Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the talk page for WikiProject Elizabethan Theatre!

Henry Porter and Francis Kirkman[edit]

I'm glad to see someone is taking a strategic look at this. I'm not an expert on Elizabethan period but know a lot about some aspects of it from other research. Can I ask if you would consider adding my articles on Henry Porter, directly relevant, and Francis Kirkman, indirectly relevant. GBH 09:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We'd be pleased to have you knowledge and expertise! I've added Porter to the canon of articles listed on the article assessment page. I'm not quite sure about Kirkman, he is important to the era even though he lived after it but I'm trying to keep the number of articles covered by this project pretty low. Kirkman falls into the same category as later Shakespeare scholars and critics, so I may eventually add him as a part of that contingent. If anyone else has an opinion on this, please let it be known. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd favor adding Kirkman. I think he's different from later scholars and critics; he's more of a source, and for better or worse the fount from which a lot of our information or pseudo-information about the Elizabethan period comes. It's because of him that a lot of old plays were published that otherwise would have been lost, and his play catalogues are a source for a number of play author attributions --- some accepted, some denied --- that scholars always have to grapple with. In any case, I think he's somebody a project like this needs to address. Eupolis 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Project name[edit]

There is a major issue with the titling of this project! It should be renamed 'Early Modern theatre or Early Modern drama'. The Elizabethan period ends when Elizabeth I dies, then we have the Jacobean period and then the Caroline period.

The problem with breaking up the periods into reigns is that a number of playwrights, Shakespeare included fall under two reigns. Plus, the conclusion of the "Caroline" period ends neatly with the closure of the theatres and an obvious drop in theatrical productions. With calling it Early Modern Theatre or Drama, that does not limit it only to England, which this project is limited to. Simply, "Elizabethan theatre" is the best and easiest term to use. You might also note that Elizabethan theatre is defined to include Jacobean and Caroline theatre. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Laura_Rees_as_Lavinia.jpg[edit]

All opinions welcome. walk victor falk talk 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I really have to dispute this. Elizabethan theatre is not simply the easiest and best term to use when describing theatre in England from 1558-1642 - it is factually incorrect. The term 'early modern drama' describes exactly theatre in that period. If you want to be more specific then the proper term would be 'early modern drama in English' or early modern English drama', or 'drama during the English reformation' or even 'early modern theatre in London'. Elizabethan drama can also be applied in terms of genre e.g. with this statement: "certain plays during the Elizabethan period, such as Midsummer Night's Dream, developed the idea of the cult of the Virgin Queen". The same is true of Jacobean drama e.g. "during James I's reign Jacobean tragedy grew in popularity, typified by such plays as the Duchess of Malfi and The White Devil, re-visiting Senecan dramatic themes such as power, lust and greed with strong and bloody violence". Elizabethan theatre cannot be defined as including Jacobean and Caroline theatre; there are distinct boundaries between each period. It is arbitrary to define theatre during the early modern period according to the rules of monarchs, which is why the term 'early modern drama' is used to describe theatre during the Reformation in England. This might help: http://www.shakespeare.bham.ac.uk/research/arden.htm

How about just "Tudor/Stuart Drama?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.154.52 (talkcontribs) 15 December 2006.

Back as far as the 'fifties, the College Outline series book of plots (worth its weight in gold and I own one) was called "Tudor and Stuart Drama." Sounds good to me.Jim Stinson 00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not in keeping with the way the period is referred to in contemporary scholarship. Early modern is the most appropriate term, I think, and may be qualified as "Early modern English theatre"; London is certainly too narrow, since the companies went on tour regularly. DionysosProteus 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

English Renaissance theatre[edit]

Elizabethan theatre now redirects to the above page which is a more accurate term. I don't think the title of this WikiProject needs to change, but I just thought I'd mention it. The Singing Badger 16:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I had not actually noticed the above discussion when I made the change and posted this comment, sorry. Anyway, I think it's OK for this WikiProject to be called 'Elizabethan theatre' since that is the commonest-used term, even though I thought the article proper needed a more accurate name. The Singing Badger 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is much better now. Early modern drama is the de facto term for drama during this period, and as such is used by English departments in British universities. It's also slightly biased to define the breaks between developments in narrative literature in terms of political changes (e.g. elizabethan to jacobean); however, the images of the monarchs during this period did have a major effect on the literary output so it is appropriate to define literary periods by monarch. But nowadays, one terms the period breaks by names that are more indicative of linguistic changes, e.g. Old English literature and Middle English literature coming in the 'early period', and modern english beginning in the 'early modern' period.

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0[edit]

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Elizabethan theatre WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist (like the films list) automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Conventions of Elizabethan Theatre[edit]

Is there a particular page or section in an article that talks about the conventions of Elizabethan Theatre (no fourth wall, un-realistic, declamatory acting etc.)? If there is it should probably be made easier to find, if not I would be happy to help make one. Tangerine 03 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't agree with the description (un-realistic and declamatory), I think we do need more on stagecraft and the practicalities of the theatre. Have started to gather material, but perhaps we might start a list of broad topics this might include? DionysosProteus 12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Project Directory[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD: Shakespeare's Influence on the English Language[edit]

Up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare's Influence on the English Language. Should this article, which appears to be an uploaded student paper, be deleted, or can it be salvaged? --Dhartung | Talk 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia[edit]

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. MESSEDROCKER 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Prince Hamlet[edit]

I've tagged Prince Hamlet with your project template (on the talk page). If anyone is familiar with the character, perhaps you could add aptly-titled sections to that article. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortune Theatre[edit]

Hi, I've come across an article on the Fortune Theatre. This consists of extensive coverage of the 17th century playhouse, and a note about the modern theatre. The two are in wildly differing locations and completely unrelated. They should not be in the same article.

I propose to split the existing article into Fortune Playhouse and Fortune Theatre; the former for the historic theatre. Please let me know if there are any objections to this, or observations about the page names chosen. Kbthompson 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Be bold ... splitting commenced. Fortune Playhouse now created, sometime today all appropriate links to Fortune Theatre will be amended to there. Finally, historic theatre details will be removed from modern theatre article. Kbthompson 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject:Shakespeare[edit]

There is a proposal up for this new wikiproject. You can join/debate it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Shakespeare Wrad 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I must be more tired than I thought, I could have sworn I posted about that here. Thanks Wrad...Curtangel 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Joining[edit]

I'm new here -- how do you join?

I'm the author of "Reconstructions of Elizabethan Public Playhouses" in Studies in the Elizabethan Theater, C. T. Prouty Editor, and I studied theater history under A. M. Nagler.Jim Stinson 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes...I would like to "join" as well, I've contributed to several Shakespeare articles but I do not want to just add my name to the contributers list. user:bardofcornish

Character Lists in Play Articles[edit]

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 general theatre 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) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tag[edit]

I noticed that your project's tag for talk pages does not contain the quality and importance ratings many other wikiprojects do. Is there any particular reason for this? —Random832 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It also seems to have a redlink for its title — refering to “E-theatre” which page doesn't exist and isn't a redirect — which you may wish to fix. --Xover (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Might interest theatre-related editors have a look at this?[edit]

I've posted a topic here [[2]] and was wondering what you all thoughtSmatprt (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghost character[edit]

This article is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost character. Dalejenkins | 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Character Lists - To be or not to be...[edit]

There is a discussion going among editors of the Shakespeare project that requires the opinions of all interested editors in the Elizabethan 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:[[3]]. Thank you, in advance, for your opinions on the matter. Smatprt (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This message is biased and violates WP:CANVAS. Lists would still be available in the templates. Please remove the third sentence to make it more neutral. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 22:56, 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) 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What should the main subtopics be for an Outline of Elizabethan theatre?[edit]

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Are there enough topics to justify the creation of an outline on this subject?

How should they be arranged?

The Transhumanist 00:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to close the shutters on this project?[edit]

Hi all (anyone?).

I've not seen any activity for this project in literally years. The last posting on talk was in 2009, and the project page is woefully unmaintained. It lists 16 members, most of whom are actually interested in the narrower WikiProject Shakespeare, and only one (FeanorStar7) is still active and has edited since 2007/2008 or so. Isn't it time to close the shutters and scuttle this project? It can easily be restarted if there should be a resurgence of interest in the future, but there's little point in misleading users that it's active and cluttering article talk pages with a banner that is essentially meaningless.

Is anyone still around here? Any objections to shutting the project down? Anyone at all? --Xover (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No objevtions - kill it. How do we go about that? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. A worthy subject, but no point having a project if it is inactive. AndyJones (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

I usually do not post things, however I have noticed that no one has commented yet on the tone, to me the tone seems unacceptably bias, in a very strong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.158.68 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

Just an example for the bias tone: The social assumptions and biases involved were so strong as to go unquestioned at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.158.68 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration[edit]

Vital Articles/Expanded: An invitation[edit]

Greetings, Elizabethan theatre editors. On behalf of the Vital Articles project, I would like to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in the ongoing discussions regarding films, filmmakers and actors at the Vital Articles/Expanded main talk page. There are currently 16 pending discussions regarding specific films to be added, removed or swapped from the existing VA/E sublist of films, as well as 21 active discussions regarding actors and actresses, and seven discussions regarding film directors and producers. There are other pending discussions that touch on music, theatre, opera and literature, and future discussions will no doubt touch on other artists and art forms as we work to refine the various VA/E sublists. As regular editors in WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, we would welcome your knowledgeable participation in these discussions as we pare our list to those most "vital" of topics. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet (2013 Broadway play)[edit]

Oddly BoxOfficeMojo.com has no box office results for this even though The Huffington Post says it was to be released in 2000 theatres. Can anyone help me find theatre (movie not Broadway) box office results for Romeo and Juliet (2013 Broadway play). Leave comments at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet_(2013_Broadway_play)#Box_office.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Elizabethan Theatre at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)