Template talk:William Shakespeare

message: The plays are neither in alphabetical order or in chronological order.  I think it should be the former because there is no consensus on an exact chronology.  The current order seems random or in order of somebody's estimate of popularity.Scottandrewhutchins 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right ... anyone else have a comment? The Singing Badger 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another reason to put them in alphabetical order is because the division into genre breaks any meaningful chronological order. -Acjelen 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of the Plays

message: Does anyone know how to move the picture to the top right corner, and then have the template lists fill in the white space below the picture (like in an article)? I was thinking that this template has become quite large with a lot of white space. If the picture was top right and the categories from "Comedies" down went full width, the template would be considerably smaller and more pleasing to the eye. I'd at least like to see what it would look like. Anyone? Smatprt (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan... it leaves odd-looking spaces before and after “General information” and two of the groups are in the same box. I understand why you did this, but I think it looks out of place—I'd rather leave it the way it is now than like this. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (but it was fun trying). I've made one more attempt by combining "General" and "other" information (not quite sure what the difference is between the two!), resulting in a loss of the odd-looking spaces.  I'd be interested in your comments. It's not a do for die issue for me, but, regardless, it's been nice interacting with you :) Smatprt (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Location

message: I reverted a number of major changes that have been made over the last week or so. None of these changes were described in the edit summary, and none were discussed on the talk page - where we had spent considerable time working up a consensus for the present (reinstated) version. The template today (the reinstated one) is short and to the point, with not a lot of white space. Prior to my reversion, the template had grown to more than twice its size, and contained tons of wasted space. Any thoughts?Smatprt (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually liked the redesign, but I did mention to the editor that he needs to run his ideas past people before implementing them. In any case, I do agree with you about the white space thing, but I think he was on to something in general. The picture was a good idea, and a few links not in the current template were added. Having gotten used to his edits, the current one looks kinda bland. But, having said all that, I do think you were right to revert it. On a semi related point, should Edward III still be listed in the Apocrypha section? It's included in the Oxford, Riverside and Norton collected editions, Cambridge have an edition of the play and both Oxford's and Arden's editions are forthcoming in 2010 and 2011 respectively (incidentally, Arden is also releasing an edition of Sir Thomas More in 2011). Would it not make sense to move it to the main set of plays? But getting back to the subject at hand, like I say, I did like his edits, but I agree with the revert. Because I like to be awkward apparently! Bertaut (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently your message was completely ignored. More major changes today with no discussion and no edit summary, which can appear either deceptive, or just ignorant of Wiki policy. Reverting until this discussion is over. We need to talk this thru and develop a consensus. Right now Bertaut and I are the only ones talking. If this continues, then the consensus will be whatever Bertaut and I agree on.Smatprt (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I made a few very minor tweaks. This works for me so if you want to post it, feel free. Much better than today's additions with all those collapsible boxes! Yikes! Smatprt (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes to template

message: I've moved this suggested template here for discussion. Smatprt (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't so much a standard revert war as someone made a bunch of changes with no edit summary or explanation, and Smatprt reverted them. Then he reverted Smatprt, and I did an edit reaching a compromise. Then he reverted me, and I reverted him, and that was that. I can totally understand why you prefer the simplified version Ylee, but my preference is for the larger one. My reasons are fairly simple. It's unique, the simplified version looks like a lot of other templates on Wikipedia; the current version has some character. However, having said that, I'm not about to get petty over this. If people prefer the simpler version, so be it. In actual fact, your idea about introducing the picture and the coat of arms into that version is an excellent compromise idea. I'd try it myself but I'm not familiar enough with template editing to do it! Bertaut (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Either one of these works for me, but why are some of the titles in bold while others aren't? They look muddy viewing with Mozilla, and while Explorer looks better, the bold letters still appear unnecessary. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this version made by Smatprt looks better than either of these. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent formatting changes

message: I've moved Edward IIIfrom the Apocrypha section into the Histories section, as it's now pretty much considered as part of the canon. It's included in the Oxford, Riverside, Norton and Arden collected editions, Cambridge have an edition of the play and both Oxford and Arden editions are forthcoming in 2012. I think that makes it official. Bertaut (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward III 

message: I moved Cardenio and Love's Labour's Won to the list of plays. How are lost plays apocrypha? An apocryphal play is a play spuriously attributed to Shakespeare. Incidentally, even though I left Sir Thomas More among the apocrypha in the template, that's wrong too as scholarly consensus is that Shakespeare contributed to the text of the play and some editions of Shakespeare's plays even include it in the canon. Contact Basemetal here 05:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree, the case for putting Sir Thomas More in the Apocrypha seems to be getting pretty thin these days. If no-one objects I'll move it to Tragedies in a few days.  Any comments? --Antiquary (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

text: --Antiquary (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are lost plays apocrypha? 

message: I think the recent edit by  needs to be discussed before going live in the template. I'm not sure adding a key is a good idea in what is already a fairly complex template. Additionally, 2 Henry VI was marked as a collaboration. This is inaccurate; the general consensus is that if any of the trilogy was co-written, it was 1 Henry VI. Titus Andronicus is also marked as a collaboration; again, this is far from certain. I think marking plays such as these as collaborations on the template gives a sense of certainty to questions which have no firm answers. And as I said, I'm not sure adding a key is a good idea at all. Simply adding "lost" parenthetically has worked up until now. Five Antonios (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 Henry VI was a mistake; apologies. With the others I was following the lead of the article William Shakespeare's collaborations, although I left out Macbeth and others which are listed there as possible collaborations with Middleton, so that wasn't really my finest hour on Wikipedia... At any rate, I was trying to mitigate the oddness of Edward III and Sir Thomas More being there, and doing something similar to what I did some time ago with Template:Leonardo da Vinci, for which such a key is necessary. Ham (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. My apologies if what I wrote came across as in any way aggressive, I certainly didn't intend it as such, but I've just read what I wrote and I sound a little tetchy! Sorry about that. I do agree with you about Edward III and More; having some kind of 'aside' (for desperate want of a better expression) regarding their presences is a good idea. Stylistically, looking at the Da Vinci template, I think if we do use a key, dropping it to the bottom of the template would look better than leaving it at the top. I know from personal experience whenever I see an asterisk on something my eye always goes down rather than up! Let's give it a few days and see what others think. Five Antonios (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're both right!!! I don't have a problem with adding a key to the template, although I do agree it should be on the bottom as in the Da Vinci template. I think as  says, it serves to alert the reader to the unusual Edward III and Thomas More placements. I was actually the first person to add Edward III to the histories section and since I did that it's been moved around a bit, obviously by users who don't accept the attribution. Having the collaboration key would work to avoid that. As regards the other plays, the only two awkward ones would really be 1 Henry VI and Titus, neither of which are "officially" recognised as collaborations, although the current consensus is certainly leaning in that direction in both cases. Bertaut (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How difficult it is to judge someone's (or one's own) tone over the internet – you didn't come across as aggressive at all, ! I'm happy with the suggestion that the key be moved to the bottom, although for aesthetics' sake that might mean losing the links for the category, the portal and the WikiProject – though there's no rule I know of which says that a navbox has to have those. Am I to assume, then, that the asterisked plays should be Sir Thomas More, Edward III, Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Cardenio and Henry VIII (leaving out 1 Henry VI and Titus), or should the putative collaborations with Middleton here be added too? Ham (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

text: My personal opinion is to leave it at the officially recognized collaborations (Sir Thomas More, Edward III, Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Cardenio and Henry VIII) and the lost plays. I think if you added the collaboration key to Macbeth, casual readers are going to get confused. I can just imagine a first year student who's spent ten weeks doing a critical theory course on Macbeth glancing at the template and seeing it marked as a collaboration, and his/her head quite literally melting! As for 1 Henry VI and Titus, I'm really of the opinion either/or. I personally believe they were both collaborations, but I'm willing to go with whatever the majority feel. , , you gents have any opinion on this one? Bertaut (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I think marking the Middleton plays as collaborations would be a bad idea, but upon reflection, I don't see a problem with the rest. I'm not sure about Henry and Titus. Like Bertaut, I too believe them to be collaborative, and as the general scholarly consensus in both cases is certainly leaning in that direction at the moment, perhaps including them in the key would be acceptable. Five Antonios (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone like to add anything else on this? Otherwise it seems as if there is a consensus in favour of including the key. Ham (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

text: It appears we've gotten all the input we're going to receive, so yes, using the key seems like the way to go. Five Antonios (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations and lost plays 

message: cf.  and Randy Kryn's .
Normal navigation (such as main article text wikilinks or navboxes) should not take users out of mainspace and into the bowels of MediaWiki technical hoodoo such as templates.
Now, whether this template should include the family some way? Yes, certainly; but either through a link to Shakespeare's life (which includes his family tree), a link to a new Shakespeare's family article (which we should probably make anyway, come to think of it), or, possibly, by incorporating the text links from  into a separate group on this template.
In fact, come to think about it, the latter may be a very good way to preserve the content while getting rid of the separate template (cf. discussion at that template's talk page). --Xover (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family and templates 

message: I note that this has moved about in the template over the years, but given Edward III is included as canonical is there a case for say sir Thomas More should likewise not be in Apocrypha, but listed under Tragedies? Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about this. Whilst the argument could be made (and has been) that Shakespeare wrote more of Edward III than he did 1 Henry VI, estimates for his contribution to Thomas More extend to, at best, two scenes. Whilst I agree that placing it in the Apocrypha section may not be the best place to put it, I'm not sure it should be included amongst the tragedies either. Pinging ,  and  to get their thoughts. Bertaut (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you know what, I've been thinking about this, and the more I dwell on it, the less comfortable I am with the current layout. Perhaps we should, as you suggest, move Thomas More to the Tragedies section. However, if we do that, I think we should also move Love's Labours Won to the Comedies section. The only play(s) of dispute that would leave in the Apocrypha section would be Cardenio/Double Falshood. I'm flip-flopping on this though, so other input is appreciated. Bertaut (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

text: My, somewhat off the cuff, thinking is that what goes in Apocrypha are lost plays (unless we decide to make a separate section for these and Collaborations; but my immediate thought is that this would be excessive) and works alleged or mistakenly associated with Shakespeare when he had nothing or exceedingly little to do with it (e.g. Vortigern and Rowena). Anything that's generally accepted to be wholly or mostly by Shakespeare, or plays more properly attributed to another author but to which Shakespeare made a significant contribution, go in the canon play sections. Clarification of the apportionment between authors belongs in the article itself, not this template (I would even go so far as to suggest the asterisk and legend currently there / discussed in the section above should be removed).Regarding The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore, it's not really our categorisation system that is a problem. Sir Thomas More is neither a play originally by Shakespeare, nor a collaboration between Shakespeare and another playwright, nor even a play spuriously associated with Shakespeare. It's a play where Shakespeare was called in after the fact to revise (possibly to satisfy the censors, but I'm not convinced; Tilney nixed Shakespeare's scene IIRC). As such it simply doesn't fit in any neat category; or put another way, it is in a category all to itself. Or it would be except there are probably several other such cases that we just don't know about. That is, the problem is Sir Thomas More, not our categorisation system.Thus, I would say we can stuff it either in the Tragedies or the Apocrypha (or the Collaborations if we make that category), and it would be an equally poor and equally good fit. "Hand D" is 147 lines, or three pages, out of a 31-page MSS. That's just about 10%, which is enough to justify classing it as a collaboration. On the other hand it's all one scene and dropped in after the fact, which would be little enough to class it as essentially Apocryphal (its significance to Shakespeare scholarship isn't the amount of his contribution, but the handwriting, the manuscript's provenance, the marginalia by Tilney, and so forth: historical and not primarily literary or dramatic significance).My immediate conclusion is that we should put this in Apocrypha as analogous to The Spanish Tragedy. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , that all sounds reasonable to me. To be honest, I was just second guessing myself into a muddle. But one other issue arises from your comments. Are you suggesting we expand the Apocrypha section to something resembling the manner of the template examples above (so adding back titles like Vortigern, Mucedorus, Thomas of Woodstock etc)? They were in the template until , and I guess no one felt strongly enough to add them back. Bertaut (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply to the ping. Your posts show just how thorny an issue this is. Navboxes are limited in what they represent and they have a hard time allowing for the details of these issues. I am learning things from each post here and thank you both for your input -- whatever you settle on will be fine with me. MarnetteD|Talk 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Short version: yes.The slightly longer version is that both MarnetteD (immediately above) and Ham II (in the edit summary of the edit above) have a point: navboxes have limitations both in terms of space and in terms of what nuance and detail can be represented. So as a general position I think we should bring back all the various spurious works, but I need to leave a little wriggle room in that since there may be case-by-case issues that differ. For instance, while I think we should bring back the stuff from the Apocrypha section, I think I agree with Ham II that the screen adaptations should be left out. In the case of the latter there are far too many to include all, no obvious good criteria by which to narrow them down, and whatever we pick will be given (probably undue) prominence. --Xover (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so, I'll add back the Apocrypha material that was removed. I'm going to err on the side of inclusion though, so there may be some entries some of you want to remove. I'll ping everyone when I'm done. As for the adaptations that Ham removed, yeah, I agree with that, and wasn't suggesting we should add them back. We don't want this template to turn into the likes of ,  or , all of which are virtually unnavigable in their, what we'll charitably refer to as comprehensiveness (personally, I think all of them should be WP:TNT-ed, but that's a matter for another day... Bertaut (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

text: All done. As I said above, I've erred very much on the side of inclusion, so feel free to fiddle about with it, or leave suggestions for improvement here. Pinging everyone involved: , , ,  and . Bertaut (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Bertaut and all who have contributed to this discussion. I think a lot of good points have been raised. I think the latest revision looks good. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerest apologies gentlemen; I was away and on something of a self-imposed communication blackout, so I'm only seeing this discussion now. For the record though, I think the template looks good now, and, even if I had been participating in the discourse, my feeling is it would have ended up in essentially the same place as it did. Five Antonios (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Thomas More 

message: Anyone watching?
I'm considering putting articles like Cultural references to Macbeth and Cultural references to Hamlet in the Legacy section, thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More articles