Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 2

Good article criteria

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurat e and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used;

(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and

(c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.

Above posted here for discussion. AndyJones 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just proposed a plan for GA status in the to do box at the top of the page. This seemed to work well on the Shakespeare page, so I think it will do well here. The main problems I see so far are breadth and citation issues, so those should probably be resolved first. I'm going to go ahead and start putting tags on uncited material...Wrad 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone read Italian? The Italian version of this article is an FA, and looks very good. Wrad 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Italian page wouldn't make GA if it was translated over here - it's severely lacking in inline citations. Not every sentence needs an inline citation, but certainly every challengeable or obscure-to-a-layman claim does. If you take a peek at Wikipedia:Good article review, the process where delisting articles takes place, the most common argument for delisting is lack of inline citations. Here's a rough translation of part of the section beginning with Commento, using an online translator and some rewording:

"Comment - Romeo and Juliet, tragedy of Fortune - Destiny and free will in the medieval age - Romeo and Juliet is still in large parts a medieval drama, anchored in the argument profane: a lot of these works, told also in short stories, spoke of the rise of kings, lords and emperors and of their fall as being fated. The same is true for the more romantic versions of these edifying stories, almost always the unhappy stories of lovers. In general in the medieval age, personal defects and self-determination had no power in the events of men, regulated alone from an often cruel providence and inscrutable, literary opposing party of the varied memento mori guarded in medieval homes, from the gruesome black-cloaked Death, with a scythe in hand; to varied statuettes on the same subject." - I think that means they kept tiny statues of Death in their houses. Hope that helps. -Malkinann 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Films section

The Films is messy. I suggest turning it into paragraphs. 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRabbit1983 (talk • contribs)

• I'm doing some work on that, here. Can you leave that little project with me for a day or so? AndyJones 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I've created Romeo and Juliet on screen. I'm pretty happy with it at first glance: it's an improvement on the relevant section of Shakespeare on screen, anyway. I've replaced the film and tv sections of this article with its lede by way of summary. I'd be grateful for views on whether this is a good approach to keeping this detail, which is sometimes rather crufty, out of the main article. I've left a separate message on the topic at User talk:RedRabbit1983. AndyJones 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • My next task will be to merge Opera, Ballet and Musicals into one section called "Music", and to prosify it, to seek out any necessary sources, and to add Romanoff and Juliet (which really needs an article, by the way: I studied it for O-level, it's hardly of borderline notability). AndyJones 07:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Burbage Photo

Excellent work guys. Really! I had a question about the Burbage graphic - I recall seeing some images somewhere of a younger Burbage. It would be great to see that image on this page (instead of the older Burbage) - to give us more of a visual of what he looked like when he played Romeo. Also - the statement about Burbage being a first Romeo is unsourced. Anyone know where that came from? As an actor and director, these facts intrique me and other theatre professionals, even though they have little or nothing to do with the authorship! Thanks.

P.S. - While I will still participate in Talk, I am keeping my edits light or non-existant for a few days. I don't want to bog down any pages being such a "controversial" editor right now, so I have also stopped any formatting work on the plays themselves (I had just about gotten thru them all, just hadn't gone back to check) as well as any additons I might make.Smatprt 22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a source, but I'm looking for a better one. I also thought the picture was a bit old. A younger version would be welcome. Wrad 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's this one, but I'm not sure about copyright issues etc. -Malkinann 03:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well..? That certainly looks alot more like a Romeo than the old guy! Surely it is in public domain by now! Smatprt 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:COM:ART, the UK has much stricter public domain laws concerning photos of old pictures than some other countries. The site itself has a copyright policy that says that images should only be used non-commercially, which contradicts the GFDL.-Malkinann 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a ref for Burbage. Wrad 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm about to start this section, and based on similar articles I've done in the past, I think that the Themes section is basically just going to melt into a series of subsections within the Criticism section. There will be themes, they will just be a part of that section. Just giving everyone a heads up. Wrad 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries - the themes section is kind of first-draft anyway. I've been hoping that just by starting it with sources (although I think maybe that reference to Shakespeare Online could be replaced with a reference to Draper's starcrossed lovers paper... I'll have to have another look at it...) that perhaps others would take up the cause. I've been coming across some sources where they're saying when taught in high school, the play can be used to broach the topic of teenage suicide, but I wasn't sure if the pedagogy of Romeo and Juliet really fitted anywhere. Chances are any 14 year old who's looking up the play on Wikipedia to get their head around this old play that they got assigned will be canny enough to realise that they could end up talking about teenage suicide in class. -Malkinann 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely we can come up with true "Theme" sections on these plays and not wrap them into another section. Admittedly, no success right now, but there are lots of editors out there who have the expertise to write a proper section. Shakespeare's themes are universal and he clarified them so like no other author that they actually do stand the test of time. At least Malkinann got some stuff up to start, and Andy has been doing great work turning lists into prose - why not let Malkinann keep coming up with various tidbits and sources and then let Andy and others turn it into Wiki prose? Smatprt 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It'll happen however it happens. I may be right, I may be wrong. In the end, we'll just have to see how it develops. Wrad 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot happier in the work I've done if other people were also to contribute (sourced ;) ) bits and bobs to the themes section, especially from more recent scholarship, or from books, or from journals not available on JSTOR. The ones I've used thus far span. -Malkinann 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was wrong. Now it looks as though the themes will do well as part of the Analysis section, followed by a Criticism section outlining the play as viewed through different literary theories. I organized our list into different themes that a rough review of my material seemed to show are commonly talked about by scholars. Wrad 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

MLA format

I've been using MLA format with all my references. Can we make this the standard, so we don't have a lot of cleanup to do afterwards? If anyone isn't sure how to do it, they can copy my form, or look it up on the net. Either that or I can fix their refs for them. Wrad 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually use the Citation Templates. Are those in MLA?--Romeo in love 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not different. I'd rather not use them. I don't really like them because they can't handle complex citations. I do use them for web citations though. Wrad 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Who? tags

I took them off of the top of the theme section per this statement from the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words page that they link to:

"As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. While ideally every assertion and assumption that is not necessarily true would have the various positions on it detailed and referenced, in practice much of human knowledge relies on the probably true rather than the necessarily true, and actually doing this would result in the article devolving into an incoherent jumble of backtracking explanations and justifications."

Also, the "in a nutshell" section says: "Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources."

Since a source is provided for all of the statements at the end of the paragraph, and to list all of the individuals who said this or that would be an "incoherent jumble" in my mind, I don't think I should do it. I wouldn't call these statements weasel words, anyway, since they don't really give unfair credence to any point of view. I'm pretty clear in the paragraph that none of the ideas are accepted as mainstream, so no one is going to think that anyway. To me, weasel words are another form of POV pushing, and i don't see that as a problem at all, here. Wrad 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated review suggestions

Now this may seem a bit silly, but I've had an article put on hold because an automated tool came back with too many lines. - Malkinann 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been - in the lead.
  • arguably - covered by the "Sex, love and death" citation.
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, don't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Stage Adaptations

I added R+J in the stage adaptations section and it has been removed. It definitely exists and it is based off Romeo and Juliet and uses text from the script in the play. Why was it removed? Sydneysaurus 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are talking about has been moved to the Screen section to highlight its importance a little better. You are right, it exists, and not only that, but it is one of the more critically acclaimed versions of the story on film. Definitely deserves a spot. Wrad 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not know it was also a film! Wow! Sydneysaurus 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

Some of the claims in the first paragraph either need to be referenced or replaced. It is one of the most famous of Shakespeare's plays, one of his earliest theatrical triumphs, and is thought to be the most archetypal love story of the Renaissance and indeed in the history of Western culture.

Out of all these, I think the shakiest is the "earliest triumph" one. Wasn't Henry VI a much earlier triumph? The rest we may be able to find refs for, but I'm sure we can find some even better things, as well. Wrad 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing synopsis

I think the biggest problem with this page at the moment is a lack of sources for the plot synopsis. Footnotes skip from 18 in Date and Text to 19 in Analysis.

I can guess what you may be thinking in response to that comment: does it really matter? Can't the play simply be its own source on the question of what its own plot is? Isn't this merely a technical infringement of WP:OR, but not really a big deal?

Well, I'll give one example of why I think it does matter. As it stands, the article says:

Juliet states that she will make an effort to love him, but will not go express a love that is not there.

Now, setting aside the fact that there's clearly a typo towards the end there, this seems to me to be a wikipedian trying to explain what he or she thinks the passage means. But in fact I think it means more-or-less the opposite. The passage...

I'll look to like, if looking liking move.

But no more deep will I endart mine eye

Than your consent gives strength to make it fly.

...is not a defiant "I'll make up my own mind, thank you", but a submissive "I'll do whatever you think is best".

Obviously, I could be wrong about this I'm not, of course, but I could be, and that's part of my point. It's not for Wikipedians to interpret the primary facts: that's the professional critic's job. Our role is to record existing knowledge (which is the core of theWP:OR policy).

As for sourcing, I suggest looking first at student texts like York Notes or similar. I think they're perfectly reliable sources, and they're likely to contain the type of material we need. AndyJones 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as clean of sources as we can, but if we feel a need, we shouldn't hesitate to add them. We also need to be sure to have an accurate-as-possible plot synopsis, obviously. Wrad 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The stated examples should be fixed - but sources aren't needed for the synopsis. Sources are only needed if a piece of information is challenged (per WP:REF - "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." under When to Cite Sources). The plot of romeo and juliet is not likely to be challenged, as it is common knowledge.--danielfolsom 20:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was trying to find a way to express that. If something in the synopsis is likely to be challenged, it should be cited. Otherwise, we should just be as clear as we can without citations. Good point. Whether or not this is likely to happen remains to be seen. Wrad 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy, no-one's stopping you from adding information from York Notes. Corroborating the information sourced from academia with citations from York Notes or other such guides would probably be very useful to teenagers studying R&J. -Malkinann 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome sentence

It's difficult to correct this sentence:

Romeo and Juliet has been performed and adapted many times since its publication, including stage, film, musical and operatic forms.

If you read it as "Rome and Juliet has been performed... many times, including stage form", you can see the error. Perhaps,

Romeo and Juliet has been peformed and adapted many times, on stage, in film, and in musical and operatic forms, since its publication?

Would that work? I am not a wizard, so I don't know. RedRabbit 11:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the solution that popped into my head as I was looking at it. Looks good. Wrad 14:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt.Smatprt 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Melodramatic

The play is less critically acclaimed than Shakespeare's other great tragedies, being seen by some as merely melodramatic...

I figure I'll start this conversation. I added this statement because the source, Draper, outlines it as a fairly significant viewpoint. He names several scholars with this opinion in a pretty impressive list, and then implies that there are others. I know that it may be controversial to big fans of the Bard, but it's true. Wrad 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And Draper speaks for all scholars and audiences? I think this kind of sweeping statement belongs elsewhere (if at all) - but certainly not in the lead. Hamlet is seen by "some" as melodramatic. Many see all of Shakespeare as melodramatic. Do these opinons belong in the lead?? Also - two of the world' most performed plays? Who on earth is keeping count? Again - it should not be inthe lead, if at all. In MHO.Smatprt 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also - Doesn't that kind of statement (if needed at all) belong under critical response or something? It is opinion and not fact, yes?Smatprt 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well... is anything in criticism a real fact? :), but I kind of agree, maybe it shouldn't be in the lead. See below. Wrad 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the melodrama thing, you may be right about it not belonging in the lead, but the most performed I think definitely belongs. It's obvious and well-sourced. Wrad 16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried a compromise that addresses both of our concerns. What do you think?Smatprt 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I liked it. I just added all but melodrama back on criticism, though. I just hope that we don't get hammered for being too pro-Bard again, and was trying to compensate for it... Probably not a good idea. Wrad 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good last addition. I think the lead reads much better now and has a better chance of passing FA (eventually)Smatprt 16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

screen adaptations

This section needs more development. We could probably talk more about the West side story film, as well as the other copycats. This would keep the High School Musical from stealing the stage so much (pun intended). Wrad 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some. Wrad 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't quite see what you've tried to do. Haven't you removed WSS (& Romanoff and possbily others)? Was that the intention? AndyJones 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've found your edit, here. I don't agree. Of course they're mentioned elsewhere, but one sentence under "films" listing them and mentioning that they've been filmed hardly seems inappropriate, or overkill, to me. AndyJones 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - especially in regards to West Side Story - which was groundbreaking in so many respects. The line in the "Music" section is appropriate to the stage musical, but the film itself should be under screen as well and could certainly be expanded. Like High School Musical, WSS was responsible for introducing millions to the story of R & J - and that is a great thing! Smatprt 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind re-adding them, but please reword it, keeping in mind that it has already been mentioned in the article. I'd like a bit more on the WSS film, to be honest!

I did a bit more than just that, too. I expanded on Romeo must die and Shakespeare in Love from some scholarly sources I found. Wrad 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

I'm about to apply for GA. I think the article more than satisfies the breadth and reliable sources requirements. The images are good. The only thing that may be needed is more copyediting, but I think that can be handled during a GA hold just as well as any other time. Are there any things we absolutely should do before nominating? Wrad 22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix up the three High School Musical citations in the "on screen" section. I've had a go at them, but I'm not sure if it's got enough information. -Malkinann 00:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, let me check... I think it's good now. Wrad 00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I'm concerned about is that some sections only have a couple of citations.. for GA it is desirable for every paragraph to have a citation, if possible/needed. The variety of English used in the article will need to be changed to British English at some point as a Manual of Style issue. -Malkinann 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about style. Are there any paragraphs besides synopsis without refs? I just checked, and all paragraphs seem to have at least three. The one with the least is language. I could divide that up into narrower page ranges later on, but I doubt that will be a GA issue... Wrad 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting having been done by several editors over the past few days, I have nominated it. Wrad 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Date?

The exact date Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet is unknown.

Shakespeare wrote it all in one day? RedRabbit 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I rewrote the sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedRabbit1983 (talk • contribs) 13:55:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

First sentence

I don't really know myself what the first sentence should say, but I have noticed the debate going on over what the play is "about". The fact is, scholars can't even agree on this issue. Is it about love? Reconciliation? The evils of family feuds? There is no consensus. It may be best to just avoid the word "about" and say it in another way. Wrad 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that we can just take 'about' literally - as in - put simply, "the play is about romeo and juliet"?--danielfolsom 04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody would argue about that, but it's so obvious it isn't really necessary to say it... Wrad 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In an introduction I would say it is - sure it's obvious to us - but what's obvious to one is mystery to another--danielfolsom 04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to say that a play titled Romeo and Juliet is about Romeo and Juliet is no mystery at all :) Wrad 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nononono - i changed the actual article - i was wondering how that was.--danielfolsom 05:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the new wording replacing "about". Is eachother one word? Wrad 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

based on this random amazon ad: no.--danielfolsom 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't restore "about... how rival families are united by their deaths". Romeo and Juliet is no more about that than Macbeth is about Macbeth dying. Death is the result of the play, not the centre of it (the thing which it is "about"). RedRabbit 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things

• "details" sounds like we are describing a technical manual, not a work of art. I find nothing wrong with "about", but maybe there is another word out there...
• The previous edit that RedRabbit is concerned with did NOT say the play was about death. It said that R&J's "untimely deaths" brought an end to the rivalry and united the families. And that IS one of the main subjects the play is about. Rivalry and reconciliation are certainly central to the plot and I know of no scholars who say it is not. In fact, if we simply listen to the Chorus, the play is indeed about "two households" and how R&J's deaths cause their parents to end their "strife". Of course it's not ABOUT death, but how their deaths put an end to the age-old rivalry. Without an end to the rivalry, the play would be a glorification of suicide. But I return to the Chorus, who does indeed tell audiences what the play is about:

"The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, And the continuance of their parents' rage, Which, but their children's end, nought could remove, Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;"Smatprt 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I really did think that the early version (before this whole debate) was an elegant summary of the plot. these changes have cut most of this summary, leaving a bit of a hole in the intro, in my opinion. Wrad 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Absolutely fantastic work. Now get working on Shakespeare's other plays. Alientraveller 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Will do! Wrad 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Operatic adaptations

I've corrected the rather ignorantly-written section about the Gounod and Bellini operas and added a bit (apologies for not putting in an edit summary). Three things strike me, though:

• I can't see why Hoiby's opera gets a special mention, especially as the Hoiby article says that it "awaits its world premiere"! Perhaps this was put in by some publicist or by Hoiby himself? I'd be extremely inclined to remove this sentence.
• A few of the other 22, or whatever, operas on the subject are still being performed today (indeed, I saw one of them last month, by Georg Benda). Shall I expand this section a bit? Would there be any merit in a separate page entitled "List of operas based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet", which I could easily provide?
• No comment at all is made in the article on Gounod's opera, which, like Bellini's, doesn't exactly stick to Shakespeare's story. It is also a lot more well-known than the Bellini. Should I add something about it (sourced, of course)?

--GuillaumeTell 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do expand this. Opera is one of my weak spots, to be honest. Wrad 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Guelphs and Ghibellines

Is there no suggestion that the Capulets and Montagues were inspired by Guelphs and Ghibellines? Since there were factions in Verona, it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Ninquerinquar 23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We'd need a source for it if we wanted to add it. Then it would be fine. Wrad 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the theory on the Guelphs and the Ghibellines more recent than the 1930 The Origins of the Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy? Cos that article says stuff about other political factions. -Malkinann 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen them referred to as G and Gs, but not in anything scholarly. I was wondering if anyone knew. Have you read the whole "Origins" article to see if the Montecchi and Cappelletti were associated with G and G? I can only see page one unless I sign up. Ninquerinquar 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It does talk about them. I'll see what I can do. Wrad 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked it over, and I don't know whether it is important enough to be added in the main article. The situation with G & G is kind of complicated and would take up a lot of space, and this article sums up relevant points pretty well. We may want to put it in a sub article though, for characters or something. Wrad 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet template

I've made a template for Romeo and Juliet, along the same lines as the Hamlet one, but I don't think it's quite ready yet to go onto the main page and the related articles. Please take a look and leave suggestions here. (it appears collapsed because there are other templates on this talk page - it wouldn't be collapsed on the articles unless there was another template there already).

DionysosProteus 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To Sources I would add Palace of Pleasure, Troilus and Criseyde, and Ephisaica. These are some of the more common examples, as well as the ones already on the template. Also maybe put the film adaptations after the film performances, if that makes sense. All in all, I think it looks wonderful. Wrad 00:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Butterfly Lovers

Someone added this as an external link. I don't think it belongs there, but it may be good to put it somewhere in the article. Wrad 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern adaptations

I've removed this from the lead:

More recent versions, including those on film, have adapted the play for a modern audience, often placing the action in a familiar context.

It is the fallacy of successive generations to believe that they invented the idea of setting an old story in a modern context.

We can name in the current generation, only by widely known film, the following: West Side Story, Romeo+Juliet, and Highschool Musical.

This isn't such a new idea. Romeo and Juliet's principal themes are, as explored well in this article, quite well covered in the drama of Pyramus and Thisbe (see this). Of course that drama was set during the reign of the legendary queen Semiramis, sometimes identified with an actual queen who lives in the ninth century BC...

It's pretty fair to say that Romeo and Juliet inspires many stories of doomed lovers. It's also fair to say that more recent stories such as those I've listed above are adaptations of Romeo and Juliet. It's only the statement that "more recent version" are about this. They're all about bringing a classic story up to date. Each adds its own weight, according to its stature in the fullness of time. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we didn't invent the idea, it is nevertheless true that adapting the plays is a current trend that was not followed in the early nineteenth century as much as it is now. Early nineteenth century directors focused more and more on being true to the text until around 1960-70. I want to keep some semblance of that idea in the lead. Any ideas how? Wrad 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you might get at what you want by talking in terms of cinema, rather than adaptations in general, as the audio-visual qualities are specific to modern adaptations? less focus on the verse, more on the visuals, along with a contemporary setting / relocated to... etc. ... something along those lines? DionysosProteus —Preceding comment was added at 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So just getting more specific? Wrad 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

De dum de dum de dum de dum de dum

much of Romeo and Juliet is written in iambic pentameter, with ten syllables of alternating stress in each line. However, the most common form used is blank verse, a more fluid, nonstructured approach, although Shakespeare uses this form less often in this play than in his later plays.

Above seems very misleading. Blank Verse and Iambic Pentameter aren't two different verse styles, as this implies. Blank verse is verse written in unrhymed iambic pentameter. Can we rethink this whole section? AndyJones (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole section? Why not just say it's unrhymed? Wrad (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote above seems to be implying that "iambic pentameter" means exactly five iambs, whereas iambic pentameter#Rhythmic variation allows variations, and indeed starts by quoting Shakespeare. How about

most of Romeo and Juliet is written in blank verse, and much of it in strict iambic pentameter, with less rhythmic variation than in most of Shakespeare's later plays.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that version. Wrad (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, in the absence of dissenting voices, I've inserted the above into the article in a way that I hope makes sense. I've left in the "citation needed" flags, however - can someone provide them? (And am I dreaming, or does the Nurse actually talk prose most of the time?) --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is cited by the final ref at the end of the section, believe it or not. Also, to whoever put cite tags on the sources section, all of that is cited as well. It's just not cited at the end of each sentence, but at the end of general lines of thought. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that particular reference (Halio, pp.48-60) needs splitting up a bit, then? -Malkinann (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Wrad (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Romeo Montague with poison.jpg

Image:Romeo Montague with poison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Animated series

This section just isn't notable enough to be in this article, given all the much more famous performances of the play that are already here. We don't want this article to be a haphazard list of every TV show that ever mentioned Romeo and Juliet. It isn't possible to make the list comprehensive, it isn't very informative, and it just isn't that important to the play itself. Wrad (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Really a farce or comedy, not a tragedy?

I had heard that Romeo and Juliet is really either a farce or comedy, not a tragedy. The rationale was that it was absolutely unthinkable that teenagers of that day would go against their parents wishes on such a matter, and that audiences would have found it not just funny, but completely hysterical that these two would have committed suicide, professing true love at such an age. Is there any truth to this, and, if so, shouldn't it be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoyer (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, and I doubt it's true. Here's why: Shakespeare was borrowing his plot from an old Italian story. In Italy, it wasn't quite as crazy to do such things, especially in literature. Elizabethan England seems to have had a high demand for such Italian stories since they seemed to represent a Romantic, emotional world foreign to their own. I don't think they would have seen it as a comedy, especially since in all early publications of the play it was called a tragedy. Wrad (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes, citations and references etc

Does anyone mind if I convert this to the same format we used for Hamlet? This is a nightmare to edit with templates all over the place, and the citations themselves are far from consistant. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means, yes! Wrad (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just done the first step. I'll do it in stages to protect against accidental data loss. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that I've taken out journal page nos from the refs (though they are in the cites). Are we happy with them like this (it gives consistency to the cites, I suppose) or should I put them back into the refs tomorrow?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving them out. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Official" text

Referring again to Hamlet, does anyone object if the text is standardised on Arden? The latest is the second edition, which is quite elderly (1980). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I only have one objection to this: the quotation sourced by ref 56 in the Gender section. This quote is in the source quoted later in the paragraph, and I think it is necessary to use their version since it is crucial to their point, if that makes sense. Wrad (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect sense :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My to-do list

Alright, if this is going to be the next wikiproject FA drive, here's a personal AndyJones-will-be-doing-list, which I'm posting here so that I don't unintentionally step on everyone else's toes:

1. Reworking Romeo and Juliet on screen (mostly written by me the first time around) to be more like the format subsequently developed at Hamlet on screen.
2. Reworking Romeo and Juliet#Screen (also mostly written by me the first time around) to be less discursive and more direct - and very probably shorter. More like a shorter version of the layout at Hamlet#Screen performances.
3. Reworking Romeo and Juliet#Performance history to the extent that I think it can usefully be expanded from the sources I have here. That should be much quicker and easier than the same exercise at Hamlet and The Tempest because:
   1. The section on this page is already in pretty good shape and has lots of breadth; and
   2. I've done some work on this page in the past myself (although I wasn't part of the GA drive) so some of my material is, no doubt, already here.

To some extent this means I'll be off-wikipedia more than usual in the first few days of this, reading up on these things. AndyJones (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy, I wrote a lot of these sections so if you have questions, just ask. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I think other than Andy's stuff the article just needs a copy-edit. Other problems may come up with that kind of close reading that we can fix as we go. Wrad (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs a copy edit but I'm not sure it's yet quite of the same standard as Hamlet. For a start, it is not as closely cited. The synopsis also needs some work and the basic structure is different. Give me a day or two to think about it and I'm sure this can be put down into a critical path list. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Brainstorming out loud: Basic structure isn't too different. Seems like we just need to cut the character section and possibly add some historical context. Wrad (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the character section cut out in Hamlet because of summary style? Perhaps this could be reflected in WP:BARD's article structure guidelines at some point. I've linked the R&J characters as they appear in the synopsis section, but I've linked the apothecary to the profession's page rather than the entry in the minor characters. (which didn't even link to the profession's page!) What kind of historical context would be helpful? There may be a little in the Italian FA page, but we'd have to go on a citation hunt. -Malkinann (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there will be as much relevant context for R&J as for Hamlet. Hamlet is just so over-examined! I could be wrong, though. The characters section was removed because it was thought that relevant characters could be covered well enough in the plot section. Wrad (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Context wise I was reading some interesting stuff about duelling and its importance in Elizabethan society, and tying this into why there is so much fencing in R&J. I'll dig it out. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

That, and they're covered in their own articles, or in the Minor R&J characters page. In Romeo_and_Juliet#19th_century, who is Saunders? It's cited to Halio. -Malkinann (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Might have been cut out in a copyedit. I'll have to look back at the edit history a ways. Wrad (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a critical history sub-section. Which will need writing. I can do some of this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the deleted Character section into Minor characters in Romeo and Juliet and renamed it Characters in Romeo and Juliet so we've got a complete character list somewhere. This is now hatnoted in the synopsis. The Characters article will need cleaning up a bit there at some stage.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. :) -Malkinann (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We also have the synopsis first in the Hamlet article. Do we want to do the same here? Wrad (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - the reasoning in the Wikipedia:Peer review/Hamlet/archive1 about the placing of the synopsis is sound. -Malkinann (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done this, and made one or two changes to section headings and nesting to more closely reflect the Hamlet structure.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the more bizarre requests I've seen in some FAC is the request that there be no red links in the article. Just so that we're prepared for this eventuality - you can argue that it isn't a FA requirement. I've seen some Africa-related articles put up for FAC, with a few to quite a few red links, and that's just due to a bias issue in Wikipedia. Or you could remove the red link, either through making it plaintext, or quickly throwing together a stub. Gérard Presgurvic, Folger Shakespeare Theatre, Mary McVicker, juliet cap, Il Novellino are all the red links currently in this article. What do we plan to do about them? -Malkinann (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unless someone feels sufficiently impelled to create articles, do nothing. It's a nurban myth than redlinks are not permitted in FA candidates. I've often thought that WP:SOFIXIT is the best reply to FAC naysayers. I see you share this view :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• after edit conflict Red links are good. People who complain about them at FAC need to have the principles explained to them. (In fact, I remember a thread at WPtalk:FAC on this very topic.) However, the red-links need to be good ones, so I'd suggest turning juliet cap into plain text, and letting the others stand. AndyJones (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a free image of a juliet cap? Might be worth putting in with a caption? - "this is what a juliet cap looks like", or something. Given that bridal veil redirected to "Who comes to a wedding" until I redirected it to veil, I don't think WP needs a full article on it, although an image would be nice. -Malkinann (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find one and failed. Maybe drop a note at the fashion project. Wrad (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might just be picturecruft, anyway. The picture of Juliet and her nurse will be deleted off commons - it's not public domain yet. -Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical history/reception

I promised to write this last week. However, after a thorough look through my sources (virtually the complete set of Cambridge Companions to Shakespeare, and various books by Shapiro and Kermode) I simply haven't anywhere near enough information to do this. I'm away for the weekend and don't really want to hold this up further. Can someone else write - or perhaps draft - this? Many thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When I researched this for GA, I didn't find much either. Romeo and Juliet just isn't valued critically as much as other plays. Its value lies mainly in its performance history. I don't think we need a critical history section. Wrad (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to make promises that I might not be able to follow through with, but I might be able to help. I do have access to a lot of old books of Shakespearean criticism, and while I agree that Romeo and Juliet is not as well covered by the critics as some of the other plays, there are so many books that I'm sure I'd find something. (They'd be more in the line of literary analysis than performance criticism.) On the other hand, I don't have a lot of time at the moment. Could someone point me to an article about one of Shakespeare's plays that does have a good critical history section, so that I can look at it and see what's involved? Cowardly Lion (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet Wrad (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can find anything worthwhile and add it over the next few days. But I'll be quite happy if someone else gets there first. Cowardly Lion (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I took a look and found it was more complicated than it seemed, and then I got carried away with The History of King Lear. Sorry. I may still try, if I find anything useful, but perhaps others might be able to find something first? Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

romeo and benvolio

i really need some information about romeo and juliet. im contrasting the following characters romeo and benvolio, benvolio and tybalt, romoe and tybalt, lady capulet and nurse, and mercutio im suppose to pick one set and im having a little trouble can u help me pick some and give me some detals about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.253.126 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Characters in Romeo and Juliet and the sub-articles on each character for starters. -Malkinann (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dramatist's message?

i noticed you didn't include any info in the dramatist's message

fair enough it might not be that hard but not everyone gets it as easily as some

please put it in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.246.59 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand you. Exactly what is it you want? Wrad (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The "dramatist's message".. hmmm.... dramatist is another word for playwright, which would be Shakespeare in this case. You might want to read the "Themes and motifs" section thoroughly for thoughts on what his message(s) might be. -Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Why is it "ridiculous" for me to ask for a source on "Romeo and Juliet ranks with Hamlet as one of Shakespeare's most-performed plays"? It strikes me as potentially easy to source if correct, but far from inherently obvious. If we are intending to push for FA on this article isn't it reasonable to expect that everything will be sourced? (see here) AndyJones (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source was in the very next sentence and it was frustrating to me. I can never tell where to put those darn tags. Seems like someone always thinks there's either too few or too many. The rest of your tags made sense, I just thought that one was overkill and I probably overreacted. Sorry. Wrad (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Do you think Romeo and Juliet deserved to die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.1.28 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I think the Romeo and Juliet page would be greatly improved by the following link: http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=4. It goes to a great site, TheFinalClub.org, designed as a free-education portal for everyone. You can read countless public domain texts with hypertext annotations like the ones that accompany Romeo and Juliet. All of the content is free to view, highly accessible, and especially inspiring to young students. Most importantly, anyone can add his or her own annotations to any text that appears on the site. This is a perfect portal for wikipedia users to share their literary thoughts with others, sans threat of being deleted. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Go ahead, put it in the external links, use bits of it in the article. But I don't understand, having it as an external link is not going to improve the article. Use references from it in the sections abou the actual play itself. Have a nice day,Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, please keep in mind that the person making the request is the site's owner. Please see the discussion regarding this link on his talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FA plan?

Things have been pretty quiet of late. Maybe we're still grieving over Mercutio's death. Or Tybalt's, though that's less likely. I know AndyJ has been working on the screen subarticle. Still, though, what's the plan? What should we do to get this to FA? Wrad (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're still languishing for want of a "critical history" section which is difficult to write - google scholar for "critical history" "Romeo and Juliet" gives about 300 hits, the same for "critical history of romeo and juliet" give none. :o I'd be inclined to say "stuff the critical history" and nominate anyway, if that's the only issue - FAC can't really expect us to find something that isn't there. -Malkinann (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I think we're trying too hard to make this exactly like Hamlet when the comparison really just isn't there. R&J doesn't have the critical interest Hamlet does. I think we need to move on to other issues such as copyediting. Wrad (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still a couple of fact-tags in the Ballet section which need dealing with. -Malkinann (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Before you give up the search on critical histories you could try finding Shakespearean Criticism: Criticism of William Shakespeare's Plays & Poetry, from the First Published Appraisals to Current Evaluations It claims that "Volumes one through ten present critical overviews of each play and feature criticism from the 17th century to the present". eNotes.com says that volumes 5, 11, 33 and 51 deal with Romeo and Juliet... so volume 5 seems like the magic book to look up at the local library. If you feel this section is necessary to include at this time.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. I've found the volume and it has a nice summary and some good primary material as well. Wrad (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Critical history now added!! Wrad (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did Romeo when to the ball and why did his mom die

In the article it says Romeo whent to the ball to meet Rosaline, in the play however it's so he can meet other women and forget about Rosaline. Which is the correct way? Also, I recall that Lady Montague died because of her son's death, not because he was in excile. Again wich is the correct way? Rdrg93 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Benvolio suggests that he should go to the ball to "examine other beauties", but Romeo goes "no such sight to be shown, but to rejoice in splendour of mine own", that is, to see Rosaline. As for Lady Montague's death, Montague says "grief of my son's exile hath stopped her breath". It couldn't have been the other way, since she could hardly have been aware Romeo had died before Act V scene 3, since that's the scene he dies in. AndyJones (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well then my English teacher misinturpreted it.Rdrg93 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but it's reading and understanding this stuff for yourself that's important, not relying on your English teacher.  ;-) AndyJones (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Push

An FA push is near, but first I think we should verify these statements: Several ballet versions have also been composed; the best-known is Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, first performed in 1938. This version is perhaps the most well known story ballet still performed to this day. This Stalin-approved version is dramatically different than what Prokofiev originally intended to create.. Thanks, Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting the second sentence and either deleting or modifying the third?

• "The most well known story ballet" - what is a "story ballet"? Isn't, let's say, Swan Lake one? And isn't it better-known than Prokofiev's R&J?
• Neither Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) nor any of the external links cited there make any reference to any Stalin-approval. The 2nd link is the most useful, as it says that Prokofiev originally intended a happy ending (plus the article states - BUT without any citations - that the original version is to be performed later this year), so maybe the sentence can be reworked. Maybe raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ballet?

GuillaumeTell 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored Character List

After bringing the discussion of character lists to WikiProject Theatre - see [[1]], a consensus has developed that all articles about plays, operas, etc., should have a character list, and that this should be a policy across all such Wiki articles. Currently, there is a 100% consensus that this should be the case. Rather than go into reasons here, please see that discussion. In the meantime, I have restored the Character list to this article in recognition of that consensus. Smatprt (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a 100% consensus there now I look at it. (Also now that I added my own opinion against it.) And there is certainly not a wide enough consensus to call it a policy. Besides, you've got a pretty big group of editors in this project, which is a branch of the theatre project, who are against including it. It's not time to start using the words "consensus" or especially "policy" quite yet. That said, I'm not going to revert anything without comments from other editors. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now with you and Roger it's still over 80% in favor of character lists - whether major character only or not seems to be the question.Smatprt (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't really know how I feel about having the list in this article. I'm undecided. I'm just wary of using the word "policy" on this. It isn't. There is still a lot of debating to do. Wrad (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, there is no consensus yet. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And there was no large consensus to remove the character list from this article in the first place. Smatprt (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was. See discussion above. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where? Please show in a link, perhaps I missed it. Smatprt (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The copy-edit section above covers it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I see it now - you , wrad and one other editor. Well... not too impressive as a "consensus". Smatprt (talk)

One other thing - in reviewing the discussion on character lists at the Shakespeare project - I found a total of 5 editors that actually participated - 2 wanted to keep the lists, and 3 did not. Hardly "a pretty big group of editors" as Wrad described above. Far more than 3, however, have chimed in for keeping lists on the current discussion at the Theatre project. Smatprt (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the way it goes sometimes. However, better to have some discussion, I suppose, than simply post stuff as guidelines without any. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However I always thought it a shame more editors did not chime in - as the margin was so small that no real mandate was ever truly created. Hopefully we'll get one soon that includes more input.Smatprt (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for a "mandate". The discussions I was referrring to took place on Hamlet as well as the project page. Still not that many editors, but not much fewer than what you had over at the theater project. Wrad (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Montague

I really don't believe that she's major enough to be mentioned here - she appears twice and dies, for goodness's sake! We don't spend as much time with the Montagues in general as we do with the Capulets, but she's just not that major, and I would speculate that she's only included here for symmetry's sake. -Malkinann (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits to this section. Let's build a consensus on these pages before changing the list willy-nilly based on interpretations of various guidelines. After some more thought, I still believe that full character lists are better for play articles than cut down ones according to what one editor may believe is a major character, a supporting character or a minor character. Smatprt (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, Rosaline has no lines and she's on there, though you could argue she's more important to the plot than Lady Montague. Wrad (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ay - there's the rub. One could argue the importance of many minor characters. Peter, for example, has been more important in some versions I have seen, depending on how much time the production's director gives him onstage as a witness to the action. Smatprt (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosaline has an important plot function, and she is mentioned in the literature. Lady Montague doesn't have a plot function, and I've not really seen her in the literature, not even really in the feminist stuff. When I posted about this interpretation of WP:SS on the central WP:THEATRE discussion, no-one responded, so I was bold. -Malkinann (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we make a major character any character notable enough for their own individual article for our purposes here? Wrad (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, not sure if want. The apothecary and the-friar-who-got-locked-up-with-the-vital-message are important, but are both just plot devices. Otherwise it sounds reasonable - assuming that all potential has been mined for R&J characters. (I know it hasn't for King Lear...) -Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this interpretation of WP:SS and I don't think that it was created with character lists in mind. I think, perhaps, the reason no one responded to the comment at the theatre project page was that it was somewhat offpoint from the discussion at hand. Regarding Wrad's suggestion above, I'm wondering who is to decide if a character is notable enough to have it's own article? As I said, I saw a production once where Peter was included in a number of scenes and became a poignant witness to the entire action of the play. In this production, the character almost "stole the show" as they say. (Well..not really - but he certainly became a major character by anyone's standards) Smatprt (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't notable, then a consensus of editors will get the article deleted. That's the nature of the 'pedia :) . I've seen many a character article subjected to AfD. Seems like a worthy test to me. Wrad (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would be against using WP:N as a "test" for inclusion. Smatprt (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:N seems a fairer test. ;) WP:FICT may also be worth considering, although it is still recovering from the ArbCom. My comments on WP:SS were to try to make people aware of other ways to deal with the issue (a cut down list rather than a whole list or no list). Peter may have been significant in that production you saw, but in a fair few others (perhaps even most), he is excised completely. -Malkinann (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And in some productions major characters are even combined under one character name. Does this make the excised one less notable? Regarding Rosalind - she isn't even IN the play. But she is on the list because she is mentioned? That makes no sense to me. Does that mean the Black Prince should be listed in every history play he is mentioned? Should Henry V be listed in the Henry VI's? Should this entire discussion be taken over to the project page? Smatprt (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that these articles should not be based upon one production or another - for the purposes of Wikipedia, we should use a Wikipedian definition of notability - WP:N. Rosaline is notable enough to have her own character article as she has been discussed at some length in reliable sources, and she has an important plot function (contrast between her and Juliet) which was why I left her in the list when I did my initial removals. Lady Montague on the other hand is largely ignored, even by feminist critics. If there is criticism from reliable sources on the mentions of the Black Prince or Henry V in the plays, I don't see why they could not be mentioned in a spun out "List of X characters", or something. The nature of the criticism itself could provide guidance on its use. Please read WP:N and WP:FICT for further guidance. Also, if anyone had responded to me when I initially alerted everyone to these interpretations of WP:SS, then we would be having this discussion (or a similar one) on the project page. -Malkinann (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt, you are speaking from a Theatrical standpoint. From that standpoint she shouldn't be on the list, but from a literary standpoint she is quite important. The play exists in both worlds. Peter may for all I know merit inclusion, someone would just have to be able to prove it by creating an article about him, no big deal. Even if the entire article is from a theatrical standpoint, as long as we can show he's notable. Wrad (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no small parts...

Carrying on the conversation above: Wrad - first, these are indeed plays, not novels, and so (IMO) belong first and foremost in a theatrical context. Besides, strictly speaking, Rosalind is NOT a listed "character" in the play. No more than Ireland is a listed location in Macbeth, even though Donaldbain flees there. And even from a literary standpoint, Shakespeare did NOT create a character of Rosalind (as "character" is normally defined when referring to a character list from a play)! She is a plot device. Malkinann, you seem upset that no one responded to you on the project page. I don't think anyone was intentionally ignoring you and if you feel that way, then please accept my apologies. Frankly, Roger was keeping my plenty busy responding to the (often) pointless red herrings (imo) that he continued to throw into that conversation. I do think you raise an interesting issue, and I might agree that a cut down list is better than no list at all. However, I still think a complete list is better than a list that is cut down based on "Notability" or "Importance". I think many (if not most) authors would argue that every character serves an "important" function to their play. Remember the old saying - "There are no small parts, only small actors"!Smatprt (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you are more interested in proposing new guidelines and responding to "pointless red herrings" than reading and understanding the current guidelines and addressing an "interesting issue". Although you wish to add to the guidelines, you seem unwilling to read or consider the value of the current (or currently-being-revised) guidelines, which include the notability guideline and the fiction guideline. These have been kicking around Wikipedia for quite some time, and so are probably worth a look.  ;) And they apply to all fiction articles - of which plays are included. I have mentioned these previously numerous times, and still you refer to notability in scare quotes - which to me indicates that you have not read the guidelines, and by extension that you're not interested in what I have to say. Please prove me wrong by reading the notability and fiction guidelines, if you haven't already. -Malkinann (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I am addressing an interesting issue now, so calm down. It seems that whenever I don't respond directly to each and every item you mention, you feel ignored and get upset. Rest assured, I have read the guidelines you have mentioned in the past and through-out this discussion. BTW -I have not proposed "guidelines" (plural) as you accuse - I raised ONE topic and when another editor proposed a guideline as a solution, I added in ONE guideline to a list of them being offered. So please don't characterize me as a guideline proposing maniac when my ONE guideline proposal was an exception to my normal editing practices. Having said that, and while my intent here is not first and foremost to "prove you wrong" I would like you to consider the following excerpts from the two guidelines you keep referring to:

WP:Notability –

• "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles…" (It does make an exception about "People", but surely you are not arguing that fictional characters fall under that catagory as defined on WP.)

• "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines (we are discussing a section within an article, not an article itself)."

• "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (I have consistently argued that it is common sense to expect a character list in a play article.)

WP:Fiction -

• First and foremost: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."

• "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work…"

• "Fictional coverage describes the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story"

• "If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia. Such coverage may be placed as part of the main article on the work of fiction, or if better suited, an article on another, notable fictional element." (I quote this to remind you to build a consensus instead of being Bold.)

• Under depth of coverage: "The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration…" (Shakespeare’s work is certainly complex, a point I have been arguing consistently as a reason in include complet character lists)

• Editors should review specific guidelines or approaches outlined in the appropriate WikiProject" (The Shakespeare Project does indeed recommend cast lists be included in the main article, just before the synopsis)

I admit that I am quoting only specific bits and acknowledge that there are other bits that leave the door open for what you propose and what other editors have proposed. However, these bits certainly allow for my interpretation and my point of view. But please remember that these are guidelines, not rules, and allow for common sense and exceptions and, in every case, encourage building a consensus for major changes to any long-standing article that has been worked and reworked by a large and changing group of editors. I hope I have at least now proven to you that I do indeed read the guidelines here! Thanks Smatprt (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also - I don't use quotes in the sense of "scare quotes" - I use quotes for the good old intention of identifying a direct quotation. And the use of quotes should in no way imply that I have not read the accompanying guideline. Btw, I take no offense in your use of the same! :) I would like to remind you that this is a 2-way street. You have rarely responded to my points - neither here nor on the theatre project page. Isn't it time you practiced what you preached instead of just feeling ignored? Smatprt (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt, the plays exist in both worlds. To completely ignore that and only pay attention to the theatrical side of things is POV, UNDUE weight, and a whole lot of other things. You have to respect the fact that this is collaborative and your view isn't the only one out there. It would be absolutely ludicrous to simply ignore all the literary criticism that exist about these plays and their characters...just as ludicrous as ignoring performance history and theatrical criticism. This is an encyclopedia, not a theatre director's guidebook. Wrad (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely ignore? "Only" pay attention to the theatrical side??. Wrad...Did I ever say that? Did I say delete performance history and theatrical criticism?? What on earth are you talking about? Did I say that my view is the only one? I think perhaps it's time for you to calm down. In fact - all I've argued for was including Character lists, using (yes) primarily theatrical arguments, but also in an attempt to be helpful to all readers. Besides, I have a perfect right to to keep reminding folks that these are plays and not novels, etc. Are you denying me that right?Smatprt (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, calm, blue, ocean. No-one will deny you the right of self-expression here unless it goes into personal attack or vandalism/tendentious editing territory, and I trust you to behave better than that. :) I would disagree with the fundamental thrust of your "plays, not novels" approach in that it sets up a false dichotomy - plays are lots of things. Plays are of-fiction, plays are literature (if you understand the word literature to mean stories), and plays are plays. -Malkinann (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I get defensive when it comes to Rosaline, Smatprt, sorry :) . In any case, all I'm saying is that we need to find a balance. Wrad (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel ignored when you would rather engage in responding to what you describe as "pointless red herrings" than answering my questions. The reason I said guidelines was because I was unclear on which guideline options were yours and which belonged to others. Please don't characterise anything of what I say as an accusation, let's keep things civil and cool. I tend to take the line that more guidelines, especially prescriptive guidelines (as I believe this proposed one to be), are not needed on WP as they are annoying and stop me from wanting to improve WP - so, WP:IAR. Although I find it interesting that although you agree that guidelines can be ignored, the consensus that you were initially going for was Wikipedia-wide... So any smaller group of editors is therefore ignoring consensus. Although I think you've scaled back your ideas of unanimous agreement (which is different from consensus). What I was wanting you to take away from WP:N was the definition of notability - notability is defined by having reliable, independant, secondary sources talk about it. I believe that these sources are no less valid in Wikipedia's eyes whether they belong to "the theatre world" or to "the literature world" - if you feel there is an issue of WP:WEIGHT, you are welcome to try to find theatre-based sources for inclusion at any time. As we are currently preparing for a FA drive on this article, (and the only item left is the mandatory copy-editing) additional sources would be quite useful. :) In regards to the fiction guideline, are you aware of the reasons why it is currently a proposed guideline (despite existing since 2005)? My understanding of it is that a new consensus was formed quietly for a much tougher guideline, which was then enthusiastically applied. This led to a lot of heartache, and a lot of articles were deleted or forcibly merged into lists. This led to an ArbCom, and the WP:FICT guideline got put into revision. So I believe being familiar with the recent history of that case may be useful to your endeavours - those who do not know their history etc. etc. It also says that spun-out lists of characters are quite acceptable, and does not describe how they should be linked or whatever. In WP:GUIDE and all articles dealing with guidelines it is pointed out that the best guidelines describe what the practice is, not say what it should be. Perhaps you would be better off proposing this to be part of a theatre Manual of Style?? I do not feel comfortable describing some of Roger's behaviour in this case (WP:NPA), so I simply quoted you - and I am still perplexed as to why if you feel his comments were "pointless" and mine were "interesting" why you didn't respond to mine, but you did to his. I feel that your comments about "respecting the author by including a cast list" are founded in an adversarial philosophy - insinuating 'people who don't want cast lists don't truly respect the author' and thus I've not previously responded to them. On "these are plays, so we shouldn't treat them like literature" - again I feel you're setting up a false dichotomy. Plays are fictional works, and plays are also literature, and plays are plays. If you look at the literature article the definition is quite broad. Uncited, but broad. If you feel that the articles could be treated more as a play (whatever that means to you), then please find some reliable sources treating R&J as a play, not overly related to any one production (as that places undue weight on that production). Have I missed any of your main gist? If so, it would be helpful if you restated it. -Malkinann (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Shakespeare characters, even the most minor, are very resilient at AfD. Most editors there recognize that the Bard has a lot of sources about him, and precedent has been set by previous AfDs of minor characters. I haven't seen one fail yet. If you've got some stuff on Peter we could easily create a good article about him. I could throw in some of my stuff. Wrad (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Juliet and Paris

I'm doing a Code Lyoko spoof of Romeo and Juliet and I need help. What is the whole reason why Lord and Lady Capulet want their daughter to marry an older man like Count Paris? XANA (in human form) is playing the Count, and Sissi is Juliet. Angie Y. (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Paris is a great catch - he's rich, handsome, accomplished - and he's close to the duke. Smatprt (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• • And while we're here, why assume he's an older man? He usually is cast as older and he certainly behaves older - his man-to-man conversations with Lord Capulet, for example - but the play doesn't say that he's older. Indeed almost every production I've seen has cast Juliet as older than Shakespeare made her, so there's no reason Paris and Juliet couldn't be around the same age. I was in a successful amateur production once where the actors playing Paris and Juliet were both 17. AndyJones (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Petrachan Sonnet

Hey there,
In the Article it says that Romeo uses the Petrarchan Sonnet when describing Rosaline and that Lady Capulet does so, too, 
when describing Paris. However, to me it seems that neihter he nor she does;

"The Petrarchan Sonnet consists of many rhymed lines, more than any other sonnet. This is much easier to accomplish in Italian,
 a language more rich in rhyming words, than in English. The first eight lines create an octet, 
with the rhyme scheme a b b a a b b a. The last six lines make up a sestet and may consist of following rhyme schemes:
 1) c d e c d e 2) c d e d c e 3) c d c d c d." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarchan)

Now this doesn't apply anywhere; 
Neither; 
ROMEO
171   Alas, that love, whose view is muffled still,        a
172   Should, without eyes, see pathways to his will!      a
173   Where shall we dine? O me! What fray was here?       b
174   Yet tell me not, for I have heard it all.            c
175   Here's much to do with hate, but more with love.     d
176   Why, then, O brawling love! O loving hate!          ...
177   O any thing, of nothing first create!
178   O heavy lightness! serious vanity!
179   Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms!
180   Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health!
181   Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is!
182   This love feel I, that feel no love in this.
183   Dost thou not laugh?

nor 
 ROMEO
185   Why, such is love's transgression.          a
186   Griefs of mine own lie heavy in my breast,  b
187   Which thou wilt propagate, to have it prest b
188   With more of thine. This love that thou hast shown c
189   Doth add more grief to too much of mine own.       c
190   Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs;     d
191   Being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes;    d
192   Being vex'd a sea nourish'd with lovers' tears:    e
193   What is it else? a madness most discreet,     f
194   A choking gall and a preserving sweet.        f
195   Farewell, my coz.   

fullfills the criteria. 
Not even if I add what benvolio says...
Do you understand my problem?
Btw. does anyone now of a accurate collection of all sonnets in R+J? Would be helpful.

~~~~ - Go on - answer me!

I'd suggest you try to get your hands on Jay Halio's book - he may go into more depths on why it's that form. I've not read it, so I can't help you, sorry.-Malkinann (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Halio says that Romeo is not very good at the Petrarchan form. He uses the themes of the sonnet and tries to meet the form, but falls short. His language gets better only after he meets Juliet. Wrad (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that could go in Romeo Montague, Wrad? -Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet True love?

We all know that it is about two people named Romeo and Juliet who fall inlove, but Romeo falls inlove with another girl who becomes a nun. It seems to me that Romeo is trying to find not true love, but sexual love instead. I don't mean to be rude, but mabey he thinks he is searching for true love, but instead finds sexual love. When he thinks Juliet has died, he kills himself. Was it true love or was he just sad he didn't have someone to do it with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.79.11 (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll have a look at the Critical history section, you'll see that that is indeed one of the basic ways the play is interpreted. Shakespeare isn't too clear on it, though, so scholars are still puzzling over the question to this day. Wrad (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

                                                             By Saumya  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.110.207 (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)