Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 10

Previous peer review issues to address before FA status

Many of the issues in the last peer review were unaddressed, so I am posting it in this more prominent place. Please add {{done}} tags to things that are done or discuss issues that may not need to be fixed. Wrad 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Adam Cuerden talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.
    • I've fixed the opening a bit. That look better? Adam Cuerden talk
      •  Done Yup, already dealt with by Adam. AndyJones 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "about 37 plays" immediately makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explanation, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.
    • I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've tried "wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays" as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? Broken edit by AndyJones
        •  Done Covered in footnote 3. AndyJones 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sentence about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.
    •  Done At least, done in the sense that I believe this sentence is no longer there. AndyJones 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wordy, for example: He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy can be shortened to He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy. "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination?
    •  Done - already dealt with. AndyJones 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, you don't need the word "living".
    • Don't think I agree that "living" is redundant. Translated into every language may well be wrong. Therefore considering it  Done AndyJones 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • The translation into every language also needs to be cited.
    •  Done
    • I don't like "modern languages" as the target article for this. I've removed the wikilink. AndyJones 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.
    •  Done IMHO, since as mentioned above footnote 3 seems to cover it, and what more is there to say? AndyJones 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.
    • I've tweaked this, and asked for an attribution on the talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      •  Done Yup, already solved. AndyJones 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Shakespeare's last two plays, play1 and play2, were written in 1613."
    • Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were written in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! AndyJones 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Not done. No action required. AndyJones 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think each point has been dealt with. 1) The article has been mostly copyedited. 2) We agreed long sentences were not a problem per se, but only poorly put together ones. We shouldn't assume our readers have a stunted reading level. 3) This is contentious. People do not need references to be aware of these claims: most first hear them in school, many elsewhere. Adding references only serves to appease those uncomfortable with the claims, although they make very little difference. RedRabbit1983 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree as regards (1) and (2). But as regards (3): we are aiming for featured article status: requiring sources isn't unreasonable, even for things which all of us here at the talk page are happy to accept as obviously true. AndyJones 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, looking at the current version of the article I don't see a lot of unsourced peacockery, therefore:  Done. AndyJones 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


  • I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source.
    • I don't have a problem with those sources as such, but I suggest that we add a print source, also. AndyJones 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see the point. People are not going to check this source and think, "Oh. This says so; he must be." Any reference will be extraneous. If anyone disagrees on this point, a reference will not likely change his mind. The only possible purpose for it would be to appease reviewers. RedRabbit1983 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Not done AndyJones 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference.
    • This one still a problem: but it's correct and easily sourcable: I don't have any of the biographies here, but they all say this. AndyJones 07:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. They are all consistent on this point. The only biography of Shakespeare I have at hand is a bad one. I don't want to mention it for fear of embarrassment. RedRabbit1983 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody knows when he was born. 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Birth statement seems to have been decided on after a lot of debate over what scholars know and don't know. Wrad 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        •  Done agreed. AndyJones 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


  • "William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.
    •  Done seems to have been addressed as this is now referenced, as previously it wasn't. Wrad 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    •  Done. Aeschylus who? AndyJones 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.
    •  Done This is no longer in the lead. Wrad 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.
    • Not done. I don't think we need to be concerned to find that specific source. AndyJones 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a {citationneeded}.
    •  Done I added in the early life citations a few months back.--Alabamaboy 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599." Source here?
  • "Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.
    •  Done
  • In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the same forms of prose.
    •  Done
  • For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.
    •  Done. Dealt with at length. See various discussions below. AndyJones 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think.
    • Not done. I don't think we need to be concerned to find that specific source. AndyJones 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.
    • Not done a lengthy section on Shakespeare's influence in the modern age would quickly degenerate into a trivia section. The reputation section adequately covers his reception in later ages; essentially his plays are performed with updated stagecraft. RedRabbit1983 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.
    • Not done. There's no section with that title in the article now. Nothing to do. AndyJones 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!
    •  Done Took out repetitive links and made list into two columns. Wrad 17:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.
    • Before I fix this, I want to know if there are any books in there that shouldn't be. What does everyone think? Is this section ok? Wrad 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree it needs wittling & I've started a bit. Not averse to adding some either. Maybe more discussion needed? AndyJones 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The ISBNs I've just added are works I've used for footnotes. Is this duplication? --Old Moonraker 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Are all "External links" links necessary? Could they be better organized?
    •  Done greatly reduced their number. Wrad 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You know my obsession with inboxes! I think you could think about adding some here from the Bard's work, if you can relate them to specific sections and analyses.--Yannismarou 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, I've got a few quotes in mind that I could add. Wrad 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Added a Ben Jonson quote to the reputation section, but am struggling to decide on a quote from one of his plays. It needs to be well-chosen and well-placed. Wrad 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Use one of his best-known plays: Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado about Nothing, and the like. RedRabbit1983 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Suggestions: "What potions have I drunk of siren tears..."; "Farewell, thou art too dear for my possessing..."; Hamlet's advice to the actors (especially appropriate); one of Macbeth's laments; a sililoquy from Romeo and Juliet; one of Richard II's speeches; a clown's speech (preferrably Falstaff's, the Fool from King Lear's, or Dogbert's); something from Midsummer Night's Dream (maybe Puck). You get the idea. RedRabbit1983 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Bad Title Example.png?
  •  Done (Is Dogbert Shakespearean?) Wrad 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • At the risk of starting an ugly debate, it seems that the authorship paragraph is uncommonly short compared to the other "speculations" sections. It has been cut down so much that the general whys and wherefores behind the debate are not even mentioned. If this is to be a short summary of the main article, shouldn't a few of the more prominent topics within the subject be mentioned? Perhaps a statement or two about why the subject even exists?Smatprt 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Rather than digging that up again, I think we should stick to the plan of fixing what was seen as wrong in the old peer review right now. Wrad 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes by Adam Cuerden talk

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this to FA status! Wrad 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, god, I remember that... I went through, added a fair number of citations, but couldn't find all of them and noone else was around at the time. Glad to see this is finally moving forward. Adam Cuerden talk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Style and Reputation

In my opinion, the style and reputation sections will be the hardest. I suggest we use only the most rigorous citations for these sections, meaning highly reliable academic citations. Is that ok with people?--Alabamaboy 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Highly reliable academic citations are most certainly not ok! RedRabbit1983 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant we should aim for using book citations by established scholars (which doesn't mean overly obtuse academic articles and such). I just feel we should steer clear of using website citations for these sections b/c they're going to be controversial. Is that acceptable? If not, why? Best,--Alabamaboy 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Both sections are heavily under-cited at the moment. There are chapters on reputation in two of the Cambridge University Press "Companions" which I have here. I'll look through those and see what I can source from there. AndyJones 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started on the above. I've got a problem with the following extract, though. It strikes me as clearly (almost self-evidently) true, but I cannot source it:

This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture.

Does anyone have any thoughts? AndyJones 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I tracked down some solid references for that section and added them in. Do they work for you?--Alabamaboy 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Well  Done. AndyJones 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if I'm correct, all that's left is the Further Reading ISBNs and the Style section. Wrad 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Style section now  Done
  • New influences section  Done
  • Reputation section  Done
  • Therefore, are we ready to proceed to a final peer review? AndyJones 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against it, unless anyone has anything they want to address beforehand. Wrad 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We're ready for peer review.--Alabamaboy 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's go ahead and do it now, so that there is no lull in the process. Wrad 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of plays

There are two different listings of the types of plays written by Shakespeare. In this article it states that he wrote four kinds, History, Comedy, Tragedy and Romance. While in a linked article Shakespeare's Playsin jean It only states the first three listed above. I have always been taught to use the first three and that all his Romances could fit into the other categories. Still this may just be a matter of opinion so I changed nothing in the articles.

  • Yes, you can classify the plays in a billion ways: some people are fond of separating the "romances" from the other comedies, others carve out the "problem plays", or identify some-or-other plays as "tragi-comedies". No-one uses these labels with any consitency. The only proper course for an encyclopedia is to classify according to the First Folio (comedies, tragedies, histories) then to deal with all the other nuances in the article's text. AndyJones 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also prefer to go with the traditional comedies, tragedies, histories breakdown.--Alabamaboy 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with AnyJones - the only proper designation should be the traditional types as set down by the first folio - comedies, tragedies and histories, then explain the more modern designations within the context of the play pages themselves. Smatprt 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't seem to be able to edit this page, but can someone fix the typo "contempories"? Cheers. Dieseldaddy 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. I think it's blocking you because of how new you are. You should be able to edit this page yourself in a few days. Thanks for the help. Wrad 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Something should be said about the fact that the only documented samples of his handwriting are 6 different "Shakespeare signatures" and none of them spell "Shakespeare" the same way. Especially because there's a picture of one. Sydneysaurus 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I feel like there should be some sort of rough visual timeline of historical events and Shakespeare's events. However, it should be clear that the information isn't known for sure. Sydneysaurus 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Wrad 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

sourcing format

"Greenblatt (2004:338) is persuasive that the "equivocator" arriving..." This quote from the religion section isn't following our sourcing method. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the guilty editor—fixed. --Old Moonraker 05:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about that ANdy, I'm tired and I didn't see the ref tags. I'll be watchful next time ;) Elenseel 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't worry. Thanks for your vigilance. AndyJones 08:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


First, excuse my ignorance. How are we from crowning this with Featured status? What steps are required?

I should also like to make a suggestion: in the reputation section we should add a reference to Shaw, as evidence of Shakespeare's pre-eminence. His contempt of bardolatry at least shows it to have existed.

By the way, I read Henry VI pt. 3 today, and saw for myself the passage Greene used in his parody. RedRabbit1983 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the plan was to resolve all the old peer review issues, then resolve whatever else we see might be wrong. Then go for one last peer review and then FA. Wrad 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrad's plan sounds good to me. As for the FA process, we have to nominate it as a featured article candidates. B/c this is such a high-profile article, I'd recommend that several of us both nominate it and follow the article through the FAC process.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. I'm sure it will get a lot of thorough reviews. I also plan to leave a short message on the talk page of all project members notifying them of each step's beginning and inviting them to participate. Wrad 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

References to Shaw now added. AndyJones 08:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Top 50

Just wanted to point out that this article is one of the top 50 most-viewed articles on wikipedia. Making it an FA is sure going to be great for this encyclopedia. Wrad 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is a biggie.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I should add, though, that seeing some of the articles ahead of Shakespeare makes me question the priorities of too many people in the world. List of Konoha ninja? Pokémon Diamond and Pearl? Still, at least we're ahead of Paris Hilton (even if only barely ahead).--Alabamaboy 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Style and influence

I have been troubled by the style section, which seemed to me to be focusing not on Shakespeare's style but on his influence (and since I originally wrote most of that section, any fault there rests with me). To try and fix this, I've separated that section into a style section and an influence section. I've also added more info and references to the section. Please let me know what people think about this.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I think the new organization works better. I think perhaps the middle two paragraphs of the "Influence" section might work better as a separate section titled "Dramaturgy" or "Stagecraft," placed between the Style and Influence sections. I had also been thinking about the contents of the style section, and I would like to add some more information, to wit
  • his extensive use of couplets during the 1590s (and as late as "All's Well")
  • the tendency in his early plays for rhetoric/poetry to overwhelm character and
  • his subordination of rhetoric to character in the Jacobean plays
  • his attempts to respond to or mimic the satiric drama in the early Jacobean plays
  • the highly idiosyncratic verse of the final plays

Ordinarily, of course, I'd be bold and do it without prior approval, but since I'm a latecomer to this I wanted to get some thoughts from those of you who have been working on this page first!Jlittlet 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with having subsections in the influence section (but to do that, the overall section would need to be expanded). Please feel free to add in your other suggestions. Just be sure to add good citations b/c we'll be called on it during the FA process if they are missing. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Technical Difficulties Regarding the Influence Section

I was looking at this page to do a report, and after a little clicking around I realized that when this article is accessed as a redirection from a search for "Shakespeare", the Influence section is visible, while this entire section is missing when the user searches for "William Shakespeare". Obviously some kind of simple keyword editing problem, and i'm sure it can be fixed easily. Sk8rsam224 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Sam K (sk8rsam224) June 3 2007 10:05 PM EST

Let me do some experimenting... Hmm. Worked fine for me. Maybe just a temporary glitch in the database. Wrad 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Started new peer review

I've started the new peer review. The link is at the top of this page, or simply go to Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Just looking over our references. If we want FA they need to be more consistent. We have some refs that start with titles, and others that start with authors. Also, our web citations should probably all use the web cite template, since they also vary more than an FA should. Wrad 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Are there any policies/guidelines/MoS on which style is better? It's an easy enough job for one of us, if we know what to change. AndyJones 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just responded to a new {{fact}} request using the standard {{cite book}} template. I like it because it's easy to deploy and because the output is standardized, but the WP:CITET page warns that some "editors find them annoying". As only an occasional contributor, I'm not pushing this but deferring to those who have been putting in so much hard work recently. --Old Moonraker 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I've temporarily removed At the end of each scene in his plays, Shakespeare also uses a couplet, in which there are two rhyming lines of poetry from the end of the "style" paragraph. It seemed to sit rather uneasily there, separated as it was from the "rhythm and verse" section. It could probably do with a citation as well. --Old Moonraker 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I appreciate your concerns, but my sentence was quite true. If you take out a copy of Romeo and Juliet or perhaps Julius Caesar, you would see that at the end of each scene, there is a couplet! I remember my English teacher telling us about this in a lecture before; this is a characteristic of a Shakespearean tragedy. Now, for comedies, I really don't know; I haven't read any. You also said that you need a "citation". Now I really can't say anything about plays but Google search for "couplet shakespeare" mentions plenty of sonnets. Does this help you?--Romeo in love 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I did a search, and found a good site here, but it is careful to say that couplets only occur at the in some of the speeches and scenes. I don't know if this is notable enough... Wrad 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "notable"? Is there a particular definition of "notable" to follow here?--Romeo in love 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, Romeo in love, for your understanding response, here and on my talk page. --Old Moonraker 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it happened in every scene, maybe. Some scenes just isn't notable enough. I'm sure Shakespeare did almost everything in some of his scenes. If there was a source that said "all", that would be notable, if not for this article, then for the Shakespeare's plays article. Wrad 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonraker. "Many" is fine. Basically it just boils down to the fact that you have to have a source. Wrad 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Shakespeare

This is a list of unsourced comments in this article. Some are true and just require sourcing just for form's sake, and many could in my view happily remain unsourced: others strike me as contentious, possible OR, or unencylopedically worded:

  • He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy
  • his plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.
    • Since this is in the lead, and seems to be a summarizing statement, it probably doesn't need a source. Wrad 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage in English and other languages.
    • Same as above, sourced later in article. Lead statements don't necessarily need sources. Wrad 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in April 1564,
    • This is sourced later on in the same paragraph, and is kind of broadly known, anyway. Wrad 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • the son of John Shakespeare, a successful glover and alderman from Snitterfield, and Mary Arden, a daughter of the gentry. *His birth is assumed to have occurred at the family house on Henley Street.
    • All but the Henley Street thing is sourced later in the same paragraph. I think we should cut the Henley street, personally. I just read a source saying this is contested and no one really knows. Wrad 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year.
    • cited earlier in the paragraph. I fixed these, but now i think it might be over-referenced. Wrad 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • At the age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, aged twenty-six, on 28 November 1582.
  • One document identified her as being "of Temple Grafton," near Stratford, and the marriage may have taken place there.
  • Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bond that there were no impediments to the marriage.
  • There appears to have been some haste in arranging the ceremony, presumably because Anne was three months pregnant.
  • On 26 May 1583, Shakespeare's first child, Susanna, was baptised at Stratford.
  • Twin children, a son, Hamnet, and a daughter, Judith, were baptised on 2 February 1585.
  • Hamnet died aged 11 in the Black Plague in 1596; his date of death is not known, but he was buried on 11 August.
    • You're right about these. Everything from here to my last comment needs a source. Wrad 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • By late 1594 Shakespeare was an actor, writer and part-owner of a playing company known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men
Removing most items from this list. Problem mostly dealt with. AndyJones
  • In addition, Shakespeare wrote the short poem The Phoenix and the Turtle. The anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him upon its first publication in 1599, but in fact only five of its poems are by Shakespeare and the attribution was withdrawn in the second edition.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talkcontribs)
Andy: I should point out that, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources, "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." While a number of the items you listed do indeed need citations, we shouldn't feel the need to cite statements like "The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year" which are unlikely to be challenged. Doing so can quickly fill up an article with cite references, which can make an article difficult to read. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Andy (I'm assuming this is your list after looking at the history). Could you put a citation needed template by all of these? It would help me. Many of them may appear not to be cited, but are covered under later citations. Wrad 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the list is so huge, I'm going to address them one by one. within your text. Wrad 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, read my comment for individual exceptions. Other than that, I have put citation needed tags on all remaining sources listed (and a few more). I think we can assume that when they are all gone then the issues brought up above have been resolved. Wrad 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, sorry all, I had to leave Wikipedia for a real-life reason before I'd really finished what I was doing on the above so I just pressed "save". Once I've finished this list I also promise to start going through with strikeout tags, or maybe with {done} and {notdone} tags. My thinking, of course, is to ensure that we don't go into the FA process with any statements on the page which are unsourced when they need sourcing, and that we remove any OR. I note Alabamaboy's point and of course I agree with you up to a point, although there's still the question of where we actually draw the line. Wrad, your comments are really useful. Also, I have a copy of Schoenbaum on my desk at home, so I can probably source any unsourced biographical stuff, this evening. AndyJones 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

British vs. American Spelling

This article isn't consistent when it comes to British vs. American spelling. In some places it uses, British ("characterisation", "baptised") and others it uses American ("popularized" and "capitalized"). Since the Bard is British. I'm leaning that way, but it doesn't really matter, just as long as it is consistent. Wrad 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I really dont care - it's just that Wiki redirects to the American spelling. I thought - shouldn't we be consistant with Wikipedia? But I certainly won't make an issue of this if you want it Brit. Smatprt 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia doesn't care as long as it's consistent. Let me see if I can find the policy on it... Here it is After looking at it again, I guess it should be British... Yes. I'm going to move per the MOS guideline that the spelling standard be British for this article, on the basis that the Bard is a Brit. Wrad 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that looks to be correct - YIKES! That means all 5000 articles related to Shakespeare need a british spell check!Smatprt 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tough call, but necessary imho. If we can't insist on using British spelling for Shakespeare - of all people - we may as well abandon it altogether. But are there really 5,000 articles related to Shakespeare? -- JackofOz 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is the huge problem you're worrying about. Most Shakespeare-related articles are already British spelling, and I correct Americanisms whenever I notice them creeping in. Yes, policy is that this article, being about a British subject, should be in British English, and I think we someone should go through and make it consistent, in view of the fact that we're about to apply for FA status. AndyJones 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually - I don't hink it's a huge problem - just a dauting task. Thankfully, we can rely on the Brits to watch for these spelling variations.Smatprt 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: In British English, do quotes come after or before punctuation? I think I remember reading that this is different from American English. Wrad 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of WP policy, not national differences. Paul B 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

reference 109

I think I might have messed it up. Can someone please fix it?--Romeo in love 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.Smatprt 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 97 doesn't work now.--Romeo in love 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We've lost our "A" class at the biography wikiproject

We've just failed a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare. Apparently two editors a few weeks apart makes a consensus, there. Actually my worry about that type of thing was one of the reasons I tried to avoid putting any {fact} tags on the article itself yesterday. I'll start citing some of the biography today, though. AndyJones 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that review. Also, the superlatives (greatest, preeminent, excelled, poetic grandeur) the reviewer says lack citations actually have cites. I wouldn't worry about this. Let's finish bringing this to FA status. Then we don't have to worry about the opinions of two revieweres in WikiProject Biography. BTW, it would have been nice to have known this was up for review. Ah well. --Alabamaboy 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Andy: I guess this review shows that we need to provide a citation for everything in this article.--Alabamaboy 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we really have to cite everything? The page Wikipedia:Citing sources says that it's just a guideline.--Romeo in love 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but yes. There's too many people like those two Bio reviewers who will scream unless every sentence in this article has a citation. Might as well do it. What gets me about that review is it shows a lack of knowledge about the general critical consensus on Shakespeare. I agree that it would be POV to call a writer "the greatest" UNLESS that is the general critical consensus. In that case, it's POV to not call the writer that. Argh!--Alabamaboy 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC) sound mad. Can you calm down a bit? I'll help cite some sources, if you'd like.--Romeo in love 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and BTW, I know a little Spanish, so I can get some info from the Spanish version. I really can't translate, though.--Romeo in love 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty good at spanish too if you need any help. Sydneysaurus 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Influence section

I really like the information on Theatre in Shakespeare's time that was added to the influence section, but in that info was discussing the evolution of Shakespeare's writing over time, not his influence on later theater and literature. AS such, I've moved that info to Shakespeare's plays. I hated to do this, but the main article is already extremely long. In a similar manner, perhaps we should cut back the sexuality and religion sections of the article.--Alabamaboy 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now placed most of the religion section in its own article. The removing of this info to their own articles has shaved nearly 20 kbs off the article. It's now 58 kb long (which is probably okay).--Alabamaboy 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Smatprt and myself both proposed that at the peer review. AndyJones 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Bibliography

I'm about to remove the Bibliography section completely. It has potential to be criticized as a list, and all of the works in it are in the template at the bottom. Any objections? Wrad 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know. What's wrong with having a list of all of Shakespeare's works? Surely these are essential to his life!--Romeo in love 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree too. LISTS ARE BAD is not a wikipedia policy, and I'd strongly object to any knee-jerk responses to the biography project's comments. AndyJones 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Maybe it was a knee-jerk. But I would like to improve it. I'd like to take everything after "Apocrypha" out and move it to another section. As it is now, the section doesn't represent Shakespeare's Bibliography. I think we need to separate his works from adaptations of his works. Wrad 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently edited in the following text to the bibliography section: "Shakespeare's plays are traditionally organised into three genres: Tragedies, Comedies, and Histories. However, this method was not the conventional grouping at the time. When Shakespeare was alive, plays were usually organized chronologically. The organization chosen for Shakespeare's plays, which is featured in the title Mr. William Shakespeares [sic] Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies (otherwise known as the First Folio), enables readers to read the plays in light of the genre, appreciating resemblances within each group as well as the individual distinctions." This information is supported by the current citation given in the bibliography section. Can I add it in?--Romeo in love 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No, please don't. My edit summary when I removed it was "Is this bit new? Sorry, I can't make sense of it. There were NO collections of Shakespeare's works before the Folio so suggesting that they were usually organised any way is wrong." and I'm afraid I stand by that. AndyJones 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't really know if I'm interpreting your edit summary or your comment here correctly, but that's not what the source says; in fact, I think you probably misinterpreted the information. The source points out that the works of other writers, not Shakespeare, are arranged in chronological order. This type of organization was the precedent in the time of Shakespeare. However, as the citation also points out, the organization of Shakespeare's works holds an exception. In "Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies," otherwise known as the "First Folio," all of his works are organized into 3 genres: Tragedy, Comedy and History. This "invites readers of Shakespeare's plays to read in the light of genre, apprehending family resemblances within each group as well as individual distinctions." Source: --Romeo in love 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave the bibliography section. It's short and concise and the article wouldn't be complete without it.--Alabamaboy 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion for an alternative... I've been recommending navigation boxes / author templates to do away with list-like bibliography. It cleans up the article and can look quite attractive. Take a look at examples like Template:Charles Dickens, Template:Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Template:Edgar Allan Poe. There's plenty more varieties out there too. -Midnightdreary 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahem... it occurs to me that this page already has a template as I suggested. So, why is there a huge bibliography already taking up so much space if his complete works are already listed in a nice, clean box? (it's a great template, by the way) -Midnightdreary 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The box at the bottom is a wonderful thing. But that doesn't take the place of a bibliography. Can you please provide me a link to where on Wikipedia it was decided that bibliography lists are considered "unencyclopedic" and why the same list within a template is considered ok? I agree that endless lists are worthless but in this case, the bibliography is concise and packed with info that the template lacks.--Alabamaboy 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if the template replaces the bibliography then the template will need to be revised, namely the removal of the "See also:" section, which are not works by Shakespeare. But that's only if the template were to replace the bibliography, which I believe should not happen. The reason I asked my previous questions is I'm not aware that lists like bibliographies are now considered unencyclopedic and to me the guidelines at Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:List guideline allow these types of lists within an article. But if you can show me a guideline which replaces these...--Alabamaboy 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Final comment: The main guideline on all of this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). There is a discussion to reword this guideline (see the guideline's talk page), but even here the use of templates to replace bibliographies is not being discussed. Instead, the discussion to to spin a bibliography off into its own article when the bibliography takes up more than a third of the article (which isn't the case here). --Alabamaboy 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. The people there who tend to disagree a good deal did agree that lists of works were worth having, though there can be a great deal of difference in how they are arranged . For this one, the works are so well known that they do fit into a section. A template is a supplement--it has a use, and the use is to arrange the WP articles and let people see what there is--it's a navigation template. Even where all the works have articles, & thus would fit, as they do here, a template only really makes sense when work on a more finely crafted list is not appropriate or practical. That is not the least true here, of all possible places in WP. We might additionally try a page with the works arranged both by genre and chronologically and by inclusion in the various major editions. This above all other articles in WP would be the place for one. There's a manageable number, several worthwhile ways to list them, and of course an immense amount of reader interest. DGG 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be for having a separate List of works by William Shakespeare that is exhaustive and has details such as first published, first appeared in which theatre, dates, afterwards get into the Folios. It should give you a sense of when Shakespeare's works appeared in the world, and how they appeared subsequently in the struggle to keep them circulating. A separate List of works by William Shakespeare would not have to be compacted and compressed and could lend some context to how his works were published. This would be a supplement to this main article.-BillDeanCarter 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
We do have an article Chronology of Shakespeare plays. AndyJones 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

birth and death unknown

The date of birth and date of death are both unknown. Read this:[1] What should we do?--Romeo in love 19:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • We should ignore it. His date of death is on his monument, it's good enough evidence for anybody. AndyJones 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing Moratorium

I'm a bit worried that this page is changing extremely fast, while the peer review is going on. Could I ask if other members of the wikiproject agree that it might be wise to keep the article relatively stable for a couple of days: just let the peer review guys review us warts-and-all and then we can see what we're left with? I'm all in favour of keeping the momentum going, but I'm quite worried about knee-jerk responses, too. And I'd like to feel that all the peer reviewers were reviewing essentially the same page. (Feel free to shoot me down on this one!) AndyJones 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm a fairly new editor here, although I've learned the ropes very quickly already. I would wait to see what the peer review says, so that I can kinda learn how to write articles here. :) Romeo in love 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Romeo, you're doing great! I think he's saying to just look over the peer review carefully before editing, keeping in mind that not all suggestions by reviewers are right. But, if you agree with something a reviewer says, don't hesitate to fix it.
Also, Andy, I think you've got a point. I have also noticed, though, that many of our editors are fixing things pointed out by reviewers, whether they know it or not. This certainly isn't bad, except for the fact that changes should be recorded on the peer review so that reviewers can keep up. I think I've brought things up to par for now, roughly. I say, keep editing, just keep the peer review in mind when you do it. Don't let one get ahead of the other. Is this what you meant, Andy? Wrad 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You see, that's the thing. Where can I find the peer review?--Romeo in love 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Click on "a request has been made" in the box at the top of the page. Wrad 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we focus on adding all the missing citations. That's the biggest hurdle left. Then make any changes needed from the peer review.--Alabamaboy 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, aren't we working backwards? When we find a statement that could be controversial, shouldn't we look for the guy that added it so that we can ask him for the source that he used? The way I see it, we're really just citing information with sources that have the information, but it's not necessarily the place where the editor got the information.--Romeo in love 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
YES!! And that's an important object lesson for new wikipedians: cite your sources at the time you put information in. There are a few fairly new wikipedians I have encouraged to do precisely that, and this is the reason why. There is NO CHANCE, now, of us working out who wrote which bit of this page, and even if we worked it out, no chance of us contacting all of them and of them remembering which sources they used and contacting us back to tell us what they were. So we have to go back and do the work again. For example, consider this section about Shakespeare's reputation. Is there anything wrong with it? No. Is it factually accurate? Yes. Is it written in clear intelligent prose? Yes. Is it relevant and encyclopedic? Yes. Is it thoroughly sourced? NO! So before we could apply to promote the article to featured article status, we had to replace it with something we actually could source. We had no idea what the original sources were so some poor sap had to rewite from scratch: all the previous good work was lost, and the new version, which is here is not necessarily better, clearer, more encyclopedic or in more compelling prose. It just has the advantage of having lots of annoying little footnote tags all the way through it. AndyJones 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Annoying little footnote tags: I was just skimming the article for outstanding {{cn}} tags I could pick off when the moratorium ends, when I had just that thought. Is it possible that we are now going too far with this, perhaps giving too much weight to the views of "those two Bio reviewers who will scream unless every sentence in this article has a citation" (above—"We've lost our A Class")? Could we tidy them slightly and still meet the WP:CITE guideline? --Old Moonraker 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be possible: but I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer to the "how many footnotes?" question. And yes, I do think there's a serious chance that we could give too much credence to a couple of bio-project reviewers who none of us really seem to agree with, very much. My feeling: the page is pretty damn good - I don't want to mess with it more than the peer review indicates we need to in order to get our FA status. AndyJones 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedians should cite their work as they edit. Unfortunately, this article has had so many edits over such a long period of time that it'd be hard to track every unsourced edit down to its original editor. Probably easier to find a citation to either support the statements in the article or change the statements.--Alabamaboy 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Article says:

This pattern changed in Shakespeare's later plays, where he began to use a flowing form of blank verse (where the lines don't rhyme and are not grouped in stanzas).

Are we to understand that his early plays had the lines written in stanzas? And if so is that correct and I've been missing something for all this time? AndyJones 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All of his plays were written chiefly in blank verse. The statement is incorrect. RedRabbit1983 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The later plays certainly have a more "flowing", conversational verse, but that's just a sign of increasing skill and facility. It's an ongoing process throghout his career, not a break. Obviously "the lines don't rhyme", otherwise it wouldn't be blank verse! Paul B 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


I've moved the following recent addition here, from the article:

His plays are also notable for their use of [[soliloquies]], in which a character makes a speech to him- or herself so the audience can understand the character's inner motivations and conflict.<ref>''Shakespeare's Soliloquies'' by Wolfgang H. Clemen, translated by Charity S. Stokes, Routledge, 1987, page 11.</ref> Among his most famous soliloquies are [[To be, or not to be]], [[All the world's a stage]], and [[What a piece of work is a man]]. In his book ''Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies'', James Hirsh defines the convention of a Shakespearean soliloquy in early modern drama. He argues that when a person on the stage speaks to himself or herself, they are characters in a fiction speaking in character; this is an occasion of self-address. Furthermore, Hirsh points out that Shakspearean soliloquies and "asides" are audible in the fiction of the play, bound to be overheard by any other character in the scene unless certain elements confirm that the speech is protected. Ergo, a Renaissance playgoer who was familiar with this dramatic convention would have been alert to [[Prince Hamlet|Hamlet]]'s expectation that his soliloquy be overheard by the other characters in the scene. Moreover, Hirsh asserts that in soliloquies in other Shakespearean plays, the speaker in entirely in character within the play's fiction. Saying that addressing the audience was outmoded by the time Shakespeare was alive, he "acknowledges few occasions when a Shakespearean speech might involve the audience in recognizing the simultaneous reality of the stage and the world the stage is representing." Other than 29 speeches delivered by choruses or characters who revert to that condition as epilogues "Hirsh recognizes only three instances of audience address in Shakespeare's plays, 'all in very early comedies, in which audience address is introduced specifically to ridicule the practice as antiquated and amateurish.'"<ref>{{cite journal |last=Maurer |first=Margaret |year=2005 |month= |title= Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies|journal=Shakespeare Quarterly |volume=56 |issue=4 |pages=504 |accessdate=2007-06-06 }}</ref>

I think this is good stuff and I want to find a home for it somewhere: just at this moment I want to avoid any lengthy additions to the page for two reasons: firstly we already have worries about its length. Secondly anything added now needs really urgent attention/fact checking/clean-up/whatever and I'd prefer that we proceed without that pressure. Does anyone have a view on the right home for this material? AndyJones 12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go in the main Shakespeare's plays article. I've now moved the info there (aside from a short bit in this article, which I stuck back in the style section). I agree with Andy that we need to not expand this article too much more--that's what the subarticles are for. In addition, this article should give an overview of Shakespeare and his works. The subarticles are for extended and detailed info like this. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I just thought about adding it in here because the peer reviewers said to do so. Can we at least add a few sentences about the point I was trying to make? You see, when a speaker says a Shakespearean soliloquy, the audience would naturally assume that he or she is speaking to them. However, the source that I quote here says that that is not the case, and the character stays very much in the fictional world. A short mention in this article would at least convey that message.
Yes, please add a sentence or two about the point you were making. If you can include the citation with that, we'd be good to go. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added it back in, with a major cut on the information that I was trying to point out. How does it look?--Romeo in love 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the trouble with this is that your man is expressing his opinion on this point, and his POV is unlikely to be shared by many actors. If you're performing, say, "I do much wonder that one man..." (from Much Ado) or any soliloquy by a villain (Iago, Richard III) probably the best way to play it is to talk directly to the audience. Watch Antony Sher do Leontes for an example of this at its most effective. I've amended the sentence (mostly by shortening it) so that I think it's less contentious but still supported by your source. Does that work for everyone? AndyJones 07:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Your edit makes much more sense now.--Romeo in love 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's much better - although the phrase "solo speeches" is a bit rough. Perhaps use "solitary"? In any case, it really depends on the intrepretation of the director first, and then the actor. In Timon, for example, Apemantus can be played directly to the audience, much like a narrator, or can be directed to be spoken soothsayer like, at the other characters; or he can be directed to play the speeches to himself as a rambling malcontent. In a nutshell, the actors work within whatever presentations style the director chooses. It would be nice to add something in to that effect.Smatprt 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

iambic pentameter and blank verse

In the case of Shakespeare, isn't iambic pentameter a form of blank verse? If so, then should we clarify that? If not, then should we make the distinction between the two?--Romeo in love 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes: it's wrong and needs fixing. The same point is made in the conversation #Stanzas, above. AndyJones 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe we can separate the point about couplets into a different paragraph so that we can explain iambic pentameter even better.--Romeo in love 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for messing that up. I didn't mean to imply that iambic pentameter wasn't a form of blank verse. The new version fixes that perfectly.--Alabamaboy 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


What is ProQuest? Is it a reliable source? If yes how do I (well, any reader) access it? I see it's cited as a source on this page. AndyJones 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ProQuest is a subscription database that has access to the following:
  • ProQuest History Study Center - (study units, historical documents, maps, multimedia, and journals covering 14 centuries of history)
  • ProQuest Learning: Literature - (author bios, criticism, reference works, multimedia, and full-text literary works)
  • ProQuest Historical Newspapers - (basically has a picture of older newspapers)
  • ProQuest Online and ProQuest Platinum - (a collection of every major newspaper, journal, magazine, etc.)
Most of the content available in these 5 databases are not published by ProQuest themselves; it's mostly a collection of various journals, magazines, periodicals, reference works, and other publications. If ProQuest is the publisher, however, then I can tell you that it indeed is a reliable source. You, or your library, needs a subscription to these databases.--Romeo in love 14:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If Proquest is a sub database, then you should list the actual journal or magazine as the publisher and at the end of the cite say "accessed through ProQuest on June 5, 2007" (or something like that.)--Alabamaboy 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
But the content that I added in was published by ProQuest themselves. The citations you refer to are correct, although there are some citations that I now have to fix myself.--Romeo in love 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well done with the changes to these citations. They look good to me, now. AndyJones 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought cites to subscription websites were discouraged - especially when there are other print sources available. Yes? No?Smatprt 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The database that I used is a collection of major publications. So...let's say I used ProQuest Platinum to get an article on the New York Times about President Bush's visit to Europe. Are there other ways to access this article with the exact same text? Of course! You can buy a copy of the NYT itself, or you can go to it's website and read the article. Also, you can access the information via other subscription databases! In the end, the information found on ProQuest can be found elsewhere; I just chose to use this method.--Romeo in love 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But in the ref, you are supposed to give the details of the original source within the frame of the intermediate source. qp10qp 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Which I did, although I only partially understood what you just said. :( Anyway, take a look at this reference that I put in: "Maurer, Margaret (2005). "Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies". Shakespeare Quarterly 56 (4): 504. Retrieved on 2007-06-06. Accessed through Proquest on June 6, 2007." That is what your looking for, right?--Romeo in love 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat, but with details of and link to Proquest: the reader would need to know what to type into the Proquest searchbox, because it seems to me that a Proquest link wouldn't bring up the article (or can you make it do that?). And no point having an access date if there's no link. What about this one? "2005, Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages, ProQuest".This gives far too little information to the reader, and I got nowhere typing "Elizabethan Period (1558–1603)" into the Proquest search box. My experience of article sites is that even if they are subscription only, the page that comes up gives the reference details for the article: after all, they are trying to tempt you to subscribe to read it; even that much information helps any reader checking a Wikipedia reference.
By the way, what I meant by my terminology is that your actual framing reference—in other words to the place you accessed this info—is intermediate because it comes between the reader and the original article. I would have used the word "covenience" rather than "intermediate" had I not found Proquest so inconvenient a link. It is the containing or framing reference because that is where you got the information: the question then is, how reliable or admissable is the website (I've no idea in this case)? Here's an essay which discusses convenience links: Wikipedia:Convenience links, if you haven't seen it. qp10qp 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Romeo is the only one of us who can fix this. I'll come back in a day or so and re-source these bits if it's still a problem. AndyJones 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I added direct links to the information, but the only way to access it is via subscription. There are no free trials; the only way to get a trial is if you actually sign up for it. =D Romeo in love 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be tedious about this, Romeo, but even though I have no doubt that the information is there, the new edits don't solve the problem. We were coming close with the "Margaret Maurer" ref, which might indicate where the information could also be checked away from ProQuest, though the ProQuest information given was insufficient. I feel that the information needs to be re-sourced. In the case of the passage at the beginning of the style section, I have suggested that it should be deleted as both too vague and irrelevant to style (see Peer Review). Romeo, I suggest you go to the talk page of Wikipedia: Citing Sources or Wikipedia: Reliable Sources and ask there if ProQuest is a valid source (I've no idea) and, if it is, how best to word and format references to the articles on it. Some smart people post on those pages and their advice will be useful. qp10qp 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I sent a message to the editors over there, as you requested. I found a partial copy of the article here, but it's not all of the information that I used. Now I did notice that some people here use what you call "sandboxes." Would it be possible for me to copy the text from ProQuest to a sandbox so that you can view the full text?--Romeo in love 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the statements with ProQuest cites, and I think I can probably cite them all quite easily from print sources from my study at home. I think that might be an easier solution than trying to solve the "ProQuest problem". I've got a writing deadline in the real world this week, but I'll see what I can do. I definitely don't think copying to a sandbox is a solution: it may even be illegal as a copyvio. AndyJones 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That might work; but I'd really like to keep the information that I added about soliloquies in. Personally, I think that it's a good analysis on Shakespeare's use of them. You can, however, use alternative sources for the information on sonnets and the Elizabethan period.--Romeo in love 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have viewed the articled published by Maurer several times through FirstSearch, ProQuest, and eLibrary Research databases. Because the direct link to the article is only a partial copy, I can only conclude that the article is not available in the Free Web. However, since many academic institutions, such as a high school, college, or university, have access to various databases that most likely contain Maurer's article, I feel that the material cited via intermediate sources is reliable.--Romeo in love 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the Maurer source is fine, since we have the print citation followed by "accessed through" and the name of the website. AndyJones 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's good. Unfortunately, I can't find any content regarding the Elizabethan Period and Sonnets. The sonnet information can probably be found anywhere; I just don't know where to find it. The Elizabethan Period information could be removed, as suggested by qp10qp--Romeo in love 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have just given essentially the same information in a long response on Wikipedia Talk:Citing sources. (Only difference is that I do not consider all the magazines they index as necessarily reliable)DGG 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations complete!

The last citation tag has been eliminated! We may want to go through and re-check everything to make sure we didn't miss a spot. After that we should get started standardizing the citation format. Wrad 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I think the moratorium I asked for should be considered over, too. I think the only suggestion I have at this point is that we should dicourage any NEW material on the page: especially if lengthy. The focus now should be on cleanup. AndyJones 07:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • <ahem!> There's another one on the section called "Influence on theatre, literature, and language" :D --Romeo in love 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I placed that one. Just now replaced it with a ref. Any other spots we missed? Wrad 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing not. So, what format should we use? Wrad 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Over at the help desk, when asked this question they refer people here: Wikipedia:Citation templates. It looks very confusing to me, but perhaps that's the first place to look. AndyJones 07:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've started using the cite book template for books. Also, if a book is cited several times, I use the template the first time, and the rest of the time I list only the author's last name and the page number. Wrad 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I just went through and fixed several citations, but there is still a lot left to do, for example, I don't see how the template cites essays within books. Journal citations seem to be pretty standard already, so no work needs to be done there. Websites need to all be under the web cite template. There are also some odd ones that I'll point out once the easy but tedious work is done. One thing which I think would be classy would be to separate footnotes from citations, as in the IPA article. Wrad 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I went ahead and created a separate notes section. As I was fixing citations, I noticed this would make things clearer and would make citations easier to fix. Wrad 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • This "new" section now needs a few citations. I added the appropriate tags. Wrad 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations needing help (as of this version of the article [2]:

  • 13 work within a work, can't figure out how or if the template can handle these...
  • 15 should be divided in two
  • 54 looks odd
  • 59 ?
  • 64 needs book template
  • 68 Proquest, ongoing discussion
  • 70 work within a work...
  • 78 same
  • 81 needs template
  • 87 seems odd and the link is dead
  • 96 work within a work
  • 101, 105, 106, 109, 116 same as above
  • 118 doesn't look complete
  • 119-121 work within a work
  • 146 seems odd
  • 149 seems incomplete
  • 152-154 "third series"? work within a work?

Some of these may be fine, some obviously need help. I just post them here so we can decide better what to do. Wrad 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Suggest that for "work within a work" you (or me, or someone) just looks at how {citebook} renders on the screen, then just reproduces that same look, plus the additional info, within {ref} tags. AndyJones 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why "third series" is a problem??? If in doubt, you can't go wrong slapping it after "The Arden Shakespeare", as in "The Arden Shakespeare (third series) Macbeth" or whatever. AndyJones 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, that's a good way to fix works within works. I just didn't know what "third series" meant. Didn't know what to do with it. Wrad 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Had a go at some of the "work within a work" ones. How do they look? AndyJones 10:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I love it. Looks good. Wrad 12:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose we put the rest of these on the back burner until the main issues being discussed lower on the page are solved. If anyone wants to fix these now, though, they are perfectly welcome. Wrad 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I have a problem with the sentence "His plays combine popular appeal and poetic grandeur[13]with complex characterisation and philosophical depth." which does seem to be a piece of (almost) unsourced peacockery in the intro, of the kind which any non-Shakespeare-enthusiasts at Featured Article Candidates will criticise us for. The source is to an essay by A.C.Bradley (who was long dead by 1998 so the citation is not good) and its place mid-sentence suggests to me Bradley probably only said "poetic grandeur" and no other part of the sentence. I propose that we remove this sentence completely. However I'm open to suggestions for replacements. Someone somewhere has surely written an overview of Shakespeare's literary reputation & style from which we can source a replacement sentence. Otherwise, I don't think the intro would be bad, without it. AndyJones 13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Out with it! Wrad 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fork" articles?

I noticed that we have several articles that have the word "Shakespeare" in them, what I like to call "fork articles" (honestly, I have no idea what they're really called). What I'm referring to are the ones about his sexuality, religion, authorship question, reputation, plays, etc. etc. Is there a way in which we can put all of these fork articles together? Perhaps in those little boxes you have at the end?--Romeo in love 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of those should be added to the Shakespeare template. I'll do this in a moment.--Alabamaboy 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've developed a template for Shakespeare's relatives at {{Relatebard}} (as you can see, the last two links need an article). Maybe this information would be good in a "Biography of Shakespeare" template, however. Wrad 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There's always the Family Tree template:

- Nunh-huh 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's very impressive. However can this discussion be dealt with at Shakespeare's Life? This article is big enough as it is, and I consider this a very bad time to start expanding it.AndyJones 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, toning down what I just said a little, I would approve of adding Wrad's template to this page. Also I'm in the RED LINKS ARE GOOD camp, so I'm not too worried by the lack of articles on a couple of the relatives. AndyJones 07:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I love the diagram but don't think it should go in this article. Let's put it in Shakespeare's Life. --Alabamaboy 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with 'bamaboy. Wrad 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
By the by, here's a good link for Shakespeare's line: Wrad 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


This sentence seems detached from the rest of the paragraph:

Shakespeare's writing displays a persistent engagement not only with the technical requirements of theater[38] but also with theater as a shaping concept in human life.


There is a tradition that Shakespeare also continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. These traditions, however, have little scholarly basis.

The paragraphs need to be rearranged for coherence, or perhaps rewritten. RedRabbit1983 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The first of those seems unnecessary and convoluted to me. By all means remove or rewrite, as you see fit. I think the second, though, is valid and interesting - the enduring myths about Shakespeare need a mention, I think, provided we make clear that they are popular myths not historical fact. AndyJones 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Speculations section is overlong. Can't we reduce it to one or two paragraphs and provide links to sub-articles? We shouldn't give as much emphasis to speculative issues as to the rest of the biography. RedRabbit1983 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Contrary to some comments at the Peer Review, I think it's important that we have this section. However I strongly agree that all three parts could adequately be reduced to a paragraph or two. The second paragraph of authorship could be moved to style or removed, the first paragraph on religion could be dealt with just by wikilinking "recusancy" in the second paragraph (general background not being needed when it's just a click away), and the third paragaph could go: being in my view too detailed for an overview, while not giving enough detail for the reader to make an informed judgement on the subject. Sexuality could easily reduce to one paragraph on his attitude to Anne and possible unfaithfulness, and another paragraph on his alleged homosexuality. AndyJones 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, just to be clear, I think all of this is excellent material: I think it should be on Wikipedia, just on the sub-pages rather than in this summary section. AndyJones 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think it is vital that we have this speculations section. I'd also hate to see any of this section merged into other places b/c these are speculations--having them elsewhere may give them more weight than they deserve. We've already cut back the religion and authorship subsections; if we cut back the religion part too, then the section should be not overly long.--Alabamaboy 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've now cut back the sexuality part. This speculation section is now only a third what it used to me. I think that's a decent size.--Alabamaboy 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The section still reads pretty terribly though. The first sentence in particular is unintentionally humorous: "As with many aspects of Shakespeare's life, there is little direct evidence with regards to Shakespeare's sexuality aside from the fact that he was married to Anne Hathaway and fathered three children." Well, there sure isn't much evidence for Bush being US President other than that he shows up for work in the West Wing every day. I'd just edit most of it out but I'd rather not get into whatever debates you've had going on back here. Rolken 09:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 Done AndyJones 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See also

I changed a lot in the see also section. A lot of the link were duplicates of the template at the bottom of the page. I didn't see any reason for two links so I deleted those. I also added the relatives template. Right now the section is pretty skimpy, but whatever is added should have a good reason to be. Anyway, it's a work in progress, so please comment. Wrad 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


The plays marked as collaborations don't jive with the list of collaborations at Shakespeare's plays. These are missing from the WS list: (FYI - I'm showing excerpts from the other page - not my particular POV.)

Cardenio, a lost play; contemporary reports say that Shakespeare collaborated on it with John Fletcher.

 Done Wrad 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth: Thomas Middleton may have revised this tragedy in 1615 to incorporate extra musical sequences.

 DoneSmatprt 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Measure for Measure may have undergone a light revision by Thomas Middleton at some point after its original composition.

Timon of Athens may result from collaboration between Shakespeare and Thomas Middleton; this might explain its incoherent plot and unusually cynical tone.

 Done Wrad 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus may be a collaboration with, or revision by George Peele.

 Done Wrad 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should these be added to the WS page for consistancy?Smatprt 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not, with one reservation: Do they have reliable sources? Wrad 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not on the Shakespeare's plays page, but they do appear on the play articles the answer would be yesSmatprt 21:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd say stick them in with the sources. Wrad 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. To the extent that you can reliably source these, add them in. Use the same method I did (as amended by Wrad in moving to Notes) & it'll be fine. I'll have a go at this in the next few days if no-one else does. AndyJones 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some of them. However, I'm not sure about adding revisions, as opposed to collaborations. Aren't all of Shakespeare's works revised by someone in the Folios and Quartos? Just seems like the list could be unending, and may not belong in a "Bibliography", although it is fine in the plays article. Wrad 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No - I don't believe there is any evidence that "all of SH works" were revised in the Folio and Quarto process. Far from it. Aside from the list appearing on the Collaboration page, I've not seen any other works that have been seriously considered as revised or collaborated (on). Revised or collaborated - either way, they are not fully in Shakespeare's hand, so should be noted. (Also - some plays, like Timon, have been debated whether it is a collaboration or a revision - so a grey area already exists here.) I added Macbeth due to general agreement about Middleton's additions and will list Measure4Measure if I can find reliable sources.Smatprt 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Round-up

Time to start considering whether we're ready to apply for FA status. Here are a few issues I still have:

1. The following passage:

Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups: early romantic comedies and histories (such as A Midsummer Night's Dream and Henry IV, Part 1); middle period romantic comedies and tragedies (including his most famous tragedies, Othello, Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear, as well as "problem plays" such as Troilus and Cressida); later romances (such as The Winter's Tale and The Tempest). The earlier plays range from broad comedy to historical nostalgia. The middle-period plays have grander themes, addressing issues such as betrayal, murder, lust, power, and ambition. The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and various fantastical elements. However, the borders between these stylistic groupings are rarely clear.[59]
...the problems here are discussed at the peer review (see Smatprt's review, and my response to him). Source [59] at the end just says "Doran" and there isn't a footnote called Doran so far as I can tell. (Prehaps it means Greg Doran, the director?) Anyway, I think the section should go unless someone can please provide a source who uses this classification. Also, I'm not sure one source is good enough if we're going to say the "plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups" since we need to demonstrate a tendency.
I agree with the general consensus on this passage. The section really doesn't fit with the basic, NPOV attitude we've taken in editing this article. Maybe rather than parading one way of organizing his plays, we should just outline some of the most popular methods. Maybe start with the classic, trag com hist, then tragicomedies, late romances, and problem plays. Not too long of a description, but just a short paragraph outlining several ways his plays have been categorized. Wrad 01:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I say, take it out. The points you've just made are in the intro to the Bibliography section, fully sourced, and I think this is a bad time to expand the page with any new information. AndyJones 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 Done I'm removing it. Obviously that's without prejudice to someone putting something brief and well-sourced in its place. AndyJones 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2. The Mountjoy/Bellot thing is still unsourced, surprisingly since all the biographies mention it. I'll try to deal with that this evening, if no-one gets there before me.


3. Any other issues? AndyJones 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The last remaining issue from the peer review, the Influences section rewrite, has been completed and the person raising the issue with that section appears satisfied. I think we're good to go once the above issues are addressed.--Alabamaboy 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One final point: I think that when we start the FAC process, it would be good if several of us placed our names on the FAC page as being co-nominators. This will perhaps help the nomination gain credibility.--Alabamaboy 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't help you with that, lol. I don't think I can be considered "credible" in the eyes of the Wikipedia community. :D One more thing: I noticed that the peer review is still open. Don't we have to wait for the peer review to be declared "closed" before we can start moving on to the next step (featured article, right? I thought you wanted A-class) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeo in love (talkcontribs)
I don't think you're any less credible than the rest of us. Wikipedia is the encycolpedia that anyone can edit, and the fact that a comparative newcomer like yourself was so active in the FA drive is a credit to you and to the system as a whole. And I think we'll be skipping "A" and going straight to "FA". AndyJones 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We can also go straight to FA without waiting for the peer review to end. It's actually pretty common. The review closes automatically when an article is moved to FAC. Wrad 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

4.  DoneI think the intro could use touching up to reflect recent article changes as well as concerns brought up in the peer review. As it is, it is strong on biographical and reputation issues, with a bit about the plays, but is weak at summarizing the new influence section, as well as the speculations sections (as mentioned in the peer review). In this area I think we should say at least a bit about what there speculations are. For example: "Because so few facts are known about Shakespeare, many have speculated as to whether his works were authored by him, or by some other author. Others have asked questions about his sexuality: whether he was faithful to his wife or bisexual. Still others have pored over his life to find signs of his religious affiliation, whether he was Catholic, atheist, or some other faction of the day." Anyway, something to touch the intro up a bit (especially since that is one of the hardest hit areas of in FACs). Wrad 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think Wrad's proposal above is a good suggestion on a tricky issue and addresses one of my earlier comments - why are there these speculations in the first place? Good work Wrad.Smatprt 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Fix up the lead per Wrad's advice. We should be able to start the FAC a day or two after the lead is fixed.--Alabamaboy 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and add my little speculations bit with some sources. Others may do better at adjusting the rest than me. Wrad 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Last sentence of lead - is the religious speculation really a choice of only Catholic or Atheist? Sounds incomplete.Smatprt 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done***Ditto - is seems the final line of the lead, now lumping all the speculations in one sentence, has an odd feeling to it. Perhaps it is because the three subjects are so varied that having them all in the same sentence made me laugh out loud. Or maybe I'm just getting punchy.Smatprt 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC language

I've revised the already existing featured article candidates page for this article, which is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare, to include a draft of the potential FAC language. Please note that this FAC is not yet live on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and won't be live until we all are satisfied with it. I also hope others will place their signatures on the page so the FAC will be a joint nomination. Otherwise, make changes to the language as people see fit. If everyone is satisfied, perhaps the FAC can start tomorrow or the next day. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I regret to announce that I will not be editing for an indefinite amount of time due to an unexpected change in my schedule. I wish you all the best of luck. --Romeo in love 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW This doesn't mean that I won't be editing anymore; in fact, I still might be editing a lot. I'm just saying that since there might be some days where I won't be here, or some days when I will edit at a much slower frequency.Romeo in love 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I totally understand. I hope you'll keep an on the FAC in the coming days. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Many people on wikipedia feel this way. It's the way it is when you put something out for the whole world to see and say, "I think this is great! Tell me what you think!" Wrad 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakesperae Template

The bottom catagory (See Also) of the Shakespeare Template seems a bit of a mishmosh. Could it be catagorized or alphabetized or something? - right now it jumps from catagory to catagory with no apparent reason. I was going to alphabetize it but that would put "Authorship Question" first, which would undoubtably piss someone off, so I am loathe to do it myself. Can someone have a go at it?Smatprt 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, but I think it may be best to leave it for now, until the project develops more and we see what articles deserve placement, or at least to move a discussion about it to the template's talk page. (One issue with changing it is that it is an integral part of the Shakespeare portal. Any change should keep that in mind.) Wrad 00:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Leave it for now. The next step after this article reaches FA status will be to start reviewing all the Shakespeare subarticles and making sure they include the new information and citations in this article. At that time, we can easily work on the template. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
An example of the problem with changing it now would be the overhauling in progress on the Shakespeare's influence subject, involving three articles on the template in question. Wrad 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. Smatprt 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)