Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic theatre topics
• List of basic performing arts topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative" Theatre not well covered

I've been having a look round at articles on "alternative"/"experimental" theatre - things like site-specific theatre, Peter Brook, Physical Theatre etc. While a few of them are quite good, there is a lot that I think is missing. I think a bit of a drive to clean up, expand and generally improve these articles would be very important, especially seeing as these are forms of theatre that receive a great deal of emphasis from Universities and some drama schools, not to mention the effect they've had on the mainstream too (imagine if Peter Brook or Artaud hadn't happened!)

I've started taking some of this into my own hands (as of when I wrote this, the entire site specific article is stuff I've written, the Empty Space section of Peter Brook as well) but I'm aware I'm not very good at writing Encyclopedically or even clearly.

Thanks Sebbi (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Low antecedent of vaudeville

I've started an article box house. I'm finding very little, and wondering if there was another name for these that I don't know (and maybe even another article with which this should be merged). "Box house" was certainly the term here in Seattle, and I've seen it occasionally in articles on places from San Francisco up to British Columbia. Not a lot on line, though. Does anyone have some sources to suggest, other than the two print sources I've found? - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Theatre Puget Sound for me?

Theatre Puget Sound came up while I was on new pages patrol, and while it looks as if it could be notable, the references provided are unconvincing. Are trade organisations such as this normally considered notable by this project? The article creator is asking what can be done to help it, but I feel I'm not the best person to answer that. Lankiveil (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

New subproject: Australian theatre

Hi all, I'm looking to start really revamping and expanding information on Australian theatre, starting with the independent theatre scene (I've done a little work on this already, with Ben Ellis (playwright) and Short and Sweet). I have proposed a seperate WikiProject for Australian Theatre, though obviously it should be a subproject of this one. If anyone is interested in helping out, it'd be great if you could check out the WikiProject proposals page and add your support; alternatively, if you think this shouldn't be a WikiProject for whatever reason, let me know. -- Guybrush (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment

I've done some work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment, and reformatted {{WikiProject Theatre}} so that you can add "class" and "quality" ratings to the talk pages. Please take a look at {{WikiProject Theatre}} - and if you feel like it, please go through and rate the unrated articles at Category:WikiProject Theatre articles and Category:Unassessed Theatre articles and Category:Unknown-importance Theatre articles (both of which should be populating hopefully automatically in the next day or so.) Cirt (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate any help that WP:THEATRE members could give with rating the Category:Unassessed Theatre articles. Cirt (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Theatre

Abbey Theatre has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Character lists in plays

Formulating a proposal for a formal discussion

Here is my suggested proposal. Please feel free to make suggestions for changes or voice your approval. Proposal: When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or other notable productions.Broadweighbabe (talk)

Also a second proposal to "Leave inclusion of character lists in play articles to be decided on a case by case basis." Wrad (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another good thing to look over would be WP:POLICY. In the lead it says "A user who acts against the spirit of them [policies] may be reprimanded." Isn't that a bit extreme for something like this? Why not just make it a guideline? I'd have absolutely no problem with that. Wrad (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Wrad (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was just going to say that. lolBroadweighbabe (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That would mean that any article without a list would need to show a consensus and reasoning against including it. Wrad (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me and leaves some nice wiggle room for those difficult articles that may crop up.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet was kind of an interesting case, as there was so much to be said about the play that we had to be picky about what to include. The character list wasn't the first thing to go, but it did eventually go. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave Hamlet out of it for now. I would suggest tableing that until after this proposal discussion is over.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The place to discuss Hamlet is at the Hamlet article, not here. Wrad (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you care to offer a counter-proposal?Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it's fine. I was just concerned about calling it a policy. I would still notify projects that it is close to becoming a guideline, though. Other people might be against it more than I am. Wrad (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to get some more feedback on the below proposal before notifying other wikiprojects and officially starting a discussion.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised suggestion. All comments welcome.Guideline Proposal: When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm unconvinced about this. Obviously plays need associated character lists but that does not mean that the flow of an article should be interrupted by huge swathes of telephone-directory-style text. As Wikipedia is not paper, it doesn't much matter whether the character list is within the article or in a separate article. In fact, the advantages of having a list of major character in a separate article hatnoted in the synopsis are much greater than having it as a separate sub-section. For instance, you can open the character list with minimal fuss in one tab while you read the synopsis in another. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thought. Mandating a list is bothering me. For example, do plays with only one or two characters need a character list? The more I think about the more I conclude this is a bad idea. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A further thought. Why are we mandating information about the creators of the original roles? Surely, this is only important if the original creator was notable? Otherwise, I see this as becoming a fertile field for trivia, cruft and similar bloat. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points Roger Davies. One we are trying to set up a structure for discussion right now per the overwhelming interest in establishing a new guideline so your comments could hold until that is set up. Two, most plays don't have substantial enough characters to warrant seperate articles. However, under the above proposed guideline there would be an option to create such a system if relevent wikiprojects agreed.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see a guideline but not necessarily in the same terms as yours :) See the text below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised Proposal (2)

Proposal: articles on all forms of staged production incorporating characters should include a section about, or a link to a separate article on, the main characters. Character information, whether within the main article or in a separate article, should include material about notable original creators of the roles. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would be against the provision and would suggest you make a completely seperate proposal that people can discuss. No reason not to give people options.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Your proposed text, to all intends and purposes, locks editors into built-in character lists. The only way round it is not, as Wrad proposed, at article level but at Project level. To be honest, this is instruction creep. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that relevent projects must be notified, not that the discussion/ vote should be made at the project level like we are doing here. And the point is to create uniformity across articles within the performing arts where possible. I have more specific arguements as to why character lists are a must but I would like to save those for the later discussion. The point is, I don't want there to be any more wiggle room than there is already in my proposal. You are welcome to make a counter-proposal and we can all discuss both.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The requirement that "relevant projects must be notified" flies in the face of long-established policy and is therefore unenforceable. It may also lead to edit-wars.

My underlying problem with your proposal is that one size doesn't fit all. I raised the entirely practical point that by mandating character lists for all plays, you are mandating a list for stagings with one character (of which there are many).

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies once again you are jumping ahead of yourself. I am not wanting to debate the proposal itself right now. I am trying to structure a formal debate. I don't like your suggestions for changes. If you want them formulate a counter proposal. Also the proviso in the Guideline (i.e. not policy) leaves wiggle room for that instance. As a guideline it doesn't have to be followed if in good faith another action seems more appropriate.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do but it may be premature. If it's a guideline, formulate it in guideline language. And all this talk of wiggle room leaves me perplexed. Where is the wiggle room? It all seems highly prescriptive to me :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in guideline language. And "a guideline doesn't have to be followed if in good faith another action seems more appropriate". A one character play could reasonably not have a list of characters so an editor could not include one in good faith. I can't forsee every other issue but again it is only a guideline, and people can do otherwise if good faith permits. As for the rest, in my opinion 99.999999999% of multiple character plays require a list of main characters (including Hamlet). I leave it to individual talk pages to work out the details. I am not budging on this. Go ahead and make another proposal.Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, find Roger Davies proposals unsupportable. Throwing in 1 or 2 character plays is a red herring (especially since the cheif objections come from one or two editors of the Shakespeare project, which represents no one or two character plays. To address this, it would be simple to exclude one or two character plays from the policy of having Character lists. Ditto with "originating performer" - in the case where this information is not known, then that section of the list would be excluded (duh). Roger Davies led the charge against having a list in Hamlet (certainly more than 1 or 2 characters) by claiming that it made the article look unprofessional. Does this mean that every playbook, script, etc. that has a character list is unprofessional? Hardly.

For all the reasons identified by numerous editors above, a character list helps understand the play, the structure, the various factions represented, etc. The character list is an essential ingredient in EVERY play. Many plays have no essential time period, no set description, no costume requirements - none of these things set forth by the AUTHOR (remember him/her?) But EVERY play has characters and having a list of those characters in hand when studying or discussing the play is essential. I'm sorry, but this issue is becoming laughable.Smatprt (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find it was Awadewit - perhaps the single most respected literature editor on Wikipedia, with 21 or so featured articles - who reckoned built-in character lists were unprofessional.

You're distorting my point: I am not saying that characters are unimportant - my proposal has inclusion as the default option - but I give editors the option to have them as lists or as narrative.

In my view - and it is supported by policy - is that character information is just as easy in a separate article.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also - I completely disagree that having a Character list spoils the "flow" of the article. Numerous articles have tables, templates, graphics, etc - and I have never heard that any of these things interrupt the "flow". In fact, I find things like this actually make an article more interesting and more readable!Smatprt (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt that is all very well and good but also off topic. Would you guys stop debating the issue and help move this forward to a formalized discussion. Do I need to move your comments to a more appropriate place or are you going to cool it?Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally - Sorry, but I too am getting ahead of myself, but I felt the need to answer Roger's comments. I agree that we should put forth the proposal by Broadweighbabe, perhaps with some tweaking and some counter proposals, and then alert the various projects for input and a vote (or other format) to build a consensus among all the performing arts projects. Smatprt (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. What suggestions would you like to make to the proposal. Or would you like to make a counter proposal? And I srill feel that a counter proposal approved by Roger Davies should be written for the purposes of fair debate.Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... I have written a proposal. Why do I need to approve someone else's? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe minor characters should be listed as well (perhaps as groups, like "Also: Attendants, servants & soldiers" so I would like to offer the following version of Broadweighbabe's :

Guideline Proposal #3: When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. They should also, when appropriate, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. Smatprt (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's three now. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not go with that proviso Smatprt. Alright I am going to work on putting together a summary which includes all three proposals.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a summary? The precise texts are below :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for discussion

Here are the three current proposals:

1. When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. (Broadwaybabe)

2. Articles on all forms of staged production incorporating characters should include a section about, or a link to a separate article on, the main characters. Character information, whether within the main article or in a separate article, should include material about notable original creators of the roles.(Roger Davies)

3. When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. They should also, when appropriate, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. (Smatprt)

Probably best is to see how they can be fine-tuned or whether anyone has any further proposals to make. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really meant a proposal for the structure of the debate and not a summary. This section is sort of redundant. Mind if I delete it?Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only redundant because you have made it so by duplicating its contents below. I think the Proposals and the structure ought to be two separate discussions. easiest is to leave this as it is for the proposals themselves and remove the proposals below to leave just the structure. (On this schema, you'll need to change the heading below to something like "Proposed way forward". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Actually, on second thoughts, "Proposed structure for debate" is fine. However, rolling the actual proposals is does confuse the discussion. (And, by the way Broadweighbabe, would you mind using edit summaries? It's very difficult following what's happening from the history without them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I will do that in the future.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ownership?

Yes - it's too early to start the old "Ownership" accusation. I think everyone is being above board and inclusive here. Smatprt (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Old? Where has it been raised before? In fact, where have I ever raised it before, in any topic? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Woah! Calm down everyone. I don't like this sort of dialogue at all. I want everyone to go into this debate happy with how it is set up. Let's not go into it with bad feelings please!Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No more name calling both of you. Lets move on peacefully and kindly. I repeat my above question Roger. What changes would you like to see made?Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - sorry Roger - I have seen this raised on other articles by other editors as a tactic. I didn't mean to imply that you had any history of this. I think I'll step back for a day or so and come back afresh. Cheers everyone. Smatprt (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah Braodway - you did accuse Roger of flinging accusations - perhaps you should take a break as well. See you all tomorrow. Smatprt (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am logging off. I hope we can come to a solution for the structure of the debate that all parties are satisfied with in the next day or two.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cherrie Moraga's Heroes and Saints

Moraga's play won a Critics' Circle award in 1992, but I can't figure out WHICH Critics' Circle. From what I can tell, it was a California production, so I assume it was the Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle, but I can't verify that. Help! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Master Juba at peer review

Hello! I've just put Master Juba up at peer review. Master Juba was a black American dancer who lived in the 19th century. He is, according to many authorities, the father of tap dancing and made a profound impact on American dance styles. He was also significant as the first black man to get top billing over white performers. The review page can be found here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! — Dulcem (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the German playwrights?

I've noticed that a lot of the major German playwrights were not included in the project and didn't have infoboxes. I started a few (Schiller, Lessing, Hauptmann, Kleist, Hebbel, and Büchner), but German lit isn't one of my strong suits... Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brown Grand/ask for review

Please review Brown Grand Theatre and Napoleon at Austerlitz. I'm familiar with these articles because of my inovlement in Wikiproject Kansas, but they could probably stand a good "theatre-reviewer" to check over the articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on Lope de Vega article

Greetings, members of WikiProject Theatre! I'm putting out a request for any interested members of the Spain, Theatre, and/or Biography (Arts and Entertainment) Projects to provide some assistance with the article on Lope de Vega. The tone of the much of the text still seems to be from the 1911 Britannica; I believe the article could benefit from the incorporation of material from some additional references, along with the documentation of those references on the article page. "Lope" is definitely a notable figure, with articles listed at 29 "Other Language" interwikis, as of 6 April 2008, and listed as a Featured-Article on Spanish Wikipedia. There should be no shortage of references available :)

I'm requesting assistance at this time, because another editor recently (in my opinion mistakenly and/or inappropriately) deleted much of the article text as being in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability; I believe this should not have happened, and as of 6 April have restored the deleted text; but the occurence does underscore the fact that the article could use some updating and improved referencing; hopefully by a collaboration of editors.

Thanks, Lini (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello all

Just wanted to say hi to everyone. I just joined the wikiproject. I look forward to working with you all.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

new Category:Theatre articles needing attention

see Category:Theatre articles needing attention -- Paul foord (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a necessary category? Articles needing urgent attention can always be brought to this wikiproject's talk page and non-urgent concerns can always be tagged.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is created by using the {{WikiProject Theatre}} template with attention=yes. Paul foord (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to archive?

I know I just joined the project but I couldn't help but notice that some of these discussions have not been added to for over a year. Does anyone mind if I archive the older topics on this page?Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the archive 1 had discussions archived up to October 2007, I archived discussions ending as late as October 2007 in archive number 2. As a new member I have two comments. First, this seems like a pretty inactive group as most of the discussions above contain no replies. That is sad. Second, if community discussion is going to fascilitate well than the discussion page has to be better maintained. I personally feel that any more than 20 topics at one time is a cluttered talk page that is hard to navigate. Especially when several of the discussions appear to be over.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also gone ahead and archived discussions that have ended after October 2007.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly new and not very active here myself, Bwb, but I suppose it's time someone welcomed you and thanked you for your efforts. So, welcome and thanks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. It is good to hear from someone. I'm new to hear so I feel kind of strange doing archiving and upkeep. lol But someone has got to do it. I also found tons of bad info on the project's main page and have been weeding through it. I also feel like the front page could do a better job listing theatre related lists and categories. Right now it is not so clear how everything is organized. I have been looking at other wikiproject pages to see how they organize things and frankly the theatre wikiproject is kind of sloppy. Take a look at Wikipedia: WikiProject Opera for an example of a good project. I would like to see this project become more active and I think the place to start is in getting more organized.Broadweighbabe (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this won't be seen as any kind of attack on the members of this project who have been here a little longer, but sometimes WikiProjects become moribund and sometimes they come back to life as a result of "new blood", so feel free to dive in and be bold. If anyone has a problem, I'm sure they'll sing out. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. And I didn't want to sound like I was attacking older members. lol I just want to see things get better.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I set up MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) to do the archiving from now on - discussion threads with zero new posts or activity for over one month will be archived to the most recent archive. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this project?

I see the scope of this project covers: "Theatre history (including Greek theatre, Chinese theatre, Roman theatre, Commedia dell'arte, Kabuki, Renaissance theatre, Epic theatre etc)" . I wonder, particularly in the case of the Chinese and Japanese performing arts, whether this is sensible. Does this project really have any interest in these subjects, and if so any competence? Would it be better - given that so few people are involved - for this project to concentrate on English and European-language spoken drama? (BTW the Opera Project has always regarded Chinese Opera as an important performing art in its own right, completely separate from (Western) opera.) Thanks for reading this. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. I would say that until another project evolves that is interested in such topics that they fall under the scope of this project. Just as out of the opera wikiproject was birthed the Wagner project so would projects involving those topics.Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the rule of thumb is "the more eyes on a page, the better". There's no harm in having those articles as part of this project and having them as part of it can only result in more good editors paying attention to them. Additionally, anyone who took a Theatre Arts degree and studied a little theatre history is likely to have at least some passing knowledge of the subjects mentioned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, I believe that projects that are well-defined have an impetus and sense of purpose that projects which are ill-defined lack. A project is after all just a group of editors struggling to focus and maintain a NPOV approach and that's difficult if the enterprise turns into an empire. I've seen this happen on a lot of projects, over-inflation IMO leads quickly to inactivity. Re Wagner - that's at the core of the Opera Project. The reason for having a separate (descendant) project was to work to a higher standard than usual and specifically to introduce assessments. (So for example this project might do the same thing with Shakespeare or Molière or somebody.) --Kleinzach (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadweighbabe bows out

Hello all. I am having to leave off editing on wikipedia for a while due to personal reasons. Best of luck with editing. And I hope someone else will take over the editing of the above discussion. Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Character Lists in Play Articles

There is a discussion going on at the Shakespeare project page that should interest the editors of this project. I wasn't sure whether the discussion should do on here or there or on the Elizabethan project page. I think the discussion is quite important. Does anyone know where the best place is? Here is the link: [[1]] and here is the text of the new section:

Can we revisit the issue of Character Lists in the play articles? We made the exception in the Hamlet article and deleted the list (then turned it into a button way down at the bottom of the article), but I still believe that was a mistake. Is there a Wiki-wide policy that applies to plays in general? (not that all rules should be automatically followed!). In any case, in the Hamlet discussion, only 3 or 4 editors chimed in who wanted to do away with the Characters, but that was enough to create a (small) consensus so the character list is no longer part of the main article. Before this slowly happens with every article - or instead of revisiting the issue another 36 times, can we attempt a discussion with more participants? Also - should the discussion happen here - or on the theatre project page which, I assume, would apply to many more plays here on Wikipedia?

For the record, since the works are first and foremost, plays, I think it an essential ingredient to an in depth theatre article to have a character list (as given to us in Shakespeare's First Folio) included in the entry. I do not believe having a character list clutters up the article, but rather is an essential guide to making the overall article more understandable and easier to follow (especially with larger casts or plays with similar sounding character names, of which there are many). I also find the lists an excellent reference tool for students, teachers, actors, designers, directors and anyone who travels with their laptop instead of hauling around plays and other reference books.Smatprt (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is value in including a character list in an article on an individual play. -- Lini (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with LiniShu (talk · contribs), I do not know of a uniform consensus on this across all of Wiki, so it is probably a case by case issue. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How does one build a uniform consensus across Wiki? It seems that this is the logical place to start. Smatprt (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that this is the place to do it and I think character lists are essential to play articles (and musicals for that matter). As a precedent for such lists, the opera wikiproject and the Gilbert and Sullivan wikiproject have had a long standing policy of including a list of characters on opera articles for years. Many ballet articles as well list roles. As a matter of uniformity across the performing arts in general I think a list of roles (at least principle ones) would be appropriate. If the members of the theatre wikiproject decide as a group to set it as the project's stance than I think it would spread out to related projects like the Shakespear one.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi from the Opera project. I don't know if you are interested in seeing the standard table we use for 'Roles' on opera articles? Typically the table has three columns for the name, voice type (tenor etc.) and also the creator at the premiere (often a link to a biography), see example. The roles table is always positioned before the synopsis. (For a role table positioned in an article see La fanciulla del West.) I hope this is helpful. Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this would be an excellent policy to implement on all theatrical productions be they plays, musicals, ballets, operas, operettas, etc. Character lists in my view are essential information and readers are expecting to find that information when they come to a wikipedia article. I think the format used by the opera project works very well.Nrswanson (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I once was against character lists, as they are exceedingly listy. At this point, I think a list of the MAJOR characters with a short (one-sentence) description of each is of value to the article. I think the consensus for musicals is to leave out the voice parts, as there aren't as hard-and-fast rules for musicals as there are for opera. However, I think listing every character is a bad idea. It's sometimes difficult to decide which should be up there, but that varies from article to article. As long as flame wars don't start developing over whether or not Bootsie in City of Angels is considered a major character, we can probably leave it at that. However, I would say that, we should decide whether or not they're necessary across WP, but leave it to the individual projects to decide how to implement them. —  MusicMaker5376 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Three more points, based on experience in the Opera Project:

• The role table is especially useful for operas because it includes the type (or types!) of voice required for the role. This factor is somewhat less important in musicals, as mentioned above (and of no importance in plays, alas!)
• It allows for a description of the character's part in the drama (e.g. father of Juliet or Violante's servant, disguised as a gardener), which would otherwise clutter up the synopsis
• Where the information is available, the name of the original performer of the role is included. This provides a valuable two-way link between performers and dramatic work, and in many cases fruitfully results in WP articles on the performers. I fear that this column won't be too useful in articles on Shakespeare plays, though.

--GuillaumeTell 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Working with the assumption that people know the characters before hand when dealing with plot summaries makes things unneccesarily hazy, and it is definately very helpful to have a clear and concise list, especially when you are dealing with the sheer number of characters seen in Shakespeare's theatre. Sebbi (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from another outsider! Characters in Hamlet is justifiably a separate article; some of it borders OR but there is scope for discussion of various interpreters. A simple dramatis personae list should still be part of every main article, imho. One finds chattier lists substituting for a synopsis (A Wedding (opera)), or with the more convincing rational that characterizations are those of the author (The Guilty Mother). The other extreme is the infobox in Woyzeck, where there is really to little info, aside from the fact that "characters" is interpreted as "selected characters". Sparafucil (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously the manner and method of how character lists are to be represented is going to vary from project to project and to some extent from article to article. I think the discussion here is to decide to include a list of characters on all the theatre related articles be they plays, musicals, operas, ballets, etc. I think the consensus so far seems to be yes and now I guess the opera template above provides us with a good model that can be adapted to different projects needs accordingly.Nrswanson (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this should be a case by case thing as several others seem to. I the Opera people want to make that a rule for Opera then that's their decision. I don't see any reason to make one solid rule for every single play out there. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No I think this group is deciding to include character lists of some kind across all plays, opera, musicals, etc. The method in which that is done will vary from project to project. I personally think that at least a list of major characters should be included on all play articles including Shakespear. Readers are expecting to find such information and in my view a play article is seriously lacking without such a list.Broadweighbabe (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly qualifies as a "major" character (Smatprt will appreciate this question :) ). I really don't think requiring it makes much sense. If it is really that necessary, people will do it naturally, without a rule. It will go to FA and people will say "Where's the character list?" That wasn't the case with Hamlet. Hamlet just doesn't need a list like that. A lot of editors were working on it and decided not to have one, and it passed FA with hardly a hiccup. These things should be done case-by-case. Wrad (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No - this should be a policy across all play articles, which the consensus on this page clearly agrees with. In Hamlet, I believe a few strong willed editors unrelentingly built a small consensus and I believe it was a mistake, which is why I brought the question to this larger forum. These editors believed that the work was "literature" first, and a "play" second, which I, quite frankly, think is laughable. These are the greatest PLAYS of all time. If we can't agree on that, then I think we look foolish, as does any play article that fails to list the CHARACTERS. If everything on WP were left to "case by case", we would end up with one big mess. Regarding only major characters - I actually think all characters should be listed. Smatprt (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think arguing specifics here is distracting from the main topic (although personally I would expect to see a list of characters on the Hamlet article). I believe the point of this discussion is to decide on a policy regaurding a list of characters (of at least major ones) on all play articles. Obviously what characters should and should not be included must be worked out on individual talk pages. To this end I am proposing to make a proposition on which people can give a vote for or against. Would you all support such a step?Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What does a list of characters really accomplish that a good, solid plot synopsis doesn't? A plot synopsis would name all major characters naturally. A character list could get really ugly, what with all the Peaseblossoms, Guards 1, 2, and 3, etc. We definitely need to take more time on this. Most of the discussion on this took place in a mere two days, April 15 and 16 b/w Smatprt's original post and my post. That is certainly not enough to call this a policy. Set up a clear proposal that people can debate, leave some notes on project talk pages, and let the system work a little longer. A lot longer. Wrad (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually notes have already been left (several days ago) by me on all relevent wikiproject talk pages about this discussion. Up to this point opposition seems to only be coming from one project, the Shakespear project, and only from a small group of people. Also Kleinzach eloquently points out the major benefits of such lists above: 1. Prevents cluttering up of synopsis and 2. Provides an easy link between original performers and works. However, in view of fairness I am all for your proposal. And I think nrswanson was suggesting doing exactly what you are asking be done Wrad.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Now that we have enough consensus to seriously consider proposing this as policy, let's be serious about it. I know you left notes and I think that's great. Let's have a formal setup as nrswanson suggests and re-notify project so that they know just how serious this is getting. Policy is no small thing. Wrad (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed structure for debate

Note the below guidelines were developed through a discussion among various editors that is now archived in Archive number 4. The current proposal and the guidelines are still open for discussion and change. All opinions welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days. After which, voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time.

Guideline Proposal 1: When possible, articles on plays should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. Further information about the characters, including role originators or other performances should be included in a separate section such as "Notable Performances" or in a separate article such as "Characters in Hamlet".

Guideline Proposal 2: When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision.

Guideline Proposal 3: It is not necessary to have a guideline on character lists. Editors are capable of making the decision about whether to include such a list and how best to structure it for the specific topic under consideration on their own.

Guideline Proposal 3: Articles on all forms of staged production incorporating characters should include a section about, or a link to a separate article on, the main characters. Character information, whether within the main article or in a separate article, should include material about notable original creators of the roles. (Withdrawn. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

What do you all think of this?Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2008

Comment - There's been absolutely no discussion of the voting structure you propose so that really needs to a separate proposal of its own, for which consensus needs to be obtained. Otherwise, I'd personally like to see considerably more discussion of the proposals to see what common ground can be established. This may well lead to consensus anyway. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks Broadweighbabe for taking the lead on this. Will you be leaving invitations at the various projects? Smatprt (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Smatprt. And Roger I brought it up here so we could discuss it. Hence the overhead title "proposed structure for debate". I personally feel five days of discussion without voting is plenty of time before voting to see where things lie and to possibly reach a common ground. After that discussion will continue and voting will occur as votes will give a clearer picture as to where people stand on issues and will hopefully help everyone reach a consensus.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you two can't just unilaterally decide the way things are going to operate without consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger you are frustrating me. I am bringing this up to get input. From you and everyone else. I have placed notices on all notable wikiproject pages about this conversation. Everyone has been invited. I am asking your opinion and for your suggestions on the opposed plan above which is open to being changed. Nobody is doing anything unilaterally.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a highly reasonable proposal that should be fair to all parties. I don't see how you can say they are making unilateral decisions Roger. They have asked for input every step of the way and are still open to it.Nrswanson (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that it rolls four things into one proposal. In my experience, the easiest way to move things forward is to break them down into bite-sized components. Discussion is much more focused that way :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry if this is upsetting you but I'm more than a little concerned about ownership of this discussion. I also think it will be a lot clearer and the issues will get a better airing if the means of moving forward is discussed in a separate section to the proposals themselves.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would you suggest. And I think you should assume good faith Roger. It saddens me that you are already flinging accusations around. I am merely trying to do WP:Bold. I have asked for input every step of the way.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. Ownership is nearly always accidental and nearly always derives from good faith motives :) As I mentioned above, it would easier if this part of the discussion was split into separate sections, rather than rolled into one. If the discussion is structured ingeniously enough, we can probably get broad consensus without !voting (which is deprecated anyway). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

I am not exactly sure I understand you. How would it be divided exactly? I am open to the idea.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this discussion has got way too messy and sprawling so it's probably best to archive this (with a link) and start a whole new section. This will make it much easier for new editors to follow what's been happening. Structured thus:

1. ==Including character lists in plays===

   Hatnote link to archived discussion (ie this one).

   Brief summary of context. Main arguments for and against.

2. ===Proposal 1===

   Text of proposal. Explain this focuses on major characters. Invitation for comments.

3. ===Proposal 2===

   Text of proposal. explain this includes all characters. Invitation for comments.

4. ===Proposal 3===

   Text of proposal. Invitation for comments.

You see, with some amendments to 1, I'd support it, as 1 and 3 aren't very far apart in meaning (though the wordings are very different). So the idea is to find consensus through discussion, a negotiation if you like, rather than by !voting. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a fair proposal as well. I do think though that if the majority is in support of a particular course than those few dissenters should be over ruled. If twenty five people are for a proposition and only say three or four against than it seems a pretty open and shut case to me. Those are just arbitrary numbers but you know what I mean.Nrswanson (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I do :) However, if the three or four dissenters are people doing significant amounts of quality work, and they become disheartened, what would it achieve? A guideline in place for articles that no one is actually working on :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt the outcome of this discussion is going to dishearten any editor to the point that they will stop contributing.Nrswanson (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. I've seen people storm off over infoboxes and flags before. The biggest problem is likely to come from trying to impose a guideline on the hundreds of article that don't have character lists. Many of these are the pride and joy of dedicated editors. For example, the guy (an academic) who done virtually all the quality Harold Pinter stuff has detailed character narrative sections instead of character lists and is famously defensive of his (extremely high standard) work. Broadly, on Wikipedia, people at the coal face respond very badly to being told what to do. The prime example of this is the current travails at WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM and the ill-fated, and highly divisive, attempt to make WP:MOS over-rule Wikiprojects styleguides where the two are in conflict. Still, this is all stuff that the gung-ho here will no doubt take into account :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Talking of actual real-life character sections, by the way, which would you rather have? The Birthday Party (play)#Characters or The Caretaker#List of characters? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your first comment Roger. That is ownership (unlike what Broadweighbabe was doing yesterday) and is not a defensible behavior which I feel should be catered to. People who have a problem with implementing policy (or rather a guideline) made through consensus on "their articles" is not something to be tolerated and against everything wikipedia stands for. And frankly I wouldn't want to work with that editor. Great care is being made in developing this discussion but ultimately the goal is to establish a policy through consensus that will create as much uniformity in style and content as possible across performing arts article. Second, I dislike both of your character lists. In the one there is no brief description and no ties to original performers. In the other there is too much of a description. Descriptions should be short and concise and no longer than necessary (hopefully only a phrase such as the sister of so and so or a Merchant and the brother of this person etc). You should also be able to eyeball the entire list all at once (unless there are a lot of characters in which case probably the list could be trimmed of some minor characters). Character lists should not be interdispersed with synopsis which should be a seperate section and if done well the character list should actually make the synopsis more readable and more concise. See the template example given by Kleinzach above. Also I still feel the debate needs more structure than you have suggested so far. I still feel that voting may be an appropriate measure if consensus is not reached by a certain point. Sometimes discussion only gets you so far. Particularly if tiny minority are trying to dominate what is going on. Polling prevents that. Also I don't really want to establish a mandatory structure for lists either, just a suggested one. Certain articles may be served better by a different structure than others and editors for individual articles should feel free to adapt that as needed.Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To deal with the key points as concisely as I can:

1. I agree that it is very useful to eyeball the entire cast list. No one is saying otherwise. My proposal doesn't ban cast lists. It says either have them in the main article or, in a separate dedicated one.
2. I also note that you don't want to establish a mandatory structure and believe that editors of individual articles should be free to adapt as necessary. How is that incompatible with what I propose?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposed structure: In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days in order to allow for a possible non-vote consensus. If no consensus is possible through this means than voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time. If there is a clear majority than that guideline will be established.Nrswanson (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the examples given above, I agree with Nrswanson that those examples are either too long or too short. I rather like these used for Comedy of Errors and Julius Caesar: [[2]] and [[3]]. These would be examples, or course , where no known role originator was known. For the reasons described by Nrswanson above - short and concise, easy to follow, helpful when following a synopsis. I think we might take our cue from the thousands of play programs that offer the same information - in an attempt to help the playgoer understand what is going on. It also includes minor characters (Cinna the Poet in Julius Caesar) in a brief, but understandable way. Personally, upon reflection, I think role originators should not be included in these lists, but should be in separate sections such as "Notable Peformances". I will amend my proposal to say so. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, here, you are moving to prescribe the nature of the character list. What use is a character list in reading a synopsis if it follows it as you suggest?

And, again, your underlying asumption that we (I?) are talking about doing away with character lists? No one is suggesting that. I'm saying either have them in the main or in a separate article as the article editors determine. To take your play program analogy, if play programs can publish the synopsis and chracter list on separate pages, why should we have the information in separate articles? Much ado about nothing here I think :)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And there YOU go again - just arguing for the sake of arguing. I did NOT suggest the character list follow the synopsis. I suggest that things like "notable performances" appear separately. Do you purposely throw in these red herrings? It is such a useless tactic. And is there one play program with a character list, and another for the synopsis? No! (Again - I find answering these silly assumptions of yours just laughable.) To be extra clear - just for you Roger - I am against having the option of stowing the character list in a separate article. That is what you are suggesting and that is what you made happen with Hamlet. Opening two articles and flipping back and forth between pop-ups??? I hardly think that is user-friendly. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1 You wrote "helpful when following a synopsis".

Yes, and I meant following the facts of the story. (different use of following) - and frankly, based on your past discussions with me on this very subject, you should have known that - or are you intentionally being difficult? Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not being psychic :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2 "Red herrings" - please assume good faith and remember that civility is policy. It applies to edit summaries as well, by the way.

sorry - but the red herrings you have already introduced here lead me to believe that this is simply the way you choose to debate. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They're only red herrings in your book :) A character list section for a one- two- or three- character play is completely unnecessary. A well-written paragraph would do it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

3 No, of course, the synopsis and character lists aren't in separate programs but they are frequently on different pages (especially in opera). There's really no difference between looking at different pages and looking at separate articles.

I respectfully disagree. No difference? Does that not depend on the computor, amount of memory, size of screen, familiarity with programs, etc., etc., etc. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue here.

4 I do not make a separate article the default option. The default option is to keep it within the article.

glad to hear that. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

5 "Stowing" in a separate article is ready no different to "stowing" on a separate page of a program.

Again - respectfully disagree for all reasons listed above. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

6 I keep the two articles open side-by-side on the monitor. Easy-peasy. No need to flip between them and much easier than scrolling up and down between two sections. Your mileage may vary.

Again - and if someone has a small monitor? Low memory? etc.?Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue on my clapped-out old laptop. I toggle between them. Easy. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to dispute the assumption behind this proposal, outlined several times above: "In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts". However, the genres listed above are not uniform, so I do not believe this goal is achievable. Describing the genres or their characters in a uniform way is impossible. French plays from the twentieth century are often very dissimilar from Chinese plays of the sixth century. To impose a standard form on all such articles is pointless. The sections of articles on the performing arts should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, although I am usually against character lists, the article on the novel El Señor Presidente actually presented the character list in a useful way because it included analytical material, not just plot material. Rather than demanding an identical layout for genres that have vastly differing artistic styles across cultures and times, I would like to propose that we leave it up to the editors to decide what is best for each individual article. Sometimes that may mean the inclusion of character lists and sometimes that may not mean that. Let's avoid instruction creep. I see no need for dictating this kind of detail. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. Instead of attempting to stop a discussion that you don't agree with, why not actually participate and explain why you think character lists should not be a part of every play article? Smatprt (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she just did. I tend to agree with her. Plays are not only different from culture to culture, but from time period to time period. We can't make a blanket rule for everything. I am very uncomfortable with making such a rule and think it should be decided on a case by case basis. Like it or not, that is how everything is decided anyway. Wrad (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Several points. First examples from literature do not apply. This conversation is for productions of live theatre only, i.e. not novels and stories not meant to be performed on stage. Second, the structure being suggested is merely a list of characters which should apply across all cultural and historical genres of theatrical productions. Third, this is a guideline and not policy which means that if a particular articles needs could be better solved through another solution than an editor can do so in good faith. Fourth, no one is or has been suggesting a mandatory format for such lists, only that a list be included on an article which I think is not only reasonable but essential for all plays in all time periods in all cultures. Lastly, these arguements are out of order. You might not like the proposals but the debate has enough interest so it is going to happen. Right now the focus should be to set up a structure for the debate and not to debate the issues for the debate. So please restrict your comments to either making a new guideline proposal or comments on the order/structure of debate. This discsussion involves several wikiprojects so it needs to organized fairly, clearly, and concisely. Thank you.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I gave an example from literature because it was an example of lists of characters that worked. It supports your argument. You should welcome it. I was unaware that this was "live theatre" only - so, closet dramas written by the Romantics is out? Percy Shelley's, The Cenci, for example, or Byron's Cain (play)? These lines are very blurry and trying to draw them is inevitably doomed to failure because of these kinds of examples.

2) My point is that lists of characters cannot apply across all genres, all cultures, and all times. Ballets, operas, and plays from across history and across the world are too different - they require different article layouts. Demanding that they fit into a predetermined article layout will make the articles worse, not better, because we will not be allowing editors to consider the needs of the work under consideration.

3) Guidelines have a way of becoming written in stone. The MOS is a guideline, yet articles must adhere to it if they want to pass FAC. There is no reason to add something arbitrary like this.

4) Questioning the assumption of an argument is never out of order. If you want to defend your assumption - that all of these genres are sufficiently alike that we can make lists for them, do so - but simply asserting that the assumption doesn't warrant discussion is not sufficient. Part of a rational debate is figuring out the assumptions behind the arguments. I have identified one and questioned it.

5) I do not need to present a new proposal as I see no need for a proposal at all in this area. That is the point of what I am saying. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I gave an example from literature because it was an example of lists of characters that worked. It supports your argument. You should welcome it. I was unaware that this was "live theatre" only - so, closet dramas written by the Romantics is out? Percy Shelley's, The Cenci, for example, or Byron's Cain (play)? These lines are very blurry and trying to draw them is inevitably doomed to failure because of these kinds of examples.

2) My point is that lists of characters cannot apply across all genres, all cultures, and all times. Ballets, operas, and plays from across history and across the world are too different - they require different article layouts. Demanding that they fit into a predetermined article layout will make the articles worse, not better, because we will not be allowing editors to consider the needs of the work under consideration.

3) Guidelines have a way of becoming written in stone. The MOS is a guideline, yet articles must adhere to it if they want to pass FAC. There is no reason to add something arbitrary like this.

4) Questioning the assumption of an argument is never out of order. If you want to defend your assumption - that all of these genres are sufficiently alike that we can make lists for them, do so - but simply asserting that the assumption doesn't warrant discussion is not sufficient. Part of a rational debate is figuring out the assumptions behind the arguments. I have identified one and questioned it.

5) I do not need to present a new proposal as I see no need for a proposal at all in this area. That is the point of what I am saying. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1. A Closet Drama is live theatre in the sense that it is meant to be performed (read aloud) and not simply read in solitude. And I think you are deliberately trying to muddy water that is pretty crystal clear. If it falls within the perview of one of the performing arts projects it should be included.
• 2. This guideline is not interested in putting together a uniform article structure. Merely requiring a list of characters. There can be any number of possible structural formats that could be possible and not mutually exclusive. Also where the list is placed on particular pages is left of to individual editors and article talk pages. Although I personally think it should go before the synopsis.
• 3. This guideline is suggesting what I view as necessary information, organized (although in a very loose way) in a necessary way. People expect to see a list of characters.
• 4. You are perfectly right that you may question the assumptions of the arguments. However, per the overwhelming consensus above this discussion has enough interest that it should go forward in a more formal manner.
• 5. You should put a proposal in place articulating that you feel editors should be left to their own discression in such matters. This will help people argue for or against that opinion and help ultimately to bring about a consensus.
• 6. You should also give some feedback on how a fair debate should be set up.

Thank you for your input.Broadweighbabe (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more anxious about this. She's right, guidelines do have a way of getting set in stone. Whatever is decided here will held over editor's heads as a weapon by people who don't know better. I believe that part of the proposal should be simply that no guideline be established and all character list issues be decided on a case by case basis. I'm reverting to my original stance. Wrad (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As broadweighbabe has bowed out, I guess I will respond. I think that the goal right now is to press forward for a discussion that includes all relevent wikiprojects. Lets forget for now whether we agree or disagree with the issue of the debate and work on setting that discussion up. Agreed? I would suggest commenting on the above proposals.Nrswanson (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. How can a discussion hurt? Smatprt (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially removed the character list from Romeo and Juliet because of concerns about WP:SIZE, and it removed 2KB from the article, which has now almost been added back by the readding of the character list. As part of removing the character list, I linked all the individual character articles, and sections in the split article to replace the in-article character list. At WP:FICT, which has recently undergone a shake-up, it is becoming more acceptable for character lists to be split out from main articles, usually leaving a short summary of only the most important characters behind. I would suggest that all fiction-related projects be included in this proposed discussion, as it is not only a matter for the theatre, opera, and Shakespeare projects - this discussion and proposed guideline could theoretically affect all fiction articles. -Malkinann (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, discussion is great, but right now all three proposals are for introducing a new guideline when several (I count three and growing) don't want a new guideline at all. We need to have an actual choice here b/w guideline or no guideline, otherwise it won't be a very fair or inclusive debate. Why not discuss whether or not we want a guideline first, and then if that passes decided on what the guideline should be? Wrad (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's just two proposals now. I've withdrawn mine (proposal 3). I only introduced it as a compromise measure. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't counting you. Just Awadewit, Malkinnan, and I :). Wrad (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can include me in too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So in your mind, it's a case of instruction creep? If so, I wholeheartedly agree. ;) Just bringing up that this has the potential to creep over into all fiction-related articles and trying to bring it into context with what's been happening at WP:FICT of late. -Malkinann (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be limited to Performing arts articles where "casts of characters" are involved. No one is suggesting that all articles on "fiction" be included under this potential guideline and the fear of instruction creep should be allayed. Regarding Wrad's comment above, the 3 editors against having this discussion at all are the same 3 editors that pushed for removing the Character list from Hamlet, so it is not surprising that they want to suppress this discussion. However, as evidenced by the far larger number of editors that feel character lists should be included in all theatrical production articles, putting up roadblocks such as "let's first build a consensus whether to discuss this at all" or "let's attack the premise" are merely tactics to protect their own viewpoint. No one involved in any of these debates has ever contemplated adding all fiction articles - after all, do the authors of plays and operas, etc include a cast of characters as part of their work? Yes. Do writers of fiction include a cast of characters as a part of their work? No. I believe that part of this discussion should be respect for the author and what that author provided to us. For the most part, authors of plays and the like have given us character lists so that is the medium we should be discussing. Thanks for letting me babble on. Smatprt (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop accusing me of trying to "suppress this discussion"? When have I ever done that? I have, in fact, done the opposite. Wrad (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So the performing arts aren't concerned with fiction??? Please understand that my worries of instruction creep are based on what's been happening at WP:FICT of late. (Including arbitration cases...erk!) In Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, the character list was deleted from the main article, but a larger character list was created and important characters linked in the synopses. The character lists were not deleted, they were spun out into their own article which could treat the characters in more depth. The plot synopsis, in the case of R&J, did not expand to include any more 'flavour-text' description of who a character was. -Malkinann (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: When I originally commented in favor of character lists in articles on plays, my understanding was that the point of the discussion was to allow editors interested in Theatre articles to participate in a discussion, that had begun elsewhere, that seemed to be trending toward a consensus among only a small group of people, that character lists should be deleted from all articles on plays (which is the way I read the concerns of the initiator of the discussion). Although I expressed my opinion as being in favor of allowing articles on plays to include character lists, I would not endorse mandating character lists on articles about plays (that seems to be against the spirit of Wikipedia!) Thanks, Lini (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And she's (he's?) not even from the original Hamlet group! (Neither is Malkinnan, though.) Wrad (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1) ""let's attack the premise" are merely tactics to protect their own viewpoint" - Arguments rest on assumptions - I am asking those putting forth this proposal to set up a guideline suggesting the inclusion of character lists to defend theirs. I have defended mine - that all of these genres are too disparate to support even a guideline suggesting that they all have character lists.

2) My participation in this discussion is evidence of my interest in it and my desire to contribute to it. Please stop accusing me and others who do not agree with the proposal to include a character list in these articles of "suppress[ing] this discussion" - we are most obviously not doing so. We are responding to you and attempting to engage in a debate based on logical principles.

3) "Do writers of fiction include a cast of characters as a part of their work? No" - This is demonstrably untrue. For example, Samuel Richardson's novel Clarissa includes a list of "Principal Characters". This is true of many eighteenth-century novels. These lines that you are attempting to draw are arbitrary. You argue that the cast of characters should be included because the author included it. However, are you sure every playwright, opera libretticist, etc. included that list? Often these lists were included by printers and publishers, particularly before the twentieth century. We are not always "respecting the author", as you say, by including them. I am unconvinced by your reasoning here. I am willing to listen to other arguments, but this one does not make sense. Your conclusions do not follow from your own reasons.

Interesting. I imagine there are exceptions to everything - but you seem to know more about these things. Would you say these examples are exceptions? To be specific, do the majority of novels have cast lists and do the majority of plays lack them? Smatprt (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These are representative examples rather than exceptions. Many novels from the eighteenth century (British, French, and American, as far as I know) have character lists. Whether it is a majority I cannot say. I have not read all of them, so I am not in a position to make that call. However, I have read a great many of the major novels of the century and they frequently include such lists (whether the character lists were added by the author is usually unknown - we know from printing history that such things were often added by printers). British and French plays of the eighteenth century often, but not always, include character lists. I know that sixteenth and seventeenth-century plays did not always include character lists. Modern reprints of these plays often include such lists, but the original publications did not always have them. For example, the First Folio of Shakespeare's works contains a list of actors who participated in the plays, but not casts of characters for each play. Each play just "starts". If you want to make a historical argument or an argument based on the "original text", I'm afraid that you are going to run into quagmires like Shakespeare, where the textual history is disputed (there are also quarto versions of the plays). Also, while there are strong reasons for trying to remain "true to the original text" (we do this in quotations, for example), I am not sure that the same reasoning follows for article layout. Such an argument would certainly not support the position of standardization of articles "when possible", as the proposal outlines. Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

4) My initial position was and remains that there should be no guideline on character lists. Whether or not there should be character lists in an article should decided on a case-by-case basis. To be perfectly clear: I am not advocating the deletion of all character lists. Awadewit (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for being clear on that. I appreciate that. Smatprt (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And let me add to that the last thing any of us want to do is make a rule stating you can't have character lists. Of course you can! We just don't want it to be a guideline. We want it to be something each article can decide. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See my new non-proposal proposal. Editors should decide. We shouldn't institute a new guideline that will become a defacto rule. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought a guideline was...well... as guideline - and not a "rule". In fact, I thought there were no hard and fast rules here on Wikipedia. On the Shakespeare project page, for example, do we not have a guideline that suggests a format for all shakespeare play articles (Lead, synopsis, sources, dating, etc.) and have we not deviated it from time to time? What is different here? If there is a difference, perhaps it can be addressed? Smatprt (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say anything? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, guidelines become rules because they migrate into things like the MOS. So, for example, although the MOS is technically a guideline, all articles that want to pass FAC must adhere to it. One cannot argue, as I once tried to against Roger Davies, that WP:ENGVAR is only a guideline. It is not a good idea to set up a guideline if you don't want it to eventually be invoked as a rule. Also, most new editors view WikiProject guidelines as rules. I have had to explain to countless editors that the WikiProject Film guidelines and the WikiProject Novel guidelines do not have to be followed, although it says that very thing at those project pages. They have always responded with astonishment. Establishing all of these guidelines encourages people to follow them rather than think for themselves about what would be best for the topic under consideration. We do not need guidelines at this level of detail, especially when they have the potential to migrate into the MOS like the WikiProject Film guidelines already have. Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree on this and think a guideline is just a guideline. I think vigilant editors (like we have for theatre articles) will always prevail. For further input, please see my comments below. Smatprt (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. The fact is that the WikiProject Film guidelines are now part of the MOS, which any film article has to adhere to become an FA. Also, the MOS is itself a guideline, which any article has to adhere to become an FA. Editors appeal to the MOS in disputes as if it is a rule, not as if it is a guideline. That is why I worry about setting up a guideline like this. Awadewit (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing that I can disagree. Now can we agree to disagree and move on? This endless repeating of yourself does not further the debate. I'm sorry you worry about things like this, but the "fact is" that numerous guidelines - like this very one in the Opera and Musical Theatre articles - are not treated as hard and fast rules. That's the facts, mam! Smatprt (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you are wrong. Guidelines have become and are rules. My argument is that we should not contribute to that process. There is no compelling reason to add this guideline. Awadewit (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow - you just have to be "right" - even when the facts don't support you. I have given examples of where you are simply incorrect. Here is another - on the WikiProject Shakespeare page there is a list of "guidelines" - and these "guidelines" are not always followed, nor have they been used as hard and fast rules. So - demonstrably, Guidelines are NOT rules. Smatprt (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts do support me. See WP:MOS where it says at the top that it is a guideline. Then at WP:FA? it says that all articles must follow that guideline. That means it is no longer a guideline, but a rule. Also, if you look at the box on the side of the main MOS page, you will see all of the links to the various WikiProject "guidelines" that have managed to weasel their way into the MOS. Those pages are now part of the MOS. Debate is now ensuing over how binding those are. I'm sorry, but when you hang around FAC as much as I do, you see all of these "guidelines" invoked as "rules" all of the time. Awadewit (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are speaking in absolutes. I have shown you that they are not so. That is all I'm saying (just like you pointed out that all plays do not have character lists, even though many (most?) do) Smatprt (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Throughout this conversation I have avoided speaking in absolutes. I did not say that all guidelines become rules - I said that some have so we should avoid making guidelines that we would not like to see as rules. The fact that WikiProject guidelines are migrating into the MOS is particularly worrisome as you are proposing to make this proposal part of a WikiProject guideline - that is why I mentioned the Film guidelines in particular (there are other WikiProject guidelines in the MOS, by the way). That is one reason why I am against this proposal. Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines warns against the kind of polling attempted above. It also gives instructions as to how to go about making a new policy/guideline, as does the essay Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance. -Malkinann (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why from the start I had said some other alternative to voting would be fine with me. Smatprt (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents: every publisher I've ever encountered has had style manuals/guidelines/rules (or whatever). The reason for this is (1) it's faster and more accurate to publish that way, (2) it's easier for the reader to get around and find information if the information is presented in a consistent way. A general encyclopedia needs overall guidelines/rules etc for the work as a whole, but also special ones for special subjects. For example on the opera project we have had to solve style problems that haven't come up in connection with other subjects, hence we've needed to create some special guidelines, which I hope are in line with those of the publication as a whole. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside

Having not read the above insanity and having absolutely no intention of doing so, let me say this: Whatever you decide here will apply only to plays. Musical Theatre and Opera have their own guidelines and, frankly, will not take suggestions from another project. Make your own decision, but any attempts to unilaterally apply whatever you decide here to articles on musicals or operas will be met with severe resistance, so please take those considerations out of your discussion. I appreciate having been extended the opportunity to take part in these discussions (such as they are), and I wish your project luck. —  MusicMaker5376 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is this reaction representative of the projects at large? Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say "probably". Opera has historically been resistant to any of the decisions at MT. —  MusicMaker5376 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out the Opera comes under Performing Arts, not Music or Theatre. (MT comes under Theatre, is that right?) So there are structural reasons for the way things have developed. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Opera Project, I've just read (albeit rather fast) through the discussion above and to be frank I'm surprised this has generated so much heat. My focus is opera, and like MusicMaker5376 I feel this is really a matter for the Theatre Project itself. As far as the Opera Project goes the problem is already solved. Moreover the solution adopted really only applies to opera. Theatre needs to have its own approach. Regarding guidelines, I am in favour of them because they speed up editing and deter people from re-inventing wheels, and they can easily be changed. (BTW The issue of defining the scope of this project is a much bigger and more pressing one IMO.) Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would probably agree with that. (Being in favor of guidelines so as not to have to re-invent the rule for every play (that has a character list, that is.) Smatprt (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MM and Kleinzach: There are separate projects govening different performing arts, and the members of each of those projects have worked for years to develop article structure guidelines for their projects. It is nice to try to coordinate and communicate among projects, but you can't supersede the work already done by each of the separate projects. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (member of WP:G&S)

Well nobody seems to have pointed out the obvious. The Ballet, Opera, and G & S wikiprojects already follow the above guideline and it is really only the theatre, music theatre, and Shakespear projects that don't.Nrswanson (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which guideline? MT has guidelines re: cast lists -- it's neither encouraged nor discouraged, but entire cast lists are usually discouraged. Some articles benefit from them, some do not. Most people know which is which without it being codified. —  MusicMaker5376 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the WP:BALLET guideline (other than a general one) but Opera guidelines are a model of friendly advice couched in moderate terms rather than prescription.

On other hand, the Gilbert and Sullivan guideline is fearsomely prescriptive but headed "this is only a guide" and, amusingly, the assessment section further down the page shows that several "required sections" aren't actually yet present in any of their articles. (It also contradicts WP:MOS in places, so heavens knows what would happen at WP:FAC.)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is instructive, creative and fulfilling to imitate a good example, but severe enforcement makes a free spirit detest rules, and those who impose them, even if they are good ones.Eebahgum (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out, too, that while the projects try not to impose things on one another, we try to help out one another when we can. There isn't any animosity between projects -- probably because we haven't tried to impose things on one another. Whatever Theatre decides here is fine -- feel free to let us know once it's decided -- but don't expect us to follow it. Good luck. —  MusicMaker5376 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Restating the value of Character Lists

Note: This recent refactoring has grossly distorted the thrust of the discussion. The issue is not whether to dispense with character lists altogether but whether they should be mandatory within the body of the main article as opposed to being in a sub-article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above note is the opinion of an editor who likes to restate the discussion to suit his own agenda. As the editor who started this discussion, my issue is that every play article should have a character list and (noting that nothing on Wikipedia is "mandatory") that this should be a guideline. Further, this character list should not be deleted from the main article in favor of an expanded character list in a separate article.Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Guideline proposal #1, above. Smatprt (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings once again - I think I would like to step back, having reassessed a few things:

1) First, I think my original intent was broadened in a way that I did not forsee the consequences. I agree that including ballet, opera, etc is waaaaaay beyond my original intent - which was to revisit the subject of "character lists in play articles". While it is good to know that operas and musical theatre articles have already come to a conclusion on this subject, those are indeed different genres and are off point from my original issue. To get back to that - I think articles on plays should have character lists wherever possible.

2) I agree with Roger that for one or two person plays (and maybe even 3 or 4!) they probably are not needed. But in Shakespeare articles - where this all started, the abundant number of characters - often from competing factions, armies, households, etc. - make visible character lists a useful tool for the reader. With due reverence for Roger's position, I still find it easier for the reader - and therefore more useful - to have the list in the same article instead of a separate one. It's as simple as that.

3) I also find that in many cases, the synopsis section becomes strained when we try and account for each character and who they represent within the synopsis itself. In this regard, trying to remember whether Servilius (or whoever) is a servant to Brutus or Cassius or Antony can become tiresome and having to scan the synopsis for a reminder can be frustrating. A quick jaunt up to the cast list will remind me and then it's back down to the article.

4) As a theatre professional - say - a costumer - a quick look at the list is a great service. A prop master can quickly determine how many of each sword or flag a play might require, and so forth. Printing out one good article is also more helpful than printing out two - and less time consuming. All these examples are to do a service to the reader, the theatre practitioner, the student and, yes, the teacher. I will continue to argue these points and will raise them at every FA and GA review I can - not to be tiresome, but because I believe in this wholeheartedly.

5) Regarding "imposing" my will on other projects. This was never intended. I still believe a guideline is a guideline and not a rule. We have seen numerous examples quoted on this page where this proves to be so. Good editors will always keep guidelines just that and no more. Cheers all. Smatprt (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As to point 3 - the synopsis does not need to account for every character - it is a synopsis - a summary. This is an encyclopedia article, not a reprint of the play. Awadewit (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone ever say this was a reprint of the play? You really didn't address this at all. Smatprt (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But you are asking for a level of detail that would require such a reprint. Ex from your statement above: " A prop master can quickly determine how many of each sword or flag a play might require, and so forth." Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As to point 4 - again, I say this is an encyclopedia article, not a reference for professionals. Professionals have copies of the play. They can also look at Wikisource, if they want. Encyclopedia articles do not contain the entire text of a play or all of the details necessary for putting on a production. That is not their function or role. To expect an encyclopedia article to have all of the details necessary for a prop master is ridiculous. Awadewit (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For someone who preaches civility and respect, you seem to be displaying "the other side of your angry face" (to paraphrase a play quote - name that play!)Smatprt (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But seriously - I know plenty of theatre professional that use Wikipedia as a source for quick information. God forbid that we become a resource! Again, you don't really address the point - you just deny something that you really are not familiar with. Smatprt (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The more appropriate venue for these queries is Wikisource. One cannot do what you are saying with an encyclopedia article - there is not enough information to make prop, costume, etc. decisions. Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having spent over 30 years in all levels of the theatre, I can tell you from experience that you are mistaken. When it comes to simple info, such as how many characters, etc. are in a particular play - or faction -, a quick glance at a character list is all one needs for some decisions. Again - when you speak in absolutes,or assume to know everything about certian topics (like the theatre) your argument loses credibility. Smatprt (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've said what you feel is bad or less-than-ideal about having a separate character list which is more fleshed out, as is the case in Hamlet. I'd be wary of trying to include prop and costuming choices in the articles, as they would vary widely and be subject to WP:OR. -Malkinann (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First - I think it's GREAT to have a separate character list that is more fleshed out, like Hamlet does. But like many others, I do not feel that having a separate fleshed out list should automatically cause the deletion of the more simple character list from the main article. Regarding your second point, I think Awadewit has pulled this discussion off track - having prop or costuming choices as part of the article is not even part of this discussion, nor something I am advocating. I am saying that having a simple character list as part of the main article can be useful for a VARIETY of readers, from students wanting to understand the synopsis easier, to a costumer who simply wants a quick reference. Of course detailed decisions on such matters (props, costumes, etc) would come from a thorough reading of the SCRIPT - and more important - consultation with the DIRECTOR, but that is entirely off topic. Again, let me bring you back to the basic argument - that having a simple character list should be part of every play article for MANY reasons and as a helpful tool for MANY readers. (I also know many a casting director who often take a quick glance at a simple cast list as a first step in the casting process - but let's not warp that statement into more than what it is!) Smatprt (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And let me bring you back to a basic counter-argument. Why, in a paperless hyper-linked encyclopedia, does this character list need to be an integral part of the main article as against a prominently linked sub-article? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered above. To recap a basic reply: Having the character list (which introduces the characters and their basic function/faction/etc) followed by a synopsis makes the synopsis (especially in the case of a complicated multi-plot Shakespeare play) easier to understand. Why go to another article for a SIMPLE character introduction, then back to the first article for the synopsis? Seems like overkill. Having said that, I still think having separate articles for in depth character descriptions is a good thing. Smatprt (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Because a well-written synoposis contains sufficient information to adequately introduce and contextualise the principal characters. You don't need to repeat that Hamlet is the prince of Denmark or that Gertrude is his mum in an adjacent character list. The information in a character list is essentially duplicatory. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If you went to see a play and bought a programme what would you expect to find in it? Would you expect to see a cast list? --Kleinzach (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I go to see plays (which is often) the cast list tells me which actors play the main roles. The minor roles are ignored with a footnote saying "All other roles are played by members of the company" or similar. Both the Globe and the Old Vic do this and neither theatre includes character descriptions in the cast list. They do not list the credits, including the cast list, on the same page as the synopsis. Furthermore, the synopses are self-sufficient, incorporating adequate introduction and context for the characters referred to.

But is the character list in a different program than the synopsis? Hardly! Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To once again revisit the core point. No one is proposing deleting cast/character lists. We are simply saying that it ought to be a matter of editorial discretion whether they are included in the main article or in a dedicated sub-article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But you did in fact delete the character list from Hamlet, prefering to relegate the list to a separate article.Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved a mountain of stuff from Hamlet to sub-articles in order to get the article down to the required length. It would never have passed FAC as it was. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you point me to an example of a dedicated sub-article?--Kleinzach (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Hamlet. The main characters are in any case adequately introduced in narrative in the Hamlet#Synopsis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Romeo and Juliet. Wrad (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And in both cases these were expanded, in depth character lists, and the simple character lists, helpful in understanding the synopsis were deleted from the main article.Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See (outdent) below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet and Gertrude....well,,,duh. Now apply the same argument to supporting characters in Henry VI or Julius Caesar. I can hear readers thinking - "now whose side is Somerset on?" Will the synopsis keep repeating who is wearing a red rose and who a white one? Or "now is Volumnius a follower of Brutus? or Cassius? or is he related to Volumnia" (ok - that was just a joke). But surely you see what I mean. (I do agree with you that anyone would be able to remember who Hamlet or Gertrude was - but that was hardly my issue - I kept saying it would help follow who is on what faction, not who the leader of the faction was!).Smatprt (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

← We have only your word for it that articles are diminished by the absence of a stonking great character list. Let's see what the community at large think of an article without one (extracts from the Hamlet FAC):

• spankingly good – Tony
• a remarkably good article Noetica
• extremely impressive twelsht
• Incredibly thorough, and well-written to boot. If only the rest of our articles on Mr. Shakespeare's works received such attention. :) GeeJo
• Wonderful article, nothing seems to be missed, professional standard of writing and well presented, what more can you ask? Harland1
• … incredibly and meticulously well written and entirely comprehensive. This really sets the bar for theatre Featured Articles. María]
• Fine article. indopug

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Once again - off point Roger. "Stonking great character list"? What a joke. I keep saying a simple character list, and you keep misquoting, exaggerating, and throwing in off point facts and issues. Jeez. Smatprt (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your guideline says that character list "should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well.". This is what such a list for Hamlet would look like.

1. Hamlet – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
2. Claudius – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
3. Gertrude – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
4. The Ghost – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
5. Polonius – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
6. Laertes – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
7. Ophelia – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
8. Horatio – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
9. Rosencrantz – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
10. Guildenstern – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
11. Fortinbras – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
12. Marcellus – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
13. Barnardo – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
14. Francisco – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
15. Voltemand – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
16. Cornelius – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
17. Reynaldo – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
18. A Gentleman – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
19. Osric – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
20. Messengers – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
21. First Player or Player King – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
22. Second Player or Player Queen – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
23. Third Player / Lucianus – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
24. Fourth Player – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
25. A sexton gravedigger – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
26. A bailiff – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
27. A Priest, or Doctor of Divinity – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
28. A Captain – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
29. Sailors (pirates) – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
30. English Ambassadors – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How disingenuous! - you added almost 4K of material, when the list is closer to 2K of visible material! And the Captain needs a full line of description? How silly. This is how you make your point? (Note that my guideline says wherever possible - meaning not all minor characters (a bailiff, a gentleman) need be mentioned - also, certain characters can share a line, but you know that!)Smatprt (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(Just noticed this.) The proposed guideline says "should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well". Given (1) that guidelines have a propensity to become rules, (2) that rules have tendency to be followed slavishly and (3) that including all the minor characters is within the realms of possibility, I don't think I was being disingenuous at all :) Please note, by the way, that the sexton gravedigger and the bailiff (ie the gravediggers) are mentioned, in context, in the synopsis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree the guidelines become rules and rules are followed slavishly. One only has to look at the Shakespeare project guidelines and the way we have use common sense so as not to slavishly follow them, and one will see that you are incorrect. And I repeat, you purposely added an overly long list that used no common sense in order to make your point. And I see you have not responded to the list I posted below (that uses grouping, common sense, and is half the size of yours, while being complete and thorough. Smatprt (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Hamlet, it duplicates (and in some cases, triplicates) material that is already elsewhere. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See a better (imo) attempt below.Smatprt (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In some interpretations of summary style, when dealing with a media article and a daughter character article, only the most important characters must be mentioned in the main article about the work as a whole - minor characters like the Nurse's servant Peter or the chorus just don't rate. Any character mentioned in the synopsis should be linked out to their section in the character list, and if they're important, they should have a little flavour-text. Like, Juliet is described as a thirteen year old girl. So if you think 'so who's this Rosencrantz fella then?', there he is.-Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to you here as well. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think this interpretation of SS really applies. And in the Fiction guidelines, it mentions that depending on "complexity" some of these guidelines might not apply either. Shakespeare's plays are certainly complex and this is precisely one of the points I have been trying to make - due to the complexity of plot, multiple subplots, multiple factions, etc, I still believe that complete cast lists are a greater help than a hindrance to a good article on the plays of Shakespeare. (But I do believe in grouping some characters on a single line would be a good use of the "common sense" guideline and reduce overall length). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that the novel guidelines say

The character section should consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Another option is to delete the character section entirely to prevent the article from looking like SparkNotes (rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry). Instead, use a finely crafted plot summary to introduce the characters to the reader.

The second of which is pretty much my position. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And a NOVEL is certainly not a PLAY. Again, you use a disingenuous approach to try and make your point. Why can't you simply respond to what is actually presented instead of twisting things?Smatprt (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Plays and novels are very similar for plot explanation purposes.
2. Please stop the ad hominem attacks. I am getting very close to the point of inviting an uninvolved admin to review your remarks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Smartprt, I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between "literature" and plays. Plays are fictional, plays are literature (where literature just means story) and plays are plays. -Malkinann (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Example of short, concise (but complete) Character List

How about this? Do you honestly feel this would lesson the article in any way? On the contrary, I think it helps from the various standpoints that I have already described above, and is in keeping with the thrust of my proposed guideline. Smatprt (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters

1. Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. Son to the late, and nephew to the present, king.
2. Claudius is the King of Denmark, elected to the throne after the death of his brother, King Hamlet. Claudius has married Gertrude, his brother's widow.
3. Gertrude is the Queen of Denmark, and King Hamlet's widow, now married to Claudius, and mother to Hamlet.
4. Ghost, appears in the image of Hamlet's father, the late King Hamlet (Old Hamlet).
5. Polonius is Claudius's chief advisor, and the father of Ophelia and Laertes. (This character is called "Corambis" in Q1.)
6. Laertes is the son of Polonius, and has returned to Elsinore from Paris.
7. Ophelia is Polonius's daughter, and Laertes's sister, who lives with her father at Elsinore.
8. Horatio is a good friend of Hamlet, from the university at Wittenberg, who came to Elsinore Castle to attend King Hamlet's funeral.
9. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are childhood friends and schoolmates of Hamlet, who were summoned to Elsinore by Claudius and Gertrude.
10. Marcellus, Barnardo, and Francisco are sentries who guard Elsinore Castle.
11. Voltemand and Cornelius are ambassadors King Claudius sends to old King Norway.
12. Reynaldo is Polonius's servant. (This character is called "Montano" in the First Quarto.)
13. Fortinbras is the nephew of old King Norway. He is also the son of Fortinbras Sr., who was killed in single combat by Hamlet's father.
14. Two Clowns, a gravedigger and his companion.
15. Osric, a courtier (named "Ostricke" in Q2).
16. Players in a company of Players who arrive at Elsinore:

1. First Player or Player King.
2. Second Player or Player Queen, a lad.
3. Third Player, Lucianus in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")
4. Fourth Player, the Prologue in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")

Also: Lords, ladies, messengers, courtiers, servants, sailors, guards, officers, Ambassadors, followers of Laertes, Norwegian soldiers, Priest.

As you've asked for specific comments on this, lines 1, 2 & 3 are in themselves longwinded and repetitive; they also triplicate material contained in the lead and the synopsis. The names of sentries and ambassadors are unnecessary for understanding the plot, as are the number of players. In fact, there is virtually nothing in it that not in the synopsis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with it, from the point of view you've been arguing, is that it is quite impossible for the costumemaster/mistress to know how many frocks to order and the propertymaster/mistress is completely at sea about swords and similar ironmongery. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

this is not the main point of view I was arguing and you know it. This was one of many examples I gave where it might be helpful. I chiefly argued understandability of complex plots, in addition to providing on overview for theatre professionals. Of course, the prop and costume folks will read the play, meet with the director, note the size of the cast being used and then get into detail. But I imagine you know that. (Also - using the above example, the props and costume masters would actually hardly be "completely at sea". Hmmm - 2 clowns, 4 players and who they play, key nobles and courtiers, - more than enough to get a leg up! Again, you exaggerate.) Smatprt (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the main thrust of your argument. Surely, without precise numbers, while they might be able to kit out the main characters, the minor ones would be left to perform in their underwear :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why it is necessary to duplicate material that is in the synoposis and bloat the article accordingly. I know you personally believe it helps understand the play but theatre programmes don't find a character list necessary and nobodsy, but nobody, bemoaned its absence during the Hamlet FAC. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because nobody brought it up does not mean it's not a valid concern. In fact, asking for criticism about something that is missing is not really asking, is it? At the next FAC let's simply raise the question and see what discussion follows!Smatprt (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It indicates that while a character list may be a valid concern to some people, it isn't a universally held one.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

There are three ways that could go - they could chuck the nomination out on its ear because the content of the article is "unstable" or is likely to be so due to the discussion and consensus seeking, or they could insist on one way or another, most likely following what's already been featured - Hamlet. Or they could insist first one way, then the other.-Malkinann (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Theatre Programs don't find a character list necessary? What on earth are you talking about now???Smatprt (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the examples I gave above, the programs contained credits, ie the names of the main characters followed by the name of actor. They had nothing in common with what you propose. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that in some theatre programs, only the names of the main characters are mentioned? Gee - I feel sorry for the other actors in those productions (not that I believe any such theatre programs exist!). Smatprt (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, with a footnote saying something to the effect of "All other characters are played by members of the company". I've got several Globe and the Old Vic programmes in front of me even as I type. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you are referring to. Those footnotes are referring to, for example, "Lords, ladies, messengers, courtiers, servants, sailors, guards, officers, Ambassadors, followers of Laertes, Norwegian soldiers, Priest." - ie. bit parts (commonly referred to in the theatre as "ensemble parts"). In theatrical jargon, there is a difference between 1) Major, supporting and minor characters, and, 2) ensemble or bit parts. My view is supportive of including 1), but not 2) (except in a one line footnote to the cast list - just as I have shown above. these would be the "all other parts played by the company" that you are referring to. Now do you understand??Smatprt (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you here. The programmes I looked at only listed about 12 or 14 characters, which is certainly fewer than your (1) list. Yes, I understand perfectly. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

12 or 14 works for some plays (if everyone else is grouped as you mention). Which plays are your programs from? Smatprt (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I only looked at the Shakespeare ones (of which I've got about thirty). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I meant Shakespeare plays - 12 or 14 primary and supporting characters works for many - Othello, Lear, Errors, As You Like It come to mind. Just wondering which titles you were looking at that had 12-14 (and no more). Smatprt (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of them is the short answer :) You're just going to have to assume good faith on this, I'm afraid, as it will be a huge waste of both our times to list each here and haggle individually :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good comments - the above list was what was in the article prior to deletion. I rather like this one better:

Characters

CLAUDIUS, King of Denmark

HAMLET, Son to the late, and Nephew to the present King

GERTRUDE, Queen of Denmark and Mother to Hamlet

POLONIUS, Lord Chamberlain

LAERTES, his Son

OPHELIA, Daughter to Polonius

HORATIO, Friend to Hamlet

FORTINBRAS, Prince of Norway

VOLTIMAND, CORNELIUS, ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN, OSRIC, & A Gentleman, Courtiers

MARCELLUS & BERNARDO, Officers

FRANCISCO, a Soldier

REYNALDO, Servant to Polonius

Two Clowns, Grave-diggers

Players who arrive at Elsinore:

First Player or Player King.

Second Player or Player Queen, a lad.

Third Player, Lucianus in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")

Fourth Player, the Prologue in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")

Lords, Ladies, Officers, Soldiers, Sailors, English Ambassadors, Messengers, Attendants, A Captain and a Priest

This is more in keeping with what might be found in a theatre program (where 'the company' or 'the ensemble' plays all the bit parts). It also starts with the King and moves down the family ladders in a logical way. It removes the repetitive stuff from that is duplicated in the synopsis except the bare bones descriptions that would be expected in a simple character list. I just don't understand how a list like this would do anything but improve the article (and don't understand how it would actually hurt it). Smatprt (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we differ. I don't see how this actually improves an article. For a start, it's visually highly disjunctive, introducing a great marble tombstone after the TOC (which is itself a great slab of white). Second, it doesn't actually add any information. The characters worth talking about are already discussed in context elsewhere (often in several elsewheres). Third, it doesn't actually reflect what your guideline proposes. I appreciate your efforts to find compromise but in all honesty I believe that the cast list issue is best left to be dealt by with the good judgment of the contributing editors on a case by case basis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do - I have always understood that having sections with white space was a good thing. White space, graphics, graphs, etc break up an otherwise daunting (for some) amount of text, and make an article actually more readable. Thus readers might actually get all the way through the longer articles. This is why modern textbooks have more illustrations and the like - to break up the text. After years of laying out newsletters, brochures, etc, I can attest that the more visually interesting an article, the more people actually read and respond to them. To your second point - I find that the list does add info - the make-up of the players and the fact that the gravediggers are comic figures (clowns) for example. Lastly - I do find that it follows my proposed guideline - All major and minor characters are indeed listed, so I am not sure what you are referring to in this regard. Smatprt (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a matter of taste, I suppose. Without getting into a "I've-got-more-experience-than-you" discussion, you're not the only one with some knowledge of publishing and what works in print doesn't necessarily work in the very different environment of web publishing. Now, as this discussion shows every indication of continuing indefinitely and I'm currently busy and even busier next week, I intend bugging out unless there are significant new developments. Thank you for what has been a stimulating and (mostly) interesting discussion, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I havnt tried to follow the entire discussion, but if I may comment: the dramatis personae is such a well established convention that partial cast lists are misleading and should be discouraged. The fact that even after following the redirect to characters in Hamlet I still cannot find the information in summary form (ie, a simple list) is a serious blemish on both articles, and one I am quite unable to understand from the arguments advanced above. Roger, would you care to try to convince me? Sparafucil (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, it's entirely a matter of personal taste and expectations. As for rehearsing the arguments de novo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint. The angels of the arguments on both sides are comprehensively discussed on this page and its archived predessor. I understand you may not have the time to read a novella-length debate but, equally, I don't have the time to summarise it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Duckie for broadway has found her calling

Hello may I introduce myself as Duckie for broadway or just simply, Duckie. I really felt I had to do something useful with my WikiTime and with my theatre experience onstage and backstage, so I thought I would join this project. So here I am. Spreading the love Duckie for broadway (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and have fun --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you! --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance Scale Criteria

Looking through the lists of articles by importance, it seemed to me that there is a wide disparity between different editors' assessments. For example, A Streetcar Named Desire (play) was assigned low, The Merchant of Venice was assigned medium, while A Raisin in the Sun was assigned high; what justifies these differences? There is a similar divergence between theatrical terms, playwrights, etc. Has any criteria more specific than "little/relatively little/fairly important" and "highly specific/specific" been set or discussed? If the importance scale is going to have any meaning at all, we need to make it more specific. Dozenthey (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been assessing a lot of plays recently. I've marked almost all of them as Low importance, citing the "highly specific area of knowledge" guideline. Lacking any further external guidance, I've gone by these guidelines in my assessment process:

• Top priority should be reserved for plays that might be candidates for "single most important and/or well-known play ever", such as Romeo and Juliet (granted, it's only marked High).
• High priority should be reserved for those plays that "everyone knows of", or are very commonly researched by students in their secondary school education, like Macbeth or A Streetcar Named Desire (play).
• Medium should be designated to plays that are well-known amongst the theater-going crowd, like The Odd Couple or Shakespeare's less-performed works (i.e., The Merchant of Venice).
• Everything else is Low importance, and this should be the bulk of what's out there.

Completely subjective, I know, but as you noted, there's not a lot to go by. --Dereksmootz (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD - List of stock characters in comedy

Didn't see a place to put a Theatre-related AFD, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy. Cheers ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone with the know how, please add these coordinates to Alamo Theater (Mississippi). I've tried every way I know how and could learn how but can't get it to work. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sondheim's Saturday Night

I just had a look at the article on Saturday Night (musical) for the first time and it has some major problems in the "Productions" section which make that part of the article unreadable. I would fix it if I could make sense of it. That's how bad it is. Granted I am not familiar with this show at all though. Perhaps one of you all can come to the rescue. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Play (theatre), is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography of Gordon Craig - link

Dear All,

this link goes to Ellenterry.org some profit making organisation that has Nothing to do with Ellen Terry or Gordon Craig. Can you release that link? thanks, ix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixobel (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (play)

Hello to the members of the members of the Wikiproject for theatre. Although I am not a member I wanted to make you aware of something that I have come across. Today User:XxJoshuaxX performed a series of moves and redirects to move the page for this play so that there would be a small "o" rather than a capital "O" for the word "over". Now I know that this is grammatically correct but I was under the impression that when it comes to play titles that we followed what was seen on the playbills and/or what is used most often in referring to the book. Of the dozen or so websites that I have looked at to research this they all use the capital "O" for the word over. So many edits were made that I am not sure what to do to restore the page if that is what you want done. On the other hand if the members of the project are OK with this move then so be it. I just wanted to make you aware of the situation. The pages for the film and book have been moved also. Thanks for your time and efforts for looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 00:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Entry on Wilde's Salome

Hi! I am new to this and so posting this here rather than directly making an edit - I'd rather someone with more experience did it. But just to draw your attention to the fact that there were actually two performances of Salome in June 1906, albeit private ones, when it was presented with A Florentine Tragedy by the Literary Theatre Society at King's Hall, Covent Garden.

It's very understandable, these having slipped below the radar, as there isn't much published on the LTS. It was an initiative of Yeats and Sturge Moore, among others, and one of the many private theatre clubs designed to evade the Lord Chamberlain's censorship. The papers are at the University of London Library, and Ronald Schuchard wrote a good article on the LTS: W. B. Yeats and the London Theatre Societies, 1901-1904, The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 116, (Nov., 1978), pp. 415-446.

Great project, btw! Campanula (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Theatre stubs banner

Currently Category:Playwright stubs, Category:Canadian stage actor stubs, Category:Theatre director stubs, Category:American theatre actor stubs all have a WikiProject Stub Sorting banner in this form:

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting.
Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation.

I'm only an occasional contributor here - but I wonder what the project thinks about this? IMO categories are normally maintained by the project concerned. Should the banners be removed? Best. --Kleinzach 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Schmidt, Chekhov translator

Hi,

this note is meant to draw attention to an error in your entry for Chekhov's "The Seagull." The author cites Paul Schmidt as the translator of the version used the Classic Stage Company production, and the citation is correct. However, the deep link provided leads the reader to a wikipedia page about the German Paul Schmidt, who died in 1970. The Paul Schmidt who translated Chekhov (in "The Seagull" mounted by CSC, as well as the version of "The Three Sisters" used in The Wooster Group's "Brace Up!" to name but two) is this Paul Schmidt: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6D9153DF932A15751C0A96F958260. He died in 1999.

Many thanks.65.37.136.208 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Delinked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1873 articles are assigned to this project, of which 370, or 19.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

Added this to the main project page, so hopefully soon something will show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Cleanup listing. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Community theatre in Dire Need of Rewrite

Please, won't someone make it coherent, or at least referenced? I am not a theatre person, and have not got the information to fix it. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Biases

I continue to worry about a number of the assumptions and biases within the Theatre Project. Of course, I realise that is why we're reviewing the status and quality of many of the entries, but the problem starts right at the beginning (i.e. the definition of Theatre). Namely:

Theatre (or theater, see spelling differences) is the branch of the performing arts defined by Bernard Beckerman as what "occurs when one or more persons, isolated in time and/or space, present themselves to another or others."

Here the emphasis clearly remains not only focused on Western theatre forms, but also on Drama. This base definition excludes, for example, most puppet-based forms of theatre, as well as ritual forms. The key issue here is 'present themselves'.

The Puppet entry is rated as Low Importance, which I think also reflects this bias. I would have thought that to address the western/drama bias in so many of the Wiki Theatre entries we need to start recognising the importance not only of other theatre traditions but also other forms.

I'm happy enough to modify entries as part of regular editing but I think this malaise is endemic within the current approach to the subject. I would like to know what editors feel about this. Bob (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here has been limited - after all there are only four archives - and there are less than 2,000 articles. Given that situation, the scope of the project (as explained on the project page) appears to be rather ambitious. Perhaps it would be better for the project to concentrate on areas where participants have some interest and knowledge? --Kleinzach 11:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

People might be interested in reading the latest deus ex-machina about date linking ... WP:MOSDATE. Executive summary, full dates will now appear unlinked - be prepared to (a) standardise pages, and (b) defend your local date preference. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghost character

This article is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost character. Dalejenkins | 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Theatre

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New FP

Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet

Just dropping by to let you know there's a newly featured picture that relates to your project. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 08:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and the work on the image. It has been added into rotation at Portal:Theatre. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename

For anyone that may be interested, there is a proposal here to rename Category:West End plays to Category:London West End plays. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Theatre

Portal:Theatre is currently undergoing a portal peer review, and comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Theatre/archive1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cfd to rename US cats to "theater"

Has anyone notified you of this? No, I thought not. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Summer Brave

I created this article and someone tagged it as having questionable notability. Am I wrong in thinking a play by William Inge, especially one that was a revision of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Picnic, is notable enough to warrant an article about it? I'm new here but I think I'm right. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This same editor now has suggested this article be merged with Picnic because Summer Brave isn't notable enough to stand on its own. He has asked people to discuss the issue at Talk: Picnic. Please feel free to add your opinion, I'm really interested in knowing what others think. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has intervened and it looks like the article will remain as I originally wrote it (until someone else adds information), with all tags removed. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

West End theatre categories

I've nominated a deletion and rename here, if anyone would like to comment. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Augustan drama nominated for FAR

Augustan drama has been nominated for FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan drama. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Augustan drama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Amateur Theatre

An ANON added a {Expert-subject} template to Amateur theatre. It is a pretty poor article which could use some expert attention, if anyone here is able to help out. AndyJones (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched Aristophanes

The page for Aristophanes was badly vandalized yesterday with a two-tier attack[4][5] and stayed vandalized for 24 hours (and would still be if I hadn't been puzzled with the missing Biography section): this probably means nobody watch this page anymore. Would it be possible for 2 or 3 interested editors to watch it? (Or to relay this query to the appropriate place or board, if there's one?) Thanks. 62.147.39.150 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Priorities for Theatre articles in need of attention

I've just checked out the browser hits for the pages currently categorised as being in urgent need of attention during the last month. This is their ranking based on hits in October 2008:

• Actor - 81,860
• Drama - 60,030
• Tragedy - 53,011
• Bertolt Brecht - 44,343
• Method acting - 33,399
• Theatre - 27,332
• Constantin Stanislavski - 21,200
• Dramatic structure - 15,726
• Naturalism - 14,613
• Mimesis - 14,443
• History of theatre - 12,095
• Play - 9,438
• Audience - 8,732
• Realism - 4,793 (Sept stats - page moved)
• Epic theatre - 3,047
• Comedy - 2,289
• Experimental theatre - 1,776
• Political theatre - 1,533
• Stanislavski's system - 1,313
• Dramatic theory - 618
• Political drama - 613
• Nineteenth-century theatre - 496
• Theatre language - 243
• Twentieth-century theatre - 153

DionysosProteus (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Private Lives

I recently added a great deal of information to this article. User:Emerson7 then edited it by removing most of the wikilinks to other articles. Is Tony Award Best Actress in a Play (his version) preferable to Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play (my version), the accurate wikilink that will take you directly to the article? He offers no explanation for his changes, which I think detract from the article. Could someone please offer an opinion? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

moving discussion to talk page: --emerson7 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Character Lists from play articles

The highbrows that seem to own the Shakespeare pages are attempting to remove the character list from Romeo and Juliet because it muddies up their beautiful "prose". I am astounded that they don't understand that plays and musicals share an essential element - the Character list! Please comment here: [[6]]

This also seems to be a violation of WP:CANVAS. Would you remove this, please, Smatprt? Wrad (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Character Lists - To be or not to be...

There is a discussion going among editors of the Shakespeare project that requires the opinions of all interested editors in the theatre project. In a nutshell, the issue is whether or not a character list should be included in the Shakespeare play articles. Please note that the Shakespeare project editors have already decided not to include play infoboxes that would normally include a character list, so if a list is not included, there would be no list whatsoever included in the articles. The discussion is going on here:[[7]]. Thank you, in advance, for your opinions on the matter. Smatprt (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I simply did not want editors to think that the info box would cover the missing material, since there are no info boxes included in these articles (which I agree with). Having said that, I think the comment by Wrad balances out any perceived bias. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deertrees Theatre

I think that I am at the poin in my article on Deertrees Theatre that I could use some expert input. As a first time contributor, I would like to know if I am on the right track. Thank you. --Bwp3 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors needed to improve California Musical Theatre

Due to the recent controversy envolving the Califonia Proposition 8, this page has been getting some traffic after the public boycott of Artistic director Scott Eckern. The page has POV which i admit I may be to "envolved" to see.

Please see that this article recieves some attention. --Amadscientist (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors needed for Scott Eckern

I believe this is an important article. While a contraversial figure he is also of great importance to California and American theatre. Please take a moment to research and help build this article up.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oleanna (play)

There have been recent edits here that one takes to be of good faith, but I'm dubious as to whether they improve the article. Contributor Oleanna201 seems intent on grafting large sections of text, which appear to be a thoroughly researched school essay, onto existing content. Thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Update on The Theatre Portal

•  – Update: Portal:Theatre has recently become a Featured Portal. All of the articles at Portal:Theatre in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of Featured Quality Status, and there are some great contributors who have churned out interesting WP:DYKs. One area where we could use some more contributors is at Category:Theatre on Wikinews. Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material! Keep up the great work getting articles to Good Article and Featured Quality Status ! Cirt (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Performance

Everything on here seems to be about Dramatic and Commercial theatre and not very much about contemporary theatre. I have been putting a lot into this area, but this area is a) VAST and b) seemingly untouched.

Even Lecoq and Brook have been left out of the loop. If anyone has anything to contribute to this field, please help me out! Sebbi (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Theatres in the United States move discussion

There is a Discussion to move Category:Theatres in the United States and related categories to "Theaters in the United States" - This is to conform to Wikipedia style guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Final comments on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 in theatre

The article 2009 in theatre can need some help. There's so much theater stuff happening, and it would be great to get more updaters on it. It is built up similar to 2009 in film, but needs more editors. Bib (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating Article Assessments

Firstly, hello, I've recently joined the project and started making little changes like adding info boxes to articles. On the main page, the table shows there are a total of 952 non assessed articles. However, I have looked at and assessed quite a few articles recently and updated those I know something about. The figures haven't changed recently, does someone update these or is it automatic? KlickingKarl (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Theatre Posters

Hi, I've been working on the BLP for David Edgar and I'm at the point where an image makes sense. Does anyone know of an online resource for theatre posters so I can upload a couple? Cottonshirtτ 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

...you might also be interested to know that the page is going to be on DYK any day now. It is on the queue listings page, in queue 3, which probably means it will be front page today or tomorrow. Cottonshirtτ 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Updating the Main Page

Howdy all. I'm new to the project, but wanted to say hello. I've fixed the formatting on the main page so the bottom boxes are re-aligned on the left. Let me know if there's anything missing or incorrect. -Evan (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Stats on a sample of theatre pages for March 2009

Hello. For anyone who's interested, here's a sample of theatre articles arranged according to the number of hits they received in March 2009, to give you an idea of what browsers are looking at in the project. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oscar Wilde 199,668
• Waiting for Godot 98,308
• Actor 89,058
• Jean-Paul Sartre 85,334
• Albert Camus 72,896
• Drama 69,835
• George Bernard Shaw 68,666
• Arthur Miller 67,160
• Anton Chekhov 66,178
• William Butler Yeats 63,196
• Bertolt Brecht 61,126
• Samuel Beckett 60,984
• Tragedy 59,817
• Tennessee Williams 59,668
• Oedipus the King 48,174
• Federico García Lorca 45,588
• Commedia dell'arte 44,849
• A Doll's House 42,431
• Gertrude Stein 38,631
• Method acting 38,612
• Tragic hero 38,030
• Theatre of ancient Greece 36,740
• Henrik Ibsen 36,286
• Harold Pinter 33,940
• Eugene O'Neill 32,520

• Nikolai Gogol 29,776
• Peer Gynt 27,857
• Theatre of the Absurd 27,161
• Theatre 25,813
• Émile Zola 24,998
• Constantin Stanislavski 24,699
• Hedda Gabler 22,699
• Naturalism 21,247
• The Seagull 19,016
• Lee Strasberg 18,416
• Antonin Artaud 17,127
• The Threepenny Opera 17,029
• Dramatic structure 16,806
• Mimesis 16,804
• The Cherry Orchard 16,783
• English Renaissance theatre 16,385
• Three Sisters 13,783
• August Strindberg 13,400
• History of theatre 12,528
• Epic theatre 11,642
• Play 11,492
• Jean Genet 11,283
• Vladimir Mayakovsky 10,214
• Endgame 9,755
• Mother Courage and Her Children 9,526

• Caryl Churchill 9,310
• Audience 9,174
• Luigi Pirandello 9,070
• Noël_Coward 9,001
• Peter Brook 8,944
• Dario Fo 8,022
• Tony Kushner 7,878
• Augusto Boal 7,846
• Morality play 7,796
• Uncle Vanya 7,486
• Miss Julie 7,481
• Jerzy Grotowski 7,175
• Joe Orton 6,985
• Theatre of Cruelty 6,420
• Mystery play 6,394
• Restoration comedy 6,378
• Medieval theatre 6,007
• Realism 5,938
• An Enemy of the People 5,675
• Theatre of ancient Rome 5,650
• John Galsworthy 5,631
• The Caucasian Chalk Circle 5,531
• Ghosts 4,952
• Ancient Greek comedy 4,886
• Arthur Schnitzler 4,670

• Alfred Jarry 4,619
• Life of Galileo 4,566
• Maurice Maeterlinck 4,532
• Friedrich Dürrenmatt 4,498
• Frank Wedekind 4,021
• Vsevolod Meyerhold 3,907
• The Wild Duck 3,581
• Comedy 2,932
• Satyr play 2,836
• Stanislavski's system 2,719
• Experimental theatre 2,545
• Heiner Müller 2,225
• Gerhart Hauptmann 2,181
• Anne Bogart 2,063
• Political theatre 2,004
• Erwin Piscator 1,879
• Ernst Toller 1,340
• Alexandr Ostrovsky 1,218
• Dramatic theory 942
• Brand 877
• Eugenio Barba 766
• Political drama 740
• Nineteenth-century theatre 681
• Twentieth-century theatre 586
• Theatre language 359

Merge discussion: Slice of life story → Slice of life

Please come and participate in this discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Opera portal at Featured portal candidates

Portal:Opera is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Opera. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Samuel Beckett

I have nominated Samuel Beckett for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A Delicate Balance

This article desperately needs attention. The present plot synopsis is a whopping 1,884 words long. This is followed by lengthy character descriptions which basically reiterate what has been stated in the synopsis, i.e., "The play opens with Agnes, the female lead and a handsome woman in her late 50’s" and "Agnes is the main female character of the play. She is woman in her fifties." 1,546 words are devoted to sections entitled "Themes" and "Styles" in which nothing is referenced. In fact, both sections are filled with POV and sound more like a thesis written for a course about Albee's plays than an encyclopedia article. Does anyone involved with the Theatre Project know enough about this play to tackle the article? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR notice

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to chiefly concern some details about the Theban plays. I suspect that an introduction to a translation would contain the necessary information. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of those plays. Anyone able to help?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one Join WikiProject Theatre?

Good Afternoon

I am a relatively new wiki editor and am working on the Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company article

The project page Talks about joining the project, but I can't figure out how to do it. Could someone give me the instructions?

Ecragg (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all you need to do is go to Participants at [8], click on edit, and add your name. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason there is no edit option when I look at the participant's area. Fortunately someone over at new users help provided me with a direct edit link, and I have now joined. I will be working on Washington DC area theatre articles. (I would love some feedback on Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecragg (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I have a question about listing awards in theatre articles. The guidelines [9] don't say anything one way or the other. I noticed most articles about musicals list awards and nominations in every category, but a lot of articles about plays don't list the performance and technical awards. Since articles about musicals and plays are about the works in general and not a specific production, shouldn't the awards be limited to Best Play or Best Musical and let the other awards be mentioned in the articles about the people who won or were nominated for them? It seems silly to say God of Carnage won the Tony Award for Actress in a Play when it really was Marcia Gay Harden who won it. I'm asking because someone named User:BirdDogg34 has started adding acting and production awards to play articles that never had them before. Is there any policy at all about this? LargoLarry (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal policy is to list all awards won by the work in a Productions section in which signficant productions are listed. My rationale is that not all individual award winners have Wikipedia entries and/or the individual winner articles have been deleted (mistakenly in my opinion) for non-notability.Ecragg (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I hope to hear from people who have been involved in the theatre project for more than 6 days so I can get a better idea of what the "old-timers" think. LargoLarry (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

33 Variations/Diane Walsh

You link to the wrong Diane Walsh in this citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.4.230 (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hello, everyone. There is a longrunning debate about referencing and MOS style at the Harold Pinter article. Both ref tags and parenthetical references are used together, and the result is that the article is, IMO, very difficult to read. The article also appears to overuse quotation marks around one or two-word phrases. The footnotes are very long and often contain references to multiple sources, and there are often three or more footnotes in a row plus an in-line parenthetical cite, for assertions that would seem to need only one reference. Editors at the current peer review have suggested various kinds of simplifications, but one of the article's editors strongly disagrees with any attempts to simplify the footnotes and reference style. There is a lot of useful information and research in the article, but here is a situation where style is overwhelming substance. Can anyone help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very Pinteresque, then - but in reverse. Bob (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

West End Theatre

Hey, im a member of wiki project musical theatre. I was just looking at this article and it is plagued by an awful awful list of aparently "Notable" performers. The list is just far too long, and for me just doesn't achieve anything. Can anyone think of another way? I mean some people are on the list 3 and 4 times and some repeated each year for the same show. I'll make an attempt at it, lemme know what you think Mark E (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the list of West End theatres should not include the most recent production with its opening and closing dates. This information belongs in the articles about the specific theaters, not in a general article about the West End. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i sort of disagree on that one. It matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article and I think its useful to have an overview of what is on in the west end at this moment in time. I've taken out the list of performers though, was just no way to justify it being there.Mark E (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact it matches the Broadway theatre article doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. I would prefer to see this list include the theatre's opening date and capacity and leave the production data to the specific theatre articles themselves. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed, although maybe not the opening/closing date of the production. I've just been adding stuff to the already existing template. I think the idea of having the opening date of the theatre is a good one, but this is probably not the sort of information people looking at a general article will want, so the production information is more important.Mark E (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself well or you're not grasping or simply ignoring the point I'm trying to make. I see nothing wrong with listing a current production in an article about a specific theatre, but in a general article about West End theatre, I don't think this information is pertinent or appropriate. The emphasis of the article is not supposed to be on the individual theatres themselves, but rather the history of West End theatre. How and when did it become the center of theatrical productions in London? (Amazingly, this very important issue isn't addressed at all!) What playwrights and performers began their careers there? What noteworthy productions premiered there? A list of theatres considered to be West End venues makes sense, but additional information about them should be in their own articles, which is the purpose of a Wikilink . . . if people want to know more about the history of XYZ Theatre, they can click on its link. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all the history is important, I would put it in myself but I don't have enough knowledge on that subject but i still think the current productions is important, otherwise it would just be an endless list.Mark E (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have said, "I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed," but without explaining why, other than because it matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article, whereas I have offered several valid reasons to support my opinion. Clearly we never will agree on this issue. I wish other people involved in this project would comment, but this discussion page doesn't seem to draw the attention the one for the film project does. In any event, I have added some historical details to the article, since it had an overload of contemporary information and nothing about the past. It's not much, but it's a start. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Great! And I agree its a shame that the projects arn't more active. Theatre is such an important aspect of the entertainment industry that seems to be often forgotten. And for having the list at the moment I think it is useful to 1) Give an overview of the current shows that are on. I'll be the first to agree the history is important, but the present it also important, and if we are going to have a list of theatres in the West End why not provide this information. I don't think the opening/closing dates of the production are important at all but I wouldn't know how to change the table 2) General for people who want to decide what to see. I would often check to see what was playing before it became so out of date that it wasn't a viable source anymore. Im happy to keep updating the article when new shows open/close. Mark E (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. Please refer to [10], where it very specifically states, "Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera." Similary, an article about West End theatre should not list current productions. If people want to decide what to see, there are numerous websites where that information is available, but they shouldn't be looking for a list of current events in an encyclopedia. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

MarkE asked for my thoughts on this subject. On first reading, it appears that the guidelines that LiteraryMaven cited (Wikipedia is not a directory) govern here. Showing the production for the theater would seem to be prohibited under those guidelines. I think that this issue should be raised in several places to get some discussion going and to help reach a consensus. I suggest raisng this on the talk pages of the 2 articles involved--West End theatre and Broadway theatre. You might also want to drop a note at the Musical theatre project talk page. I want to note that I have no strong feeling about either keeping the list of shows, deleting them, or some variation. However, the guidelines --that I see so far-- are on the side of deleting. This is not a matter of what is "nice to have", or "it's convenient", it's what makes an article readable and informative within the guidelines. (As a final thought, everyone should read: WP:IGNORE just for fun!) JeanColumbia (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Jean's suggestion, I have added this discussion in its entirety to Talk:Broadway theatre and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Hopefully this will prompt feedback from other editors. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about dating a play

Do we date plays by their publication date, or by their performance date? I'm writing about a play that was performed Off-Off Broadway (in early draft form) in 1979, performed on Broadway in 1980 (garnering a Tony nom for the lead), and published in 1981. When listing it generically, which year date do I give it? I've seen it listed as either 1980 or 1981 when mentioned in Google searches. Thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe they generally are dated by their first public performance. In the article you are citing, did the play change so radically between its original off-off-Broadway staging and the Broadway production that it would be unrecognizable in its original form? If so, I would list the Broadway opening as the premiere date in the infobox, since that's the familiar version, and describe the early draft presentation as such in discussing the play's background within the body of the article. If it didn't change significantly, I would list the off-off-Broadway premiere in the infobox. I hope I'm making myself clear! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't rightly know the answer to that offhand, having only a little anecdotal evidence on the internet that the play was being tweaked and reworked during its OOB run. Since it's a big jump from OOB to Bway, I imagine that has some truth to it. I'm inclined to use the Bway run as the date, as I see that listed a lot in references to it. Thanks for your input, it was very clear. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of theatre?

Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Character (arts)#Gathering material on character into one article

Other thoughts are needed on this matter. I especially encourage editors here involved in topics relating to this to weigh in on it. I fully expect some to disagree with me on this matter and am not simply looking for people to agree, but also consensus. Two editors by themselves going back and forth on this -- whether the article is best titled Fictional character or Character (arts), or whether we should have articles with both of these titles -- is not going to solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Assessments/Hermanus Angelkot

Have started to assess some articles. Came across this page and Im abit confused what to do -Hermanus Angelkot. Would I be right in thinking the best thing to do is to remove the two pages called jr and sr and put the article onto this one page. The two are identical

Im gonna be working on assessments abit this next week hopefully. If you find yourself with a spare 10 mins u could easily get afew done doesnt take very long =)Mark E (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to have a disambiguation page anymore because there's only one article. If you try to access the article for Senior you'll see it was redirected to the article about Junior. And the article for Junior should be moved to Hermanus Angelkot, Jr. just like Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Sammy Davis, Jr. and then rewritten because it's a mess. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliablility of SparkNotes

Hello! I came across the article Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead today and found it in a rather woeful state. Obviously a proper rewrite job would involve finding a range of critical works to cite, but lacking the time and knowledge for that I thought I could at least tidy it up using the existing sources. To that end, is SparkNotes generally considered a reliable source? Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing else available, but you might consider using Google books. There's often enough material able to be previewed in critical works to provide citations for Wikipedia. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR for article Augusta, Lady Gregory

I have nominated Augusta, Lady Gregory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Community Theatre, Amateur Theatre and Little Theatre articles

I'd like to work on the "community theatre" subject area, but it appears to be broken up over three separate articles. The Community Theatre entry is merely a disambiguation page with links to Community theatre and listings for some American community theatres. The Community theatre article offers information on both the American and British meanings of the term, but it's confusing because it sometimes doesn't differentiate between the two, even though they have entirely different meanings (the British term refers to professional companies that use art to promote social change within local communities; the American term refers to non-professional theatre companies). At the top of that page is a redirect to the Amateur Theatre article for users looking for information about U.S.-style community theatre; that page, however, is largely a discussion about the difference between professional and amateur actors and the relative merits of each, with only a few lines devoted to community theatre in the U.S. I'm also uncomfortable contributing to that article because "amateur theater" is a perjorative term, whether used to refer to either community or professional theatre, and the article itself displays some bias against amateurs (a sample: "In theatre specifically, 'amateurism' is regularly used to imply muddled and botched work, low standards, lack of preparation, and so on."). The Little Theatre Movement page covers the history of the Little Theatre movement and mentions that community theater in the U.S is an outgrowth of that movement, but doesn't say any more about community theatre.

I would very much like to contribute information for an article about community theatre in the U.S., but I'm confused about where to even start. I would prefer to place my information in the Community theatre article, but it appears that there's already been discussion about that, and it was decided to let that piece be about British community theatre, and to send Americans to the Amateur Theatre topic. I'd like to include the history of American community theatre in my piece, but that history includes the Little Theatre movement, for which there's already a separate article. So, should I include the American community theatre information under Community theatre, which is where I feel it really belongs? Start a new page for Community Theatre - U.S.? If I do that, should I retitle the old page Community Theatre - U.K.? I'm new to Wikipedia, and I don't want to go floundering in and make a bunch of newbie mistakes, but I do have a lot of information about community theatre and some really good sources -- I just don't know where to put it! Cpolo (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I advise ignoring the discussions and to go ahead and add the material in Community theatre. You should take anything that a Wikipedia article says that isn't sourced with a pinch of salt, and even then, if it seems contentious to you, to go check the source given yourself to see if the account given here reflects accurately what the source says. Even then, the account may not be written in a neutral point of view, insofar as it may be reflecting the opinion of only one academic, say. For an article with as many warning tags at its top as community theatre there's little need to worry. Try to follow the Wikipedia:Five pillars principles and you'll be fine.

In the UK amateur theatre doesn't have the same degree of pejorative sense that you indicate in the US, though it is, of course, valued differently by different people depending on their aethetic and cultural value-systems. Notice that the definitions provided in the US section are not sourced. They're pretty dubious. In the UK "community theatre" is used to describe non-professional groups just as frequently as the term is used to describe professionals who work with particular communities. The opening sentence in the introduction seems uncontentious. The hatnote directing to amateur theatre shouldn't really be there.

I think that in the UK we probably do distinguish between "community theatre" and "amateur theatre", more usually called "amateur dramatics"; personally, I would probably reserve the former term for productions that focus on the dynamics and concerns of the community (whether created by professionals, amateurs, or a collaboration between the two), whereas I'd use the latter for productions of drama by non-professionals. This isn't a clear-cut distinction at all, however, as the example given in the intro--Welfare State International doing The Tempest with residents of Toronto Islands--demonstrates (though it's a classical play, I'd call it community theatre rather than amateur theatre). It's perfectly normal that terms such as these contain areas of overlap. Both are notable and deserve articles here. (Whoever put the notability warning on community theatre? Bizarre!)

The community theatre article has been tagged for some time, so you should feel free to delete any material there that is unsourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" and there's been plenty of time for other editors to correct it.

I didn't know about the Little Theatre Movement, but it does seem to be a different, though related, subject. I encourage you to make the contributions that you have been considering, and to add them to community theatre. It doesn't matter in the slightest that you may duplicate material from the Little Theatre article. When you write your history, break it up into sections. In the section that covers origins, say, add a "for" template, that directs the reader to the other article if they want more information.

It would be best, given the ropey state of two of the articles you mention, if you source any info you add. If you don't have the material to hand, try google books as a starting point. You might also consider searching under the term "popular theatre", which is another of those umbrella terms that the kind of activity you're describing is often examined under. Happy editing. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Musicals?

Im a member of the musicals project aswell as this one. The project outline states that musicals are within the scope of this project, but it seems hardly any are tagged with the banner for it at all, they are just tagged with the musicals project banner. I checked the first 3 musicals that came into my head (Wicked, Avenue Q and Sister Act) and none were tagged. Whats the opinion on the inclusions of musicals in the project? I personally think that musicals shouldnt be tagged with the WP:Theatre project banner since I think its pointless for them to have a WP:Theatre and a WP:MT project banner. Most members who are interested in the theatre should be in both projects to be fair hehe.Mark E (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they should be tagged with both, just as Shakespearean articles get both Wikiproject Shakespeare and Elizabethean theatre. Musicals are within the scope of the project and one banner doesn't have any advantages over two. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But seeing as though there is a whole project based on musical theatre atd 95% of musicals arnt tagged with a WP:Theatre tag, it doesnt really make sense to have them in the scope of both projects.Mark E (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are plenty of subjects the involve both--for my own editing, for example, the work of Brecht. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Brecht was involved in musicals/plays and pretty much everything. For the 3 examples I mentioned and countless others is there any need to tag them again with the theatre one (Wicked, avenue q, sister act)Mark E (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Chicago Theatre

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can someone please explain the difference between Category:Plays for one performer and Category:Monodrama? Aren't they basically the same thing? If they are, then why are both of them included in many articles? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC) It seems as though they are the same thing. Unless someone with more knowledge than me says otherwise id say to delete one of the catagories and have them all under one heading, though im not sure which one.Mark E (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Hi everyone. I've been going around articles putting in bits of extra information. I've noticed that while for actors and directors filmographies are common and have standard formatting, the same is not true for stage work, which is often haphazard and lacking or absent. At times this gives a false bias, giving the impression that prominent stage actors and directors are more notable for their film work, or that their achievements in the theatre merit less encyclopedic attention (or they are simply not given). To combat this it might be a good idea to have some sort of standard table that could be appended to articles, listing the name of play, year, writer, director, theatre building, character role, etc. etc. With proper referencing, this in turn could be a valuable resource for people looking to expand prose sections of articles. Thoughts? And apologies if any of this has been discussed elsewhere (newbie!)Declan Clam (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I would leave out the writer and director, and instead of theatre building just a more unspecific location (Broadway, Off Broadway, West End, UK Tour etc). A good example would be Elaine Paige. I also did one at Rachael Wooding

Restoration spectacular

I have left some concerns at Talk:Restoration spectacular#4 years on. Simply south (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Theatres in the United States

I once again nominated the category for renaming. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_25#Category:Theatres_in_the_United_States WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Colley Cibber FAR

I have nominated Colley Cibber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Mm40 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois)

Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Related projects

WP:WikiProject Event Venues and its task force WP:WikiProject Event Venues/Music task force should presumably be linked with this project. Perhaps a new task force WP:WikiProject Event Venues/Theatre task force would be in order too. LeadSongDog come howl 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

Just wondering if anybody would be interested in Peer Reviewing an article recently featured on DYK, Marisa Wegrzyn. A shorter and more recent article, I'd like an assessment of what needs to be for GA. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Film project organization

Hi, I just happened to look at the film project and they have lots of structure for organizing their work. ck it out/ could Theatre use any of these ideas? --Mdukas (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators

Category:Members of Le Splendid

Hi

It would be very useful to have input from members of this project in the deletion discussion on Category:Members of Le Splendid, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Category:Members_of_Le_Splendid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Doollee.com

Is this regarded here as a good source? I created the article on Peter Brewis mainly using information from his own website which isn't the isn't the offcial preferred way of doing thingd on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only mention of him (as opposed to the drummer of the same name) I could find in the press was a passing reference to him by Lenny Henry. I have however noticed that Doollee.com has an entry for him at http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsB/brewis-peter.html. So, if you folks like Doolle, I'll add it as an external link.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I looked at Doolee and it seems to have some good bits (goal to be comprehensive, lots of data) and some less good bits (hobby of one individual, not clear how well referenced it may be). In my view its OK (not great) as a source, worth including I guess, maybe with a caveat in the talk page). --Mdukas (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Project Goals and Milestones

Now that article assessmnet is almost complete (although there are surely more articles out there...) I think we should set a few project milestones to work towards. Ideas I've had include getting 20 articles to Featured and 100 articles to Good Article standard. There are currently over 400 B-class an C-class articles to improve and nominate. How about making all former featured articles Featured again? When we've finished giving all articles an importance rating, we could set a milestone to make all Top Importance articles featured, or whatever.

Any ideas? - danyoung - 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dan, I like all of your idea(s) and am ready to participate. I was thinking along similar lines, like upgrading some of the "Top" importance articles that are just Stubs or Starts or C's and try to spiff them up to higher tiers. I am ready to help on whatever goals we pick, but lets try to focus on something measurable and specific. --Mdukas (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for 'creative works' - music, visual arts, literature etc.

Please see this discussion at the Arts Project about reorganizing high-level categories for 'art works', including music, visual arts and literature. (The intention is to make it easier for projects to look after large sets of articles.) Thank you. --Kleinzach 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No (international) theatre templates/guidelines?

I've recently begun to write theatre-themed articles, and doing so, I was searching for templates that would cover international theatre (eg. Lists of Theatres by Country). I was baffled to find none. International articles seem to be scattered and separated, having no common guidelines for styling and content. Compared to the rest of similarly important subjects on Wiki, this is pretty strange (even Postal History has a more standards). Why?poisonborz (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please feel free to create them if we need them. I am new around here (Theatre) myself, and it is my impression that not too many of the previous editors are active, so there is room for some of us newer editors to do some maintenance and improvements. So if it needs doing, please start, and if you need help, please holler. thanks. --Mdukas (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Would this be of any help? Category:Theatre by country --Mdukas (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've also discovered that I was wrong in a sense, as there are contintental templates, like for North America, or Europe. But I still think that there is a need for a more complex, world-wide theatre template. poisonborz (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Theatre to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how, add a link to this on the Project page please? Thanks. --Mdukas (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added Theatre to the project lists, so hopefully this will work once the bot runs. Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Unreferenced BLPs

--Mdukas (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion.

Within the next 24 hours Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Unreferenced BLPs should be a blue link. If not, please comment at User talk:DASHBot/WikiprojectsOkip 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)