Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Shakespeare and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like discussing the WP:LEADIMAGE at William Shakespeare?

Your view is welcome at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Lead_image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice#Plot_summary

More eyes welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also some vigorous editing going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Asperthrow has recently moved the following articles per MOS:SURNAME, WP:TITLE.

Any thoughts? Some of them might be ok but others (e.g. #3) are very jarring. What should happen? Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to an individual by their surname only upon their first mention is not what Wikipedia does. The titles should not be akin to those of scholarly articles, no matter how recognisable the name may be. Asperthrow (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnuniq this was a big change to make without any discussion (that I've seen). While I agree the new names are a bit clunkier, like Johnuniq I'd say number 3 is the only one I object to and would like to see reversed. AndyJones (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that 3 is not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Xover if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the new Shakespeare's sonnets is very good either. Like with SAQ, it's very WP:COMMONNAME, see for example [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could use this argument to justify renaming Shakespeare's own article to simply 'Shakespeare'. Or to justify renaming The Walt Disney Company to 'Disney'. Asperthrow (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions should have been consulted here because this has been proposed in various forms and rejected previously multiple times (i.e. these moves are against a standing consensus). In addition to #3 being outright incorrect (and obviously so, which makes that one kinda egregious) the rest are horribly stilted and artificial and not how these topics are referred to in any other context (as a reading aide: "Shakespeare" isn't used here as a surname, but as a topic; "Shakespeare studies" and "William Shakespeare studies" mean two completely different things). Please revert these moves. Xover (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Previous discussions should have been consulted here because this has been proposed in various forms and rejected previously multiple times (i.e. these moves are against a standing consensus)."

I was not aware of this nor could I reasonably have been. Compliance with Wikipedia's manual of style should be prioritised over pretentious, pseudo-scholarly titles.

"In addition to #3 being outright incorrect (and obviously so, which makes that one kinda egregious)"

You ought to explain why, rather than postulate.

"...the rest are horribly stilted and artificial and not how these topics are referred to in any other context"

You again fail to explain your reasoning. "William Shakespeare's sonnets" is hardly bad English.

"(as a reading aide: "Shakespeare" isn't used here as a surname, but as a topic"

I'm sure that the "Shakespeare's" in "Shakespeare's sonnets" refers to the topic rather than the man. That's a lazy argument conceived after the fact.

""Shakespeare studies" and "William Shakespeare studies" mean two completely different things)."

Why is this relevant?

"Please revert these moves."

No. I don't know how to, and I also have things to do. You're free to click through and revert them if this is sufficiently important to you. Asperthrow (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was an unacceptably large change to make on an extremely high-profile topic without any discussion or consensus, especially since the moves resulted in literally hundreds of articles suddenly linked to double redirects. In addition, as others said this change was previously proposed and did not receive consensus. I have undone the moves and also temporarily protected all the pages from being moved again. Since I took these actions as an admin, I am not weighing in on the merits of whether or not these moves should be made, only that proper procedures were not followed by first gaining consensus. I suggest people discuss the issue here and come to a consensus on if these moves should be undertaken. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to festivities, but for what it's worth, I agree with everyone else - this was far too big a change to be initiated without any discussion. And as others have pointed out, several of the new titles are simply inaccurate. Some of the renames were fine, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis. Bertaut (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Ince

I just started this article. Is there a Shakespeare category I can reasonably put it in? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. If you look at, say, Trevor Nunn, Peter Hall, or John Barton, for example, you'll see there's no specific Shakespeare-related category for them. Bertaut (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we should have something like "Category:Shakespearean theater people other than actors", but perhaps with a better name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea at all. Xover, any thoughts on this? Bertaut (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1, same question. Other interested too, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I'm not sure how well it'd fly with the ontology-happy folks who spend their time pruning the category system. Last I checked (and I could be very outdated by now), in order for an article to be in a category the category's topic has to be a defining feature of the article's subject. I'm not sure most of the people we envision being in such a category (or categories) would pass that bar. But other than that caveat I am all for it. Xover (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where to draw the line can obviously be discussed. I may be a bit into WP:OTHERCONTENT here, but it seems to me that the people mentioned and, say, Ken Branagh, is at least as defined by "Shakespearean directors" as Christopher Plummer (odd choice of leadimage there, I think) is by "Canadian male Shakespearean actors". I'll give it awhile, but then I'll probably create "Shakespearean directors" and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could include film people and authors too, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are already categories for things like Shakespearean actors, Shakespearean scholars, and Shakespearean theatre companies. I think if we were to do a new one, it would be best to keep it simple - "Shakespearean directors", or "Shakespearean theatricians" (although theatrician is something of a dead word these days). Bertaut (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Shakespearean directors" may work well enough, it covers film and theater. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- "Shakespearean directors" makes sense to me. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shakespearean directors created. Please help populate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking only of recent or living ones, or historical ones too? I envisage problems of definition as you get back into the nineteenth century, where the famous actor/managers weren't really "directors" as we now understand the term. AndyJones (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not thought that far. My knee-jerk reaction is "what do sources/the WP-article say?". If the article doesn't call the person a director, it seems unnecessary to add, per WP:CATV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. AndyJones (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've another one: where are we drawing the line? That is, it would clearly be defining for Kenneth Branagh, Orson Welles, Julie Taymor and some others. But what about those who've done one Shakespeare? Derek Jarman for example? What about those whose Shakespearean works are adaptations, like Akira Kurosawa? AndyJones (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd add Kurosawa, because IMO what I wrote at the category page, "Directors with significant work involving the work of William Shakespeare." fits. And I've seen at least one of those. Parts of it anyway. Of course, what one Wikipedian writes, another can change.

Never heard of the other guy, and based on my ctrl-f of "shake" on that page I'm at... maybe? I guess it's up to us if "one Shakespeare picture with a WP-article, that's good enough" is to be the guide. If you add him, I might add Per Åhlin. Review of his film at [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Kurosawa and Jarman are covered by scholars of Shakespeare on film as important works (and by general Shakespeare scholars for that matter), but the reverse may not be true (their Shakespeare work is not necessarily considered primary aspects of their ouvre by Kurosawa and Jarman scholars). I'd say they qualify, but others may disagree. Xover (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side of the line, I would not add the directors of The Lion King or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan based on those particular films. And I'm skeptical on Åhlin, but I haven't looked in Shakespearean scholarship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be out of date, but… Resan till Melonia does tend to get a mention, but rarely extensive coverage. Without looking closer I'd agree with your call on that and the two others. Xover (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does have some rarity value. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Kershner doesn't get a spot for The Empire Strikes Back either. But as soon as Colin Hodgkin gets an article, we'll of course add him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Fleance

Fleance has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]