Template talk:Shakespeare authorship question

I think this info would be better as 3 columns. Can anyone do this?Smatprt 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Pages from Template

Please explain the deletion of authorship articles from the authorship template. That's what the template is for. Some theories have more than one supporter or variant. The level of coverage (weight) is directly related to the level of notability. Smatprt (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. What pages were deleted? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom. You know perfectly well that there are two or three more theory-related articles, and there is the reasonable doubt article, to name a few. In the meantime, adding Emmerich, Orloff and Fields to the supporters list.Smatprt (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should supporters be in this template?

I'm questioning whether including a list of supporters in this template is called for. No other fringe theory has its own template with a list of notable supporters. I realize that SAQ arguments include celebrity endorsements as a way of trying to mainstream the theory, but it including them in a template seems to me to involve WP:WEIGHT issues. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant guide on navigation templates. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion at the moment, but if you wanted more views you might consider a post at WT:WikiProject Shakespeare and Talk:Shakespeare authorship question saying there is a discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list should be of "supporters" as such. That serves no purpose other than promotion. If the articles make little or no reference to the support, it does not serve the reader. I think it should be changed to "theorists" or something similar, and should comprise people who have written texts on the topic: Delia Bacon, the Ogburns, Mark Twain etc. Adding Orloff and Emmerich is pointless. They have not contributed to the theory. This is not supposed to be a way of getting the whole of "List of Oxfordian theory supporters" into the template. We already have that article. I've no objection to adding the list article itself to the template.Paul B (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well all the theorists are mentioned and linked from their relevant articles. If they are included, why shouldn't orthodox Shakespeare scholars who have written on the SAQ be included also? While an argument could be made that the SAQ is the only reason most of those names are notable and therefore should be included, including Mark Twain is obvious promotion as he wasn't noted mainly for his SAQ writing. A parallel could be drawn with his travel writing: while he is on a list of notable 19th-century travel writers, his name is certainly not displayed on the template, nor that of any others.

Right now I don't have any hard-and-fast idea of what should be on the template; I would like to hear from editors who have no dog in the fight, but I doubt that any will chime in. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also should it include List of Shakespeare authorship candidates? My thinking is it should. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why orthodox scholars who have written on the subject should not be included. Certainly Shapiro should. Twain is borderline, I guess. He didn't add anything significant to arguments, beyond his name, but he did write a whole book - or booklet. As far as I'm concerned the role of the template is to help readers find relevant articles. That includes both list articles. But it is not for listing impressive-looking names on the template. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well again my point is that Clemens is not primarily notable for his promotion of anti-Stratfordism, nor are Shapiro or Schoenbaum or Bate primarily notable for their writings about it. I can see including Abel Lefranc along with Bacon and Looney, because unfortunately his Derby theory is what he's most remembered for, at least in the English-speaking world, but Alden Brooks and James Wilde? Brooks is on the borderline, but I suppose he belongs because he is the Dyer theory originator. I guess we need to take it on a case-by-case basis. I would support retitling the section "Noted theorists" and leaving Hart, Bacon, Owen, Greenwood, Lefranc, Looney, Brooks, the Ogburns, and Hoffman. Every other person either are not Primarily notable for their anti-Stratfordism or followed the main theorists and should be properly classified as a supporter and not a theorist.

I dunno, I go first one way and then the other. Maybe we should just take off Wilde, Clemens, Emmerich, and Orloff and add the supporters and candidate articles. I think any more than that would be taken as advocacy or provocation. What say you? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we don't need to link every theorist - we don't want to make the template unwieldy. That goes for every "candidate" too of course. I don't have strong feelings about particular individuals, just that we should have a proper balance, and that the template should function as a navigation tool to all the main theories and articles that can actually inform readers about the topic. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Twain article goes to his book, Smatprt added the DRD to the theory section, and I really think that since Emmerich and Orloff shot a movie about it, they should stay. I really don't think Fields should be there just because he wrote a derivative book (we could fill a complete page with examples of that--hey, how about an article "List of people who have ever written about the SAQ"? Then we could split it into pro and con and get another page out of it. By that time we should be able to create "List of templates that include the SAQ" and make a template for it!), but I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about it, so I guess we're done here until things get out of hand. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming template

I've trimmed some peripheral candidates and supporters from the template according to my interpretation of WP:NAV. Unless there's a separate authorship article or the candidate has garnered modern attention, they should not be on template. Same goes for "theorists": if the Emmerich, the director of a movie, is included (and it is obvious by now that his support was for promotional purposes), by the same logic all the actors should be included also, since they also promoted the movie in the same manner as he. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about John Paul Stevens? He's fairly well established as an Oxfordian. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]