that Shakespeare came from a Catholic background or that he was somehow espousing Catholicism. In truth, the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham was destroyed by Henry VIII in 1538, long before Shakespeare's birth. And even the time period for the play's setting cannot be definitively pinned down to the sixteenth century, regardless of geographical location.

69.76.187.202 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, Shakespeare did come from a "Catholic" background of sorts. Though the religion had been changed to the Church of England, it can be assumed that he was quite knowledgeable about Catholicism and its practices. If anything, though, Shakespeare would not be espousing Catholicism, but instead would be providing commentary on the people of the Catholic church. Consider Friar Lawrence's actions in achieving 'peace.' Using potions and playing God by delivering "death" to Juliet (through potions) seems a bit unconventional and perhaps a bit immoral for a priest. He understandably uses Catholicism in the play because it DOES take place in Italy - mostly Catholic at that time. That comment is misleading.Rscavuzzo 16:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ages

Juliet was really 13 and two weeks away from her birthday, as for Romeo who was only 17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.22 (talk • contribs) .

  • You're right about Juliet. There's no textual evidence as to the ago of Romeo. For what it's worth, Stanley Wells says that he should be played as around the same age as Juliet. In fact, it is rare for Juliet to be played by an actress as young as 13. AndyJones 14:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

disgusted

I have been teaching Romeo and Juliet for a LONG time and I have read the play so many times I have half of it memorized. This article needs almost a complete rewrite, there are SO many inaccurate facts, it's like half of the people who wrote this article haven't even read the play.

my biggest complaint is that NOWHERE in the play does it state that Juliet is EXACTLY 13, and yet the article acts as if this is a well known fact. She could be as old as 16 for all we know.

Many other inaccuracies. I'm too stuck up to list them all here. but I hope somebody READS the play and then puts some work into this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.183.234 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Ouch... in actuality it's Romeo's age no one knows I believe. He could be from age 1-70 ... although he's probably closer from ages 11-19.danielfolsom 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unexpected reversion

this edit reverts this article waaay back (I noticed particularly because it undoes a lot of tidying which I did a few days ago). Was that intentional? If yes can you please explain? I've reverted to the preceding version. Can I suggest you build any changes onto that? AndyJones 07:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy - I am Soooooo sorry. I must have edited a previous version by mistake. Wow - my apologies, especially due to all the good work you did on what was a terrible page. I did delete the repetitive list of characters from the info box (which also made it long and unwieldy.) Also seperated the picture form the info box - again it made the page looked strange - especially reducing the graphic to an unreadable size. If you see any problems, let me know!Smatprt 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I think your subsequent changes are improvements. AndyJones 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good will

I'm sorry, I've just reverted as possible vandalism or mistake a change in the meaning of Benvolio's name from "good will" to "good wish". However I've now noticed that the edit summary suggests you think "wish" is the better translation. I'm sure I've seen this translated as "good will" (and I know that Malvolio is always translated as "ill will" or similar) and I can probably seek out a source if that would help. Is there a source for the "wish" version? AndyJones 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2696/?letter=V&spage=5 I think that will has more definitions in English that do not match as well the meaning of the Latin word. AS with all translations it is inexact and open to interpretation I just though that wish was a better, more exact interpretation of it. I don't have any specific sources dealing with the name Benvolio (though Benvolio uses the good wish trans I believe, ((unsourced and not by me)) so it could be either way.Jvbishop 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Was it really Romantic?

Romeo and Juliet seems surprisingly unromantic to me, as I think it should with any other person who reads it. When Romeo goes to the masquerade, he is woebegone over Rosaline until he sees Juliet. It seems romantic, but in modern times, the meeting scene of Romeo and Juliet is translated to this:

Romeo: O, woe is me! 

  (looks at Juliet)

Hey, who's that? 

  (Goes up to Juliet)

Kiss me, you're hot.

Juliet: I don't to that type of thing, sorry.

Romeo: But I'll be sad if you don't!

Juliet: Well, I guess I will to make you happy. 

  (they make out)

Now I feel bad about doing that.

Romeo: Two wrongs make a right. 

  (Make out again, nurse walks in)

I was just wondering if anyone felt the same way about that, because not only do they kiss twice within minutes of even laying eyes on one another, they are married less than 24 hours later and kill themselves for teenage infatuation before a month has passed. Is this really romantic, or just a tragedy among families with comedy of the nurse and the whole teenage immaturity issue? 24.247.184.126 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's called love at first sight - romantic people consider it romantic.danielfolsom© 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not romance; it's two teenagers with a teenage infatuation. Romantic people are people who do cutesy things to woo eachother, not make out and get married 24 hours later. 24.247.184.126 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, to which I respond with the above and also - it is just as likely love at first sight with two teenagers, and I think that the whole dialogue in the balcony scene could be considered wooing, or when they first meet. But I think Shakespear obviously intended for it to be romantic since at the end there's the line "Juliet and her Romeo". By the way though - that whole breakdown of the plot was kinda ridiculous. Anyone could do that with any plot and get the same result - even if it was the most romantic thing ever.danielfolsom© 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And as I recall - they got married because if they hadn't Juliet would have to marry Count Paris (was that his name? Sorry it's been a while since I read the play). Meaning your whole argument is irrevelant.danielfolsom© 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hae you even seen the title? The TRAGEDY of Romeo and Juliet. It wasn't meant to be a romance; it's about the tragedy of a "love" (infatuation) that can't happen, the fact that a teenage girl is forced into a marriage that she doesn't want to be in, then they kill themselves. I can't summarize the whole thing (it would take too much time), so you really should read the play again. Look into the lines and interpret, don't just look at the fance language and go, "aww, how cute!" Teenage relationships weren't built to last; not nowadays. Back then, they got married because their family and position in life called for it, not for love. They both seemed just a little starstruck at the sight of eachother...how is that love? Real love? That's just the physical, not real love...how would you feel if you saw someone you thought was hot, then decided to marry them 24 hours later? 24.247.184.126 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure how the argument is relavent - "oh wow! It's a tragedy and since plays are only allowed to be one genre it cannot have any romantic elements in it." Whaaaa? It seems like your arguing whether teenage relationships are romantic or not- but i'm arguing what shakespere meant. And as to, "how would you feel if you saw someone you thought was hot, then decided to marry them 24 hours later?"- for the last time(! seriously, how many times do i have to say this) your ignoring the concept of love at first sight, and then they had to get married cause of paris. But whatever, I think we've gone beyond what talk pages are supposed to be (about the article) - and now we're to the point where your just trying to use the talk page as a forum to express your idea - I think it's fairly obvious that the majority (most importantly the majority in the citable world) agree that romeo and juliet is a romance - so I'm just gonna cut the conversation here, unless this does have something to do with the article that I'm unaware of.danielfolsom© 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

|}

I hate to add more here, but I'm trying to get an unbiased opinion, because it IS a misconception about this particular play. Haven't the scholars been looking into it? Are you one of them, or just some dude hired to answer these questions? The only reason why this may be going beyond the article is because you are "cleverly" shooting down both mine and anybody else's questions/ideas on this talk page. I thought that Romeo and Juliet was a romantic play until I took a class that analyzed and broke it down; now, I know to think with a more open mind about Shakespeare. I also have another question; are the modern interpretations of Shakespeare very different from the plays, or are they quite similar with the exception of modern characters and language? 24.247.184.126 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hired by anyone - you didn't reply for a while, and I shut it down. And I'm not "cleverly" doing anything - I'm following the rules of Wikipedia (think number two wrong with that sentence, you said "mine and anyone else's" - you're the only one to have said anything). But Wikipedia talk pages aren't meant to answer your questions - go to a forum if your looking for that. Wikippedia talk pages are meant to improve the article itself - the subject is irrevelent.danielfolsom 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moulin Rouge!

In the article, there is a claim that (I assume) Moulin Rouge! (which redirects to Moulin Rouge instead) was based on Romeo and Juliet, but there is no such claim at the Moulin Rouge! wiki page. (If the movie in question was the 1952 film, there is no claim on that wiki page as well.)THE evil fluffyface 07:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Style and themes highly speculative

I'm not very happy with the 'style and themes' section. Not only does it include speculative and therefore unverified claims, but some of them are also rather weak. Example: Elizabethan audiences wouldn't have thought it was a tragedy except for the Prologue. I disagree. Comic relief and bawdy are not unusual in a tragedy, but mentions and foreshadowing of death are already part of the lovers' vocabulary before Act III Scene i. It is quite obvious from early on that this is not going to be another Much Ado.

I also have a problem with "The play shows a system which imposes its beliefs on the individual, preventing him or her from reaching happiness and leaving death as the only escape". It makes it sound as though the feuding parents (or indeed anyone else) were actively opposing the relationship, which is a common misconception and just not true. The first thing the parents hear about the relationship is when Romeo and Juliet are already dead. It's a tragic irony that the whole thing could have been prevented if both sides of the generation gap had been aware of what the other side was thinking (e.g. Capulet actually thinks Romeo is a good chap).

Anyway, could this whole section perhaps be taken out altogether? I don't see enough in it to justify it.--Tanyushka 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with your reasoning 100%. I've removed the "Themes and motifs" section, but without prejudice to someone restoring some of the ideas if they can be sourced. AndyJones 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Butterfly Lovers

I strongly dispute including this. The two stories were almost ccertainly developed independently, with all of Europe and Asia between their places of origin, and I'm against including this in the article at all.

Even if it is included as a reference due to the stories' similarities, it should not belong under the Opera section, since it is NOT an adoptation of Romeo and Juliet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookierookie (talk • contribs)

First of all, remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Second, the Butterfly Lovers Page says that it draws comparisons to Romeo and Juliet, perhaps your better off taking it up on that page.danielfolsom 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters section

As of now, the "Characters" section contains fairly detailed synopses of all of the characters. I would advise leaving all further explanations on the respective articles for the individual characters and shortening the ones here, for the sake of brevity. For example, the bullet-point for Tybalt would not include the following: "Cousin of Juliet; angry and pugnacious. His nickname of "the Prince of Cats" may refer to the quarrelsome and vicious character of Tybalt the Cat in the fable cycle Reynard the Fox, which would have been well-known to Shakespeare's audience." While this information is certainly valuable, it belongs instead on Tybalt's individual page. The actual bullet point could just say, cousin of Juliet, nephew of Capulet, or something along those lines. This way the page can be much neater and more concise. Does anyone have any thoughts? BeastKing89 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did it, just like I said. I assume that no one has any problems with it. IF that's the case, awesome. If not, talk to me. --BeastKing89 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing Disabled

Why is the Romeo and Juliet page locked until May 8th? Does this date have any significance towards the story or Shakespeare?

It's probably just because there was a lot of vandalism - and if May 8th did have any significance - it would probably be blocked until after may 8th - since with significance comes vandalism.danielfolsom 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disney's High School Musical

I'm not even sure if that's a play off R + J or not ... R+J isn't even mentioned on it's page, is there a reliable source that says it is? For now however, I'll take it off muscicals, because the fact is we just don't need it twice - nothing should be listed twice - however we could say (depending on where you put it) "Is a made for television musical" or just not it's a musical in the television section. However if there isn't anything to back it up being a take-off of R+J, then it shouldn't be there.danielfolsom 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way - the source there didn't count - that just said it was a bit like R+Jdanielfolsom 16:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually - I'm now positive that it isn't a spin-off of R+J just by reading the plot, I'm going to remove it until you find a source.danielfolsom 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-sourced this to a teaching guide for students. Try reading the script, or easier, simply google "high school musical" and "romeo and juliet" and you will find dozens (if not hundreds) or references, interviews, and critical reviews that all make the connection. Smatprt 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Two plays being simmilar isn't enough for an adaptations section. An adaptations section would require the writer to deliberately want to do a spin off of R+J. So reviewers saying "High School Musical is really simmilar to R+J", or in other words "connections", don't mean adaptations.danielfolsom 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And notice how the disney thing isn't on the grease page either ... because most of these sources say it's not just R+J...

Sources: Exactly what you said I should do - a google search.danielfolsom 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - you didn't try hard enough. I have re-sourced once again to an interview with the author. [1]. And naturally, the Disney folks don't hype up the R&J take-off thing that was immediately apparant to the critics. The last thing they want to do is scare off kids by mentioning Shakespeare!Smatprt 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - by that source - you just phrased it wrong, the guy said that the play they were auditioning for was a feminist version of Romeo and Juliet - and the critic compared the actual show to R+K and Grease, so in conclusion - we could say in the pop culture section (is there a pop culture section?) that in High School Musical students auditioned for J+Rdanielfolsom 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is originial research. The definition of adapt: to change something to suit different conditions or a different purpose, or be changed in this way.[2] So in other words - the author of this play would have to say "Hey, I want to remake Romeo and Juliet, but in modern conditions". Your argument in close to exact words was "If you haven't seen the version, how can you edit the plot" - and the response is: it doesn't matter if I haven't seen the version, because it has to have a source - so you just admitted to seeing the version and connecting it to Romeo and Juliet, which is original research - which is not allowed on wikipedia.danielfolsom 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are being unreasonable. First, your so there attitude does nothing to further this conversation. I do not speak as a simple viewer or layman. Because I am in the industry, I have seen and read far too many interviews, reviews, articles, etc. and have been intimately involved in the production of the stage version. Your arguments concerning reliable sources and original research are also somewhat flawed. In view of the "current" nature of HSM, there are no scholarly books to provide a source. In this case, WP policy is to use the most reliable sources available; and, that newspapers, art critics and other "notable" individuals can certainly provide a source. Your edit "the stars" is not correct, as it might imply to others that they are they only stars. In HSM there are 4 stars - the young lovers and their rivals. This is not original research, these are standard character definitions that every 10 year old now knows. (The newspapers are telling the adults!) Ditto with the references to "rival cliques". This is not original by any means, having been repeated on dozens of papers, news accounts, etc. You have also deleted "West Side Story", even though you yourself have seen it mentioned alongside "Grease" in article after article. To review the plot (not Original Research) two young lovers, representing rival cliques, fight against all odds, including peer pressure and family, to be together no matter what the consequences. In West Side Story we had the Sharks and the Jets; In HSM we have the Jocks and the Brainiacs; WSS - Tony and Maria, HSM - Troy and Gabriella; etc. etc.

I have supplied an in depth interview with the Author that reports the R&J spin-off fact. Your edit continues to be incorrect compared to the actual plot, as well as the context of the reference. That every fact supplied by the article is not in quotes does not matter. In this instance, the reporter was relaying numerous facts that he gleaned from the author. He would have had his facts checked by his editor (and every reader). I have also supplied a link to a teaching manual that compares the themes of HSM and R&J. I have supplied links to numerous papers and arts critics that have made the same accessment. In view of this, please let this edit stand. If you want to post a RFC then do so or open a discussion at one of many WP venues. To keep deleting material that is completely backed up by the most reliable sources available in the present circumstance is simply not proper and raises issues of "page ownership". WP says that deleting should be a last resort, but you seem to jump there instead of looking for support amoung other editors instead of relying soley on your opinion that something should be deleted (an extreme measure). The rewrite you insist on is simply factually incorrect and is tantamount to deleting the original posting. Smatprt 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you go - from the guy who pitched the story concept and served as executive producer, Bill Borden: [3]. Note: "Our story line is maybe not the most original or creative, but it's Shakespearean," said Borden, who described the plot as a modern version of Romeo and Juliet. "We took from the best."Smatprt 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright - now you got it - althought hopefully you didn't use that google cache as the ref ... I'll go check. SEe? Was finding a source that hard!? (And by the way - your old source only talked about the play they were trying out for - I read through it).danielfolsom 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh boy - it's a full pragraph - I'm going to try and make it more like everything else.danielfolsom 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and had you done your google search a little better you would have found this for yourself. BTW, the old source only talked aobut the "play they were trying out for?" I'm sorry, but for an editor, you really need to read. All the stuff about peer pressure, rivalry, etc. is about the movie plot. The play-within-a-play plot is NEVER discussed outside of one charachter speech which mentions the "neofeminist" line.Trying to argue about plot with someone who has never read the script or scene the movie is truly silly. P.S. - the rest of this article is incredibly unsourced - your deletionism is amazing. Smatprt 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your correct- maybe I was refering to another source - here, however, the author just says that it's comparable - not that it's an adaptation - so perhaps we can take English over the summer together. danielfolsom 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Per MOS guidelinse - I removed as much of the trivia section as possilbe - but I have to leave, so someone should be able to very easily fix that up (note: When I put the music in a section I also organized it all by date, which should probably be done for the other sections too)danielfolsom

Your orgainization by dates makes the article look even more like a collection of lists. As you know, lists are frowned upon and it is encouraged to turn lists into prose. Smatprt 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Really - since when did a chronological, categorized list become worse than a bunch of random information in a trivia section - see the {{Trivia}} template. However, I do think that overall the amount of info could eaily be reduceddanielfolsom 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

People are removing spoiler warnings on this and other Shakespeare pages. I refer discussion on the subject to the discussion on Talk:Hamlet#Spoiler warning?. Wrad 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm, it's a tough one - however it's noteworthy that the {{Spoiler}} page actually says don't put it in a plot section ...danielfolsom] 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest posting this on the Hamlet talk page. Wrad 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I would, but honestly, I could care less, I'm just trying to prevent some kind of edit war by now reverting the people who come along and delete it - I wasn't the first one to revert, and I figure, if the guy who reverted thinks it should be there - then bring it up on the talk before you just take it off! danielfolsom 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there won't be an edit war. Discussion on talk pages will prevent that. The spoiler tags are particularly unnecessary when they are situated directly at the top of a clearly marked plot summary section. The plot summary obviously contains a summary of the plot, so it's pointless to labor the point by repeating it. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There was a short edit war - with as many as 3 reverts, so I'm just saying, why don't we finish a talk discussion here before more people come in - honestly I could really care less what we do - again, I just don't want to see some stupid war over a few words.danielfolsom 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

I remember seeing this on the history page:

The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet[4]

- and I think given the ref, we should use that as the title. While Romeo and Juliet should be the page title- since the most common title is used as the page title, this title seems to be the correct one - simmilar to how Aaron Burr's name is actually Aaron Burr Jr. - but the page title is without the jr.danielfolsom 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Folio table of contents lists it as: "Romeo and Juliet"; The Folio title page calls it "The Tragedie of Romeo and Julie"; The 2nd quarto calls it "The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet". "The Most Excellent and Lamentable...." is an Elizabethean marketing tool. Just like some titles of Henry V include reference to "Agincourt" - again - that's just good marketing - not the real title. I think we should stick with the common titles and disregard the various longer "description" titles. As this effects numerous plays, perhaps we should continue this conversation there and develop a concensus. In the meantime, can we stick with the common titles, please?Smatprt 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I gotcha - sorry wasn't sure about the title practices in Shakespeare's time. Hey though, chill out - I didn't add the title, I just remember seeing it.--danielfolsom 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Lol, yeah... marajauna helps me out too! xD --danielfolsom 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists- a general comment

There are a lot of categories of article that benefit from the inclusion of Lists. In fact, a great number of encyclopedias of the printed and bound variety include them. In the case of an Artist, whatever their field, a list of works with the dates, linked to wiki articles on the individual works, if such articles exist, seems to me to be an essential part of any such Biography.

This case is a little different- its the character list, which is a normal part of any play. The list of characters as part of this article is not essential to understanding a brief synopsis. But since a large number of the characters have their own articles, it really facilitates looking them up.

I come out in favour of the inclusion of lists. I think the non-inclusion of them on the grounds of style is pedantic and unnecessary, if the list serves to make the article more accessible.

I think the list might be better at the end of the article. I think it needs only the essential info on each character. If you include a character analysis of Tybalt, you ought to analyse the others as well. --Amandajm 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I only skimmed your comment - but I think what your saying is that the adaptations should be turned into list. Technically, we should avoid list - especially long list, because they are considered unencyclopedic (see most the links on this template for more reasons). But then again - it depends on what your thinking of.danielfolsom 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

major editing needed!

A standardized format for articles has been written up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare#Standardization. Information regarding Romeo and Juliet's themes, motifs, and critical comment are essential to the article, but aren't included. In my opinion, we should get this done in order to get a class higher then "B". I already have some information handy, but it's probably not enough to warrant a new section.--Romeo in love 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the big things that also needs to be worked on is reducing the article length. I mean I'm not anti-long articles by any mean - but when you have an Adaptations section that comprimises about half of a big subject like this, then you have a problem. I just think that at some point we gotta put our foot down. I haven't been too involved in this article due to a borderline interest- but I think I can put some extra effort in as your obviously willing to. I took a look at the standardization, and then I did a quick word count of the synopsis - and we're way over (130 words or so). If I have time I'll start reducing that now. The to do list should be expanded, and perhaps we should have people sign on to certain sections to avoid edit conflicts, and then we can all edit the updated piece. I also noticed we're missing two sections - and I can try to get work done on the critical reception - but not right away - maybe in an hour. --danielfolsom 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One way to create a section in progress is to add what you can and then put a {{Section-stub}} at the bottom of it. This is very kosher and is a good way to invite other editors to contribute. Wrad 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget your citations guys! I know that we shouldn't put this in as a priority right now; the information itself is much more important at this stage. However, please cite your sources as you add things so that we won't have a huge burden in the future.--Romeo in love 01:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Goals and Talk

Reducing Word Count of Synopsis

Resolved

I reduced the word count by about a hundred, while also fixing some strange content that could never be sourced, and some plain false content, but we are still 49 words over, however I'm hesitant to cut too much more without other's input - as now I am in a position where I must cut what I do not think should be cut, and thus controversy may arise. --danielfolsom 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. One thing I'll probably do is eliminate the Act division headings per the suggestion on the project page. Wrad 00:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed some things. One of the main things different now is that I commented out the prologue bit. The more I read it, the less it seemed like a part of the plot, though it should definitely go somewhere in the article. Anyway, the synopsis now weighs in at a sleek 676 words, though I'm sure there is more work to be done on it. Wrad 00:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice - yeah sorry about not taking those out myself, I didn't want to do anything too controversial, and the problem was before I added the divisions there were already fake division, "ACT II, for example, instead of a heading, so I wanted to make it look a bit nicer without having to take someone's work out before discussion on the talk. and I agree with the prologue edits too. --danielfolsom 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Addiding Crtics Section

I can start working on this soon. --danielfolsom 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm having no luck on this. I had completely plotted out in my mind what I wanted to say - based on obvious information, but the problem is how to find a source for the information. I've searched "Romeo and Juliet Reaction" "Romeo and Juliet History" and "Romeo and Juliet Criticism" to no avail. I'll start looking again a bit later - there's probably a gold mine out there that I'm just passing over.--danielfolsom 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding Themes and Motifs Section

I will do this. I have some sparknotes references ready at hand, and I can probably get some scholarly publications to get some information, too. I'll get to this ASAP.--Romeo in love 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if Sparknotes is a reliable source?--Romeo in love 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would assume so, yes. --danielfolsom 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well... if that's what it takes to get started, go ahead and use it, but the article will eventually need better sources. Wrad 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my bad - I was under the belief that it'd be nice to have better-quailty sources, but sparknotes I would think is reliable, I'm not too used to editting book articles. My mistake--danielfolsom 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Wrad 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't find any good sources now, so I think I'll go on with sparknotes and the other "crappy" resources and we'll just have to keep improving on them to get to where we want to get to!--Romeo in love 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind that. I think it's better to not have the information rather than having it with horrible sources. Unfortunately, my library is closed right now for construction, so I really can't get any good information until then.--Romeo in love 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Reducing Adaptations Section

I honestly think this will be the trickiest part. May be best to leave it for last. We want to resist loss of information while eliminating lists and creating sourced prose. Separate list articles may be needed, with summaries in this one. Wrad 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree there - and just so everyone knows though - in order to improve class we do not have to do this - I just think it would look better, but feel free to disagree --danielfolsom 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet/Archive_1&oldid=1145995184"