Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 1

message: ok so who went to go see the play romeo and juliet i mean what kind of people went to see his plays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.81.126.107 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comment

message: Changed this sentence-
:The young lovers decide to marry without informing their parents, because they would undoubtedly disallow it due to the ancient grudge between the two families.
The real reason they couldn't marry openly is because of the intended Paris-Juliet marriage. It was common practice in the city-states of medieval Italy for the children of feuding factions to be married off to each other in the hopes that this would result in a cooling of the rivalry. If not for Paris, a Montague-Capulet marriage would have been just the thing to put an end to hostilities. This would have been the case even if the two were not in love, since the children's wishes were rarely taken into account. Sources: Asimov, Dorothy L. Sayers. Ellsworth 22:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised my own comment for clarity. This is not a breach of Wikiquette, is it? Ellsworth 22:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret marriage 

message: There's a paragraph in Verona describing in detail the various retellings of the story before Shakespeare got his hands on it. Should it be moved here, or is there somewhere else more appropriate? --Paul A 04:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of advice to the contrary, I've moved it here. --Paul A 06:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier stories 

message: Hi
I have seen in the Hamlet article that the characters' descriptions are quite large.  I was wanting to know what people thought about doing this for Romeo and Juliet.  I say this as the Mercutio article seems a bit small and could be better merged into the main article.
What do people think? -- Master Of Ninja 11:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go for it! The Singing Badger 13:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand characters description? 

message: This is not my field of expertise, but shouldn´t it be noted that the story ¨pyramus and thisbe¨ strongly influenced Romeo and Juliet?  I point to the fact that the story was well-known and pre-dates R&J by, like, bunches of years.  Also that the plots/characters/everything are very similar.  I would make the change myself but i wouldnt want to potentially mislead people.
:: That's probably true, since R&J was written at the same time as A Midsummer Night's Dream which has the comc version of Pyramus & Thisbe. I say go for it. The Singing Badger 14:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: I noticed that Romeo's exile was not expanded on. Also, Lady Capulet's death wasn't mentioned.
:Go for it, dude!Ellsworth 22:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand: 

message: Its not like there's anything to spoil. You're telling me that there's still a reader that would get the experience "spoiled" by knowing (the generally well known fact) that....*GASP*...THEY DIE?!! I don't think knowing the ending "spoils" anything, considering it IS Romeo and Juliet and the thing that gives most pleasure is watching the drama, not being held in "suspense" (I mean, you probably won't ask subconsciously when seeing Romeo and Juliet, "are they going to die? Or are they not?"). I'm sure as literature students, a lot of us have probably studied a lot of Shakespearan texts and probably knew the ending even without reading it or seeing it before. And that didn't spoil the beauty, did it? ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 22:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the Prologue comes right out and says it in the first fourteen lines of the play: "Two star-crossed lovers take their life..." 69.51.77.162 14:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the spoiler warning really warranted? 

message: the first sentence says:
*"Romeo and Juliet is a famous play by William Shakespeare concerning the fate of two young star-crossed lovers. January 29, 1595."
What is that date? Kingturtle 02:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence 

message: Back before this talk page was blanked I changed this sentence in the article-
:The young lovers decide to marry without informing their parents, because they would undoubtedly disallow it due to the ancient grudge between the two families.
The real reason they couldn't marry openly is because of the intended Paris-Juliet marriage. It was common practice in the city-states of medieval Italy for the children of feuding factions to be married off to each other in the hopes that this would result in a cooling of the rivalry. If not for Paris, a Montague-Capulet marriage would have been just the thing to put an end to hostilities. This would have been the case even if the two were not in love, since (as is now noted supra) the children's wishes were rarely taken into account. Sources: Asimov, Dorothy L. Sayers. Ellsworth
:The Paris-Juliet marriage is definitely reason, but the feuding families may also be a big reason for the secrecy.  Juliet's line "My only love sprung from my only hate" suggests that a marriage between the 2 families would not have gone over well, and neither Montague nor Capulet seemed all that intent on mending the problems between the families. Pnkrockr 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret marriage 

message: In Verona mainly, but also partly in Mantua.  JackofOz 13:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Shakespeare was way ahead of Douglas Adams and Andy Warhol on this one.  He didn't choose 42 out of thin air, did he now?  Let me explain.  Assume night arrives at 7pm and ends when dawn breaks at 4:30am.  Since Juliet's scheduled to wake up at 4pm, at the very least she needs 3 more hours worth of the drug.  And maybe up to 12.5 more hours worth.  So, if Will was going to get it wrong, why choose this particular number?  Well, our attention has certainly been drawn to 42, so maybe that's the point.  This voice from 1603 (or whenever) is saying, like, "Next time you people see 42 again, sit up and take notice of it.  And then maybe look with new eyes at this little passage from my play.  (slight pause for reflection.) Now back to the time-line.  Mid-way is 7.75 hours longer, or 11:45 pm.  Fifteen minutes to midnight.  Enter Andy Warhol, stage left.  He read Shakespeare, but he puts his own twist on it.  Andy said, "In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of fame".  Sounds almost cool.  But what I think Shakespeare was really saying is, "You will only have 15 minutes in which to achieve fame."  What a tough world we're making for ourselves.  Think about it.  (Thus endeth Jack's metaphysical rant of the month. JackofOz 12:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You maketh my head hurt.--AimeeLee 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where was romeo and juliet set 

message: Can anyone assist with the problem that I have come across to do with the friar's potion? He gives the potion to her Tuesday night  + 42 hours (the length specified in text for drug to trake effect and wear off) makes it... Thursday 6 hours before Juliet retirs to bed on Tuesday (assuming this is around 10pm, she wakes two days later around 4pm).
Yet she wakes up in the night, moments after Romeo commits suicide - nighttime - because it is dawn when the families arrive...
Any ideas anyone?
Crescent 12:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Shakespeare was way ahead of Douglas Adams and Andy Warhol on this one.  He didn't choose 42 out of thin air, did he now?  Let me explain.  Assume night arrives at 7pm and ends when dawn breaks at 4:30am.  Since Juliet's scheduled to wake up at 4pm, at the very least she needs 3 more hours worth of the drug.  And maybe up to 12.5 more hours worth.  So, if Will was going to get it wrong, why choose this particular number?  Well, our attention has certainly been drawn to 42, so maybe that's the point.  This voice from 1603 (or whenever) is saying, like, "Next time you people see 42 again, sit up and take notice of it.  And then maybe look with new eyes at this little passage from my play.  (slight pause for reflection.) Now back to the time-line.  Mid-way is 7.75 hours longer, or 11:45 pm.  Fifteen minutes to midnight.  Enter Andy Warhol, stage left.  He read Shakespeare, but he puts his own twist on it.  Andy said, "In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of fame".  Sounds almost cool.  But what I think Shakespeare was really saying is, "You will only have 15 minutes in which to achieve fame."  What a tough world we're making for ourselves.  Think about it.  (Thus endeth Jack's metaphysical rant of the month. JackofOz 12:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You maketh my head hurt.--AimeeLee 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with maths/time in the play 

message: I removed the following from the write-up of the 1983 film: " and more naturalistic line delivery than was used in Shakespeare's time."  This makes no sense--if the implication is that acting in the Renaissance was unnatural or mannered, that assumption is of course false. The link is to naturalism, a disambig page.  Chick Bowen 18:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  phrase removed 

message: Regarding the 'Source' section:
:"It ultimately derives from the 1476 story of Mariotto and Gianozza by Masuccio Salernitano, in Il Novelino."
According to Masuccio Salernitano, Salernitano died in 1475. Unless it was a posthumous release, something's wrong. Deltabeignet 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy issue 

message: I think the Allusions section should be renamed with a more acurate title. An allusion is an indirect reference, but a songs which are actually called "Romeo and Juliet" are hardly indirect. Perhaps it should be renamed 'Popular culture' or something similar? Tartan 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or simply "References" or something like that? --213.237.94.61 02:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Tartan; we should make sure all the "allusions" are really allusions. Also, "allusions" sections seem to focus almost completely on those in popular culture, forsaking surely more common literary ones. However, I wonder about the need for an "Allusions" section in the first place. I mean, isn't Romeo and Juliet surely one of the most alluded-to works of literature in the world? How could we even compile a somewhat-comprehensive list of all allusions to it?TysK 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the title to 'References in popular culture' which is more accurate. The Singing Badger 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allusions?

message: *They wanted somebody else to do their homework for them. AndyJones 11:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are the character flaws of romeo and juliet 

message: Do they REALLY appear naked? Cause, we saw it in our school, and I think our teachers should know if that is true.--71.225.142.197 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they did. Because Olivia Hussey was 15, they had to get special permission for her to appear naked (event though her nudity only lasts for a split second). Leonard Whiting was a bit older, so there wasn't an issue with him. - Green Tentacle 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Leonard was 18 when he made the movie if I'm remembering correctly. My class didn't get that far in the movie apparently...Princess Roxanne Aquaviva 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romeo and Juliet: 1968 version w/ Olivia Hussey 

message: I really miss a section on the significance of the story of Romeo and Juliet. Why is this play so famous? Which message does it express that is so important that makes it probably the most well-known play in Western tradition? Something about how culture and tradition (symbolized by the families of the lovers) alienates the individual subjects (symbolized by the lovers themselves)? I know these questions often have many different answers, depending on who you ask, but there must some degree of consensus on some of it. --213.237.94.61 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance, interpretation 

message: I believe that I have sometimes seen Juliet's name spelled "Joliet". Does anyone have any information about this difference in name? Conrad Devonshire 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romeo and Joliet? 

message: What time perioud did this take place in?  Akako23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What time period? 

message: In the article, it says that "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet" is often misquoted as "...by any other name would...". However, Wikiquote and Wikisource both say that it is the latter. I have only ever heard of that one. Maybe it depends on the edition? Could somebody with access to several editions of the play please check this?
:The NPS edition says "word". Its footnote says "the Q1 reading name was included in many of the older editions of Shakespeare, and so became usual in the proverbial saying." All modern versions of the play are based on Q2, for the reason that Q1 is a "bad quarto", while Q3, F and later editions are derived from Q2. AndyJones 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arden edition (also based on the Second Quatro) has a long footnote on this and passionately (and convincingly, with a cross-reference to Twelfth Night) insists that it must be 'word'. Nevertheless, it is misleading for the article to state that the line is misquoted when it is, in fact, just quoted from a different edition. Therefore, I've removed that sentence from the article. - Green Tentacle 00:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rose by any other.....? 

message: Paragraph about the nurse.  I'd regard her anecdote as tedious rather than bawdy.  Coriolise 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bawdy? 

message: This article reads like a plot summary of Romeo and Juliet. As per Manual of Style, the article should concentrate on explaining and dicussing, rather simply repeating, the plot. See Twelfth Night, or What You Will for an example of better writing. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The plot section does spend rather a lot of time on the plot, but the other sections include the other desirable material. Improving the other sections (...especially the original research...) would be a good thing of course.  rewinn 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Rewinn. Still shocked by these references to Twelfth Night as "better writing". (BTW, for an explanantion "in-universe" - one that I don't wholeheartedly endorse - see the link to "Manual of Style" in Smurrayinchester's post, above.) AndyJones 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In universe 

message: In the trivia section, it says that Romeo is a Capulet ("Juliet is asking the heavens why Romeo must be Romeo; that is, a Capulet and therefore her enemy.) That is not true, right? | Tgwizard 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I fixed it.  Cheers!  rewinn 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Why, pray tell, must an article on the best play ever be so cruelly vandalized? --74.129.222.94 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism!

message: Are there any non-fictional substances which might be able to produce a death-like coma? The wikipedia article on fugu mentions reports of poisoned victims, assumed to be dead, waking up at their funerals. 62.25.106.209 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friar Laurence's potion 

message: I am in the 9th grade, and doing a paper on how romeo and juliet foreshadow their own deaths. could you help me?
Rinnie204 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Brickie 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, in the interests of being nice and helpful and whatnot - go to Google and search on "Romeo & Juliet Foreshadowing" and the top link should be what you're after. As a general rule, these talk pages are used for discussing the article they are attached to - so, talking about formatting and style and good English and arguing about obscure points of detail. There will be some sort of Shakespeare Discussion Forum about - I'm not aware of one but I'm sure they exist - where you can ask questions if your Googling doesn't come up with the goods. Brickie 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha - I think the kid has turned it in by now - notice the time stamp - it's been over two months.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romeo and Juliet essay 

message: The Romeo page links back to this page. Because all of the other characters have their own pages, I think that Romeo should have his own separate page. --Must WIN 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Romeo have his own page? 

message: Something tells me it wasn't done in 666. Brunbb 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second printing 

message: When we read Romeo and Juliet in class, one of the themes that we discussed was the idea that haste led to doom.  For example Romeo and Juliet's haste to get married led to their demise. TehNomad 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A) If you recall there was a reason it was so accelerated - Juliet would've married the other guy if they didn't marry quick - only a slight problem though.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme: Haste leads to doom 

message: well its hard to tell.....it is called Romeo and Juliet but it also says at the end: "for there never was a story of more woe then of JULIET and her Romeo" so its hard to tell. What do you think?
Chokeabo 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though of course it wouldn't have rhymed the other way round. FWIW, I don't think there is a single Main Character - it's Romeo AND Juliet. Brickie 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That qualifies as the worst question ever for so many reasons.... but yes, there can be (and in this case there are) stories with multiple characters. - and for future reference the order of names isn't usually a factor. Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Is the main character? Romeo or Juliet? 

message: I happened to be reading the article on Romeo and Juliet. It says "By doing so, however, Romeo inadvertently pulls Mercutio into Tybalt's rapier, fatally wounding him." As far as I can tell this is not part of the script of the play, though some play directors may include this. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.125.241 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercutio's Death?? 

message: "he buys strong poison, sometimes held to be aconite, from an Apothecary"
This links to a disambiguation page, anybody know which one of these links is correct?
I would guess Aconitum.
My first ever attempt at adding to Wikipedia, so I hope I really can't kill anything :?
Hugothehermit 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romeo's poison 

message: How did the poison kill Romeo immediately? It takes time for the poison to actually have a real effect on the body. JustN5:12 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: In the first paragraph of the Commentary section on this play, the statement is made that the opening sonnet "figures Romeo as a blushing pilgrim (palmer) praying before an image of the Virgin Mary, as many people in early-sixteenth-century England did at shrines such as the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham."  How is this statement really pertinent to understanding the play?  
"Romeo and Juliet" is set in Italy and not England.  The statement also seems to confuse the reader into somehow thinking that Shakespeare came from a Catholic background or that he was somehow espousing Catholicism.  In truth, the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham was destroyed by Henry VIII in 1538, long before Shakespeare's birth.  And even the time period for the play's setting cannot be definitively pinned down to the sixteenth century, regardless of geographical location.
69.76.187.202 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy about Virgin Mary in Commentary: 23 March 2007 

message: Juliet was really 13 and two weeks away from her birthday, as for Romeo who was only 17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.22 (talk • contribs) .
*You're right about Juliet. There's no textual evidence as to the ago of Romeo. For what it's worth, Stanley Wells says that he should be played as around the same age as Juliet. In fact, it is rare for Juliet to be played by an actress as young as 13. AndyJones 14:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ages

message: I have been teaching Romeo and Juliet for a LONG time and I have read the play so many times I have half of it memorized. This article needs almost a complete rewrite, there are SO many inaccurate facts, it's like half of the people who wrote this article haven't even read the play.
my biggest complaint is that NOWHERE in the play does it state that Juliet is EXACTLY 13, and yet the article acts as if this is a well known fact. She could be as old as 16 for all we know.
Many other inaccuracies. I'm too stuck up to list them all here. but I hope somebody READS the play and then puts some work into this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.183.234 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch... in actuality it's Romeo's age no one knows I believe. He could be from age 1-70 ... although he's probably closer from ages 11-19.danielfolsom 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disgusted 

message: this edit reverts this article waaay back (I noticed particularly because it undoes a lot of tidying which I did a few days ago). Was that intentional? If yes can you please explain? I've reverted to the preceding version. Can I suggest you build any changes onto that? AndyJones 07:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexpected reversion

message: I'm sorry, I've just reverted as possible vandalism or mistake a change in the meaning of Benvolio's name from "good will" to "good wish". However I've now noticed that the edit summary suggests you think "wish" is the better translation. I'm sure I've seen this translated as "good will" (and I know that Malvolio is always translated as "ill will" or similar) and I can probably seek out a source if that would help. Is there a source for the "wish" version? AndyJones 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2696/?letter=V&spage=5  I think that will has more definitions in English that do not match as well the meaning of the Latin word.  AS with all translations it is inexact and open to interpretation I just though that wish was a better, more exact interpretation of it.  I don't have any specific sources dealing with the name Benvolio (though Benvolio uses the good wish trans I believe, ((unsourced and not by me)) so it could be either way.Jvbishop 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good will 

message: Romeo and Juliet seems surprisingly unromantic to me, as I think it should with any other person who reads it. When Romeo goes to the masquerade, he is woebegone over Rosaline until he sees Juliet. It seems romantic, but in modern times, the meeting scene of Romeo and Juliet is translated to this:
Romeo: O, woe is me! 
   (looks at Juliet) 
Hey, who's that?
   (Goes up to Juliet)
Kiss me, you're hot.
Juliet: I don't to that type of thing, sorry.
Romeo: But I'll be sad if you don't!
Juliet: Well, I guess I will to make you happy.
   (they make out)
Now I feel bad about doing that.
Romeo: Two wrongs make a right.
   (Make out again, nurse walks in)
I was just wondering if anyone felt the same way about that, because not only do they kiss twice within minutes of even laying eyes on one another, they are married less than 24 hours later and kill themselves for teenage infatuation before a month has passed. Is this really romantic, or just a tragedy among families with comedy of the nurse and the whole teenage immaturity issue?
24.247.184.126 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called love at first sight - romantic people consider it romantic.danielfolsom© 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion, to which I respond with the above and also - it is just as likely love at first sight with two teenagers, and I think that the whole dialogue in the balcony scene could be considered wooing, or when they first meet. But I think Shakespear obviously intended for it to be romantic since at the end there's the line "Juliet and her Romeo". By the way though - that whole breakdown of the plot was kinda ridiculous. Anyone could do that with any plot and get the same result - even if it was the most romantic thing ever.danielfolsom© 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I recall - they got married because if they hadn't Juliet would have to marry Count Paris (was that his name? Sorry it's been a while since I read the play). Meaning your whole argument is irrevelant.danielfolsom© 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really sure how the argument is relavent - "oh wow! It's a tragedy and since plays are only allowed to be one genre it cannot have any romantic elements in it." Whaaaa?  It seems like your arguing whether teenage relationships are romantic or not- but i'm arguing what shakespere meant. And as to, "how would you feel if you saw someone you thought was hot, then decided to marry them 24 hours later?"- for the last time(! seriously, how many times do i have to say this) your ignoring the concept of love at first sight, and then they had to get married cause of paris. But whatever, I think we've gone beyond what talk pages are supposed to be (about the article) - and now we're to the point where your just trying to use the talk page as a forum to express your idea - I think it's fairly obvious that the majority (most importantly the majority in the citable world) agree that romeo and juliet is a romance - so I'm just gonna cut the conversation here, unless this does have something to do with the article that I'm unaware of.danielfolsom© 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not hired by anyone - you didn't reply for a while, and I shut it down. And I'm not "cleverly" doing anything - I'm following the rules of Wikipedia (think number two wrong with that sentence, you said "mine and anyone else's" - you're the only one to have said anything).  But Wikipedia talk pages aren't meant to answer your questions - go to a forum if your looking for that. Wikippedia talk pages are meant to improve the article itself - the subject is irrevelent.danielfolsom 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it really Romantic? 

message: In the article, there is a claim that (I assume) Moulin Rouge! (which redirects to Moulin Rouge instead) was based on Romeo and Juliet, but there is no such claim at the Moulin Rouge! wiki page.  (If the movie in question was the 1952 film, there is no claim on that wiki page as well.)THE evil fluffyface 07:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <i>Moulin Rouge!</i>

message: I'm not very happy with the 'style and themes' section. Not only does it include speculative and therefore unverified claims, but some of them are also rather weak. Example: Elizabethan audiences wouldn't have thought it was a tragedy except for the Prologue. I disagree. Comic relief and bawdy are not unusual in a tragedy, but mentions and foreshadowing of death are already part of the lovers' vocabulary before Act III Scene i. It is quite obvious from early on that this is not going to be another Much Ado.
I also have a problem with "The play shows a system which imposes its beliefs on the individual, preventing him or her from reaching happiness and leaving death as the only escape". It makes it sound as though the feuding parents (or indeed anyone else) were actively opposing the relationship, which is a common misconception and just not true. The first thing the parents hear about the relationship is when Romeo and Juliet are already dead. It's a tragic irony that the whole thing could have been prevented if both sides of the generation gap had been aware of what the other side was thinking (e.g. Capulet actually thinks Romeo is a good chap).
Anyway, could this whole section perhaps be taken out altogether? I don't see enough in it to justify it.--Tanyushka 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and themes highly speculative 

message: I strongly dispute including this. The two stories were almost ccertainly developed independently, with all of Europe and Asia between their places of origin, and I'm against including this in the article at all.
Even if it is included as a reference due to the stories' similarities, it should not belong under the Opera section, since it is NOT an adoptation of Romeo and Juliet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookierookie (talk • contribs) 
:First of all, remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Second, the Butterfly Lovers Page says that it draws comparisons to Romeo and Juliet, perhaps your better off taking it up on that page.danielfolsom 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butterfly Lovers 

message: As of now, the "Characters" section contains fairly detailed synopses of all of the characters. I would advise leaving all further explanations on the respective articles for the individual characters and shortening the ones here, for the sake of brevity. 
For example, the bullet-point for Tybalt would not include the following: "Cousin of Juliet; angry and pugnacious. His nickname of "the Prince of Cats" may refer to the quarrelsome and vicious character of Tybalt the Cat in the fable cycle Reynard the Fox, which would have been well-known to Shakespeare's audience." While this information is certainly valuable, it belongs instead on Tybalt's individual page. The actual bullet point could just say, cousin of Juliet, nephew of Capulet, or something along those lines. This way the page can be much neater and more concise. 
Does anyone have any thoughts?
BeastKing89 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section 

message: Why is the Romeo and Juliet page locked until May 8th? Does this date have any significance towards the story or Shakespeare?
:It's probably just because there was a lot of vandalism - and if May 8th did have any significance - it would probably be blocked until after may 8th - since with significance comes vandalism.danielfolsom 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Disabled

message: I'm not even sure if that's a play off R + J or not ... R+J isn't even mentioned on it's page, is there a reliable source that says it is? For now however, I'll take it off muscicals, because the fact is we just don't need it twice - nothing should be listed twice - however we could say (depending on where you put it) "Is a made for television musical" or just not it's a musical in the television section. However if there isn't anything to back it up being a take-off of R+J, then it shouldn't be there.danielfolsom 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way - the source there didn't count - that just said it was a bit like R+Jdanielfolsom 16:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - I'm now positive that it isn't a spin-off of R+J just by reading the plot, I'm going to remove it until you find a source.danielfolsom 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Two plays being simmilar isn't enough for an adaptations section. An adaptations section would require the writer to deliberately want to do a spin off of R+J. So reviewers saying "High School Musical is really simmilar to R+J", or in other words "connections", don't mean adaptations.danielfolsom 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And notice how the disney thing isn't on the grease page either ... because most of these sources say it's not just R+J...
Sources: Exactly what you said I should do - a google search.danielfolsom 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok - by that source - you just phrased it wrong, the guy said that the play they were auditioning for was a feminist version of Romeo and Juliet - and the critic compared the actual show to R+K and Grease, so in conclusion - we could say in the pop culture section (is there a pop culture section?) that in High School Musical students auditioned for J+Rdanielfolsom 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is originial research. The definition of adapt: to change something to suit different conditions or a different purpose, or be changed in this way. So in other words - the author of this play would have to say "Hey, I want to remake Romeo and Juliet, but in  modern conditions". Your argument in close to exact words was "If you haven't seen the version, how can you edit the plot" - and the response is: it doesn't matter if I haven't seen the version, because it has to have a source - so you just admitted to seeing the version and connecting it to Romeo and Juliet, which is original research - which is not allowed on wikipedia.danielfolsom 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright - now you got it - althought hopefully you didn't use that google cache as the ref ... I'll go check. SEe? Was finding a source that hard!? (And by the way - your old source only talked about the play they were trying out for - I read through it).danielfolsom 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy - it's a full pragraph - I'm going to try and make it more like everything else.danielfolsom 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, your correct- maybe I was refering to another source - here, however, the author just says that it's comparable - not that it's an adaptation - so perhaps we can take English over the summer together. danielfolsom 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disney's High School Musical

message: Per MOS guidelinse - I removed as much of the trivia section as possilbe - but I have to leave, so someone should be able to very easily fix that up (note: When I put the music in a section I also organized it all by date, which should probably be done for the other sections too)danielfolsom
Your orgainization by dates makes the article look even more like a collection of lists. As you know, lists are frowned upon and it is encouraged to turn lists into prose. Smatprt 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really - since when did a chronological, categorized list become worse than a bunch of random information in a trivia section - see the  template. However, I do think that overall the amount of info could eaily be reduceddanielfolsom 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: People are removing spoiler warnings on this and other Shakespeare pages.  I refer discussion on the subject to the discussion on Talk:Hamlet#Spoiler warning?. Wrad 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, it's a tough one - however it's noteworthy that the  page actually says don't put it in a plot section ...danielfolsom] 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I would, but honestly, I could care less, I'm just trying to prevent some kind of edit war by now reverting the people who come along and delete it - I wasn't the first one to revert, and I figure, if the guy who reverted thinks it should be there - then bring it up on the talk before you just take it off! danielfolsom 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure there won't be an edit war.  Discussion on talk pages will prevent that.  The spoiler tags are particularly unnecessary when they are situated directly at the top of a clearly marked plot summary section.  The plot summary obviously contains a summary of the plot, so it's pointless to labor the point by repeating it. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a short edit war - with as many as 3 reverts, so I'm just saying, why don't we finish a talk discussion here before more people come in - honestly I could really care less what we do - again, I just don't want to see some stupid war over a few words.danielfolsom 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: I remember seeing this on the history page: The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet - and I think given the ref, we should use that as the title. While Romeo and Juliet should be the page title- since the most common title is used as the page title, this title seems to be the correct one - simmilar to how Aaron Burr's name is actually Aaron Burr Jr. - but the page title is without the jr.danielfolsom 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh I gotcha - sorry wasn't sure about the title practices in Shakespeare's time. Hey though, chill out - I didn't add the title, I just remember seeing it.--danielfolsom 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yeah... marajauna helps me out too! xD --danielfolsom 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: There are a lot of categories of article that benefit from the inclusion of Lists. In fact, a great number of encyclopedias of the printed and bound variety include them. In the case of an Artist, whatever their field, a list of works with the dates, linked to wiki articles on the individual works, if such articles exist, seems to me to be an essential part of any such Biography. 
This case is a little different- its the character list, which is a normal part of any play. 
The list of characters as part of this article is not essential to understanding a brief synopsis. But since a large number of the characters have their own articles, it really facilitates looking them up. 
I come out in favour of the inclusion of lists. I think the non-inclusion of them on the grounds of style is pedantic and unnecessary, if the list serves to make the article more accessible. 
I think the list might be better at the end of the article. I think it needs only the essential info on each character. If you include a character analysis of Tybalt, you ought to analyse the others as well.
--Amandajm 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only skimmed your comment - but I think what your saying is that the adaptations should be turned into list. Technically, we should avoid list - especially long list, because they are considered unencyclopedic (see most the links on this template for more reasons). But then again - it depends on what your thinking of.danielfolsom 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists- a general comment

message: A standardized format for articles has been written up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare#Standardization. Information regarding Romeo and Juliet's themes, motifs, and critical comment are essential to the article, but aren't included. In my opinion, we should get this done in order to get a class higher then "B". I already have some information handy, but it's probably not enough to warrant a new section.--Romeo in love 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of the big things that also needs to be worked on is reducing the article length. I mean I'm not anti-long articles by any mean - but when you have an Adaptations section that comprimises about half of a big subject like this, then you have a problem. I just think that at some point we gotta put our foot down. I haven't been too involved in this article due to a borderline interest- but I think I can put some extra effort in as your obviously willing to. I took a look at the standardization, and then I did a quick word count of the synopsis - and we're way over (130 words or so). If I have time I'll start reducing that now. The to do list should be expanded, and perhaps we should have people sign on to certain sections to avoid edit conflicts, and then we can all edit the updated piece. I also noticed we're missing two sections - and I can try to get work done on the critical reception - but not right away - maybe in an hour. --danielfolsom 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice - yeah sorry about not taking those out myself, I didn't want to do anything too controversial, and the problem was before I added the divisions there were already fake division, "ACT II, for example, instead of a heading, so I wanted to make it look a bit nicer without having to take someone's work out before discussion on the talk. and I agree with the prologue edits too. --danielfolsom 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I'm having no luck on this. I had completely plotted out in my mind what I wanted to say - based on obvious information, but the problem is how to find a source for the information. I've searched "Romeo and Juliet Reaction" "Romeo and Juliet History" and "Romeo and Juliet Criticism" to no avail. I'll start looking again a bit later - there's probably a gold mine out there that I'm just passing over.--danielfolsom 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone tell me if Sparknotes is a reliable source?--Romeo in love 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume so, yes. --danielfolsom 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... if that's what it takes to get started, go ahead and use it, but the article will eventually need better sources. Wrad 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my bad - I was under the belief that it'd be nice to have better-quailty sources, but sparknotes I would think is reliable, I'm not too used to editting book articles. My mistake--danielfolsom 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Wrad 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, nevermind that. I think it's better to not have the information rather than having it with horrible sources. Unfortunately, my library is closed right now for construction, so I really can't get any good information until then.--Romeo in love 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree there - and just so everyone knows though - in order to improve class we do not have to do this - I just think it would look better, but feel free to disagree --danielfolsom 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  major editing needed! 

message: ====Reducing Word Count of Synopsis====
I reduced the word count by about a hundred, while also fixing some strange content that could never be sourced, and some plain false content, but we are still 49 words over, however I'm hesitant to cut too much more without other's input - as now I am in a position where I must cut what I do not think should be cut, and thus controversy may arise. --danielfolsom 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice - yeah sorry about not taking those out myself, I didn't want to do anything too controversial, and the problem was before I added the divisions there were already fake division, "ACT II, for example, instead of a heading, so I wanted to make it look a bit nicer without having to take someone's work out before discussion on the talk. and I agree with the prologue edits too. --danielfolsom 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I'm having no luck on this. I had completely plotted out in my mind what I wanted to say - based on obvious information, but the problem is how to find a source for the information. I've searched "Romeo and Juliet Reaction" "Romeo and Juliet History" and "Romeo and Juliet Criticism" to no avail. I'll start looking again a bit later - there's probably a gold mine out there that I'm just passing over.--danielfolsom 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone tell me if Sparknotes is a reliable source?--Romeo in love 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume so, yes. --danielfolsom 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... if that's what it takes to get started, go ahead and use it, but the article will eventually need better sources. Wrad 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my bad - I was under the belief that it'd be nice to have better-quailty sources, but sparknotes I would think is reliable, I'm not too used to editting book articles. My mistake--danielfolsom 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Wrad 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, nevermind that. I think it's better to not have the information rather than having it with horrible sources. Unfortunately, my library is closed right now for construction, so I really can't get any good information until then.--Romeo in love 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree there - and just so everyone knows though - in order to improve class we do not have to do this - I just think it would look better, but feel free to disagree --danielfolsom 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals and Talk

message: I reduced the word count by about a hundred, while also fixing some strange content that could never be sourced, and some plain false content, but we are still 49 words over, however I'm hesitant to cut too much more without other's input - as now I am in a position where I must cut what I do not think should be cut, and thus controversy may arise. --danielfolsom 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice - yeah sorry about not taking those out myself, I didn't want to do anything too controversial, and the problem was before I added the divisions there were already fake division, "ACT II, for example, instead of a heading, so I wanted to make it look a bit nicer without having to take someone's work out before discussion on the talk. and I agree with the prologue edits too. --danielfolsom 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing Word Count of Synopsis

message: I can start working on this soon. --danielfolsom 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm having no luck on this. I had completely plotted out in my mind what I wanted to say - based on obvious information, but the problem is how to find a source for the information. I've searched "Romeo and Juliet Reaction" "Romeo and Juliet History" and "Romeo and Juliet Criticism" to no avail. I'll start looking again a bit later - there's probably a gold mine out there that I'm just passing over.--danielfolsom 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addiding Crtics Section

message: I will do this. I have some sparknotes references ready at hand, and I can probably get some scholarly publications to get some information, too. I'll get to this ASAP.--Romeo in love 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone tell me if Sparknotes is a reliable source?--Romeo in love 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume so, yes. --danielfolsom 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... if that's what it takes to get started, go ahead and use it, but the article will eventually need better sources. Wrad 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my bad - I was under the belief that it'd be nice to have better-quailty sources, but sparknotes I would think is reliable, I'm not too used to editting book articles. My mistake--danielfolsom 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Wrad 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, nevermind that. I think it's better to not have the information rather than having it with horrible sources. Unfortunately, my library is closed right now for construction, so I really can't get any good information until then.--Romeo in love 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Themes and Motifs Section

message: I honestly think this will be the trickiest part.  May be best to leave it for last. We want to resist loss of information while eliminating lists and creating sourced prose.  Separate list articles may be needed, with summaries in this one. Wrad 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree there - and just so everyone knows though - in order to improve class we do not have to do this - I just think it would look better, but feel free to disagree --danielfolsom 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing Adaptations Section