Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 1

message: The main issue here is that this is closely related to the above state wikiproject.  It even has a portal directly devoted to Shakespeare, their main portal.
However, Shakespeare did not write only for the theatre, and besides this, his influence extends beyond the bounds of theatre in other ways, such as film, culture, etc.  This project, I think, would be better able to get Shakespeare out of a secondary position in a theatre "box" and out into wikipedia in a broader variety of ways, while still being able to maintain conformity between articles. 
So, the question is how to resolve the current issues with Elizabethan theatre.  Most importantly, I think, the portal issue.  It is a very nice portal. Wrad 23:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a nice portal.  We don't have to get permission to just start maintaining the portal as part of our project.  It doesn't look like anyone is really maintaining it right now, anyway, though one of the creators of the portal invited people to write him about it (I would write him myself but I can't figure out what to write).  Curtangel 01:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the central argument for retaining this project despite overlaps (other than that overlaps occur all the time without conflict) is that Shakespeare covers more than just plays. The sonnets will require just as much work to standardise and categorise as the plays, if not more. It's like the relation between Wikiproject Mammals and Wikiproject Dogs and Cats. VanTucky 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly think Shakespeare portal should be cut out of the Elizabethan theater portal.  We could be affiliated though.  The Elizabethan theater portal has a very academic draw to it, this one much less so.  Also, it's not like the two portals are dead opposed to each other like the Montagues and Capulets, or competing for subscribers. ;) Mandel 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Elizabethan Theatre issue

message: I think the most vital wiki policy for members of this project to remember is no original research; i.e. no editorializing/analysing of plays and sonnets that are not published sources. zero. zip. It's like the policy central to Wikiproject Wine (wikipedia is not a wine guide). For us, Wikipedia is not a forum for your interpretation of the Bard. VanTucky 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important policy for this project 

message: This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Ummm...all canonized works of Mister William Shakespeare are top importance by default, as we like it :) Mandel 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created an assessment page for the project... I'm not liking my choices for articles for examples on the importance scale... I tried to make it one article about Shakespeare as a person, and one about Shakespeare's work in some form.  I welcome others who might have more (or a better) perspective on what importance levels various articles should be to make more appropriate choices. Curtangel 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance scale

message: The best way for a project to die, is that it doesn't have enough users.  The best way to reach a consensus, is to have lots of members chipping in.  So, how are we going to get them?  Here are some of my ideas, although I think many will come of their own accord.
* Every time we edit a Shakespeare page, perhaps add a talk section with a link to this site and invitation to join (especially main pages).
* Put templates on all talk pages within the project.
* Put the new userbox (thanks Curtangel) on our userpages.
* Invite specific editors who seem to have an interest in/knowledge of Shakespeare.
Any other ideas? Wrad 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we extended an invite to people from the Elizabethan theatre project? VanTucky 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting wikiusers to the project 

message: How about poetry standards?  (Sonnets, etc.)  I've posted invites on the poetry project for help on this.  (I've also noticed that this area has issues, as well as his plays.) Wrad 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can take our time...after all the project is only three days old. :) Mandel 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetry standards 

message: Are we including directly derivative works (such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and (on the less famous half) Gertrude and Claudius)?  What about people who were important in Shakespeare's life?  People who are considered nominees for the "Dark Lady" and "Young Man" of the sonnets?  I know this is a bit early... I just looked and Shakespeare's page doesn't have a template yet.  But, I think the sooner we get this settled the few problems we'll have in the long run.
If we do intend to include these articles, I propose that we create a task force for each of Shakespeare's works as well as one for the man himself. This might see a bit early, but I wanted to get the idea out there. Curtangel 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for any related works to be included they need to state independently the direct deriviation from Shakespeare before we try and cover it in the scope. That way we dont start forcing the project on articles through our personal opinion of similarity or something. VanTucky 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of the project

message: To avoid discussion in more than one place, please see my comments at Template talk:Shakespearesonnets#New_layout. -- Chuq (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to [[Template:Shakespearesonnets]] 

message: Are we all aware of this wiki project? []Smatprt 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: shakespeare.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

message: I just put the project template on a lot of articles, and noticed a few things:
#Some articles have trouble with putting all play titles in italics
#There are several very small character pages which may need to be merged or expanded.
#Trivia sections (already discussed)
#Some articles divide the Synopsis into acts.  This seems to make the synopsis more readable.  It might be a good idea for all synopses.
Just some observations.  We don't want to take to much onto our plate right now, though. Wrad 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some observations 

message: I wanted to let everyone here know that there's a discussion going on at Talk:William_Shakespeare#Consensus_on_authorship_section about how little or much of the questions around Shakespearean authorship claims to include in the main article. I hope everyone will join in the discussion. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare Authorship discussion 

message: I'm glad this Wikiproject is gaining steam and getting down to do some greatly needed work. I wonder, though, why no one has mentioned the need to bring the main William Shakespeare article up to featured article standards? Obviously, this article must be at the center of this project. In addition, the article is extremely high visibility and is already at Good Article level. Would people be willing to set our sights on this goal over the coming months?--Alabamaboy 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn main article into a featured article 

message: Could anyone access this site?  At ise.uvic.ca/ then browse around.  It always hangs on my browser. Mandel 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Wrad 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you click on the links? Try it, it doesn't seem to work.Mandel 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't work for me.  Looks like it can be used as a source edition, but I've tried everything.  I'm on IE 6.0. Mandel 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Shakespeare Editions

message: There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox Play about whether or not templates should be used for plays in wikipedia, and if so, how.  Members of this project are strongly encouraged to participate as consensus and settlement is needed on this issue. Wrad 04:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Play infoboxes 

message: I see this page has been quiet for a few days, so I suggest we pick our first article to collaberate on. I know what I would suggest, but I'm going to leave this comment up for a few hours to see what other members of the project think, first. AndyJones 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: Following is a suggested revision by User:Wrad to the page layout suggested above. On the whole I approve it. AndyJones 12:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Revision to page layout for the works

message: Sounds great, y'all! Smatprt 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 External links