Template talk:William Shakespeare

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

The Tempest[edit]

I thought The Tempest was a tragicomedy... Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Order of the Plays[edit]

The plays are neither in alphabetical order or in chronological order. I think it should be the former because there is no consensus on an exact chronology. The current order seems random or in order of somebody's estimate of popularity.Scottandrewhutchins 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right ... anyone else have a comment? The Singing Badger 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Another reason to put them in alphabetical order is because the division into genre breaks any meaningful chronological order. -Acjelen 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested revision to template[edit]

What do people think of the following? Remember 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments from Shakespeare WikiProject page:
I wanted to get the project's opinion on my suggested change to the Shakespeare template. So what do you think?Remember 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Bardofcornish 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I like it too. I notice that it looks better on a high-res monitor, since on a lower resolution the pic has quite a lot of while space above and below. Also, have you tried centre-aligning the text in the middle column? AndyJones 12:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally don't like to center text in templates (and I don't know how) but someone else is free to tweak it. With this positive feedback, I am going to change the template. Remember 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Now someone has shown a preference for the old one. If you prefer the new old (or prefer the old one) please speak up at the template's talk page (where I am moving this discussion). Remember 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Prefer the current one. The differentiated shading for each section, though, would improve the current. DionysosProteus 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the left justified version of the template, which was changed without discussion. It seemed to me the centered version was harder to read and looked...well...odd. If there is a consensus to change it back, I will not raise a ruckus, but the current version now looks cleaner and more professional, imho. Smatprt (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid your restoration edit (sorry), followed by an edit where I left-aligned the lists. I'm aware that my edits were quite bold, but as I did my edits in small bits, you can look through the diffs – they should be quite readable. And I think that my version is somewhat “cleaner” than the old one. It may not look entirely identical, but that may be fixed. Best regards, Fred Bradstadt (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I'd prefer is something like what was proposed (above) last October. I have here included the currently used image, but for example Image:First Folio.jpg might fit better (being taller than wide):
Fred Bradstadt (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I like the template that uses navbox features (I especially like mine above). If you want to seek consensus for the change I will support it. Remember (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I also strongly agree. The template is quite ugly in its current form and the new form looks much cleaner, has the collapsible option, and is a standard form. --CapitalR (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for justifying left. I like it with the additional (present) changes as well. Not sure about Shakespeare's floating head in the version above though. I don't think it looks quite professional from a graphic layout standpoint. Perhaps if the graphic was in the upright corner? Not sure. Smatprt (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I keep flipping back and forth between the templates above and the present one. I pasted it in below to make comparisons easier. Having done that and looking at the 3 on this page, the one below looks cleanest and most professional (imho). The image in the upleft corner looks well placed and the air around the template title makes for a pleasing presentation. I would advise keeping the present version (with the recent changes). Smatprt (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture Location[edit]

Does anyone know how to move the picture to the top right corner, and then have the template lists fill in the white space below the picture (like in an article)? I was thinking that this template has become quite large with a lot of white space. If the picture was top right and the categories from "Comedies" down went full width, the template would be considerably smaller and more pleasing to the eye. I'd at least like to see what it would look like. Anyone? Smatprt (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm quite sure this isn't feasible, but I'd like to propose removing the picture altogether. It doesn't really add much to the template—images of Shakespeare can be found at his main article and the image takes up a lot of space in the template. Without the picture, the template would be about a third shorter—a significant amount. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I played around and I came up with this. It does what I was hoping to do - reduced the overall size (we both agree that it could be shorter), but it keeps the picture. I am loathe to simply remove it due to the great discussion that went into it, and the consensus that was built around using it. So this is what it looks like:

Please let me know what you think. Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan... it leaves odd-looking spaces before and after “General information” and two of the groups are in the same box. I understand why you did this, but I think it looks out of place—I'd rather leave it the way it is now than like this. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree (but it was fun trying). I've made one more attempt by combining "General" and "other" information (not quite sure what the difference is between the two!), resulting in a loss of the odd-looking spaces. I'd be interested in your comments. It's not a do for die issue for me, but, regardless, it's been nice interacting with you :) Smatprt (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to template[edit]

I reverted a number of major changes that have been made over the last week or so. None of these changes were described in the edit summary, and none were discussed on the talk page - where we had spent considerable time working up a consensus for the present (reinstated) version. The template today (the reinstated one) is short and to the point, with not a lot of white space. Prior to my reversion, the template had grown to more than twice its size, and contained tons of wasted space. Any thoughts?Smatprt (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually liked the redesign, but I did mention to the editor that he needs to run his ideas past people before implementing them. In any case, I do agree with you about the white space thing, but I think he was on to something in general. The picture was a good idea, and a few links not in the current template were added. Having gotten used to his edits, the current one looks kinda bland. But, having said all that, I do think you were right to revert it. On a semi related point, should Edward III still be listed in the Apocrypha section? It's included in the Oxford, Riverside and Norton collected editions, Cambridge have an edition of the play and both Oxford's and Arden's editions are forthcoming in 2010 and 2011 respectively (incidentally, Arden is also releasing an edition of Sir Thomas More in 2011). Would it not make sense to move it to the main set of plays? But getting back to the subject at hand, like I say, I did like his edits, but I agree with the revert. Because I like to be awkward apparently! Bertaut (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently your message was completely ignored. More major changes today with no discussion and no edit summary, which can appear either deceptive, or just ignorant of Wiki policy. Reverting until this discussion is over. We need to talk this thru and develop a consensus. Right now Bertaut and I are the only ones talking. If this continues, then the consensus will be whatever Bertaut and I agree on.Smatprt (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise of sorts?

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

I'll post this one so. And yeah, collapsable boxes are pretty horrific. I noted on the guy's talk page that he seems to have a thing for editing without any summaries or discussions. There's quite a few comments on there about it. Bertaut (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


My objection to the placement of the SAQ link was its prominence after it was "restored," before which it was last or next to last on the list. I have alphabetised the list, so I hope we can agree that is the neutral method to list them.

Interesting - when it was last on the list, it was actually "more" prominent. But if you want to go alpha, it's not worth arguing about.Smatprt (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the Oxfordian chronology is that it doesn't have anything to do with Shakespeare and is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. The Oxfordian theory link was removed 2 April 2010 with this edit on the grounds that it was redundant with the SAQ link included. The same reasoning applies to this, so unless you can come up with a convincing reason why it should be included I will delete it tomorrow and if you object we'll go to the noticeboards again with it. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Not explaining an edit on the talk-page is not a valid reason to revert as long as the edit is explained in the summary as per Wikipedia policy. If you disagree with the content, say so. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You might want to reread ONEWAY - it has to do with articles, not templates. And FYI - ONEWAY is a guideline and not a "policy", so using ONEWAY as an overriding policy(as you and Nishidani continue to do) is not correct. In terms of you setting a deadline (I will delete tomorrow if...) - I don't think that approach qualifies as discussion or building a consensus. Why not just lay out your argument for change and see how other editors respond? Smatprt (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't dealt with the content. Tell me why it should be included; I've already told you why it doesn't belong: it isn't about Shakespeare, it's about a subcategory of a fringe theory that is not included in the temple.WP:NAVBOX states "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." Show me where this is true for "Oxfordian chronology". None of the articles even mention it, much less contain an RS that states they are related.
The principle of WP:ONEWAY applies, because a template does not stand alone; the template is a collection of links that link articles together. By including the "Oxfordian chronology" link in the template, you are linking main articles to a fringe article, in violation of WP:ONEWAY.
Let me also direct your attention to this suggestion, again from WP:NAVBOX: "Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I don't think anybody would answer in the affirmative. It would, however, be appropriate in the SAQ and Oxfordian theory template.
And your argument that guidelines are not applicable to the content of templates, bedsides being wrong for the reason stated above, does your cause no good; it merely serves as more evidence that that your publicly-stated intent to promote Oxfordism is of more importance to you than to comply with the highest and best standards for Wikipedia that have been hammered out through consensus. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You just keep making things up, don't you. "Evidence??" Sorry, far from it. I know you now consider yourself an expert on wikipedia, but you really need to learn the differences between policies and guidelines, between articles and templates, etc. Smatprt (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent formatting changes[edit]

I've moved this suggested template here for discussion. Smatprt (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And here is the current version for comparison purposes:

I realize this template has seen recent revert wars so understand the caution, but as I stated in the history Melchior's version seems pretty straightforwardly better to me. It properly uses subgroups, colors are consistent with other templates, and eliminates a lot of redundancy in the bottom group. Restoring the picture on the right side (as I've seen done for other author templates) isn't a bad idea, though; the coat of arms (but not the quill, which is pointless) could go there, too. YLee (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Edward III[edit]

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

How are lost plays apocrypha?[edit]

I moved Cardenio and Love's Labour's Won to the list of plays. How are lost plays apocrypha? An apocryphal play is a play spuriously attributed to Shakespeare. Incidentally, even though I left Sir Thomas More among the apocrypha in the template, that's wrong too as scholarly consensus is that Shakespeare contributed to the text of the play and some editions of Shakespeare's plays even include it in the canon. Contact Basemetal here 05:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree, the case for putting Sir Thomas More in the Apocrypha seems to be getting pretty thin these days. If no-one objects I'll move it to Tragedies in a few days. Any comments? --Antiquary (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 Moved --Antiquary (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Collaborations and lost plays[edit]

I think the recent edit by Ham needs to be discussed before going live in the template. I'm not sure adding a key is a good idea in what is already a fairly complex template. Additionally, 2 Henry VI was marked as a collaboration. This is inaccurate; the general consensus is that if any of the trilogy was co-written, it was 1 Henry VI. Titus Andronicus is also marked as a collaboration; again, this is far from certain. I think marking plays such as these as collaborations on the template gives a sense of certainty to questions which have no firm answers. And as I said, I'm not sure adding a key is a good idea at all. Simply adding "lost" parenthetically has worked up until now. Five Antonios (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

2 Henry VI was a mistake; apologies. With the others I was following the lead of the article William Shakespeare's collaborations, although I left out Macbeth and others which are listed there as possible collaborations with Middleton, so that wasn't really my finest hour on Wikipedia... At any rate, I was trying to mitigate the oddness of Edward III and Sir Thomas More being there, and doing something similar to what I did some time ago with Template:Leonardo da Vinci, for which such a key is necessary. Ham (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. My apologies if what I wrote came across as in any way aggressive, I certainly didn't intend it as such, but I've just read what I wrote and I sound a little tetchy! Sorry about that. I do agree with you about Edward III and More; having some kind of 'aside' (for desperate want of a better expression) regarding their presences is a good idea. Stylistically, looking at the Da Vinci template, I think if we do use a key, dropping it to the bottom of the template would look better than leaving it at the top. I know from personal experience whenever I see an asterisk on something my eye always goes down rather than up! Let's give it a few days and see what others think. Five Antonios (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you're both right!!! I don't have a problem with adding a key to the template, although I do agree it should be on the bottom as in the Da Vinci template. I think as Ham says, it serves to alert the reader to the unusual Edward III and Thomas More placements. I was actually the first person to add Edward III to the histories section and since I did that it's been moved around a bit, obviously by users who don't accept the attribution. Having the collaboration key would work to avoid that. As regards the other plays, the only two awkward ones would really be 1 Henry VI and Titus, neither of which are "officially" recognised as collaborations, although the current consensus is certainly leaning in that direction in both cases. Bertaut (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
How difficult it is to judge someone's (or one's own) tone over the internet – you didn't come across as aggressive at all, Five Antonios! I'm happy with the suggestion that the key be moved to the bottom, although for aesthetics' sake that might mean losing the links for the category, the portal and the WikiProject – though there's no rule I know of which says that a navbox has to have those. Am I to assume, then, that the asterisked plays should be Sir Thomas More, Edward III, Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Cardenio and Henry VIII (leaving out 1 Henry VI and Titus), or should the putative collaborations with Middleton here be added too? Ham (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is to leave it at the officially recognized collaborations (Sir Thomas More, Edward III, Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Cardenio and Henry VIII) and the lost plays. I think if you added the collaboration key to Macbeth, casual readers are going to get confused. I can just imagine a first year student who's spent ten weeks doing a critical theory course on Macbeth glancing at the template and seeing it marked as a collaboration, and his/her head quite literally melting! As for 1 Henry VI and Titus, I'm really of the opinion either/or. I personally believe they were both collaborations, but I'm willing to go with whatever the majority feel. Tom Reedy, MarnetteD, you gents have any opinion on this one? Bertaut (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I think marking the Middleton plays as collaborations would be a bad idea, but upon reflection, I don't see a problem with the rest. I'm not sure about Henry and Titus. Like Bertaut, I too believe them to be collaborative, and as the general scholarly consensus in both cases is certainly leaning in that direction at the moment, perhaps including them in the key would be acceptable. Five Antonios (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone like to add anything else on this? Otherwise it seems as if there is a consensus in favour of including the key. Ham (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears we've gotten all the input we're going to receive, so yes, using the key seems like the way to go. Five Antonios (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Family and templates[edit]

cf. my removal and Randy Kryn's revert.

Normal navigation (such as main article text wikilinks or navboxes) should not take users out of mainspace and into the bowels of MediaWiki technical hoodoo such as templates.

Now, whether this template should include the family some way? Yes, certainly; but either through a link to Shakespeare's life (which includes his family tree), a link to a new Shakespeare's family article (which we should probably make anyway, come to think of it), or, possibly, by incorporating the text links from {{Family of William Shakespeare}} into a separate group on this template.

In fact, come to think about it, the latter may be a very good way to preserve the content while getting rid of the separate template (cf. discussion at that template's talk page). --Xover (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir Thomas More[edit]

I note that this has moved about in the template over the years, but given Edward III is included as canonical is there a case for say sir Thomas More should likewise not be in Apocrypha, but listed under Tragedies? Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. Whilst the argument could be made (and has been) that Shakespeare wrote more of Edward III than he did 1 Henry VI, estimates for his contribution to Thomas More extend to, at best, two scenes. Whilst I agree that placing it in the Apocrypha section may not be the best place to put it, I'm not sure it should be included amongst the tragedies either. Pinging Xover, MarnetteD and Five Antonios to get their thoughts. Bertaut (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you know what, I've been thinking about this, and the more I dwell on it, the less comfortable I am with the current layout. Perhaps we should, as you suggest, move Thomas More to the Tragedies section. However, if we do that, I think we should also move Love's Labours Won to the Comedies section. The only play(s) of dispute that would leave in the Apocrypha section would be Cardenio/Double Falshood. I'm flip-flopping on this though, so other input is appreciated. Bertaut (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
My, somewhat off the cuff, thinking is that what goes in Apocrypha are lost plays (unless we decide to make a separate section for these and Collaborations; but my immediate thought is that this would be excessive) and works alleged or mistakenly associated with Shakespeare when he had nothing or exceedingly little to do with it (e.g. Vortigern and Rowena). Anything that's generally accepted to be wholly or mostly by Shakespeare, or plays more properly attributed to another author but to which Shakespeare made a significant contribution, go in the canon play sections. Clarification of the apportionment between authors belongs in the article itself, not this template (I would even go so far as to suggest the asterisk and legend currently there / discussed in the section above should be removed).
Regarding The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore, it's not really our categorisation system that is a problem. Sir Thomas More is neither a play originally by Shakespeare, nor a collaboration between Shakespeare and another playwright, nor even a play spuriously associated with Shakespeare. It's a play where Shakespeare was called in after the fact to revise (possibly to satisfy the censors, but I'm not convinced; Tilney nixed Shakespeare's scene IIRC). As such it simply doesn't fit in any neat category; or put another way, it is in a category all to itself. Or it would be except there are probably several other such cases that we just don't know about. That is, the problem is Sir Thomas More, not our categorisation system.
Thus, I would say we can stuff it either in the Tragedies or the Apocrypha (or the Collaborations if we make that category), and it would be an equally poor and equally good fit. "Hand D" is 147 lines, or three pages, out of a 31-page MSS. That's just about 10%, which is enough to justify classing it as a collaboration. On the other hand it's all one scene and dropped in after the fact, which would be little enough to class it as essentially Apocryphal (its significance to Shakespeare scholarship isn't the amount of his contribution, but the handwriting, the manuscript's provenance, the marginalia by Tilney, and so forth: historical and not primarily literary or dramatic significance).
My immediate conclusion is that we should put this in Apocrypha as analogous to The Spanish Tragedy. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Xover, that all sounds reasonable to me. To be honest, I was just second guessing myself into a muddle. But one other issue arises from your comments. Are you suggesting we expand the Apocrypha section to something resembling the manner of the template examples above (so adding back titles like Vortigern, Mucedorus, Thomas of Woodstock etc)? They were in the template until this edit, and I guess no one felt strongly enough to add them back. Bertaut (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Late reply to the ping. Your posts show just how thorny an issue this is. Navboxes are limited in what they represent and they have a hard time allowing for the details of these issues. I am learning things from each post here and thank you both for your input -- whatever you settle on will be fine with me. MarnetteD|Talk 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Short version: yes.
The slightly longer version is that both MarnetteD (immediately above) and Ham II (in the edit summary of the edit above) have a point: navboxes have limitations both in terms of space and in terms of what nuance and detail can be represented. So as a general position I think we should bring back all the various spurious works, but I need to leave a little wriggle room in that since there may be case-by-case issues that differ. For instance, while I think we should bring back the stuff from the Apocrypha section, I think I agree with Ham II that the screen adaptations should be left out. In the case of the latter there are far too many to include all, no obvious good criteria by which to narrow them down, and whatever we pick will be given (probably undue) prominence. --Xover (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay so, I'll add back the Apocrypha material that was removed. I'm going to err on the side of inclusion though, so there may be some entries some of you want to remove. I'll ping everyone when I'm done. As for the adaptations that Ham removed, yeah, I agree with that, and wasn't suggesting we should add them back. We don't want this template to turn into the likes of {{Hamlet}}, {{Romeo and Juliet}} or {{Macbeth}}, all of which are virtually unnavigable in their, what we'll charitably refer to as comprehensiveness (personally, I think all of them should be WP:TNT-ed, but that's a matter for another day... Bertaut (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
All done. As I said above, I've erred very much on the side of inclusion, so feel free to fiddle about with it, or leave suggestions for improvement here. Pinging everyone involved: Xover, MarnetteD, Five Antonios, Dunarc and Ham II. Bertaut (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Bertaut and all who have contributed to this discussion. I think a lot of good points have been raised. I think the latest revision looks good. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Sincerest apologies gentlemen; I was away and on something of a self-imposed communication blackout, so I'm only seeing this discussion now. For the record though, I think the template looks good now, and, even if I had been participating in the discourse, my feeling is it would have ended up in essentially the same place as it did. Five Antonios (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)