Talk:Characters in Romeo and Juliet

message: Is the inclusion of Valentine really necessary? He's only mentioned once in the text - in passing on Capulet's invitation list; if it's concluded that we want Valentine on the page after all do we then include Martino, Anselme, Vitruvio's widow, Placentio, Livia, Valentio, Lucio and Helena? What about Petrucio? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?! Nowah Balloon 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Valentine

message: :Image:Montague-seal.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Montague-seal.jpg

message: He isn't listed at all. Did someone accidentally delete him?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.125.189 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has his own article. Wrad (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Capulet 

message: Lady Capulet's name is Angelica, but people often misinterperate this and think that the Nurse's name is Angelica 69.22.71.123 (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Capulet 

message: How do we know that Lady Capulet is 28?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.99.80 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 28 (Lady Capulet's age)

message: I haven't found any reference to Mercutio's page in act 3 scene 1 (Mercutio's duel with Tybalt), and I don't believe that any mention of a 'surgeon' is made at all. Has anyone found the quote?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reimtus (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: MERCUTIO: Where is my page? Go, villain. Fetch a surgeon. (3.1.94) AndyJones (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page to Mercutio 

message: I've looked a bit at this page and had some trouble fitting it to my mental model: it's a bit of neither fish nor fowl. For instance, the list of characters here actually omits the main characters (because those happen to have their own articles). Anyways, I've tried two alternate approaches to this article: overview article and list article. These two are a bit more “standard” in approach (not that that's necessarily in any way relevant here). Please ignore the quality of the text (it's cut&paste from various places; lede or Role in play from character articles, etc.) and the numerous little formatting issues.
What do you think about these approaches? Do either look worth pursuing? Incidentally, for the latter (list) article I had a brief look at some newly Featured List articles, and with a little work it could very well make the bar there, but would probably have to be renamed to List of characters in Romeo and Juliet to be eligible (I think). --Xover (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate approaches 

message: I'm going to harmonize the spelling, tending towards "Lawrence" as it's the spelling of the linked article. At present it's very nearly fifty-fifty with "Laurence". Suggestions as to which way to go, please?--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections: done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Second thoughts have appeared at Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Laurence. It looks like my fifty-fifty chance of being right went the wrong way! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friar Lawrence 

message: The definitive usage, now explained in Count Paris—"County Paris" is still a redirect—seems to be "County". Until this morning, the definitive usage was in use on this page also. Proposing a rv to the way things were before. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple of refs added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I seem to be missing something here. Is there any doubt that Paris is a Count? Is there any particular reason why we should use an archaic spelling, that most readers will be unfamiliar with, based on a variant spelling chosen primarily for metric reasons, in a period when spelling was not yet standardized? I'm pretty sure, though it's been a while since I looked at it, that all the major modern scholarly editions use “Count” (and, truth be told, I can't even recall “County” being noted anywhere).--Xover (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When they read the playtext they will become familiar with it: it's used nineteen times; "count" is used but once (thanks, Kindle). My own "major modern scholarly edition" (Bate) follows this tradition, as does my major, not modern edition (Craig). Hits in Google books: 2500 for "County Paris", 1700 "Count Paris". Google Scholar has strikingly similar proportion: 254 to 171. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have at least the Oxford edition so I can check what that says later. But I'm genuinely puzzled about what your thrust is here. Are you proposing that we consistently use “County Paris” (or if not, what are you proposing)? And what is your rationale for using it above the plain and obvious choice? --Xover (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Put simply, it's the word used consistently in the text, in all editions: it's the only spelling that can be used or else the metre is damaged. You are correct in saying that it's archaic—the last recorded direct use was in 1848 (OED)—yet there are very many "archaic" word in the canon; readers' possible lack of familiarity shouldn't be a reason to expunge them from the encyclopaedia. If that's a given,  then we should have consistency within the article, as we had until yesterday.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must admit I stand soundly corrected: my Oxford edition(s) of the play (Levenson 2000, 2008) do, indeed, use “County” in the play text, so you are entirely correct on that score. However, in the prologomena she uses “Count Paris”; for example on p.7, which, incidentally, Bate cites on p.116. Also, in the note to 1.2.0 (n. 1.2.0.1), Levenson glosses “County” as “Count, a title of nobility in some European countries, equivalent to the English ‘Earl’…”. Bate and Rasmussen do the same in the RSC edition of the play: the preface uses “Count” but leaves “County” in the play text and glosses it as “County. Count” in the notes (e.g. 1.2n). For me, it thus stands to reason that everywhere we quote from the play text, or otherwise need to care about the metre, we should use the original “County”; but everywhere else, particularly in the main body of article text and in article titles—and even in quoted scene directions—we should use the modernized spelling “Count” that is what will be least unfamiliar to readers, not needlessly archaic, and in line with what at least the Oxford and RSC editions of the play uses (i.e. modern in the Preface, original in play text). I was going to check the Arden as well, but apparently I only borrowed it from the library when we were working on the article, probably because it seems the Arden Third Series edition of it is expected out this year and I didn't want to bother with the older edition (it's getting a bit dated now as I recall), but I would tend to doubt it is very much different from RSC and Oxford (and, indeed, Bate) in this regard. --Xover (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry: nothing to add. I don't believe that the two articles as they stand, using “Count Paris” as the title, are correct but the explanatory note here “(County Paris in the text)” just about saves it.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But, "County Paris" has now been deleted, again contrary to the cited sources. Needs a fix, preferably back to the original version now that it has been supported with additional refs. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry about that. I'm trying to get the editor in question to engage in discussion in the section below, but haven't had much luck so far. This change is one of the edits I fear will have to be reverted unless we can get a meaningfull discussion of the changes. --Xover (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I was hoping more people might chime in on this issue so that we could establish a firm consensus (it potentially has far-reaching implications in terms of naming the article itself, and precedent for other character articles), but it appears not very many people have this article watchlisted. Maybe we should ask WP:BARD to chime in? --Xover (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: County Paris

message: This is really picky, but Chorus's speech is a sonnet only in Q2; in Q1 it's a "quatrain and two couplets" (The First Quarto of Romeo and Juliet, Erne, 2007, p49, ). --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chorus 

message: Something is wrong with the start  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.207.80 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BENVOLIO