Talk:Nurse (Romeo and Juliet)

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Deletion of material

Please stop deleting the information in that article. It is far from perfect, but it is not worthy of being removed completely. Please improve it rather than deleting everything. It contains real world information, even if it is not sourced. What it needs is sourcing, not deletion. Wrad (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically speaking, we give classical works much more slack when it comes to WP:FICT and other guidelines, due to historical impact, and impact on other works of fiction. With so many different adaptations and discussions of the original Romeo and Juliet, it would be understandable to have this level of detail even on this character. At least that's my take on it. -- Ned Scott 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This subject deserves its own article. Yes, sources need to be added, but how does deleting everything help? Wrad (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To Ned) I have no doubt that we should cover the topic in a good amount of detail, but don't you think giving an article on a nameless minor character a free pass is a bit much? As many of the characters should have a good amount of real world information (mostly analysis of the characters in this case), we really shouldn't need to give a free pass to any of them. TTN (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To Wrad) If the sources exist, provide a couple of them to assert notability. The reason that the article needs to be merged is because there is nothing to assert improvement. We don't leave articles around forever just on a hunch. TTN (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't? How come other even less major Shakespeare character articles have survived Afd (or not even been put up for it!) Look around! What you're saying isn't true. What do you mean by "assert improvement"? How many refs do you want? One? Two? 30? I can add a few, but I'm not going to drop everything and make it an FA just to keep it from deletion. Wrad (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in (a rare) agreement with TTN. Consistency is important. It's POV to suggest that some are notable whilst others aren't. Reliable sources, like episodes, remove the POV. Wrad, th article isn't being deleted, so anyone interested can expand upon it it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just need enough to show that it cannot be contained on a list. TTN (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you guys think that this doesn't deserve its own article. Your arguments have been used a tiring number of times and always failed. Have you looked at the AfD's I'm mentioning? Take a look now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Bottom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio in Merchant of Venice. Wrad (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those are irrelevant. Please just provide a few sources or locations for sources. TTN (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read them then, they actually apply directly. Oh well. Wrad (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, you say you can add a few? Say in the next few days? If you can add a few solid refs that support enough of the body of the article, that should be enough.

There have been four hundred years for folks to analyze this character, so the chances are good that that something can be found. --Jack Merridew 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To TTN) Normally, no, but we are talking about Romeo and Juliet. We even have an entire copy of the play on Wikisource. However, from an organizational standpoint, I could see us moving this to WikiBooks or merging like you wanted to do. I don't have a strong opinion on it either way. I'm just not sure if there's really anything that needs to be cut from the article. -- Ned Scott 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't anything. Whoever made it just didn't do all that great at referencing. Next time, please start by adding ref tags rather than deleting everything and assuming the whole article is worthless. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a lot more available than that? If there is, I guess that's fine. TTN (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on Wrad's talkpage last night, the following is just a random collection after a casual google scholar search. Just those items that indicate focus on this particular character already in the title, not counting tertiary works such as specialised Shakespeare encyclopedias (which also tend to have entries on minor characters, as far as I know). Unfortunately I don't have online access from where I am.

Toole, William B.: "The Nurse's 'Vast Irrelevance': Thematic foreshadowing in Romeo and Juliet. South Atlantic Bulletin 45 (1980): 21–30.
Rees, J.: "Juliet's Nurse: Some branches of a family tree". Review of English Studies 34 (1983): 43–47.
Everett, Barbara: "Romeo and Juliet: The Nurse's Story". Critical Quarterly 13 (1972): 129–139.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN's actions are his typical disruptive editing; the subject is obviously notable, and the only appropriate action to take in response to his supposed concern would be to add a no sources tage to the article and wait. TTN is just doing this as a form of threat display to editors who oppose his mindless pop-culture deletion spree, the on-the-web equivalent of a male chimpanzee wandering around waving his engorged genitals. He's threatening to escalate his disruptive behavior to a new level. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(not to mention the colossal assumptions of bad faith) --Jack Merridew 08:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither a personal attack, since it is directly only at conduct; not an assumption of bad faith, but pointing out that TTN has demonstrated bad faith (here and elsewhere) by violating the policy he claims to be following. Such a nice pattern you cranky boys follow; do something bad, than whine away that pointing out your misbehaviour is so much worse than your plague of spiteful edit wars. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I created this article some time ago on a boring summer day. Call it unsourced if you want, but when I first created it (and when I last saw it prior to just now, with some sources added) I used only information from the text. I believe that concrete textual references that Shakespeare himself wrote are highly important in respect to WP:BARD, and that has been the source of almost all of the work I've contributed to the project. I admit that it would have behooved me to cite the text more specifically in the article, but that is no grounds to delete an entire entry. Furthermore, the Nurse has 90 cues in R&J, which is more than Friar Laurence, Mercutio, Benvolio, Prince Escalus, Count Paris, and Tybalt, and only 28 shy of Juliet herself, so I don't see how the "minor character" argument has any weight. Nowah Balloon (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse's Name

I was reading Romeo and Juliet in class today, and according to the textbook, her name is Angelica. If needed, I can provide the act and scene in which this appears, but I just thought that I'd mention this.--Shroopliss ^T/_C\^U 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, go ahead and add it. Wrad (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not true. Angelica is Lady Capulet's first name. This is often mistaken. 69.22.71.123 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is some discussion as to wether 'Angelica' is the Nurse's name or Lady Capulet's.
Act4 scene 4:
[Capulet:]'Come, stir, stir, stir! the second cock hath crowed,
The curfew bell hath rung, tis' three a'clock.
Look to the baked meats, good Angelica,
Spare not for cost.
[Nurse:]Go, you cot-quean, go,
Get you to bed. Faith, you'll be sick tomorrow
For this night's watching.
[Capulet:]No, not a whit. What, I have watched ere now
All night for lesser cause, and ne'er been sick.
[Lady Capulet:]Ay, you have been a mousehunt in your time,
But I will watch you from such watching now.
[Exeunt Lady and Nurse]'
As you can see, the identity of Angelica is open to discussion.--Reimtus (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it entirely matters, but my teacher said that Shakespeare didn't give the Nurse a name, and also, I don't go to a comprehensive school but a grammar school, so my english teacher must be pretty good (but dead boring) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L4zergh0st (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nurses outside life

i think we should dig deep enough to find out information about the nurse in romeo and juliet. 2601:203:501:8EC0:F070:1C48:B3A1:FF6A (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]