Talk:Montagues and Capulets

message: :Since and Juliet rise sharply in the North-East of England toward the end of the 1990s.[citation needed]
Anyone have any idea what this means, in the bit about Sunderland AFC running out to the tune?
Brickie (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what? 

message: I'd come across it called "Dance of the Knights" before, but had the feeling it had another name.  "Montagues and Capulets" obviously has something to do with the opera for which it was composed, but where did the "Dance of the Knights" name come from?  The article ought to address the origin and status of the two names. — Smjg (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought that this work was named "Dance of the Knights" before I had to see the article! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the two names? 

message: The Emerson, Lake and Palmer cover should be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.30.209 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELP 

message: Surely deserves a mention? Moz1916 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walk-on Music for The Smiths? 

message: I propose to merge "Montagues and Capulets" into Romeo and Juliet. Why an individual movement from a ballet merits its own article isn't adequately explained. The "Allegro con brio" from Beethoven's Fifth or any number of dances from Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker are among the most famous and oft-referenced pieces of classical music in existence; none have any separate articles to themselves. All information contained here could be neatly enfolded back into the article on the complete score. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments at Talk:Juliet as a Young Girl. TheEmeraldBeyond (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the comment here for completitions sake Aza24 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Support this suggestion.  Montagues and Capulets is a little more comprehensive [than Juliet as a Young Girl], but ultimately the Romeo and Juliet article is not particularly lengthy and seems to me this content would sit better in the main article. TheEmeraldBeyond (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. So much about this page makes no sense. It suggests M+C is a "movement" (not really) of the Suite from the ballet, rather than being a musical number from the ballet itself... So much about this makes no sense and it would make perfect sense if placed in the R+J page.  Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.25.111 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose, as Montagues and Capulets clearly fulfills the independent notability criteria of WP:NSONG given its broader cultural influences described in Montagues and Capulets#Other uses and adaptations. Errors on the page are best fixed, rather than using this as a justification for the merge; it is true that other musical numbers exists that don't have pages, and warrant them, but that's not a reason to remove this one. Rather, it's a reason to develop more content elsewhere! Klbrain (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire 'Other uses and adaptations' is trivia and should not be here in the first place. This piece is not a 'song' so WP:NSONG is inapplicable. Really this article needs to go. Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Support redirect or merge, there's not really anything to merge, best to redirect and delete this page's content, full of uncited trivia and unhelpful analysis. If someone wants to write a fully sourced and comprehensive article (notwithstanding that that may not be possible), sure, but otherwise this should be merged for now. Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Support redirect. This article is remarkable, in its way. Not many Wikipedia articles are so bad on so many fronts. This one is not only superfluous, but downright awful. The alleged analysis is pure WP:OR from start to finish and rightly peppered with "citation needed" tags, and, as Aza24 points out, the "Other uses and adaptations" section is pure trivia. I agree with Aza24 that it would be best to delete the whole frightful page. A redirect is what is needed, and if anyone feels moved to write a few sentences, properly sourced and cited, in the article on the ballet, so much the better. (That main article could do with a bit of t.l.c. from a balletomane: it too is singularly short of citations, particularly in the "Revivals and other productions" section.) Tim riley talk 06:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merger this article into Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev)