Talk:Romeo

message: I've basically rebuilt this entire page. I'm not done yet - there's a lot of crafting and polishing to be done, but to me it already looks a million times better. Does anyone else have some reccomendations?     BeastKing89 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Rewriting 

message: *This page has been the target of a lot of vandalism, which has been repaired mostly by my loyal friends from  Wikiproject Shakespeare (thanks, guys). Can I request some protection? BeastKing89 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I know that this debate has surfaced on other articles, as well - should we have spoiler tags on this page? I think it might be fair to put it on here above the "Distinguishing Characteristics / Character Analysis" section, since it isn't explicitly labeled a plot summary section, and it does give away crucial details from the plot.
However, I restrained myself from putting them back in, since I realize that Romeo's suicide is hardly a spoiler for most people. But again, this (I've noticed) is a heated topic, so I leave it up for discussion.
Also, kudos to Wrad for the template and quote box. They make the page look very professional. 
--BeastKing89 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers? 

message: I wrote the following at Talk:William Shakespeare, but it's particularly pertinent to this page, which has NO SOURCES AT ALL:
::An important object lesson for new wikipedians: cite your sources at the time you put information in. There are a few fairly new wikipedians I have encouraged to do precisely that, and this i.e. the Shakespeare FA drive is the reason why. There is NO CHANCE, now, of us working out who wrote which bit of the page, and even if we worked it out, no chance of us contacting all of them and of them remembering which sources they used and contacting us back to tell us what they were. So we have to go back and do the work again. For example, consider this section about Shakespeare's reputation. Is there anything wrong with it? No. Is it factually accurate? Yes. Is it written in clear intelligent prose? Yes. Is it relevant and encyclopedic? Yes. Is it thoroughly sourced? NO! So before we could apply to promote the article to featured article status, we had to replace it with something we actually could source. We had no idea what the original sources were so some poor sap had to rewite from scratch: all the previous good work was lost, and the new version, which is here is not necessarily better, clearer, more encyclopedic or in more compelling prose. It just has the advantage of having lots of annoying little footnote tags all the way through it. AndyJones 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  This is the plague what could be some of wikipedia's finest articles, and it takes a lot of work to fix.  Thanks, however, to those who took it upon themselves to expand this article the best they could. Wrad 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

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

message: Wow. The style and grammar is rather poor for such an important English-language subject. It looks like the C- secondary school/high school kids have really been at it. I'll do a little remixing. Centrepull (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor 

message: moved per primary topic. --rgpk (comment) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We had that discussion earlier, we already decided that Shakespeare's characcter is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: When is his age said to be 22? I'm removing it until someone can page source it.Samvnkauffman (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Romeo's age

message: What is an family association in romeo and juliet? Kristian ayala15 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romeo