Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 5

message: Many of the issues in the last peer review were unaddressed, so I am posting it in this more prominent place.  Please add  tags to things that are done or discuss issues that may not need to be fixed. Wrad 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISBNs I've just added are works I've used for footnotes. Is this duplication? --Old Moonraker 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, god, I remember that...  I went through, added a fair number of citations, but couldn't find all of them and noone else was around at the time. Glad to see this is finally moving forward. Adam Cuerden talk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous peer review issues to address before FA status 

message: In my opinion, the style and reputation sections will be the hardest. I suggest we use only the most rigorous citations for these sections, meaning highly reliable academic citations. Is that ok with people?--Alabamaboy 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly reliable academic citations are most certainly not ok! RedRabbit1983 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant we should aim for using book citations by established scholars (which doesn't mean overly obtuse academic articles and such). I just feel we should steer clear of using website citations for these sections b/c they're going to be controversial. Is that acceptable? If not, why? Best,--Alabamaboy 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Both sections are heavily under-cited at the moment. There are chapters on reputation in two of the Cambridge University Press "Companions" which I have here. I'll look through those and see what I can source from there. AndyJones 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture.
Does anyone have any thoughts? AndyJones 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I tracked down some solid references for that section and added them in. Do they work for you?--Alabamaboy 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Well . AndyJones 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We're ready for peer review.--Alabamaboy 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go ahead and do it now, so that there is no lull in the process. Wrad 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style and Reputation

message: There are two different listings of the types of plays written by Shakespeare. In this article it states that he wrote four kinds, History, Comedy, Tragedy and Romance. While in a linked article Shakespeare's Playsin jean It only states the first three listed above. I have always been taught to use the first three and that all his Romances could fit into the other categories. Still this may just be a matter of opinion so I changed nothing in the articles.
*Yes, you can classify the plays in a billion ways: some people are fond of separating the "romances" from the other comedies, others carve out the "problem plays", or identify some-or-other plays as "tragi-comedies". No-one uses these labels with any consitency. The only proper course for an encyclopedia is to classify according to the First Folio (comedies, tragedies, histories) then to deal with all the other nuances in the article's text. AndyJones 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also prefer to go with the traditional comedies, tragedies, histories breakdown.--Alabamaboy 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of plays 

message: I don't seem to be able to edit this page, but can someone fix the typo "contempories"? Cheers.
Dieseldaddy 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Something should be said about the fact that the only documented samples of his handwriting are 6 different "Shakespeare signatures" and none of them spell "Shakespeare" the same way. Especially because there's a picture of one. Sydneysaurus 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures 

message: I feel like there should be some sort of rough visual timeline of historical events and Shakespeare's events. However, it should be clear that the information isn't known for sure. Sydneysaurus 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: "Greenblatt (2004:338) is persuasive that the "equivocator" arriving..." This quote from the religion section isn't following our sourcing method.  Can anyone fix this? Wrad 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the guilty editor—fixed. --Old Moonraker 05:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing format 

message: Sorry about that ANdy, I'm tired and I didn't see the ref tags. I'll be watchful next time ;) Elenseel 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops

message: First, excuse my ignorance. How are we from crowning this with Featured status? What steps are required?
I should also like to make a suggestion: in the reputation section we should add a reference to Shaw, as evidence of Shakespeare's pre-eminence. His contempt of bardolatry at least shows it to have existed. 
By the way, I read Henry VI pt. 3 today, and saw for myself the passage Greene used in his parody. RedRabbit1983 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrad's plan sounds good to me. As for the FA process, we have to nominate it as a featured article candidates. B/c this is such a high-profile article, I'd recommend that several of us both nominate it and follow the article through the FAC process.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Just wanted to point out that this article is one of the top 50 most-viewed articles on wikipedia.  Making it an FA is sure going to be great for this encyclopedia. Wrad 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. This is a biggie.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add, though, that seeing some of the articles ahead of Shakespeare makes me question the priorities of too many people in the world. List of Konoha ninja? Pokémon Diamond and Pearl? Still, at least we're ahead of Paris Hilton (even if only barely ahead).--Alabamaboy 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 50 

message: I have been troubled by the style section, which seemed to me to be focusing not on Shakespeare's style but on his influence (and since I originally wrote most of that section, any fault there rests with me). To try and fix this, I've separated that section into a style section and an influence section. I've also added more info and references to the section. Please let me know what people think about this.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I think the new organization works better. I think perhaps the middle two paragraphs of the "Influence" section might work better as a separate section titled "Dramaturgy" or "Stagecraft," placed between the Style and Influence sections. I had also been thinking about the contents of the style section, and I would like to add some more information, to wit
*his extensive use of couplets during the 1590s (and as late as "All's Well")
*the tendency in his early plays for rhetoric/poetry to overwhelm character and
*his subordination of rhetoric to character in the Jacobean plays
*his attempts to respond to or mimic the satiric drama in the early Jacobean plays
*the highly idiosyncratic verse of the final plays
Ordinarily, of course, I'd be bold and do it without prior approval, but since I'm a latecomer to this I wanted to get some thoughts from those of you who have been working on this page first!Jlittlet 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay with having subsections in the influence section (but to do that, the overall section would need to be expanded). Please feel free to add in your other suggestions. Just be sure to add good citations b/c we'll be called on it during the FA process if they are missing. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and influence 

message: I was looking at this page to do a report, and after a little clicking around I realized that when this article is accessed as a redirection from a search for "Shakespeare", the Influence section is visible, while this entire section is missing when the user searches for 
"William Shakespeare".  Obviously some kind of simple keyword editing problem, and i'm sure it can be fixed easily.
Sk8rsam224 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Difficulties Regarding the Influence Section 

message: I've started the new peer review. The link is at the top of this page, or simply go to Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started new peer review 

message: Just looking over our references.  If we want FA they need to be more consistent.  We have some refs that start with titles, and others that start with authors.  Also, our web citations should probably all use the web cite template, since they also vary more than an FA should. Wrad 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just responded to a new   request using the standard  template. I like it because it's easy to deploy and because the output is standardized, but the WP:CITET page warns that some "editors find them annoying". As only an occasional contributor, I'm not pushing this but deferring to those who have been putting in so much hard work recently. --Old Moonraker 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've temporarily removed At the end of each scene in his plays, Shakespeare also uses a couplet, in which there are two rhyming lines of poetry from the end of the "style" paragraph. It seemed to sit rather uneasily there, separated as it was from the "rhythm and verse" section. It could probably do with a citation as well. --Old Moonraker 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Yes, I appreciate your concerns, but my sentence was quite true. If you take out a copy of Romeo and Juliet or perhaps Julius Caesar, you would see that at the end of each scene, there is a couplet! I remember my English teacher telling us about this in a lecture before; this is a characteristic of a Shakespearean tragedy. Now, for comedies, I really don't know; I haven't read any. You also said that you need a "citation". Now I really can't say anything about plays but Google search for "couplet shakespeare" mentions plenty of sonnets. Does this help you?--Romeo in love 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search, and found a good site here, but it is careful to say that couplets only occur at the in some of the speeches and scenes.  I don't know if this is notable enough... Wrad 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by "notable"? Is there a particular definition of "notable" to follow here?--Romeo in love 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks, Romeo in love, for your understanding response, here and on my talk page. --Old Moonraker 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William Shakespeare#Style|Style]] 

message: This is a list of unsourced comments in this article. Some are true and just require sourcing just for form's sake, and many could in my view happily remain unsourced: others strike me as contentious, possible OR, or unencylopedically worded:
*He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy
*his plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.
**Since this is in the lead, and seems to be a summarizing statement, it probably doesn't need a source. Wrad 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy: I should point out that, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources, "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." While a number of the items you listed do indeed need citations, we shouldn't feel the need to cite statements like "The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year" which are unlikely to be challenged. Doing so can quickly fill up an article with cite references, which can make an article difficult to read. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Shakespeare 

message: This article isn't consistent when it comes to British vs. American spelling.  In some places it uses, British ("characterisation", "baptised") and others it uses American ("popularized" and "capitalized"). Since the Bard is British.  I'm leaning that way, but it doesn't really matter, just as long as it is consistent. Wrad 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough call, but necessary imho.   If we can't insist on using British spelling for Shakespeare - of all people - we may as well abandon it altogether.   But are there really 5,000 articles related to Shakespeare? --  JackofOz 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is the huge problem you're worrying about. Most Shakespeare-related articles are already British spelling, and I correct Americanisms whenever I notice them creeping in. Yes, policy is that this article, being about a British subject, should be in British English, and I think we someone should go through and make it consistent, in view of the fact that we're about to apply for FA status. AndyJones 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a matter of WP policy, not national differences. Paul B 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British vs. American Spelling 

message: I think I might have messed it up. Can someone please fix it?--Romeo in love 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference 109 

message: We've just failed a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare. Apparently two editors a few weeks apart makes a consensus, there. Actually my worry about that type of thing was one of the reasons I tried to avoid putting any {fact} tags on the article itself yesterday. I'll start citing some of the biography today, though. AndyJones 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that review. Also, the superlatives (greatest, preeminent, excelled, poetic grandeur) the reviewer says lack citations actually have cites. I wouldn't worry about this. Let's finish bringing this to FA status. Then we don't have to worry about the opinions of two revieweres in WikiProject Biography. BTW, it would have been nice to have known this was up for review. Ah well. --Alabamaboy 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy: I guess this review shows that we need to provide a citation for everything in this article.--Alabamaboy 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really have to cite everything? The page Wikipedia:Citing sources says that it's just a guideline.--Romeo in love 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it, but yes. There's too many people like those two Bio reviewers who will scream unless every sentence in this article has a citation. Might as well do it. What gets me about that review is it shows a lack of knowledge about the general critical consensus on Shakespeare. I agree that it would be POV to call a writer "the greatest" UNLESS that is the general critical consensus. In that case, it's POV to not call the writer that. Argh!--Alabamaboy 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...you sound mad. Can you calm down a bit? I'll help cite some sources, if you'd like.--Romeo in love 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and BTW, I know a little Spanish, so I can get some info from the Spanish version. I really can't translate, though.--Romeo in love 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty good at spanish too if you need any help. Sydneysaurus 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've lost our "A" class at the biography wikiproject 

message: I really like the information on Theatre in Shakespeare's time that was added to the influence section, but in that info was discussing the evolution of Shakespeare's writing over time, not his influence on later theater and literature. AS such, I've moved that info to Shakespeare's plays. I hated to do this, but the main article is already extremely long. In a similar manner, perhaps we should cut back the sexuality and religion sections of the article.--Alabamaboy 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now placed most of the religion section in its own article. The removing of this info to their own articles has shaved nearly 20 kbs off the article. It's now 58 kb long (which is probably okay).--Alabamaboy 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Smatprt and myself both proposed that at the peer review. AndyJones 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence section 

message: I'm about to remove the Bibliography section completely.  It has potential to be criticized as a list, and all of the works in it are in the template at the bottom.  Any objections? Wrad 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know. What's wrong with having a list of all of Shakespeare's works? Surely these are essential to his life!--Romeo in love 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree too. LISTS ARE BAD is not a wikipedia policy, and I'd strongly object to any knee-jerk responses to the biography project's comments. AndyJones 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If I may make a suggestion for an alternative... I've been recommending navigation boxes / author templates to do away with list-like bibliography. It cleans up the article and can look quite attractive. Take a look at examples like Template:Charles Dickens, Template:Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Template:Edgar Allan Poe. There's plenty more varieties out there too. -Midnightdreary 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem... it occurs to me that this page already has a template as I suggested. So, why is there a huge bibliography already taking up so much space if his complete works are already listed in a nice, clean box? (it's a great template, by the way) -Midnightdreary 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The box at the bottom is a wonderful thing. But that doesn't take the place of a bibliography. Can you please provide me a link to where on Wikipedia it was decided that bibliography lists are considered "unencyclopedic" and why the same list within a template is considered ok? I agree that endless lists are worthless but in this case, the bibliography is concise and packed with info that the template lacks.--Alabamaboy 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, if the template replaces the bibliography then the template will need to be revised, namely the removal of the "See also:" section, which are not works by Shakespeare. But that's only if the template were to replace the bibliography, which I believe should not happen. The reason I asked my previous questions is I'm not aware that lists like bibliographies are now considered unencyclopedic and to me the guidelines at  Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:List guideline allow these types of lists within an article. But if you can show me a guideline which replaces these...--Alabamaboy 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. The people there who tend to disagree a good deal did agree that lists of works were worth having, though there can be a great deal of difference in how they are arranged . For this one, the works are so well known that they do fit into a section.  A template is a supplement--it has a use, and the use is to arrange the WP articles and let people see what there is--it's a navigation template. Even where all the works have articles, & thus would fit, as they do here, a template  only really makes sense when work on a more finely crafted list is not appropriate or practical. That is not the least true here, of all possible places in WP. We might additionally try a page with the works arranged both by genre and chronologically and by inclusion in the various major editions. This above all other articles in WP would be the place for one. There's a manageable number, several worthwhile ways to list them, and of course an immense amount of reader interest.  DGG 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be for having a separate List of works by William Shakespeare that is exhaustive and has details such as first published, first appeared in which theatre, dates, afterwards get into the Folios.  It should give you a sense of when Shakespeare's works appeared in the world, and how they appeared subsequently in the struggle to keep them circulating.  A separate List of works by William Shakespeare would not have to be compacted and compressed and could lend some context to how his works were published.  This would be a supplement to this main article.-BillDeanCarter 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have an article Chronology of Shakespeare plays. AndyJones 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Bibliography 

message: The date of birth and date of death are both unknown. Read this: What should we do?--Romeo in love 19:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth and death unknown 

message: Article says:
::This pattern changed in Shakespeare's later plays, where he began to use a flowing form of blank verse (where the lines don't rhyme and are not grouped in stanzas).
Are we to understand that his early plays had the lines written in stanzas? And if so is that correct and I've been missing something for all this time? AndyJones 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of his plays were written chiefly in blank verse. The statement is incorrect. RedRabbit1983 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The later plays certainly have a more "flowing", conversational verse, but that's just a sign of increasing skill and facility. It's an ongoing process throghout his career, not a break. Obviously "the lines don't rhyme", otherwise it wouldn't be blank verse! Paul B 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanzas 

message: In the case of Shakespeare, isn't iambic pentameter a form of blank verse? If so, then should we clarify that? If not, then should we make the distinction between the two?--Romeo in love 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for messing that up. I didn't mean to imply that iambic pentameter wasn't a form of blank verse. The new version fixes that perfectly.--Alabamaboy 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iambic pentameter and blank verse 

message: The last citation tag has been eliminated!  We may want to go through and re-check everything to make sure we didn't miss a spot.  After that we should get started standardizing the citation format. Wrad 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations complete! 

message: I have a problem with the sentence "His plays combine popular appeal and poetic grandeur[13]with complex characterisation and philosophical depth." which does seem to be a piece of (almost) unsourced peacockery in the intro, of the kind which any non-Shakespeare-enthusiasts at Featured Article Candidates will criticise us for. The source is to an essay by A.C.Bradley (who was long dead by 1998 so the citation is not good) and its place mid-sentence suggests to me Bradley probably only said "poetic grandeur" and no other part of the sentence. I propose that we remove this sentence completely. However I'm open to suggestions for replacements. Someone somewhere has surely written an overview of Shakespeare's literary reputation & style from which we can source a replacement sentence. Otherwise, I don't think the intro would be bad, without it. AndyJones 13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out with it! Wrad 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock

message: I noticed that we have several articles that have the word "Shakespeare" in them, what I like to call "fork articles" (honestly, I have no idea what they're really called). What I'm referring to are the ones about his sexuality, religion, authorship question, reputation, plays, etc. etc. Is there a way in which we can put all of these fork articles together? Perhaps in those little boxes you have at the end?--Romeo in love 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all of those should be added to the Shakespeare template. I'll do this in a moment.--Alabamaboy 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've developed a template for Shakespeare's relatives at  (as you can see, the last two links need an article).  Maybe this information would be good in a "Biography of Shakespeare" template, however. Wrad 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's always the Family Tree template: 
- Nunh-huh 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the diagram but don't think it should go in this article. Let's put it in Shakespeare's Life. --Alabamaboy 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with 'bamaboy. Wrad 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the by, here's a good link for Shakespeare's line: http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/timeline/genealogy.htm. Wrad 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fork" articles? 

message: This sentence seems detached from the rest of the paragraph:
Shakespeare's writing displays a persistent engagement not only with the technical requirements of theater[38] but also with theater as a shaping concept in human life.
Ditto:
There is a tradition that Shakespeare also continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. These traditions, however, have little scholarly basis.
The paragraphs need to be rearranged for coherence, or perhaps rewritten. RedRabbit1983 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it is vital that we have this speculations section. I'd also hate to see any of this section merged into other places b/c these are speculations--having them elsewhere may give them more weight than they deserve. We've already cut back the religion and authorship subsections; if we cut back the religion part too, then the section should be not overly long.--Alabamaboy 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now cut back the sexuality part. This speculation section is now only a third what it used to me. I think that's a decent size.--Alabamaboy 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section still reads pretty terribly though. The first sentence in particular is unintentionally humorous: "As with many aspects of Shakespeare's life, there is little direct evidence with regards to Shakespeare's sexuality aside from the fact that he was married to Anne Hathaway and fathered three children." Well, there sure isn't much evidence for Bush being US President other than that he shows up for work in the West Wing every day. I'd just edit most of it out but I'd rather not get into whatever debates you've had going on back here. Rolken 09:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AndyJones 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences

message: I changed a lot in the see also section.  A lot of the link were duplicates of the template at the bottom of the page.  I didn't see any reason for two links so I deleted those.  I also added the relatives template.  Right now the section is pretty skimpy, but whatever is added should have a good reason to be. Anyway, it's a work in progress, so please comment. Wrad 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The plays marked as collaborations don't jive with the list of collaborations at Shakespeare's plays. These are missing from the WS list: (FYI - I'm showing excerpts from the other page - not my particular POV.)
Cardenio, a lost play; contemporary reports say that Shakespeare collaborated on it with John Fletcher.
 Wrad 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, with one reservation: Do they have reliable sources? Wrad 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I'd say stick them in with the sources. Wrad 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To the extent that you can reliably source these, add them in. Use the same method I did (as amended by Wrad in moving to Notes) & it'll be fine. I'll have a go at this in the next few days if no-one else does. AndyJones 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborations

message: I've revised the already existing featured article candidates page for this article, which is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare, to include a draft of the potential FAC language. Please note that this FAC is not yet live on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and won't be live until we all are satisfied with it. I also hope others will place their signatures on the page so the FAC will be a joint nomination. Otherwise, make changes to the language as people see fit. If everyone is satisfied, perhaps the FAC can start tomorrow or the next day. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret to announce that I will not be editing for an indefinite amount of time due to an unexpected change in my schedule. I wish you all the best of luck. --Romeo in love 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW This doesn't mean that I won't be editing anymore; in fact, I still might be editing a lot. I'm just saying that since there might be some days where I won't be here, or some days when I will edit at a much slower frequency.Romeo in love 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally understand. I hope you'll keep an on the FAC in the coming days. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people on wikipedia feel this way.  It's the way it is when you put something out for the whole world to see and say, "I think this is great!  Tell me what you think!" Wrad 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC language 

message: The bottom catagory (See Also) of the Shakespeare Template seems a bit of a mishmosh. Could it be catagorized or alphabetized or something? - right now it jumps from catagory to catagory with no apparent reason.  I was going to alphabetize it but that would put "Authorship Question" first, which would undoubtably piss someone off, so I am loathe to do it myself. Can someone have a go at it?Smatprt 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Leave it for now. The next step after this article reaches FA status will be to start reviewing all the Shakespeare subarticles and making sure they include the new information and citations in this article. At that time, we can easily work on the template. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of the problem with changing it now would be the overhauling in progress on the Shakespeare's influence subject, involving three articles on the template in question. Wrad 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakesperae Template