Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

citation needed tag

I know that our citation needed tag is on a fact from Halio's book. That means that the ref is available in the history of this article. Wrad (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the GA version, the bit about the "down-to-earth Romeo" etc. isn't cited directly, but the next citation is indeed from Halio, pages 104 and 105. Could this be where it is from? -Malkinann (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Wrad (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. :) -Malkinann (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Better or Best?

Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's better plays

Is the word "best" to be used here instead of the word "better"? Something like that:

Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's best plays

Naturalis (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Zeffirelli

Page says, of Zeffirelli's stage production:

He also paid close attention to detail, making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.

This simply cannot be right. I can easily believe that he (or someone) said this of his production, but a moment's thought will demonstrate that it cannot be literally true. Can it be reframed? Or attributed? What did the source actually say? AndyJones (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the main point is that he focused on realism, trying to make it seem like medieval Italy and not to let the shakespearean language seem stilted. Wrad (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried by the logical flow of the section, also. Here is is in full:

John Gielgud's New Theatre production in 1935 featured Gielgud and Laurence Olivier as Romeo and Mercutio, exchanging roles six weeks into the run, with Peggy Ashcroft as Juliet. Gielgud used a scholarly combination of Q1 and Q2 texts, omitting only minor portions of the originals, such as the second Chorus. He also organised the set and costumes to match as closely as possible to the Elizabethan period. His efforts were a huge success at the box office, and set the stage for increased historical realism in later productions. Guthrie McClintic produced a 1935 Broadway staging in which Katharine Cornell had a triumph as Juliet opposite Basil Rathbone as Romeo and Edith Evans (who had also played the role in the Gielgud production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with Maurice Evans as Romeo and Ralph Richardson as Mercutio, both making their Broadway debuts. Peter Brook's 1947 version was the beginning of a different style of Romeo and Juliet performances. Brook was less concerned with realism, and more concerned with translating the play into a form that could communicate with the more modern world. He argued, "A production is only correct at the moment of its correctness, and only good at the moment of its success." Franco Zeffirelli mounted a legendary staging for the Old Vic in 1960 with John Stride and Judi Dench that served as the basis for his 1968 film. Zeffirelli borrowed from Brook's ideas, altogether removing nearly a third of the play's text in order to make it more accessible to a contemporary audience. He also paid close attention to detail, making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.

And here's an abridgement which I hope makes the problem clear:

John Gielgud's production in 1935... set the stage for increased historical realism in later productions. ... Peter Brook's 1947 version was the beginning of a different style of Romeo and Juliet... less concerned with realism. ... Zeffirelli borrowed from Brook's ideas... making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.

Do you see the problem? We say the most notable thing about Guilgud was his realism. Brook's main rebellion against that was to defy realism. Then Zeffirelli follows Brook in, er, being as realistic as possible. AndyJones (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

McClintic

Guthrie McClintic's produced a 1934 Broadway staging in which Katharine Cornell had a triumph as Juliet opposite Basil Rathbone as Romeo and Edith Evans (who had also played the role in the Gielgud production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with Maurice Evans as Romeo and Ralph Richardson as Mercutio, both making their Broadway debuts.

I am moving this here since it doesn't have a source. It can go back if we find one for it. Wrad (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Guthrie McClintic produced a 1935 Broadway staging in which Katharine Cornell had a triumph as Juliet opposite Basil Rathbone as Romeo and Edith Evans (who had also played the role in the Gielgud production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with Maurice Evans as Romeo and Ralph Richardson as Mercutio, both making their Broadway debuts.

I'm moving this here again, sorry, because it seems to me to have a Wikipedia: Don't say boring things problem. (Yes, I know it's a red-link, but you get my idea). It's just a list of famous people with nothing to say about them and their performance of R&J, unless you count the one word "triumph" which is a bit unspecific and a bit of a peacock. I've no objection to mentioning these productions if we have something to say on them, though. AndyJones (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Wrad asked me to do a peer review of this article. I finally had time to do so today. I've added my comments here. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What problem?

What is meant by this:

The play is about two hours long,[63] creating a problem for any playwright wishing to express longer amounts of time.[62]

I can't understand it at all, sorry. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Try it in the abstract, as: Plays are generally about two hours long... rather than R and J is about about two hours long... i.e., playwrights have the "problem" of showing periods of time longer than this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nonsense, and Lucking (the cited source) doesn't actually say that (or anything like it), so I've simply removed it. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Date and Text

(Reposting here since I'm not sure how many are following the Peer Review)

User:Awadewit's Peer Review brings up a good point:

I see why the antiquity bit is mentioned later in the "Sources" section, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't come earlier. It is a broad statement and it seems like we are going back in time over the course of the sectoin, which is a bit awkward.

The section starts with Romeo and Juliet and then works its way backwards through 16th-century sources, through 15th- and 14th-century ones, and ends up with Pyramus and Thisbe in “antiquety”. On the one hand, that's illogical and makes it a bit awkward in places; on the other it's not terrible and I hadn't even noticed the problem until Awadewit pointed it out. Opinions? Anyone feel like taking a stab at reversing the flow of time in that section? Or should we just let it be? --Xover (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of it as tracing the "genealogy" of the story back from the work itself. I don't think it's too odd. How did we do it with Hamlet? Wrad (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet and its sources is a somewhat different beast, but it starts with Hrólfs saga kraka and works its way up to Hamlet. But that section spends more time on talking about what may have been the sources (Ur-Hamlet, etc.) rather then tracing the genealogy of the story as Romeo and Juliet does. --Xover (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a go at rewriting it to read in chronological order (and expanded a bit on some details, tweaked the refs, and added back the da Porto image). Have a look over it and see what you think? --Xover (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical history?

Moved from the article's Critical history section:

Though critics have noted many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded as one of Shakespeare's better plays. One of the most prevalent debates among critics is Shakespeare's intent. Was the play intended to be a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate and fortune, or was it a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the ultimate tragedy to which it will inevitably lead? Perhaps it was intended to show how two young lovers become instruments in the hands of fate or providence in uniting two warring families. Scholars have yet to agree on what the play is really about after centuries of analysis, though recently several have argued that it is a combination of all three.

cf. the Peer Review comments by Awadewit. I have no idea what to do with this. As best I can tell it's talking about the themes and motives of the play, rather than its critical history. I'm sure it could be rewritten to avoid the question form, but it feels odd to be ascribing too much intent to Shakespeare in writing the play. I note the Critical history section works perfectly fine without this text; perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave it out altogether?

Opinons? Anyone want to take a stab at this? --Xover (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than using the word intent, just say "what was the play about"? without the question. The fact is, early scholars debated this stuff and it's a big part of the play's critical history nowadays author's intent junk is a no-no, but back then it was all the rage. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Every time I have a go at this I end up itching to sprinkle {{who}} after each sentence. Anyone happen to have access to:

Scott, Mark W. (1987). Shakespearean Criticism. Gale Research. ISBN 0810361299.

This para is sourced to page 410 in Vol.5 of that, and the surrounding text seems to be mostly sourced to pp. 410–415.

I'm the one who first looked it up and I don't think you're going to see any specific names, nor do I think there should be any. Were talking about summing up centuries of critical history into one paragraph. No one person has asked these questions, many have, and the source supports that. Wrad (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Ok, taking a stab at it:

One of the most prevalent debates among critics over the years is Shakespeare's intent. Some see the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it will inevitably lead. Others argue that it shows how two young lovers become instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on which is the intent, but recent analysis tends to consider all three themes.

Could this work, or did I merely butcher your text? :-)

Another issue here is where to put it. It was originally the opening paragraph of the section, but then midway down we find “…Rowe was the first known critic to ponder the theme of the play…” which is a bit weird. Would it fit better right after Rowe so that it reads something like “Rowe started it, and this is what they've been discussing since”? --Xover (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the issue for me. Nowadays, if a literary critic seriously discusses the author's intent or theme of any particular work, they are likely to be laughed out of publication unless they are very careful. These methods are considered more and more outmoded. I'm wondering what we want to do here, then? Do we want to focus on the older "author and theme" analysis at all? If we do, how much and in what way? I'd like to hear from Awadewit on this. Wrad (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, take a look at Hamlet's Critical history section. --Xover (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just judging by her edit history, I suspect she has too much on her plate to be watchlisting this page. If you'd like her to comment I'd suggest dropping a note on her Talk page. --Xover (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an OR personal opinion, but I find the section a bit embarrassing. The genius of Shakespeare is that he doesn't take sides or offer easy answers. The play is neither saying young love is great and shouldn't be thwarted by a cruel world. Nor is it saying that young lovers should curb their enthusiasm and be guided by those who are older and wiser. Instead it says both of these things, and neither of them, and much more besides. That is what makes it a great play. Arguing that his intent was to tell us "THIS" is just reductive. AndyJones (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Andy, I don't think this is OR at all. I would be surprised to find a Shakespeare scholar who said that R&J was a play with one theme. They usually make more subtle arguments than that. If the section could reflect this idea better--that the play is about many things and different scholars have chosen to emphasize different themes--I think it would be better. There are reasons that certain scholars have focused on particular themes - if those could be uncovered and explained, it would be even better. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason the section sounds silly and reductive is because most of it is from older literary critics following older literary theory. Basically from back in the day when people really did make unsustainable arguments about the author's sole intent of the piece of of the one theme that they saw as representing the whole work. Those arguments just don't hold up anymore. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent: Ok, another try then:

One of the most prevalent debates among early critics was that of Shakespeare's intent. Some saw the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it will inevitably lead. Others argued that it shows two young lovers as instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on which is the intent, but recent analysis tends to consider individual themes and avoid ascribing one over-arching "meaning" to the play.

Does that sit better? Or are we leaning towards leaving this bit out altogether? --Xover (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got a tweak on your tweak, mostly to do with overuse of "it":

One of the most prevalent debates among early critics was that of Shakespeare's intent. Some saw the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it inevitably leads. Others argued that the play shows two young lovers as instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on Shakespeare's intent,<!--could also be "the intent", I'm not fussy...--> but recent analysis tends to consider individual themes and avoid ascribing one over-arching "meaning" to the play.

Howzat? -Malkinann (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes; much nicer. But I'm still not sure whether the consensus is to keep this (rewritten) para, or to just avoid it altogether. What's your feeling on this? --Xover (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, do all of the ideas contained in this paragraph come through in the article without it? I think so, so maybe we should just leave it be. -Malkinann (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so far everyone has been either negative to the text, or to its inclusion in the article (that includes Wrad, if I read him right. Wrad?), so I'm going to leave it out and tag this (these) point(s) as done on the Peer Review page. --Xover (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

From the Peer Review page:

• Image:Romeo and juliet title page.jpg - This image has no source information.
• Image:Richard Burbage Portrait at Dulwich Picture gallery.jpg - Link to source does not take us to image.
• Image:Charlotte Cushman Susan Cushman Romeo Juliet 1846.jpg - This image has no source information.

Can anyone help fix these issues? --Xover (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thanks everyone! --Xover (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More peer review issues

I've done most of the mechanical stuff (some work on e.g. references etc. remains), but the following open points from Awadewit's excellent peer review are a bit beyond me.

• Another theory argues that the feud between the families provides a source of phallic expression for the male Capulets and Montagues. This sets up a system where patriarchal order is in power. When the sons are married, rather than focusing on the wife, they are still owed an obligation to their father through the feud. - Eh? This doesn't sound quite right for psychoanalytic criticism. I'm sensing that the writers might have had a hard time understanding this material and the paraphrasing might have lost something.

• They take into account the fact that the play is written during a time when the patriarchal order was being challenged by several forces, most notably the rise of Puritanism. - How does Puritanism work in the play? This is confusing.

• Mercutio's friendship with Romeo, for example, leads to several friendly conversations, including ones on the subject of Romeo's phallus. - What? This doesn't seem right at all. It is hard to turn queery theory into readable prose, but this doesn't do it justice, I don't think.

• What about historicist interpretations?

• The play directly influenced several literary works, both in Shakespeare's own day through the works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher,[74] and later works such as those of Charles Dickens. - Please explain in more detail.

• The influence of the play on subsequent literature seems like it could be expanded.

Anyone up for taking a look at these? --Xover (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got some sources that discuss the queer theory point and the influences point (3rd and 5th/6th above). I'll have a look in the next day or so, hopefully. The first one should probably be removed if it can't be fixed. Historicism is totally beyond me, though.  :-( Can somebody else look at that one? AndyJones (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the 3rd point, I think. The sources I was thinking of for influences turned out to have less on R&J than I'd thought/hoped. I'm on a Wikibreak until September but I'll be back to this article, then. AndyJones (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. Great work! --Xover (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning to the last two bullets above, my suggestion is that we simply remove the "Influences" section, if we don't have enough decent material to source a full section on it. We can merge anything good into other sections, if need be. The filmic influences are covered pretty thoroughly at Romeo and Juliet on screen. Goss's article on Shakespeare's influence mentions Berlioz, Delius, Tchaikovsky and Bernstein but all of them are now mentioned in the "Music" section, as are Dire Straits. Goss mentions Dickens, but doesn't make any R&J-related connection. AndyJones (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've struck two more of those bullets: those sections are now substantially reworked and different.

On the question of "historicist interpretations", do we actually need to cover it? That is, if we have between us got through reading all the books and articles in the "secondary sources" section of this article, without one of us once spotting something about historicism that we thought was worthy of inclusion, maybe it isn't a significant enough feature of the scholarly literature that a general-purpose encyclopedia article needs to cover it. (Of course I'm saying this in complete ignorance of what historicist interpretation is actually all about!) AndyJones (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather it's a cultural lens through which R&J may have been viewed - like the feminist or queer criticism of R&J, or the Marxist criticism of King Lear. The articles Historicism and New Historicism don't illuminate me much further. -Malkinann (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I didn't find those articles very useful either, but I have got some books by Stephen Greenblatt and Stephen Orgel. I'll have a look, and see if they illuminate these issues for me! AndyJones (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't. Has anybody got anything on this? AndyJones (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've got. Bear with me if I'm being a bit pedestrian about this:

• Historicism is a rather conservative approach that says, basically, that every text derives its content from the historical context in which it was written. Therefore to understand the text, you need to understand the history.
• The archetypal example is E M W Tillyard's idea that that Shakespeare's English history plays were a cycle which express the "Tudor Myth", a worldview promulgated by the government in Tudor times, that the Tudors were the natural and ideal culmination of a process of sin followed by catharsis which began with the (evil) deposition of Richard II and ended with the (glorious) overthrow of Richard III.
• Historicists are most interested in plays with historical or policical themes.
• New Historicism, by contrast, is an approach derived from Marxist analysis, and informed by the work of Michel Foucault. Its basic tenet is that understanding any text in an historical context is impossible since the only history we have is itself a text or a number of texts.
• Accordingly, New Historicist practice is to apply the techniques of close reading not only to Shakespeare's plays, but also to other non-literary texts contemporary with them.
• The principal concern of New Historicism is power, and the means in which it manifests itself through the text.
• I haven't got anything which relates this to Romeo and Juliet, though, yet. AndyJones (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Puritans hated Romeo and Juliet the most out of the theatre - the passionate love and the bawdy humour therein were thought to be damaging to young minds. Apparently at one point the Puritans became so powerful that in 1642 they shut down the theatre - English Renaissance theatre gives some minor detail on this. -Malkinann (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right. There ought to be more about this at Restoration Theatre, really (although there isn't: that redirects to Restoration Comedy). This article already refers to the closure of the theatres. That's an "afterlife" thing, though: it doesn't connect to historicist criticism which (if I understand it correctly) relates to the history of the time of composition. AndyJones (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I was trying to tease out the thought on Puritanism being a challenge to the patriarchy. The first two parts here that are left over from the peer review both come from Halio via Wrad. Perhaps we should ask him about Halio? -Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Okay. I've spent the afternoon with a copy of Halio, and I think I've fixed the Psychoanalytic problem and the Feminist problem and I've even found something to say about New Historicism. I've therefore struck the last of the peer review issues. Of course, in the process of doing so I've probably created all kinds of redundancies, grammatical errors and new problems. Is this a good time to ask Awadewit if she would mind taking another look. The page really is quite different from the one she reviewed: although most of those changes are below the "Afterlife" line, and her peer review comment on that section in its old form was "The adaptations tend to become a little listy. I never know what to suggest for this problem. I just know that I want to stop reading because the article turns into a list." And I don't really know if she will feel these amendments address that, or not. AndyJones (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you still have Halio? "The play found popularity throughout continental Europe, as well." comes from there and could use more detail. -Malkinann (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. 'Twas I who added a specify tag to that. And no, I was editing from the university library. However I'll be there again one day next week so (if I remember!!!) I'll look that up. AndyJones (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There are also a fair few footnotes to "Halio (1998: 100–112)." and to Halio pp.47-58 - it might be an idea if we could break them up into smaller ranges? -Malkinann (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree with that. As I found for myself on Thursday, these wide page ranges make verification quite difficult: you need to read (or, at least, to scan) ten or twelve pages to find the comment you are looking for. I'll see what I can do, to fix. AndyJones (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you and good luck! :D -Malkinann (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm the one that combined the references back around the PR. It was done deliberately to reduce the total number of footnotes. The rule of thumb was to combine up to 10 pages, stretching to maybe 12 if that matched a natural boundary (i.e. chapter break). The motivation came from various recent FACs where the number of footnotes has been an issue. That said, I have no objection to splitting them up again if you think I went too far; and the original ranges used should be findable in the page edit history. --Xover (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is that really the culture at FAC these days? :( This intrigues and perturbs me - can you please think of any examples where this has been done in response to a request? I think 3 or so pages would be a good "break" myself, just for the 'hard to find' factor mentioned by Andy. -Malkinann (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't go so far as to claim it's the culture at FAC; just that that was my motivation for doing it. The specific number of pages I chose to combine was also just my own choice and not based on any external comment or suggestion. I'm somewhat torn between my natural inclination to cite everything, obsessively, and the practical reality that long references lists are impenetrable and unwieldy; so this was my attempt at a compromise. None of this should be construed as an argument in favour of any one point on the scale, merely an explanation of what I did and why. It's also worth noting that wherever the FAC reviewers happen to fall on the scale it's fairly easy to address at FAC; we don't need to worry overly about that ahead of time. I can't recall off the top of my head which specific FACs and similar formed my impression, but I think the Samuel Johnson FAC and one or more of Awadewit's recent GAs or PRs are the likely sources (as those are what I've been watching recently). --Xover (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Golly. I'm very strongly opposed to that particular oppose argument, for reasons I will probably rant on about at great length at Wikipedia: Too many footnotes, my dear Mozart, at some point. In the meantime, I will see what I can do to fix. AndyJones (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Here's a diff in case I/we need it for reference. AndyJones (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Ugh. My apologies for the lousy edit summary on that one. :-( --Xover (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
              •  Done AndyJones (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet on Screen

We have a Screen section that's 7 paras long, quite a bit longer than many other sections, and quite listy at times. You can just bet that at FAC they'd ask us to chop it down a bit. At the same time, this is a Main article section pointing to Romeo and Juliet on screen, and that article is both somewhat missing the material we have in the Romeo and Juliet article, and it probably has enough material to split it out into Romeo and Juliet on screen and List of screen adaptations of Romeo and Juliet.

In any case, I suspect it'd be a good idea to move most of the material from Screen into Romeo and Juliet on Screen and rewrite what we leave behind in summary style (and, hey, I'm itching to try out the spinout/transclude trick! ;D). Any thoughts? --Xover (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the idea of having the "list of..." article, I think that would be a spinout too far. It's a good idea trying to re-synchronise the two articles, and also trying to cut down on the film adaptations here. (One thing I don't really get is why West Side Story and R+J are listed as being very different film adaptations of the story when they're both modern updates of the story...) What's the spinout/transclude trick about? -Malkinann (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Go take a look at Pathology. Then view source for a couple of the sections. :-)

Some genious noticed that the MOS guidelines for the lede section of an article and for the contents of a Main article section within an article, were essentially the same: a summary style summary of the topic. In other words, if we make sure the lede for Romeo and Juliet on screen is good and accurately summarises its topic, we can just transclude its lede into the Screen section in Romeo and Juliet and it'll work perfectly while leaving us just one place to maintain that text (no synch issues etc.). There's a spinout template made to take care of various stylistic issues (lede should bold the first mention of the article's topic, while a main article section should not; the template takes care of this). --Xover (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this discussion until now. I wrote the screen section here, and most of Romeo and Juliet on screen. I'll take a look at reducing the screen scetion, here.

Incidentally, the suggestion that anything from the screen section is missing from the main article is definitely wrong. The screen section here is a pure abridgement: I composed it entirely from material in the main article. AndyJones (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Xover (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've abridged that quite heavily. (FWIW I don't share your enthusiasm for the transclusion trick.) Incidentally, I don't understand Malkinann's comment: "One thing I don't really get is why West Side Story and R+J are listed as being very different film adaptations of the story when they're both modern updates of the story". They are different. One is an adaptation (WSS), the other an abridged performance (R+J). Is that what you were asking? If not, let me know and I'll respond. AndyJones (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen them both, (many moons ago) and it seems to me that they're both just modern updates of the story. (although they achieve this in different ways) So why are they said in the article to be both very different? -Malkinann (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, it's the last sentence of the lead. I'll do something with it. AndyJones (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My approach was to introduce a third, straighter, version into the list. Are you happier with that? AndyJones (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. :) I feel that highlights their diversity better. -Malkinann (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson on Romeo and Juliet

See here if anyone was interested. I have a hard copy with page numbers if necessary. The actual quote is "This play is one of the most pleasing of our author's performances. The scenes are busy and various, the incidents numerous and important, the catastrophe irresistibly affecting, and the process of action carried on with such probability, at least with such congruity to popular opinions, as tragedy requires." And on and on. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for FA?

Is this article ready for its FA application, yet?

A few questions I have:

• I see Xover and Wrad have worked hard on the page overall, and I assume one or both of you would want to make the nomination, unless you think a joint one would help.
• I see Xover particularly working on & commenting on the peer review issues. Do you think those are mostly resolved? If yes, do you think this would be a good moment to ask Awadewit if she'd be willing to take another look and comment on whether she feels her issues were addressed and if she has any more? AndyJones (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The issues that are still unstruck under More peer review issues remain to be adressed, and going into FAC with outstanding peer review issues is just begging for a speedy close. So we need to close out those and then do an “internal” review from a big picture perspective to see where we are (e.g. compare it with Hamlet to see where it differs, why, and whether/how to deal with that). I think the article is in pretty good shape, but I'm not sufficiently confident to be comfortable going to FAC just yet.

As for the actual nomination, I'd be equally happy nominating, co-nominating, or having someone else nominate it; and no particular preference either way. For the record, my contributions have mainly been mechanical stuff like typo fixing, tracking peer review issues, and simple copy-editing: credit where credit is due, and I'm due very little of it. :-) --Xover (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've practically only copy-edited the article — but I think that Wrad has contributed the most content to this article. But Xover should definitely co-nom ;) —Sunday | Testify! 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with nominating it now. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Quality Syopsis

Here's the current one:

It's very good: far better (for example) than the version we had to work so hard on at Hamlet when we did its FA drive. Here are some of my questions:

• It doesn't mention Juliet's age: 13. I think that's very important for numerous reasons. Shakespeare really stresses it, it's an issue in several early scenes. It's important to the modern reception of the play: its action would be illegal in most modern nations and may raise paedophilia issues (Sutherland mentions this explicity in Henry V, War Criminal?). If you accept the conventional dating, WS had a 13-year-old daughter at the time of composition. I don't think all these points need to be in the article, but I think the age does.
• Not sure about: "The Prince of Verona, intervenes and declares that the heads of the families will be held accountable for any further breach of the peace." The line is "your LIVES shall pay the forfeit of the peace": it's stronger than being "held accountable". Not sure what to do with it, though: the prince clearly doesn't follow-through on that threat after the Tybalt/Mercutio/Romeo duel (as you might expect him to do, having lost a kinsman). AndyJones (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • NB:I haven't finished. I'll doubtless add more thoughts in the next few days. AndyJones (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Afterlife

I think I've nothing more to add to the section which I've renamed "Afterlife".

It would be good if someone could come along and do a proofread and tidy-up of any of my errors, though, now. AndyJones (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not liking the renaming of the section, as I find it confusing. "Afterlife" might also be the name of the section which goes on about how R&J's death is an example of courtly love rather than orthodox Christian theology - a theme. -Malkinann (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean "afterlife" could be a discussion of whether they went to heaven or hell or wherever? Yes, I suppose. But "afterlife" tends to be the term the scholars use to discuss this issue, which is why I like it. Shakespeare Survey 49 is actually called "Romeo and Juliet: Afterlife". Has anyone got a suggestion for a term that retains this breadth but wouldn't confuse someone who wasn't used to the term? AndyJones (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

in the end they die mwahaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.147.242 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. AndyJones (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

last bit from the old peer review...

Here's some stuff from the old peer review from Awadewit, (the only stuff not marked as done). Wrad (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another theory argues that the feud between the families provides a source of phallic expression for the male Capulets and Montagues. This sets up a system where patriarchal order is in power. When the sons are married, rather than focusing on the wife, they are still owed an obligation to their father through the feud. - Eh? This doesn't sound quite right for psychoanalytic criticism. I'm sensing that the writers might have had a hard time understanding this material and the paraphrasing might have lost something.

• The critic was probably arguing something more along the lines of feminism and I got it mixed up. The point it that when a Capulet man marries, he owes allegiance not to his wife, but to his father, the head Capulet, which sets up a strong patriarchal order of things and strengthens male power. Wrad (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It looks as though this has been taken out or clarified, which I am fine with. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• They take into account the fact that the play is written during a time when the patriarchal order was being challenged by several forces, most notably the rise of Puritanism. - How does Puritanism work in the play? This is confusing.

• Looks like this is fixed now. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mercutio's friendship with Romeo, for example, leads to several friendly conversations, including ones on the subject of Romeo's phallus. - What? This doesn't seem right at all. It is hard to turn queery theory into readable prose, but this doesn't do it justice, I don't think.

• As I recall, the critic wasn't clear on this either, so we may have to do some digging... Wrad (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like someone fixed this. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• What about historicist interpretations?

• I agree and can fix this. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• The play directly influenced several literary works, both in Shakespeare's own day through the works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher,[74] and later works such as those of Charles Dickens. - Please explain in more detail.

• Needs more research. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like this is fixed. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• The influence of the play on subsequent literature seems like it could be expanded.

• Ditto. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As is this. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So the only thing to do is add a historical interpretations section and get it copy-edited, fix up the synopsis a bit per Andy, and submit. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also a [specify] tag hiding in the performances section. Wrad (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See the section #More peer review issues above where several of us have discussed most of the issues you've raised in this section. Let's discuss once you've had a look. AndyJones (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've been gone awhile! Umm... Yeah I think it's all done except the specify tag. Clearly Historicist stuff is mixed throughout, which is proper since (new) historicism overlaps other things a lot. Wrad (talk)

I fixed the specify thing and I think we're ready! Wrad (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

Taking my cue from Awadewit, I did a little work on the images and created a Gallery for the deleted ones. As I look at it, it seems to me to be over-imaged. Does anyone else feel this way? If so, feel free to move an image or 2 down to the gallery. (Wow - the article is really looking good, btw. Congrats to the main editing team of Andy, Wrad, et al!) Smatprt (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I left aligned some of the images. WP:ACCESS says "Do not place left-aligned images directly below third-level (===) headings". I'm thinking as long as they're not "directly below" they're ok. Wrad (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, much as I despise doing anything as radical as adding a new section while an article is going through FAC, I do think it looks pretty good. And no, I don't think the body of the article looks over-pictured in its current state. AndyJones (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being so radical, but once some of the images started getting deleted, I thougght it might be nice to keep them. Regarding the left images, which I just realigned (again) to the right, I don't think we should look for loopholes. There are reasons to stay to the right in 3rd level sections - otherwise, one feels like your watching a tennis match as you read down the article. Also, the shorter sections looked more jammed if the alternating keeps up. I do think it looks better this way, which is probably why those MOS rules are there in the first place. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference, let me quote the relevant bits of WP:ACCESS#Images:

1. Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the header and after any links to other articles), and not just before the header.
2. When possible, do not force oversizing of images that override the default user preferences. Some users need to configure their systems to display large text; forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.
3. Do not place left-aligned images directly below third-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location.

In particular, the problem that's been pointed out is with images directly below a third level heading, and the reason for it is that it can cause the heading to become disconnected from the body text of the section. Left aligning images further down in a third-level section does not have this problem. It's also worth a reminder that one shouldn't move images out of the section they belong in (e.g. by putting it before the header as was done here). --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[OUTDENT] I added my comment to the above discussion from my work computer. Now that I see the page on a wide-screen monitor I see that the new placement is creating problems, and I also see that User:DionysosProteus has commented on these problems at the FAC. I'll take another look, and will report back here. AndyJones (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have fixed the above by a new placement of Ms Sanderson, and moving "Romeo at Juliet's Deathbed" to the gallery. The images now work for me, on a wide screen. I'd be grateful if others could take a look and see if there are further problems. Also, since we have removed "Ask Me No More" from a place where it had context, can it now justify a place in the gallery? AndyJones (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the image in the synopsis section as it was breaking into the following section on my monitor. The only remaining troublesome one is still Saunderson, though. I read above that we can't put it at the section start, but it's still breaking into the following one. Making it smaller doesn't seem to work well either, so not really sure that can be solved. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried sending Burbage to the Gallery (he wouldn't have liked that!) and right-aligning Saunderson. That works for me - what do others think? AndyJones (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, I've uploaded a mirror-image of Saunderson to commons, so she is no longer facing off the page. AndyJones (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From MOS:IMAGE:

Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is ever reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption.

--Xover (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is such fun. We have the Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep principle, yet we cannot place this picture because:

• We have a rule that says we must place it within the section.
• We have a rule that says we cannot encroach on another section.
• We have a rule that says we cannot resize it.
• We have a rule that says it cannot be on the left.
• We have a rule that says it cannot be on the right.
• We have a rule that says we cannot turn it around so it could go on the right.
• We have too many rules. AndyJones (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It simply means we need to make some tradeoffs. For instance, do we really need to optimize for people with 24" widescreen monitors running on Windows and who like to resize their Internet Explorer to 1920x1200 pixels? Because in Safari on Mac OS X on a 20.1" widescreen display, even with the browser window at 1680x1050 pixels, that problem isn't really a problem... --Xover (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Anyway, I've gone back to Burbage on the right then Saunderson on the left, and I've decided I don't care about encroachment on other sections since that's the only one of my rules above that isn't actually a rule. Anyone now unhappy with this arrangement will have to come up with an alternative which is actually possible. AndyJones (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity we can't use the Füssli picture to illustrate the "light and dark" themes section... it'd be perfect for that. -Malkinann (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Recordings

Do you want some recordings of operas based on it? I can, at the very least, do Gounod's. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Wrad (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a "main" character?

If you want to have a prosify the character section, you're going to have to do more than just delete bullet points and run everything together into prose. You're going to need to make cuts and editorial decisions. Who is important enough to be considered a main character? Escalus doesn't qualify. I don't see anyone other than Romeo, Juliet, Mercutio, Friar Lawrence, and Paris qualifying. Everyone else is a minor character. We can't discuss everyone. We don't have the space.

And, of course, you're going to have to cite things. We don't just want a "second synopsis", we want scholarly opinion on each of the main characters. Since such opinion is already provided elsewhere in the article, I don't see the point of such a section, but if you can make it work, more power to you. Wrad (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No play article would ever pass FAC without a Dramatis Personae of some sort. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true, in fact, no play article has ever passed FAC with one. See Hamlet. Wrad (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the section looks good to me now. Wrad (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as your happy, Wrad, I can now rest easier. (BTW - Paris as a main character?!? What are you smoking?) Smatprt (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks, man. You proved me wrong, you made a good section. Kudos. Now chill out. Wrad (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

First, Wrad - take you own advice and do chill. Frankly, your holier than thou attitude and attempts to control all things Shakespeare have really gotten to me. Same with the condescending edit summaries. That's me being honest - not attacking.Smatprt (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We are so similar sometimes it's almost scary. Wrad (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Music sample

Hey look what I found! :) Can we put it in the article? -Malkinann (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Is it public domain, though? What's the copyright? Wrad (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is. :) Wrad (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance of extracting the "love theme" from it, rather than including an 18-minute audio file? (I don't know how this stuff works.) AndyJones (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CMF recommends Audacity, but I find Audacity too hard to use. At what time marks does the love theme begin and end? -Malkinann (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

External links on Romeo & Juliet

Copied from my talk page AndyJones (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC):

Hi Andy, I'm curious why you removed the Shmoop analysis of Romeo & Juliet from External Links. I read the rules for external links and thought I was in the clear. Shmoop has about 150 print pages worth of analysis on R&J, written by Ph.D. from Berkeley who teaches the play in english classes at Berkeley. Shmoop also offer a writing guide that walks students through the process of writing a paper on R&J. I'd love to learn from your experience and figure out an appropriate way to link to Shmoop's resources from this article. (Also, check out Shmoop's jobs page - we hire Shakespeare buffs). Many thanks, Barriodude (talk)

• I've moved this conversation to the article's talk page (here), where a wider group of people will comment. Be warned that the article is going through a featured article candidacy as we speak (see here for all the gory details), so expect to have to fight for any change you want to make, right now! Best, AndyJones (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters proposal

I'm still not entirely pleased with the Character section. It still seems somewhat listy and many of the character descriptions just seem jammed together (violating the good prose section of the FAC criteria). I also do not believe it is necessary to mention every character in this section, and I worry that much of the section is cited directly from the play. I expect to see more information from scholars analyzing the characters and less of a synopsis from the play. (There is actually more scholarly information included about Lord Capulet than either Romeo or Juliet). I haven't read the scholarly works, so I can't make any suggestions for what else should be included. I can, however, offer a proposal for reformatting/trimming the section. I've placed that below. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Romeo and Juliet depicts the interactions between three prominent families in Verona: the ruling house of Verona and the feuding Capulets and Montagues. The play's female protagonist, Juliet, is the thirteen-year-old daughter, and only heir, of Lord and Lady Capulet. Lord Capulet, a commanding figure who shows his courteous and generous nature at a party in the first act, is a loving but controlling father. He is considerably older than his 28-year-old wife, who by the final act is nearly overcome by the tragic events of the play. Juliet's cousin, "the fiery Tybalt", is shown to have a quarrelsome and explosive nature. Either need more here, need a better transition, or remove the next sentence Numerous servants of the Capulet household have important minor roles in the play, both as comic relief and as the instigators of the violence in the opening scene.

The male protagonist is Romeo, son of Lord and Lady Montague, who have much smaller roles than their Capulaet equivalents. Romeo feels alienated by the feud between his family and the Capulets and often consults his cousin, Benvolio. Benvolio is frequently the peacemaker, and is therefore a foil to Tybalt, the quarreller.

During the play, the feud between the families escalates, and three times Escalus, the Prince of Verona, appears to administer justice. His kinsman contribute to the tension. One of them, Count Paris, seeks Juliet's hand in marriage. Although this role is not as well-developed as those of the main characters, it serves as a complication in the development of Romeo and Juliet's relationship. Paris's devotion to Juliet also stands as a counterpoint to Romeo's impetuous love. Another relative,Mercutio, is ribald and vigorous: he regards love as essentially about sex.

Comments

That's exactly what I said about it, but I was tired of being ridiculed. I still think that even this version is repetitive and unhelpful. The old version basically just deleted the bullet points, copied stuff from our stubby character articles, and added some OR. This version still is pretty much a repetition of the synopsis. Wrad (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The more I look (and I have looked), the more I am convinced. No scholarly work I an find offers a summary of characters in Romeo and Juliet in the way some are demanding. Therefore, there aren't any nice, neat character summaries from scholars to cite, unless we use SparkNotes. I ask again, why should we do something that the sources we're using don't do? Wrad (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With Romeo, for example, we could add: "Since the play was written, scholars have had opposite views of Romeo, some see him as a reckless lover whose flaws lead to his tragic end, and others see him as without a tragic flaw, and the victim of fate or happenstance. Scott (1987: 411–412)." This is the classic Romeo debate, however saying this would basically just repeat what is already in the rest of the article. If people are fine with that, okay, but the fact is that the major debates concerning major characters such as Romeo and Juliet are already in the article. Wrad (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it such a bad thing to have character analysis spread liberally throughout relevant sections of the article rather than confine it to one section? Wrad (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make much more sense to have the character analysis spread throughout the article (as you say, some of this is in other parts of the article already). This proposal was based solely on the fact that some editors of the page are attached to the section. If we get rid of the character section completely, then my objections would of course be satisfied. Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[AFTER EDIT CONFLICT] Oh dear. As I've said elsewhere, I consider the discussion of this issue to be a waste of day, night and time. However since it is clearly a matter that causes strong feelings, and is affecting the FAC of this article, I need to throw in my views:

• I don't see much merit to a section of the kind User:Karanacs seems to want. As you can see I've spent a day or so working hard at the section, some of it at the University library. I share Wrad's concerns about our ability to source it adequately, and his feeling that the important information is in the article elswehere already.
• (As a bit of a sideline, I don't actually share Wrad's concern that Sparknotes-type books cannot be used as sourcing in a FA. Sometimes you need to source the absolute basics and a basic book is sometimes the best source for that. But I digress.)
• While I concede that Karanacs proposal is an improvement, I don't see it a major improvement or a paradigm-shifting one. It's just another reorganisation of the kind I've been trying out myself over the last few days.
• Numerous editors I respect, among them Awadewit and Roger Davies, have come out against lists of characters: their arguments are lengthy and I can provide links to them if necessary. However it seems to me the arguments are based on a sense of what is encyclopedic in the abstract sense, and upon a kind of intellectual etitism (or if that sound too rude, think of it as a failure to acknowledge the KISS principle). A view that says that eloquent prose is to be preferred over bullet-points, a view that fails to recognise that our users are usually beginners, usually kids, usually not-remotely-interested in the brilliance of our prose, usually wanting the basics in a see-it-at-a-glance type of way.
• Someone who wants to know the basics about a play can most easily get a handle on it by knowing, in brief, who the characters are. Speaking for myself, both as a child and as a student and as an actor, that's alwayes the first thing I turn to.
• I wouldn't have submitted the article to FAC with a character list, if I hadn't thought that was the right format for it. Lots of FAs include lists or tables, where appropriate.
• All in all, my view is that if the purpose of a section in an article is to identify ten or so somethings, then a brief list is the way to fulfil that purpose.
• My order of prefence therefore is:

1. a brief list, which can easily be sourced to Gibbons or Levenson;
2. nothing: a link to the characters article;
3. a sourced, prose section.

• You know the drill. Discuss. AndyJones (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a characters section can, when handled well, be very useful to an article on a piece of literature, but that depends entirely on the literary work and the sources available. I do not believe a character section should be included if it cannot provide more information than what should already be in the synopsis. In my opinion, the base list that was originally included in this article was useless to the reader. Yes, the reader would know that there are a dozen characters and here are their names and (maybe) a sentence on how this one is related to that one, but there is no indication of who is major and who is not, and nothing at all to tell you what the play is about. In essence, if I knew nothing about the play and started with that section (I don't always read the lead), I would be quite confused. A synopsis, done well, should be able to provide enough context about the major characters to help someone unfamiliar with the work (whether they be a child or an adult) to figure out what is going on and who is doing what and why. FAC requires our best work. Starting an article with a list is not our best work (no context has been given at all, so we are just as likely to confuse the reader). If the section is removed (my preference based on wrad's comments above), I would recommend including a see...List of Romeo and Juliet characters link at the top of the synopsis section. That way, users who are confused by the synopsis can have a list readily available. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As myself, Smatprt, and Andy have tried and failed to find appropriate sources for such a section, I think you're absolutely right, Karanacs. I wish that such a section was possible, if nothing else just to compromise, but I just don't see it working. Wrad (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, though, what is the policy on collapsible lists? Wrad (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My turn, I suppose :)

I agree with Andy in almost all respects. I believe the main users of the article will be Jr. and High School (and early college) students, and the first thing they need is the Character List, with a brief description of each character - ie: exactly what was in the article when it was nominated. The main reason: It makes the synopsis easier to understand for beginners (and in the case of other Shakespearean works - like the histories - even the more seasoned scholars).I think that just because other scholarly works do or don't provide such a list is immaterial - the internet (and Wikipedia) is reinventing everything - especially the ways in which people learn. I also return to the fact that these are plays, not novels, and are closer to film scripts than to books. Most of the film and tv FA's provide such character lists (and many without much actor or directorial info as Wrad mistakenly believes (see my examples provided earlier). When studying, discussing or producing a play, one almost always begins with the character list. With all this in mind here are my preferences:

• My order of preference is:

1. a brief list, as was provided when the article was first nominated;
2. a minimally sourced, prose section, as has been cleaned up very nicely by Andy. Extensive sourcing is not need here and the FA film articles do not provide such sourcing.

Finally - I share Andy's sentiment over elitism as it relates to this subject. Are we writing this article for scholars (many of which a) know the material, and/or b) poo-poo Wikipedia as flawed and inaccurate), or are we writing for the individuals who can actually learn from it - students, actors, other theatre practitioners, etc? I believe the later far outweighs the former. IMHO. Cheers, allSmatprt (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My two bits… Very well spoke Andy, you capture my sentiment pretty much exactly. But I'll add that I suspect Karanacs' issue with the character section stems primarily from differing expectations: the role, as I see it, for the characters section is to briefly explain to the lay reader who the major characters are, without having to clutter up the Synopsis with that information, whereas he (and Wrad, I think?) expect it to be analysis of the characters. In terms of satisfying the requirement that the Synopsis be penetrable to the lay reader (and I'm using that term loosely, btw), the original character list could have been incorporated into the synopsis, with the only loss being that the prose of the synopsis would then no longer be particularly "brilliant" (IMO). IOW, keeping the list separate is an optimization of the Synopsis, not a dumbing down of an ambitious Characters section (the latter is better handled in the other themed sections that discuss the characters, as Wrad quite rightly points out).

My preference would be for a brief list, a brief prose section along the lines of the current version, or incorporating it into the Synopsis (with a Main article link to the Characters article). But if it comes down to voting to settle this issue for FAC—and I really hope it doesn't!—my vote would be to delete it based on consistency with Hamlet, and to take this issue up on the WikiProject discussion of standards for our play articles to settle it once and for all (well, or as close to it as Wikipedia gets). In that context I'd argue strongly in favour of some sort of characters section preceding the synopsis section as the first two sections of a WP:BARD play article.

A question: Is the current version not a viable compromise approach? Do anyone feel strongly enough against the current version that they consider it grounds to oppose the FA nomination under criterion 1(a) (well-written) or 1(b) (comprehensive)? --Xover (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The current version is not particularly well-written and does not provide appropriate balance, in my opinion. More text is spent describing Juliet's parents than Juliet, and she is the protagonist! Some of it also borders on OR (describing Juliet's father as generous and charming and that is sourced only to the play itself - to me, that is an interpretation that should be attributed to a scholar). Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that we already have a character list in the template at the bottom, we have a link to the R&J characters article, and we discuss the characters throughout the text. Characters are not being ignored at all, so we should just drop the character section and do what we did in Hamlet. Wrad (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would like to see the article adopt the same format as Hamlet, excluding a character list and reserving detailed critical discussion of each character (such as it exists) to their separate articles. As a teacher of a wide range of students, from foundation (i.e., complete beginners) to post-graduate levels and a director in regular contact with theatre practitioners, I do not believe that a character list is necessary to meet the everyday needs of these groups of browsers when they consult Wikipedia. I find it difficult to imagine the precise circumstances under which those students would require a list from the article. It is far more likely, I believe, that they come here for a synopsis of the action and an overview of critical opinions. If the synopsis is written well, character relationships should be clear. Introducing characters as they appear in the synopsis seems to me to be a far more efficient and relevant means than a list. While I appreciate the work that has gone into the assembly of the Characters section from its subarticles recently, as it stands I feel that it detracts somewhat from the quality of the rest of the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think Andy and Xover have summed it up nicely - to quote Xover - "the role, as I see it, for the characters section is to briefly explain to the lay reader who the major characters are, without having to clutter up the Synopsis with that information". I sincerely agree with them and suggest the original list (as it stood when the article was nominated) be reinstated. Frankly, I still fail to see any problem with it, nor do I believe it harms the article in any way. On the contrary, it helps - and would allow the synopsis to avoid unnecessary character explanations. Smatprt (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Two notes: 1) the old list doesn't just list "who the major character are", it lists all characters. 2) If it only listed major characters, it would be doing nothing more than the synopsis already does. Wrad (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The original list said essentially: "Lord Capulet, Juliet's father". If this is all it should contain, than that would be much more useful in the synopsis, so that the reader does not have to go back up to the characters section to figure out who he is. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Response - then let me clarify - I think we should go back to the original list, for all the reasons stated by me, Andy, Xover. Also - the synopsis gets clunky by having to force character descriptions for the major (and supporting) characters - and by that I mean the group that was in the orignal list (not including servants, pages, messingers, etc., who should all be put in one line at the bottom of the list. Yes - Juliet's Father is an easy and obvious one, but everyone knows full well that in this play and all the others, the relationships are not that simple. Think about the red and white rose factions in the Henry VI's, or the followers of Brutus and Cassius, and you get the picture (I hope). Thanks for letting me clarify. Smatprt (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Also - please recall that editor "Shoemaker's Holiday" weighed in on behalf of having a Character list. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Ugh, I can't stand the idea of listing all those extras in one line at the bottom. It just seems so cheap. Wrad (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I just don't see why. And really, that's just personal preference isn't it? I mean, it's the way it's done in playscripts and high-end theatre programs the world over - even at the RSC, the National, Ashland, etc. - and they certainly don't look cheap to me.
            • There is a huge difference between a theatre program and an encyclopedia article. If the characters are not major enough to have any critical commentary about them, I suspect they are not major enough for inclusion in the article. Karanacs (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
              • Then the article would be incomplete. It's not all about analysis or being "encyclopedic" in the old sense of the word. Wikipedia is bigger than that and has redefined what a good encyclopedia might be. It's for the average person - our readers - not the exclusive domain of scholars! Smatprt (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just following-up my comments above, my REAL order of preference is:

1. Whatever gets us the flipping star;
2. Anything else.

...so if we could get a decision on what people would approve, I'll be happy to get out there and implement it. I'd specifically want to know if User:Karanacs would support this article if we just dropped the character section. (i.e. do you percieve any other issues which maintain your oppose?) [I'm probably going to check into Wikipedia tomorrow briefly and then I'm on an enforced wikibreak for a couple of days.] AndyJones (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Wrad (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I will approve the article exactly how it stands today. If there are no more substantial changes, I will change my "oppose" to "support". Smatprt (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am against the list. It is not needed. Wrad (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And can I just say that I think if anyone opposes the FAC based on the list issue alone, either way, for or against, that that is a really petty thing to do. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made clear my feelings on this, and name calling will not make it better. I believe that without a character list (section, whatever-you want to call it), then the article should fail FA for failing to comply with criteria 1a and 1b. It's as simple as that. Smatprt (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone names. 'Pettiness' is name for what you are doing, not a name for you yourself. It's as simple as that. How dare you accuse others of basing their opinions on personal preference when you expressing the very epitome of that right now. Wrad (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think you have defined pettiness very well indeed. And you just keep attacking, "my friend". Keep defining others, keep making assumptions. And you might as well continue making things up and misrepresenting what others have said. You seem to be on a roll. Smatprt (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And btw, at least I am consistent, whereas you seem to blow with the wind. You nominated this article WITH a character list. Then, at the first comment, you come out against it. Then you fight a compromise, but once it is done, you announce to all "I am happy with it". Now you changed your mind again and want it and the compromise deleted. At this point, you have simply lost credibility by playing both sides of the aisle. Jeez. Smatprt (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No misrepresentations, just facts. To quote your own words: "the FAC process has caused this article to jump back and forth for all sorts of reasons. Personal preferences are causing mayhem." And who is at the center of the "personal preference mayhem"? Smatprt! How ironic! I think it's still an FA even with the list, because, unlike you, I don't let silly, petty things get in the way of what's important. There is nothing wavering in what I am doing at all. On the other hand, while you opposed infoboxes, you for some reason are fine with lists being in the body of the article for all to see. Wrad (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No misrepresentations? Let's see - since we are quoting, let's look at what you said on your talk page: "Even Smatprt has conceded that the list shouldn't be there. People may disagree about what should replace it, but ALL agree it shouldn't be there." Wrad - that is the definition of "misrepresentation" - or in plainer words: lying. Re: personal preferences: My opposition to removing the list is because it removes crucial information from the article thus violating FA criteria. Re: Infoboxes - you know perfectly well why I opposed infoboxes. Not because they contain a list, but because we don't know enough about the plays to fill an infoboxes: date written, first performance, first theatre, lead actors, etc. What little we know is in the lead: that "Shakespeare" wrote it. Raising the infobox issue is truly grasping as straws. So now we should just leave this argument with another quote from you (your latest) - "I think it's still an FA even with the list". I agree and that should really end it. Thank you for clarifying. Smatprt (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt, you had stopped arguing for the list and started arguing for prose. When your tide turned, we had reached a point where nobody was arguing for a list. There was no misrepresentation at all, therefore. Again, stop the pettiness. Wrad (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wrad - I went along with a "compromise" that, once complete (and after Andy worked hard to clean it up) you announced you were "happy with" - before you flipped again and came out against it. But more to the point: you wrote "Even Smatprt has conceded that the list shouldn't be there". Either provide a diff where I "conceded" such rubbish, or admit the truth - that you simply lied.Smatprt (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Character List, cont.

For discussion purposes, here is an example where the character list from Julius Casear. Really help follow the synopsis:

Characters

• Julius Caesar, Military leader of the Roman Empire
• Octavius Caesar, Marcus Antonius, M. Aemilius Lepidus: Triumvirs after the death of Julius Caesar
• Cicero, Publius, Popilius Lena: Senators
• Marcus Brutus, Cassius, Casca, Trebonius,Ligarius, Decius Brutus, Metellus Cimber, Cinna: Conspirators against Julius Caesar
• Flavius and Marullus: Tribunes
• Artemidorus: a Sophist of Cnidos
• A Soothsayer (Also called Fortuneteller)
• Cinna: a poet, who is not related to the conspiracy
• Lucilius, Titinius, Messala, Cato the Younger, Volumnius: Friends to Brutus and Cassius
• Varro, Clitus, Claudius, Strato, Lucius, Dardanius: Servants to Brutus
• Pindarus: Servant to Cassius
• Calpurnia: wife of Caesar
• Portia: wife of Brutus

Now this isn't perfect, it could use some work - but really, when asking "Now who are the conspirators again? Which are Senators? Which are the followers of Brutus and Cassius? Is Portia a car or someone's wife?(lol) - this is helpful and, I believe, expected from our readers. The links to historical figures are also a plus, as is the occasional definition (like Sophist). With many of the plays having multiple subplots, competing factions, complicated names and surnames - the cast list is just essential. IMHO. Smatprt (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another - this is from the FA article on the film of Richard III. I removed some actor trivia but kept the rest intact:

The House of York

• King Edward IV of England, the newly-crowned King of England, who, with the aid of his brother, Richard, has secured his position by wresting it from Henry VI of the House of Lancaster.

• George, Duke of Clarence, brother of the new King.

• Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later King Richard III), the malformed brother of the King, who is jealous of his brother's new power, and plans to take it for himself.

• Prince of Wales (later, for a brief while, King Edward V), the eldest son of the King, who holds many strong beliefs, and wishes one day to become a Warrior King.

• Duke of York, the younger son of the King.

• Duchess of York, the mother of the King.

• Jane Shore, the King's mistress.

• Duke of Buckingham, a corrupt official, who sees potential in Richard's plans and becomes a fellow conspirator until Richard swindles him.

• The Lord Hastings (Lord Chamberlain), a companion and friend of Richard who is accused of conspiracy by Richard and is abruptly executed.

• The Lord Stanley. Stanley has a certain dislike for Richard and is not totally willing in his cooperation with him. Stanley eventually betrays Richard at Bosworth and engages him in a one-on-one duel.

The House of Lancaster

• Queen Elizabeth, Queen Consort of Edward.

• The Lord Rivers, brother of the Queen Consort.
• The Lord Grey, brother of the Queen Consort.

• The Lord Dorset, eldest son of the Queen Consort and stepson of the King.

• The Lady Anne, a widow and an orphan thanks to the acts of Richard, though she cannot resist his charms and eventually becomes his wife.

• Henry, Earl of Richmond (later Henry VII, first of the House of Tudor). Henry, Richard's enemy, claims his right to the throne, and meets him at Bosworth.

Again - very helpful in following the synopsis and keeping track of who is with each faction.Smatprt (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What might be best in articles those plays is not necessarily best in the article about this play. There are not many characters in Romeo and Juliet, and it shouldn't be that hard to keep them straight in a three-paragraph synopsis. Karanacs (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true, Shakespeare's history plays typically have more characters, so the comparison may be misleading. I don't really think the article should be like a theatergoer's pamphlet, personally. Wrad (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pamphlet? We are talking about professionally produced programs and play scripts. Also Caesar is not a history, it's a tragedy - just like R&J. The history was listed to illustrate the point, since, by extension, this discussion will effect the other Shakespeare articles. Smatprt (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What if we just have this simple rule as a compromise?: "If the body of the article doesn't adequately cover significant characters, then a character list may be appropriate. Otherwise, a link to the play's character article in the synopsis will suffice." Wrad (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Another rule? As has been pointed out - we have too many rules already, and we don't even the follow the guidelines we have. Ugh. Smatprt (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then the guidelines could be changed to reflect the current practice? If you're referring to the internal WP:BARD guidelines, I believe we were going to revisit them after the FAC? -Malkinann (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the internal Shakespeare project guidelines are exactly what I am referring to by "guidelines". As I think about it, and look at the current discussion, I find the following:

• We have guidelines in place that generated great discussion when they were developed.

• Until such time that the guidelines themselves are changed, we should follow them.

• The guidelines call for a Character list, with NO analysis - simply a brief description, placed before the synopsis.

• There is no rule against lists or tables, where such lists or tables are appropriate.

• There was no (or at least is no) consensus to change the list that was in place when the article was nominated. It should be reinstated until this discussion is over. That version received nothing but "support" until Karanac raised the first objection to the list (as being shy on analysis - which is against our guidelines.) Smatprt (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines are made to be ignored if consensus says to, and no, I'm not adding a new rule. Since this just replaces the old one, we have the same number of rules we always did. Wrad (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Character Analysis

In an attempt to clear out aspects that would otherwise complicate the ongoing discussion about the Characters section…

The Characters section I'm in favour of (and which Smatprt is arguing in favour of, if I understand him correctly) is not primarily about analysis of the characters: it's about simply listing the characters so that the Synopsis section makes sense without having to explain who every character is as it's mentioned; and so that someone who's just seen the Baz Luhrmann film on MTV can go look up who the heck that Tybalt guy was.

So in order to clear one potential complicating factor; does anyone disagree that actual analysis of the characters:

1. …belongs in a different section(s) of the article
2. …should be more in-depth than what is currently in the Characters section
3. …should be cited to a reliable source
4. …is already covered sufficiently in the rest of the article

If nobody disagrees with that, the current discussion of the Characters section can be much more focussed; we have the options:

1. A simple list of characters, as was in the version of the article that was nominated.
2. A prose version (with some polish) of the list, as is in the current version.
3. Deferring to the Characters in Romeo and Juliet article, and incorporating the necessary explanations into the Synopsis as each character is mentioned.

(I'm discounting the possibility of nuking the Characters section and not expanding the Synopsis as that'd clearly violate 1(a)/1(b) as best I can tell)

Let's try to keep the discussion up above where it's already taking place, but if anyone disagrees with this assessment I'd appreciate you putting a brief note of it here just so we're all clear on what aspects and options we're really discussing. --Xover (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first part. I do not agree with the second part, where it states that cutting the section would violate 1a/1b. Wrad (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite lose to Wrad's view upon Xover's analysis: however I would suggest that only very minor changes would be needed to the synopsis to bring these views together. AndyJones (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Being the last person to do a complete copyedit on the Synopsis section (I think, haven't checked the edit logs) I'm fairly sure at least some (possibly minor) edits would need to be made to avoid hopelessly confusing the reader (IIRC I cut bits of explanation on the assumption it could be looked up in the Characters list). But let's restate that last point as …and thoroughly checking, and if needed expanding, the Synopsis to incorporate any needed extra explanation. Would that bring it into alignment with your view on this? --Xover (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

100%. AndyJones (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm in. Wrad (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say option 2 has been shown as not a feasible option in this particular case. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view the character section is unnecessary, and not having it doesn't make the article fail the comprehensive criterion, since all the relevant information would appear in the synopsis. The synopsis ought to be easily read and understood without the need for a list, at least in a play like this. I see no reason why including it there necessarily involves an over-stuffed result. Where there are a large number of characters distributed among numerous factions whose relationships are complex, the kind of list indicated above may be appropriate. I don't see that it's necessary for the simple character structure of this play. The appropriate model, in terms of guidelines, seems to me to be the Hamlet article. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So again, to amend my previous suggestion, how about this as a compromise?:

1. If the body of the article doesn't adequately cover scholarly discussion of significant characters, then a prose character section may be appropriate
2. If the body of the article adequately covers scholarly discussion of significant characters, but character relationships are complex enough that the Synopsis would benefit from a preceding list, add a character list before the synopsis.
3. If the body of the article adequately covers scholarly significant characters, and character relationships are not complex enough that a list would benefit the Synopsis, a link to the play's character article in the Synopsis will suffice.

It's wordy, but I think we all need to figure this out. It's important. -- Wrad (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was off-wiki this weekend and came back to find that the list has found its way back into the article and the discussion appears to be stalled here. I like Wrad's proposal above, as I believe that satisfies everyone's concerns. In my opinion, for this play, the list violates 1a (prose) and 4 (adds duplicated and unnecessary information to the article). Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 3 seems to be the best option here. Wrad (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not support this proposal because it invites a new and complicated argument for every play. I think we need to standardize the works of Shakespeare so they are consistent, not add 3 more rules and endless arguments. Character analysis is not what the section was ever intended to be - simply a list of the play's characters, grouped by family, faction, etc., to make the synopsis easier to read, and as a resource for quickly determining where a character fits into the over scheme of the work (without necessarily needing to search thru a synopsis).Smatprt (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want all Shakespeare plays to be treated alike then we should remove the character list because Hamlet, the only FA of Shakespeare's works, doesn't have one. But every play is different, so it makes sense (to me at least) that the plays are treated differently. In some plays the character list is so complicated that you can't follow the plot without having it. In other plays, the character list is fairly short and straightforward. It is not useful to the reader to have to jump between the synopsis and the character list to see who is who, and if you are duplicating the relationship info in the synopsis then why have the character list in the same article. If you have a Further information link at the top of the synopsis to the list of characters, then those who do not wish to read through the synopsis can very easily jump to the page with the list of characters. The list still exists, the list is still easy to get to, it is just in its own article rather than duplicating information in this one. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I rather suspect part of the problem is that the removal of the character list on Hamlet was a compromise that is now being used as a precedent. Once we get to the next play FAC the argument will be that two play FAs omit the list. --Xover (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I really do believe it depends on the play, and I'll happily come back and argue that if another play with a crazy cast of intertwined characters is ready to go to FAC. Karanacs (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt did his best to argue for a guideline requiring all plays to have character lists, but it was ultimately rejected. There was a lengthy discussion at the Theater WikiProject about character lists and it was decided by a consensus far larger than this one that they should be a case-by-case thing. Requiring one set-in-stone standard for everything has no consensus. This proposal, I believe, describes the issues surrounding character sections quite well. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a missrepresentation of what went on. The character list guideline proposal at the Theater Wikiproject was for ALL play, opera, musicals, etc. and with so many factions invloved, no consensus was reached either way. In fact, the discussion simply stopped after the guideline author withdrew due to "life" issues, and after one participant did everything he could to sabotage the discussions. Smatprt (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fair and balanced?" :P The fact is, no consensus was reached, at least in part because several editors felt it should be a case-by-case thing, leaving us to decide for ourselves, right here, right now, what we want. Wrad (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we can leave the personal issues aside and simply restate the issue? For my part, I believe play articles in general, and especially Shakespeare articles, should have a character list (also known as a Dramatis Personae) preceding the synopsis. The reasons include readability, greater/easier understanding (especially for students), and including such a section would make the article comprehensive, as defined in section 1(b) of the FA criteria. A number of arguments have been made that agree with this. Here are three that perhaps state it best: One from a nominator [[1]], another from a reviewer [[2]], and finally, my own feelings [[3]]. I look forward to feedback and discussion. Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt, can you respond to the very specific issues raised with having a list for this play? I have several times listed very specific concerns and we have offered several compromises that would make the list easily accessible. Several of us have attempted to respond to the issues that you have raised, but you have not addressed any of our concerns as they relate to this play. (I don't care about the other Shakespeare plays right now as I feel that each play stands alone.) Here are those issues, in the hopes that you might address them:

• I will address them, but I think a most have already been addressed by myself or others. I also disagree with your basic premise in that you feel that each play should stand alone. I, on the other hand, believe there should be some consistency. The fact that you don't care about this make it difficult to respond.Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Information is duplicated between the character list and the synopsis because the character relationships are fairly straightforward. (leading to an issue with summary style)

• If the list were included, then the synopsis would be easier to read and would not require the relationships to be explained within the synopsis. Yes, some duplication might appear, but there is some duplicated information within every article - that is unavoidable, but in no way detracts from the article. For example, in the synopsis we are told of Romeo's "unrequited love for a girl named Rosaline" and in the Dramatic Structure we are told that 'Romeo is in love with Rosaline, who has refused all of his advances" - duplication of information, but so what? No one at FAC has mentioned this so it obviously doesn't bother anyone. I also disagree that this creates an issue with summary style. If this were so, then why would so many film articles that do include character lists (and then mention the characters again in the synopsis) have achieved FA? In addition, according to the guidelines at the theatre project, play articles should include the play infobox, the template of which contains a character list. We all agreed to do away with info boxes on Shakespeare play articles, and a primary reason was that the information in the play info boxes was generally duplicated in the lead and the character section. Deleting that section now would negate that entire line of thinking.Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The characters list includes many very minor characters that are discussed nowhere in the article (not the synopsis, not the analysis). This could make people unfamiliar with the play think that the article is not comprehensive. It could also be considered giving inappropriate weight to part of the topic.

• I'm sorry, but I just don't see how. A single line mention hardy gives undue weight, and I really don't think there will be hordes of readers wondering "Gee, what do those servants do?" Again, I just don't see how this objection carries much validity.Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Many people don't read the lead. For those completely unfamiliar with the play, this format could be very confusing. Starting the body of the article with a character list that provides zero context could confuse those who are trying to figure out just what the play is about. The list itself provides no real information - yes, I know that Lord Capulet is Juliet's father - so what?

• Now this is an odd assertion. If they skip the lead, then I suppose they might skip the character list as well. Or, if they are prone to skipping sections, then how can any editor guard against confusion? But let's take your premise as given - then I would think that if they were confused, then they might go back and read what they purposely missed!Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Having a full section of an article be only a list is very poor prose and structure. Prominently linking to another article that is the list would allow the list format without sacrificing good article structure and prose.

• I simply disagree. Many articles have lists. Many FA articles have lists and tables. In fact, I believe that an occasional list or table, along with compelling graphics, makes an article less imposing, less daunting - especially for students. Simply put, being confronted with pages of prose can be a turn-off.

• I have provided some answers for you. Please see my note below requesting similar consideration. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading the last major discussion on this at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet/Archive_2#Restored_Character_List. --Malkinann (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really too helpful. Just a bunch of pettiness and an agreement that no consensus has been reached yet. Doesn't really reveal much, in my opinion. Same old, same old. Wrad (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the original discussion on whether or not to include character lists. [4] Wrad (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The section prior to the linked one is also important. Wrad (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded above, as requested. In kind, I will say that several editors have listed numerous reasons why they believe the character lists are a helpful, if not essential, element. Andy provided quite an eloquent list, and Dover made many valid points. All remain unanswered. Would the editors that support deletion of this material please respond to the points they raised? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why I don't think this is an FA issue. There are good arguments both ways. Even Awadewit supports this article, although she is more against this type of list than even me. FA articles such as 300 (film) have character lists with no citations and no analysis at all, so why are they FAs? Obviously because the community doesn't really care that much. Since there are obviously good arguments both ways, I don't think an oppose argument on FA against character lists can be supported by consensus. Therefore, since it is a personal preference issue, I think this should not be an FAC issue. Wrad (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we're linking to other discussions, feel free to check out the really long one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre/Archive 4#Character lists in plays then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre/Archive 4#Character Lists in Play Articles. AndyJones (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone here should ask themselves what I asked myself: is it worth drawing a line in the sand over character lists? In the end, I decided it was not. I decided that this article was of such a high quality that it did not matter whether it had a character list or not. This does not mean I personally do not have strong views on the matter - it just means that I think it is more important for the article to be featured than for us to continuously fight about the character lists. I offered what I thought was a decent compromise option - the prose section. I had hoped that a well-written version of that might survive, as I had thought that we might all sort of grudgingly "support" that. However, I worry that we are letting the character list issue balloon out of control a bit. So much of this article is so very good and I would hate to see the FAC push defeated by drama or perhaps turn into a tragedy. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Kind of how I feel. I'm ready to start working on Macbeth now. Can we get through with this? Wrad (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking the List variant

Without here making any comment on the list vs. prose vs. none question; I've tweaked the current character list a bit to make it less imposing and added back the introductory sentence from the prose version. If you hate this list version when compared to the original list version (not relative to whatever other version is your preference!) then please do note it here (or just revert if it's that bad).

Also, those who absolutely hate the list and want it gone might want to take another look and see if this variant is at least slightly less offensive to their eye than the original.

Finally, it's just an experiment; seeing if it'll help at all. If nobody likes it I will in no way oppose reverting it (or, heaven forfend, further refining it). :-) --Xover (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• For my money this is the best version we have seen yet. Although I'm pretty-much in the "list" camp, already. I've made further refinements, and checked against three sources, noting the various discrepancies and other issues in the (now quite lengthy) footnote. AndyJones (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• For comparison, here's how it would look, with short sentences instead of sentence fragments:

AndyJones (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best version proposed thus far. It reduces white space, while providing a short prose introduction. I just wonder if the lengthy note might be incorporated into the prose introduction? I also prefer the complete sentence version vs. the fragment version, but I could go with either one. Smatprt (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good compromise - thank you Andy! --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Xover's idea really - he deserves the credit, I just tidied and tweaked. I will copy the full sentence version across now, before intervening edits make that more difficult. AndyJones (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that. This version seems to please everyone who favours a list. We need comments from those who don't favour a list, now, on whether they consider this an acceptable compromise, or whether they remain opposed to FA, with the article in this form. I'm afraid I'm against promoting the detail in the footnote to the body of the article. The point of the list is to keep it simple, so adding fussy details to the section would definitely be wrong. If that info is to be included it would need to be incorporated into the list itself, which would then make for a (vastly) more cumbersome list. AndyJones (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds right. In that case, I would recommend heading the section "Major Characters" or to keep consistent with the note, perhaps "Prominent Characters", lest future editors fell the need to correct the section so that includes all the "Characters" in the play, as the current heading may imply. Smatprt (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt, this is still a section that is completely a list, still provides little to no context, still duplicates information that should be in the synopsis, still gives equal weight to major and minor characters in the play, and is not in complete sentences so can't even come close to good prose. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand your last point. Which sentences are not complete? I'll fix them. AndyJones (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Are we approaching the point where we (all) have to just agree to disagree and leave it up to the FAC director how to apply the criteria to this section? Right now I don't really see any other way forward. --Xover (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Need to agree to disagree. AndyJones (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I have tweaked the list a bit to address some of your concerns, making the sentences complete, renaming the section for clarity, added a line to the section intro to provide context and a short explanation. I have also answered the questions you put forth above (while noticing that you did not reply in kind, when requested). Having said that, I must agree with Xover that we appear to be done here and should now leave it withe the FAC director to see if the FAC criteria has been met.Smatprt (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference problems - help?

I've checked through all the references, and I've found some problems:

• We have footnotes to a Bloom from 1998 and a Bloom from 2000. In the references section we have a Bloom 1998 and we have a Bloom from 2004.
  •  Done. Bloom 1998 is correct (Harold Bloom's "Invention of the Human"). I cannot trace the original source for Berlioz so I've re-sourced it to Sanders. Ken Bloom's work is now not used as a source so I've removed it from "secondary sources". AndyJones (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• The following don't seem to be used in the footnotes at all:
  • Bordman, Gerald Martin (1994). American Theatre: A Chronicle of Comedy and Drama. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195090799.
  • Colford, Paul D. (11 June 1984). "On the Road again, with free Shakespeare", Newsday.
  • Doran, Madeleine (1954). Endeavors of Art: A Study of form in Elizabethan Drama. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. OCLC 349985.
  • Hinde, Robert (1997). Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective. East Sussex: Psychology Press. ISBN 0863777066.
  • Hollander, Anne (1993). Seeing through Clothes. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520082311.
  • Jackson, Russell (2000). "From play-script to screenplay", The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge University Press, 15–34. ISBN 0521639751.
  • Johnson, Samuel (1765). "Romeo and Juliet". Preface to Shakespeare. eBooks@Adelaide. Retrieved on 2008-11-01. - this one was used to cite the age of Lady C.
  • Kim, James (2004). "The Legend of the White-and-Yellow Black Man: Global Containment and Triangulated Racial Desire in Romeo Must Die". Camera Obscura 19 (1_55): 151–179. doi:10.1215/02705346-19-1_55-151.
  • McKeithan, Daniel Morley (1970). The Debt to Shakespeare in the Beaumont and Fletcher Plays. New York: AMS Press. ISBN 0404041345.
  • Nevo, Ruth (1972). Tragic Form in Shakespeare. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 069106217X.
  • "Shakespeare on the Drive", The New York Times (19 August 1977).
  • Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) on CD-ROM version 3.1. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-861016-8.
  • Palmer, Chris (2003). "‘What tongue shall smooth thy name?’ Recent Films of Romeo and Juliet". Cambridge Quarterly 32 (1): 61–76. doi:10.1093/camqtly/32.1.61.
  • Pappe, Ilan (1997). "Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians Part III: Popular Culture". Journal of Palestine Studies 26 (4): 60–69. doi:10.1525/jps.1997.26.4.00p0006c.
  • Sprecher, Susan; Felmlee, Diane (1992). "The Influence of Parents and Friends on the Quality and Stability of Romantic Relationships: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Investigation". Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (4): 888–900. ISSN 00222445. - this one was used in the old "influences" section to say that the psychological effect is now discredited.
  • Vickers, Brian (Ed.) (1974). Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage 1. London: Routledge.
• In the footnotes, we have Furness (1963). In the Reference list we have "Furness, Horace Howard (1871). Romeo and Juliet, A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare 1. New York: Dover Publications, Inc."
  • Yes, that's a very bad reference: I wonder we didn't spot it. It cites a specific fact, without giving a page number, to a 480-page book written in 1871. I'll try to re-source from elswhere. AndyJones (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done. Covered by Halio. AndyJones (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• In the footnotes, we have Rodriguez (1997: 74). In the Reference list we have "Rodriguez, Clara E. (1998). Latin Looks: Images of Latinas and Latinos in the U.S. Media. Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 0813327660."
  •  Done by re-referencing to Sanders (2007). Removed Rodriguez from Sources. AndyJones (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• In the footnotes, we have Taylor (1962: 18). In the Reference list we have "Taylor, John Russell (1969). The Angry Theatre: New British Drama. New York: Hill and Wang. ISBN 9780809026630."
  • Okay.  Not done. This one is a bit problematic. The original 1962 title of this book was "Anger and after : a guide to the new British drama". Following the logic that the person who added the reference had the 1962 copy in front of him/her, and therefore probably took the page number from there, I have fixed the ref on that basis. Unfortunately this library doesn't have a copy of the book so I cannot double-check. Perhaps this is just an interim measure. If I can source the Romanoff connection from elsewhere I will do so instead. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Still  Not done. Oh, dear. I've found that at Questia. The page number is correct, but all it does is identify the existence of the play: it says none of the things our article says about it. I'll try to find something else. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done now, hooray! Howard covered it. I've removed Taylor. AndyJones (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone who has these references please help? Do we remove the references that are no longer used, or what? --Malkinann (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and remove the ones we aren't using. Awesome work. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves us with the date discrepencies between footnote and reference with John Russell Taylor, Rodriguez, Furness, and Bloom. (Not sure which Bloom - there are two.) I've removed the seemingly unused references. --Malkinann (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed to look into the others: I'll be at the university library tomorrow. AndyJones (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've finished. AndyJones (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote boxes

I prefer the light blue ones to the dark blue ones. The dark blue ones were complained about on FAC, and at first I was against changing them. Then I realized that in the Love section the dark blue ones have some bad wrap-around text problems on my computer, while the light-blue boxes have no such problem. I'd like to keep the light blue quote boxes, if we could. Wrad (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My most recent contribution (a long while ago) made reference to the quote box alongside. The box was light blue then, and seemed to sit well with the overall page. Supporting User:Wrad. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Angevin

It's a given that the story is rooted in the Guelphs and Ghibellines squabble, but there is no justification for adding the redlink Battle of Angevin when only a metaphorical battle is meant. Deleting it again, but if there's a reference which makes this point, in this context, please discuss it here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)