Thanks for the understanding. The main difficulty I have is that I don't think that the approach favoured by the Wikipedian powers-that-be is the most helpful for any of us. Given a blank sheet of paper I would have a main article concentrating upon the Stratfordian argument, and why the proponents of most alternative candidates (not "most anti-Strats"!) reject them. Each alternative candidate could then have a very brief mention in the main article (mainly historical) and one spin-off article discussing the case for it along the lines of the Marlovian one. In other words, if you want to get there, I don't think you should be starting from here! Peter Farey. 82.11.98.197