Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

FA for 400th?

The 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death is coming up next April. Celebrations worldwide are planned to commemorate the event, and I'd like to get Shakespeare's funerary monument certified as a feature article with an eye to getting it feature article of the day for April 23, 2016. Anybody else up for it? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tom Reedy: I'm game; but note that I'm not sure how much help I'll be (time constraints, mostly). --Xover (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Five Antonios, Bertaut, MarnetteD, TonyTheTiger, Stolengood, and Johnuniq: A little nudge while your attention is here anyway… :-)
Anyone up for helping with this project? You don't need to be the world's greatest historian or Shakespeare expert to be useful: even something as simple as participating in discussions on the article's talk page is helpful when bringing an article to FA. And a lot of the work is in areas such as article layout, prose, copy-editing, finding or tuning pictures, formatting of references, etc. And I know Tom has looked pretty deeply at this subject so he'll likely be able to help out with anything that's beyond your expertise (I know mine is pretty darn spotty on this subject). It also happens that Tom has a bit of a WP:ACADEMICCOI problem with certain edits that will be needed since our article currently cites an article he himself has published, and so having lots of other editors involved that can evaluate changes in those areas is kinda critical. There are some edits he cannot make himself without running the risk of getting dragged through the noticeboards. In any case, bringing an article like this up to FA is a lot of work, and having many hands makes the work ever so much lighter (and a heck of a lot more fun). --Xover (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll be there—I've had Shakespeare's funerary monument on my watchlist for a while. I didn't say anything earlier because I'm not likely to be much help with details. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Co-authorship

Greetings all. I'm curious as to ascertain people's positions regarding the recent "collaborative" additions to several of the project pages? For example, {{William Shakespeare}} went from having Sir Thomas More, Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Cardenio, Edward III and Henry VIII delineated as "Shakespeare and other authors" to also having Timon of Athens, Titus Andronicus, All's Well That Ends Well, Measure for Measure and Henry VI, Part 1 marked as collaborative. The major difference between these two sets of plays is that we know the first set were unquestionably collaborations. Few would argue otherwise. The second set are theorised to be collaborative (even in cases like Titus where it is almost certainly such, there is still some measure of critical dissent, and in the case of plays like All's Well considerably more); in short, there is by no means critical consensus, and marking them as such on the Project’s main template seems to me to be a case of WP:UNDUE. You will, for example, find as many people arguing Middleton should be credited as a co-author of Macbeth as All's Well, so should not, by this logic, Macbeth also be thus marked?

Additionally, {{All's Well That Ends Well}}, {{Measure for Measure}} and {{Timon of Athens}} have been changed from "William Shakespeare's..." to "William Shakespeare and Thomas Middleton's...", and {{Thomas Middleton}} has been added to each of those articles. Furthermore, Category:Plays by Thomas Kyd and Category:Plays by Thomas Nashe have been added to 1 Henry VI but no changes have been made to the body of the articles themselves. Whilst there can be little dispute concerning the addition of the Nashe category, the Kyd category seems speculative at best; the article itself makes one brief reference to Kyd, and the Kyd article never even mentions 1 Henry VI. Surely there must be some kind of guideline for categories not introducing material not supported by reliably sourced information in the article itself?

This whole thing seems to me ill-conceived and poorly executed. It is neither one thing nor the other; neither fully running with collaborative theories nor side-lining such theories. What I mean by that is if we're going to add Middleton to the All's Well, Timon and Measure for Measure templates, and the Middleton template to those articles, why not add him to the Macbeth template and his template to the Macbeth article? Why not add Peele to the Titus template, Fletcher to the Henry VIII and Noble Kinsmen templates, Kyd to the Edward III template, Wilkins to the Pericles template etc? At the moment, these possible co-authors are listed in the "related" sections of their respective templates. Surely we should decide on one approach or the other. Five Antonios (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed these edits, and was curious if anyone else had opinions on them. First of all, although I know they watch this page, I'll ping the usual suspects; MarnetteD, Tom Reedy, Xover. I'll also ping TonyTheTiger as I know he's worked on these templates. Right, now to address some of your points. in relation to 1 Henry VI, the link to Kyd has to go. Firstly, I noted an IP user already removed it with a valid explanation, and it was restored without any reason. That violates the basis of WP:BRD. Secondly, I believe the "guideline" you are referring to above Antonios about Categories not making claims which aren't supported in the article is WP:CATDEF, which this category fails miserably! The Nashe one is fine. Now, regarding the whole "William Shakespeare and Thomas Middleton's..." thing, I don't know. It's a tricky one. My personal preference would be to leave all Shakespeare templates (including known collaboration such as Noble Kinsmen) as "William Shakespeare's..." and include the co-author (and possible additional co-authors) in the "Related" section. I'd set that as the standard. Otherwise, we would have to, for example, change the Titus template to "William Shakespeare and George Peele's..." and we're going to start getting into speculative territory there. The same goes for the main Shakespeare template. I'd restore it to include the original list of co-authored plays, as we know these were co-authored, as opposed to simply being fairly sure (such as the case with 1 Henry VI), or thinking that perhaps they were co-authored (such as Measure for Measure). There is an argument to be made that we could include a second category of possibly co-authored plays, but I think that would get messy. Anyhow, I won't make any edits until I hear from others, but them's my thoughts anyway. Bertaut (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I often wonder if those adding cats to articles have ever read WP:CATDEF. The need for sourced info and the fact that it should be "A defining characteristic" are too often ignored. Thus, any cats that don't fit either of those should be removed. It is also a mistake to fill templates like navboxes with too much info. Like DAB pages they are mostly directional to send readers to other articles where things can be explained in detail. I know that the rest of you are much more informed on authorship items than I am - Shapiro's Contested Will is as far as I've gotten :-) - so I will defer to (and support) any consensus that your expertise arrives at. I wonder if it worth addressing the way authorship questions are dealt with in the "Standardisation of play articles" section on the project page. Then you could point new editors to the established consensus. Best regards to all of you who work so hard on maintaining and improving the WS articles. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Note that shakespeare authorship studies are a valid scholarly discipline dealing with various textual issues, including things like collaborations, revisions, &c.; while what Contested Will is about is solely the fringe theory (often also a conspiracy theory) that Shakespeare wasn't really Shakespeare, and certainly didn't write some or all the works now usually ascribed to him. The distinction is a bit tricky before you actually think about it, and many adherents (not all, but many) of one of the Authorship Question theories deliberately muddy the waters to serve their own ends. Anyways, had this thread actually been about capital-A Authorship Question it would be cut and dried (substitute Bacon or Oxford for Middleton, say); but the changes by Stolengood (the ones listed by Johnuniq below anyway) are well within the limits of genuine scholarly disagreements. Some of them lack broad support, but they're in no way invalid theories. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the edits should be reversed. In the articles themselves, current theories on collaboration definitely should be mentioned and explained, but they are far from being the academic consensus at this time, and the scholarly "may" should certainly be employed. We tend to value modern theories over old ones, but they are just as likely to be overturned as more attribution tools become developed and widespread. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, but I am not qualified to opine on the authorship of Shakespearan works. I have just attempted to make the templates present the authors consistently.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Evening, all. I was going by the current scholarly consensus, which seems to favor most of Brian Vickers's results, as well as other stylometric studies. Most scholars agree on Middleton, Peele, etc., as is pretty much said in all the articles whose templates I changed -- hence, why I changed them; but if you want Wikipedia to not accurately represent the current informed consensus of scholars, go right ahead. Just know that most scholars DO agree that Shakespeare definitively had co-authors outside of the Fletcher plays, and that stylometry proves it. Stolengood (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stolengood: I sense a smidge of defensiveness in your response and I just wanted to say, there's no need: nobody is suggesting that the changes weren't made in good faith, they're just disagreeing on what is the best choice for the articles and templates in question. You're quite right that Vickers' work has a lot of currency currently, but the consensus seems to be that this is best reflected by detailing it (and related theories) in prose in the articles themselves. The categories and templates are a bit too blunt a tool to make the fine distinctions that are needed here, whereas in prose we can fully explain the details of what's going on. Similarly, while several plays are generally thought to be co-authored, they are usually still considered Shakespeare's plays. To change the attribution in the article's lede is contrary to this practice. However, all that being said, I think we could fruitfully have better coverage of the current state of authorship analysis in the play articles; and the main article on the topic is in pretty sorry state and could really do with some expansion. So in other words, I don't think you should consider the consensus in this thread to be against the changes you've made so much as that they're suggesting a different way to achieve the same end.
Oh, and PS: I'm very pleased to see so much engagement on this topic. The typical response to issues raised in this area is crickets chirping, so a lot of responses with distinct opinions is a gift! --Xover (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the changes under discussion are:
I don't have the background to offer a useful opinion on the support given by reliable sources for each claim, but my humble opinion is that adjusting navboxes and categories based on who might have, or who is currently thought to have, contributed to a work is the wrong approach. Each article needs to spell out views regarding authorship, but the navboxes and categories should reflect what is known, that is, what is agreed by nearly all relevant scholars. MarnetteD's advice above looks good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that anybody disagrees with the work of Vickers as per Tit, Tim, Per, H8, and 2NK, or with 1H4, it's Gary Taylor's work which has yet to gain academic consensus. But really the issue is about how the plays should be referred to. Until at least two of the academic editions of the works reattribute and retitle the plays in question, I think Wikipedia is on firmer, less contentious ground by continuing the status quo. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd like to reiterate what Xover and Tom have said. No one is questioning the notion of co-authorship, no-one is arguing that "Middleton definitely did not work on any of Shakespeare's plays". My issue with the edits was one of consistency across the project as a whole. Like I said above, if we change the All's Well template to read "William Shakespeare's and Thomas Middleton's..." why not change the Macbeth template as well, or change the Pericles template to "William Shakespeare and George Wilkins'..." As Xover points outs, co-authorship theories are very different from the SAQ, and Stolengood's edits (which were obviously in good faith), fall very much into the former. In retrospect, my use of the phrase "ill-conceived and poorly executed" was itself probably ill-conceived and poorly chosen, so I apologise for that. I also think Tom sums the issue up well in his last comment. Even in relation to Titus, which is almost universally recognised as a collaboration with Peele (even Jonathan Bate has deferred to Vickers on this issue), it is still academically considered a "Shakespeare play", unlike, say Noble Kinsmen which in most scholarly editions is listed as "by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher". Finally, I'd like to thank Johnuniq for converting my ramblings into such an easily digestible list! Five Antonios (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my tone; I was just a bit resentful that all the work I had put in to try and make the templates more inclusive, accurate, and representative of Shakespearean scholarship was being quite suddenly reverted. I probably should have done the same to Macbeth and Pericles, you're right -- I think for some reason I thought that had already been done to the Pericles template, in particular. But I do think we should announce the co-authorship right out, especially when the evidence is so convincing. Stolengood (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stolengood: Why did you remove the edits of Hartmut Ilsemann about stylometric analysis, what is wrong with it? -- Andreas Werle (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent resource

http://labs.jstor.org/shakespeare/ Tom Reedy (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Advice on proper venue

Hey, Shakespeareans. I'm putting together notes on some alterations I'd like to make, which would affect all the Sonnet articles. My sense is that this talk page is the best venue for such notes, but possibly they could go to Talk:Shakespeare's sonnets, or even somewhere else. Care to tell me where I can shove it? ;-) Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't wait. Posted below. Phil wink (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sonnet article uniform standards

@Professor JR & @Xover: I've been tweaking the Sonnet articles a bit, and I've noticed a few of the navboxes explicitly attribute the text to Katherine Duncan-Jones's Arden edition, and that you 2 briefly discussed this at User_talk:Professor_JR#.22Shakespeare.27s_Sonnet_30.22_article. I wonder, has any consensus been reached? My own 3 cents are:

  • Old spelling is not helpful to the vast majority of readers. (Plus, currently, most or all of the articles have pics of the sonnet from 1609, or at least some lines, depending on the original pagination; so readers will get a feel for, even if not a transcription of, the original.)
  • I trust that Katherine Duncan-Jones is a wonderful scholar and a delightful person, but prominently placing her (or anyone's) name above the sonnet text in the navbox on 154 articles is just too much. Surely if citation is needed (and why not?) a simple <ref>...</ref> at the end of the quoted text will do?
  • Preferred edition? Ideally all sonnet articles will quote the same edition, no? I'm not an expert, but I doubt whether -- strictly on a textual basis -- any modern copyrighted edition of the Sonnets is that much better than a good PD one.

Any other uniformity issues you'd like to broach? As I said, I'm going through them now. I'm not really in the mood for deep research (which is what is really needed) but if there are tweaks that need to be made that have gotten under your skin, let me know. There has also been some recent systematic editing by @Thefairyouth154 and @MrMelonhead, so maybe the time is ripe for a broad review. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A-Z Guide

Of potential interest: the A-Z Guide to Shakespeare is available for free online through 2016. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Great resource. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sonnet template

Hi again. In the next days (or possibly weeks) I plan to update the {{Sonnet}} infobox which sits at the top of each individual Sonnet article to the new template which currently resides at {{Sonnet/sandbox}}. This will not alter the images or text currently displayed in the articles, only the formatting and features of the box. If anyone has any objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Phil wink (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Clarification: I did in fact update the text, too. I had intended to take this step in the future, but events coalesced. Phil wink (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Afd

Scansion and meter in the sonnets

Prospectus

Time permitting, I intend to go through all the individual articles on Shakespeare's sonnets, updating the scansion, and reviewing any notes about meter. I apologize in advance for the length of these notes, but I wanted to provide a reasonably complete and unified prospectus and rationale for what editors can expect from this project.

Many articles have 1 scanned line in this form:

Iambic pentameter of line ten from Sonnet 10
Stress x / x / x / x / x /
Syllable Shall hate be fair er lodged than gen tle love?
Formatting

Simply, my first task will be to reformat these scansions, bringing them into line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#Scansion which (full disclosure) I wrote. The above would thus be rendered either (style A): 

  ×    /    ×  /  ×   /       ×   /  ×   /
Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love? (10.10)

or (style B): 

  ×    /    ×  /  ×   /       ×   /  ×   /
Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love? (10.10)

The chief advantages to these styles are the reduced overall markup, WYSIWYG editing (which you can see if you view the underlying code), and precision in the placement of scansion symbols. They also maintain the integrity of the verse line and its words, rather than visually fracturing them into component syllables (which are of course important, but are already implicit in the scansion). I don't much care whether style A or B is used ... other than the slight visual difference, style A allows markup (including inline references), but style B does not. I have not noticed any existing Sonnet scansions requiring such markup, so I believe either style would be equally acceptable. If anyone has a preference, let me know -- I expect I'll default to style B, as I think most people feel this melds with the surrounding text better.

The reasons I'm discussing this change instead of just BOLDly making it are: first, scansion is contentious; second, I know a lot of work has gone into presenting the Sonnet articles in a rational and relatively uniform manner, so I hope this will be viewed as improving, not breaking the system; but more importantly, although on the surface this is a simple formatting-only change, retaining content 1:1, this appearance is deceptive, and anyone who cares should be aware of some broader issues which will arise. And ideally, if this little project should raise any general concerns among editors, I'd prefer to deal with them up front and in 1 place, rather than having to defend these updates 154 times. Naturally, if anyone disagrees with individual alterations I make, I'm happy to defend them on the germane page.

Stress

Currently, the scansions assert that "Stress" is being marked. This is not linguistically true. For example:

Iambic Pentameter of a line of Sonnet 18
Stress x / x / x / x / x /
Syllable Thou art more love- -ly and more tem- -pe- -rate

Stress (to simplify slightly) basically occurs on one syllable of content words, so even though the scansion symbols are potentially placed correctly (other configurations are possible), they are not scanning stress. Here is the line (retaining the current scansion) but with actual stresses underlined: 

  ×  /    ×    /   × /    ×    /  × /
Thou art more lovely and more temperate  (18.2)

This mismatch between linguistic stress and metrical ictus is a feature, not a bug, of English versification, but can be confusing especially when a scansion claims to scan "stress".

Part of my "formatting" change will involve the removal of the label "Stress" which occurs in all the existing tables; however, instead of reducing information, this removal will actually make the existing scansions more accurate, since they are not marking stress in the first place. What are they marking? A vexed question. I usually call this thing "ictus" as I take this to be the most neutral and broadly-acceptable term available. For more insight into my thinking, see Talk:Iambic_pentameter#Changes_to_metrical_examples.

Possibly, a key should be added: initially I suggest something like:

/ = ictus, a metrically strong syllabic position. × = nonictus. (×) = extrametrical syllable.

Incidentally, many lines have multiple valid scansions. My inclination will usually be to display only 1, and to use the existing one if it seems sufficiently uncontroversial. However, the line above elicits a good example of an alternative scansion that is compelling enough that it might be well to include it also: 

  ×  ×    /    /   × ×    /    /  × /
Thou art more lovely and more temperate  (18.2)

For anyone unfamiliar with the minor ionic, this scansion may seem a bit radical, but it's perfectly in line with the basic views of such disparate metrists as Lewis Turco, Derek Attridge, George T. Wright, Timothy Steele, and Peter L. Groves. This is not the correct scansion, but a valid scansion, and puts a distinct and fruitful emphasis on the line ... cases like these will probably occasionally cause me to alter the existing scansions, or add alternatives.

Dubious statements

A quick review tells me that much of the metrical material in these articles is reasonably sound. However, as I go through I will fix any dubious statements I notice. Examples include a few problems with Sonnet 5. The current scansion is:

Iambic pentameter of line eleven from Sonnet 5
Stress x / x / x / x / x /
Syllable Beau ty's eff ect with beau ty were be reft.

The first word is plainly mis-scanned. (True, some methods of scansion always place the ictus on even positions regardless of the syllabic content, but these methods are neither used in the Sonnets articles, nor recommended in Wikipedia guidelines.) This might be just a typo, but it follows after this incredible statement:

This sonnet departs from the sequence's traditional use of iambic pentameter; many of the lines in the poem contain either nine or eleven syllables, rather than the typical ten.

This can't stand. First, the sonnet is in iambic pentameter. All of it. Variant lines of iambic pentameter do not cease to be iambic pentameter, and the variations exhibited here are thoroughly traditional. Second, I find only 4 lines (not sure that's "many") which could possibly be thought to possess either 9 or 11 syllables (the article doesn't suggest which these might be). But as I show below, each is clearly a case of syllabic expansion or contraction (again, thoroughly traditional). The expanded syllable in Line 1 is simply scanned; contracted syllables are marked with "(×)". (NB: This is just for clarity in this discussion. I'm not recommending that the article scansions display "(×)" for contracted syllables; I happen to think they should just not get a symbol, and that "(×)" should be reserved for feminine endings.) 

  ×    / ×    /   ×    /  ×   /    ×    /
Those hours that with gentle work did frame (5.1)

 ×  /(×)×   /  ×   /    ×  /      ×    /
To hideous winter, and confounds him there, (5.6)

×  /  ×    /(×)×   /   ×   /    ×    /
A liquid prisoner pent in walls of glass, (5.10)

 ×    /(×)   ×  /        ×      /   ×    /  ×   /
But flowers distilled, though they with winter meet, (5.13)

Don't take my word for this; Stephen Booth (Shakespeare's Sonnets, pp. 140-41) explicitly calls out "hours", "hideous", and "prisoner" as 2-syllabled, and prints the last 2 examples as "pris'ner" and "flow'rs" in his text (p. 8).

As I mentioned, I'll fix problems like these as I notice them. I'll probably get started on this project quite soon, but I'm happy to address questions or concerns of editors, should they arise. Phil wink (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Started Phil wink (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done Phil wink (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure how valuable my opinion will be to you, as I've never edited any of the sonnet pages, but here's my thoughts nonetheless!! Proceed as you see fit. You seem to know your stuff, and establishing a uniformity across all the articles is always something to be encouraged and welcomed. Those who have worked on the articles, and know more about the sonnets than I do (which wouldn't be that hard) may have a different opinion, but having read through everything you've written, I see no major problems (and I'd agree that style B is better).

Incidentally, when you say "This mismatch between linguistic stress and metrical ictus is a feature, not a bug, of English versification, but can be confusing especially when a scansion claims to scan "stress"." This is something I deal with a lot in tutorials with first years, and as you say, it can confuse the hell out of people. But when I was in my own first year in college, my poetry lecturer did an entire lecture on this very issue, where the natural stresses of the language don't match the "stresses" of the iambic pentameter line (or any other form of line for that matter - if memory serves he used some of William Blake's tetrameter material; iambic, trochaic and anapestic). He had two phrases to describe the "bug" which I've always remembered and which I use to teach students myself, and they seem to help to get the point across - "stressed offbeats" and "unstressed beats." A stressed offbeat is when a syllable that is naturally stressed in language doesn't scan as a stress, and, predictably enough, an unstressed beat is when a syllable which does not scan as a stress is a syllable that one would naturally stress in language. Obviously, using the term "beat" isn't the best option, but as you say, there's no formal name for it, and I've often found students flummoxed by this issue start to get their heads around it when I use those phrases. Anyhow, that's by the by, and I'm on the verge of rambling now, so I shall cease and desist at this point! Bertaut (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Yeah, "unstressed beat" and "stressed offbeat" are pretty much classic Attridge, and while I don't take him as the final word on the subject, I do consider the 1982 publication of Rhythms of English Poetry to be a watershed in English metrics. Elsewhere, I've been accused of being more or less a shill for Attridge, while a second editor opined that I was not enough like Attridge... I continue to cherish these 2 quotes, which help me through the hard times but also rouse me to (at least slightly) exceed their expectations! Phil wink (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sonnet article debriefing

Tasks completed:

  1. Update {{Sonnet}} template.
  2. Replace existing sonnet texts with the Arden 1 text, and cite.
  3. Standardize bottom matter (categories, navboxes, etc.)
  4. Add DEFAULTSORT.
  5. Straighten all curly quotation marks and apostrophes (except within Arden 1 display text, where they are intentional).
  6. Add {{Shakespeare sonnets bibliography}}.
  7. Tag Talk page for both WP:BARD & WP:POETRY.
  8. Update/add "Structure" section.
  9. Fix any glaring problems I happened to notice.
  10. Develop the Sonnet Uniformity Act

Additionally, Thefairyouth154 has uploaded and placed images from the 1609 Quarto on all pages. Since I updated the Talk page projects, Johnsoniensis has reassessed the articles for sonnets 1-62, moving them from a collective WikiWork factor of 322, with relative WikiWork of 5.19 — to a current WikiWork factor of 234, with relative Wikiwork of 3.77. Out of these 62 articles, 27 were previously assessed as Stubs, now zero are. I expect similar results if 63-154 are re-assessed. Of course, I take no credit for any of the higher grades, but many articles were genuinely stubs when I got to them, and today (I think) none are.

There remains much work, and I don't intend to do it (though I'm happy to contribute my 2 cents, when appropriate). But every one of these articles can be brought to , and I hope this work will have provided a surer foundation for that. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare and fair use

Hello everyone,

I have two pieces of news which might be of interest, and I would particularly welcome some thoughts on the second point.

1. On Saturday 7th May there will be an editathon about Shakespeare in London. It's hosted at the Senate House Library in London, so if you're in the area please do come along! In preparation these three maps have been produced and uploaded to Commons.
2. The Senate House Library has an exhibition about Shakespeare and has produced some video content to go with it. I talked to them and they are happy to release a couple of videos (1 and 2) under a CC-BY-NC licence. As far as I can tell this essentially means a fair use rationale would have be used. They are both about a minute long, and I was thinking they would both fit with two articles. The video about Plutarch's Lives would fit nicely with the article on Plutarch himself and the lives, while the video on Holinshed would fit with the articles on Raphael Holinshed and Holinshed's Chronicles. Does that sound reasonable? Would there be an issue with using fair use rationales for those four articles? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Outline of William Shakespeare

Just an FYI but Draft:Outline of William Shakespeare exists. There is a proposal to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of William Shakespeare on that talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Critical perspectives on Shakespeare

Hi all. Dropping this here as a sort of public "note to self", or suggestion for other editors, or… something.

It occurs to me that while we have articles that deal directly with most, if not all, major Shakespeare topics (i.e. each play has its own article), our coverage of the "intersecting" topics is rather spotty. For example, each major approach to literary criticism that applies to Shakespeare really should have an overview article explaining its relation to the canon. Shakespeare and Race, …Gender (…Feminist?), …Post-colonialism, jews and (anti-)semitism (the pre-war and WWII German nationalists loved to appropriate Shakespeare), …queer theory, and so forth (I'm sure New Historicism needs to be there too, but…). Anything we've used in more than a single play article as a relevant critical approach. Articles like these would typically provide an overview of that critical approach across the canon, and longitudinally from its first application to present status; and the exempli gratia is probably Critical approaches to Hamlet.

There are some similar articles on non-litcrit topics too. For instance, while de Grazia's Shakespeare Verbatim focusses to a great degree on Malone, she does so to critique the currently dominant approach to the canon that started with Malone's 1790 edition (and the preceding/contemporary editions by Johnson/Steevens/Reed). And then there is stuff like the Arden, Oxford, New Cambridge, etc.; which, if the individual articles were expanded would scream out for an overview article on the major modern critical editions of the works and their history.

In the interest of producing a long term todo list for interested editors, please, if you can think of other such overview or cross-sectional articles we should have, leave them in a reply here. --Xover (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

+ Genre criticism, performance criticism, New Criticism, character-based, materialist, psychoanalytic; use of language; dramatic structure; reworking of medieval traditions; ditto for classical drama; reworking of non-dramatic sources; history of reception/evaluation (thinking of Gary Taylor's Reinventing Shakespeare, for example); ecocriticism... perhaps an overview article with subsections, spawning their own articles as the material grows? It's an ambitious proposal...  • DP •  {huh?} 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

City comedy and Shakespeare

Hello all. I've tried to clean up and source the article on city comedy recently and I'm aware that there's a little Shakespeare-sized hole that needs plugging in it, so I thought I'd post here in case anyone was able to assist. At present, the article talks about The Merry Wives of Windsor, sourced with material I could access via google books. I know, however, that Measure for Measure belongs there, as does something on The Comedy of Errors, but I don't have access to material that will support it. There is the possibility that the connections are due to a Middleton rewrite of Measure (Gary Taylor's proposal). There's the relationship to the city in Comedy, though, like Volpone, it's not London. If anyone has access to decent sources for it and are able to help, please take a look. many thanks,  • DP •  {huh?} 01:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

New resource of interest from OUP

Hi all,

Oxford University Press has recently announced “The New Oxford Shakespeare”; a new complete edition of The Oxford Shakespeare in a fully digitally integrated format. Availability in Europe seems to be in October, and in the US in November. I've not managed to find pricing information, but I imagine it won't be cheap. There is also the existing Oxford Scholarly Editions Online, which contains online editions of the entire Oxford Shakespeare series (the critical editions of the plays and poems) and some related works (GBP70/annum). Neither of these resources are available through Wikipedia's partnership with OUP via The Wikipedia Library (but I am requesting they try to get them added). Anyways, it might be useful for some; and those affiliated with an academic institution may have free access to it there. --Xover (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • On a related note. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I left a note at Henry VI (play) but this is likely going to mean changes to all articles related to the Henry VI plays. Including the Henry VI disambiguation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    • While it's likely that the articles in question will need to be updated to reflect this (it's certainly significant enough for that), there is a question of due weight that will likely need some time to determine. This is not the first time that one of the major critical editions have made an attribution that broke with past consensus; sometimes corrected by later editors, sometimes accepted generally thereafter. As an immediate example, the Oxford Shakespeare once attributed "Shall I die?" to Shakespeare (during Gary Taylor's tenure there, according to his bio), which attribution has "since been almost universally rejected". The folks working in stylometry in particular have made some attributions that, while they believe in them (i.e. in their method) quite strongly, have not been generally accepted (at least not yet). And the new Oxford's attributions to Marlowe appear, from the news article, to lean heavily on stylometric analysis. In other words, the issue will need to be examined in more detail when the new edition is out and their reasoning can be scrutinised, and, not least of all, when independent Shakespearean scholars have had a chance to respond. --Xover (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I leave it in the SProject's capable hands I am sure :) Just thought it should be posted somewhere in case people have not been keeping up with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

38 plays or 45 plays

Shakespeare's plays seems to include 38 plays. In conversation today, a rider told me that the New Oxford includes 45 plays. I assume he means this. What does this mean?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There isn't one answer. The total comes to be sort of a function of % scholarly agreement × % of play thought to be written by Shakespeare.
  • There are the 36 plays from the First Folio, mostly close to 100% on each scale.
  • Then Pericles, Prince of Tyre and The Two Noble Kinsmen which are around 100% agreement, but more like 50% written by. This brings us to the classic 38.
  • Sometimes plays that are lost, but that Shakespeare indeed seems to have written (Love's Labours Won and The History of Cardenio), are included.
  • Lately more have been squeaking in. Edward III is often included. Sir Thomas More is an interesting case in that it has pretty high scholarly agreement, but only for a few pages of text being Shakespearean. This gets us up to 42, but surely there are a few I'm forgetting.
  • I'm not sure what Oxford includes. I know their recent edition included 2 complete and distinct versions of King Lear so this practice, too, might increase the count.
Hope that helps a little. Phil wink (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
As well as the 42 plays mentioned by Phil, which, generally speaking, is the upper limit of what is considered the 'Shakespearean canon', the New Oxford also includes Arden of Faversham, Sejanus, and The Spanish Tragedy, which are all included as "co-authored" plays. Bertaut (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes to two templates

Hi all. DilatoryRevolution recently made some changes to {{Henriad}} and {{Shakespeare tetralogy}} (see here and here), and as I know a lot more people watch this page than either of the templates, I thought I'd seek opinions of the edits here. They certainly have the advantage of succinctness, although they lose something in the way of specificity. Thoughts? Bertaut (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think both versions have merits. To what are you referring when you say the new one lacks specificity? Five Antonios (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that my comments regarding losing something in the way of specificity themselves lacked something in the way of specificity...I'll get me coat! But moving on. What I was thinking when I wrote that (I think) was two-fold. To my mind the new templates are obviously more succinct, but they have two disadvantages. Firstly, they no longer provide an at-a-glance reference regarding the filmic adaptations of the eight plays. They now give a generalised "Multiple plays" reference, and a section on specific plays. Obviously, templates aren't supposed to be informational in the purest sense, but in the old versions, a reader could look and quickly discern "that play was adapted into that film. Oh, this play was also adapted into that same film." A bigger problem is the lack of specificity (that word again!) regarding the links. Previously, the BBC Television Shakespeare linked directly to their respective adaptations, but now that there is just the one link, that specific linkage (!) is absent. There is no longer a direct link to the BBC Television Shakespeare adaptation of Richard II for example, just the general link. Like I say, the new forms do represent an improvement in one area, but I'm not sure what is lost is necessarily an equal trade. I know the advice is not to repeat links in a template, but it is just that, advice, it's not policy, and if we followed it strictly in these templates, we'd also have to gut the cast sections. Bertaut (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
So Bertaut, was anything ever decided about this? Five Antonios (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd actually forgotten all about this to be honest, but, as you can see, the discussion didn't exactly provoke an especially heated free-for-all. I might put them back the way they were and see what happens. Bertaut (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal for The Face of Love (1954 film)

I started a discussion about merging the article "The Face of Love (1954 film)" into Troilus and Cressida. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Measure for Measure

This page for the character of Angelo from Measure for Measure could use significantly more elaboration. The briefly outlines his role and then dives into a long quote without much explanation. The analysis is a very short 1 line that seems irrelevant and overrepresented compared to his other actions within the play. What relevance does the analysis section have? Can we describe the quote featured on this page more? This article could use more citations to prove its accuracy. Dmartin41 (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Danielle Martin

Nomination for deletion of Template:Family of William Shakespeare

Template:Family of William Shakespeare has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Opera hat (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Free accounts for Drama Online (Bloomsbury) now available

Hi all, just wanted to let you know that you can now sign up for free access to Drama Online (from Bloomsbury) through The Wikipedia Library! And a reminder that recommendations for databases we don't have available yet are welcomed. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 5/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Shakespeare, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification of WP:RFC regarding including historical figures in navboxes

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Removal_of_historical_characters_from_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Contributions

Hello, we are a group of SUNY New Paltz students posting under the usernames of Driftstudy, Catamerche, and Mjfsunynp. We will be updating the Green World page for a class project. We plan to add information about the origins of the term "Green World," its interpretations seen in Shakespeare's work, as well as throughout Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and the relationship between the Green World and ecocriticism. We felt as if deleting the current information on the page was the best way to add our own, as we included much of what was previously stated elsewhere in our research. Thank you! Mjfsunynp (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)MjfsunynpMjfsunynp (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjfsunynp (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Info boxes on play articles

Hello all. I'm essentially thinking out loud here, and this may very well have come up before, but I'm wondering how do people feel about infoboxes in the play articles? I've seen them used on novels and operas and the like, and I think they could work to provide some essential information in an at-a-glance fashion. Has this ever been proposed before? Five Antonios (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Five Antonios: Previous consensus in the project has been against infoboxes. In particular, several of the heaviest contributors to our featured articles were against infoboxes. That being said, those contributors are no longer editing here, so there is a limit to how heavy their preference should weigh.
Personally I am currently rather ambivalent on infoboxes. I am for quick summaries of such data, but they clutter up the article visually; clutter up the wikicode; and tend to attract cruft (they are a magnet for drive-by editors who drop in whatever datum is their driving interest). And, ultimately, almost everything that I would find appropriate to have in an infobox would best be fetched automatically from Wikidata, making the actual creation of the infobox redundant.
In sum, my wonderfully vague and waffling position is: I don't know. Sorry. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on using quotation style at the Manual of Style

There's a discussion at WT:MOS#WORDSASWORDS vs. NOITALQUOTE for articles about a quotation regarding a dispute at The lady doth protest too much, methinks over whether to use italics or quote marks for such quotations. It may well impact other articles within this project - please add comments there. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Advice on content

Can the experts here weigh in on this change to The_quality_of_mercy_(Shakespeare_quote).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Thanks for the notice. That article wasn't on my watchlist for some reason. In any case, I've removed the added material as WP:OR. --Xover (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Story within a story in templates

On several of the Shakespeare templates, I have added a section for story within a story section, at Template:Twelfth Night, Woodensuperman has insisted that the section is not warranted. Does anyone have thoughts on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the time, especially in the one you mention above, these are too tangential. Only adaptations should be included. --woodensuperman 08:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with Mr.Superman. Five Antonios (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hamlet (disambiguation) which affects a page within the scope of this project. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --Xover (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Free accounts for Drama Online (Bloomsbury) now available

Hi all, just a reminder that free access is available to Wikipedians for Drama Online (from Bloomsbury) through The Wikipedia Library, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. You can sign up for a free account now! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Othello

There is a discussion at Talk:Othello#Lede image regarding which image to use in the lede of Othello, and your input would be appreciated. --Xover (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Guild Chapel

More for information than anything else, I've just started a new article on the Guild Chapel, Stratford-upon-Avon. It has some interesting Shakespearean connections, particularly in relation to John Shakespeare and may be of some interest to this project. It's very much a work-in-progress at present but I suspect it may have the seeds of an FAC. Obviously any input from project members would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

More eyes, abusive Stratfordian ones[1] or others, at the recent edits, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To be, or not to be

I know the standard solution to most problems on Wikipedia is to fix it myself, but, as I failed my English Literature O-level 45 years ago it would probable be best if someone more knowledgeable could fix this. The article that I linked above is in a shocking state. It is listed as "high importance" for this project, as it should be, but I find even its "C-Class" rating over-generous. All the article does, apart from two sentences, is to reproduce various texts of the speech and then to go on about references to it from popular culture.

If anyone is active on this project I think this should be near the top of any list of articles needing improvement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare home in London, where he wrote 'Romeo and Juliet,' found by historian

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead image on Hamlet

There is a discussion at Talk:Hamlet#The first photo you see regarding which image to use in the lead on Hamlet, that may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. --Xover (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

May require more eyes again per [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

References to Ophelia

I've started to cite/weed this article. Opinions on if it's best to keep it separate or try to merge it with Cultural references to Hamlet? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare Tavern

A new editor, Cjcarmo, have added this place to several play-articles, sourced to their website. I'm thinking it's not a good idea per WP:PROPORTION, opinons? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I can see no reason to give performances of these plays at that venue any prominence over performances at thousands of other places around the world. This looks like nothing better than spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Definitely spam. Ultimately, most theatres' productions do not belong on the play articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've removed them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
See also Talk:Shakespeare_Tavern. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:William Shakespeare for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:William Shakespeare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:William Shakespeare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 08:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Help, please

With the edithistory here [3], one example: [4]. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this disruptive spree happened because I semi-protected Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. If more socks show up, we can start semi-protecting the plays, too, but it would be unfortunate to lock down every Shakespeare-related article because of one persistent sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, It's not a new thing, consider examples like [5]. The stars are right, or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Puck_(A_Midsummer_Night's_Dream)#Vince_Cardinale_image

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Shakespeare and Star Trek

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello to the members of the project. If you have a moment would you please take a look at this and see if it is reasonable? I also have replied to the editors post here Talk:Macbeth#Big change need talk. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Macbeth

Hello. I am pretty familiar with, and enthusiastic about, Macbeth. I fell onto Macbeth the other day, and from there into here. I have but with a cursitory eye o'erglanced the article (and Wikipedia generally), but I am hoping that I can here invite a great influx of suggestions for swelling the act of the imperial theme. I'll do, I'll do, and I'll do, if I can.

(I see that The Tempest is currently prioritised in some way, but that one's not for me (I shall be pinched to death)). Untitled50reg (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Much Ado

I read "To Clean up: Much Ado About Nothing", and, being curious, clicked on Much Ado About Nothing. Then I attempted some cursory cleanup. I do not have any edition to hand; just scrubbed what I found there; need someone to take over. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Puck

"To clean up: Puck": done. A couple of citations are needed: I don't have an edition. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Horatio

"To clean up: Horatio": Horatio (Hamlet) has had a cursory scrub, including the including of several quotes, from memory, that need verifying, and citations including. Citations also need discovering and including from any source that is not Hamlet (ie, assertions are made in the article, but they are set naked on your kingdom. Untitled50reg (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard III

"To clean up: Richard III (play)": I started. I may pick it up again. I may not. Meanwhile and otherwise: citations are needed.Untitled50reg (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

There's been some recent edits to this article, and I'm not sure how generally good they are. If someone interested wants to take a look, it couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Daniel

I have recently completely revised the article on Samuel Daniel as the old one was both incomplete and inaccurate. For anyone interested, I would greatly appreciate if you would review it and offer feedback. This is my first time editing a Wikipedia article, so I am very open to suggestions, corrections, etc. After I am happy with this one, I also intend to write separate articles on Daniel's major works and lobby to get those added to Wikipedia (currently there's only one on Musophilus and it is needs serious revision as well). I am also considering taking the section in the main Samuel Daniel article on "Daniel and Shakespeare" and making it its own article. That would allow me to add a lot more detail there, including quotations. Thoughts? Musophilus (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject

Et tu, Brute? 33,285 1,109 Start--Coin945 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship

More eyes would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Florian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Should_we_merge_Crollalanza_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship_article_into_this_one?

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

New article

For the interested: Shakespeare coat of arms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Standards for Play Articles (specifically, plot summary section)

Hey everyone, I was hoping to stimulate some discussion regarding the current guidelines for articles about Shakespeare plays. Specifically, I notice that the guideline for "plot" indicates that no Act breaks should be used in this section of the article. However, I was looking at examples of FA Shakespeare plays and for example, Hamlet's plot summary does use Act breaks. Should the guideline be changed, or Hamlet edited?

Patr2016 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

More input appreciated

Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Recent_WP:SPS_additions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Romeo and Juliet

Template:Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for merging with Template:Romeo and Juliet film adaptations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Shakespeare's will#Link to Shakespeare's Signet Ring article

Very minor issue, but if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shakespeare/Archive_5&oldid=1226760022"