User talk:DionysosProteus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DionysosProteus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for presentational acting. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Ok, that was the generic "welcome" template, but on a more personal note, I wanted to say that I'm very glad you're here! I read the changes you made to presentational acting (led there by your removal of Vakhtangov from Method Acting) and I'm impressed. The majority of the theater articles on Wikipedia are in terrible shape, and I'm glad someone with the know-how to fix them has joined up. I've thrown my hands up, I'm afraid, and mostly limit my contributions to removing actors added to the list of Method Actors because they shaved their chest for a role. I refer you to the WikiProject on Theater, if you're interested. It's where editors with an interest in improving theater articles gather - not very active recently, unfortunately. I'm not a member myself, but I pop in from time to time with a question or a comment. Anyways, welcome once again, and I hope you stick around! --Brian Olsen 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits to the plays of Berthold Brecht

Hi. I've moved your template out of the lead para in a few cases, in accord with the lead paragraph guidelines. I don't propose to do them all: I expect other editors will spot them in due course. Don't forget the edit summaries! Best. --Old Moonraker 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Der Jasager

I've replied on the Opera Project page. Please note this really is an opera not a play - there's a detailed article on it in Grove. And it should be under the German title. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Charles Laughton

Hang on! You shouldn't add all those "Laughton, Charles" things - the {{DEFAULTSORT}} has that effect, and is the right way to do it. Philip Trueman 12:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to categories

In case you still need to know - you can link to a category without adding that page to the category by putting a colon before the word "category": so, [[:Category:Theatre]] gives you Category:Theatre. There are probably a few ways to do this, but that's the one I use. (You can do it with templates, too, to link to a template without displaying it.) --Brian Olsen 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand, thanks. :) DionysosProteus 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Nancy

I saw you had a clear out of your talk page moments after I posted a message for you so here it is again in case you didn't see it first time around. If you did see it & just could bear to have my hapless prose cluttering your page then do accept my apologies!. N.

Hi there. I notice you have been removing PROD templates and commenting on talk pages that the articles are 'just stubs at the moment'. The problem is that they are not stubs, they are empty and consist only of links. At the very minimum a stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information" - see here for further definition of a stub. I hestitated to send them to speedy (which they did all qualify for) as I do believe that the topics have merit however at the moment they are merely placeholders, nothing more, and sooner or later someone else is going to come along and delete them, possibly via speedy. The best way to deal with this kind of situation where you have a 'work in progress' is to create, edit and expand the articles as sub-pages of your user page and then move them in to the mainspace when they have some content. If you need any help with how to do this etc please do ask - I would be only to glad to lend a hand. Alternatively perhaps you could add at least one introductory sentence to each of them? Hope this is of help & happy editing. Kind regards, • nancy • 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I cleared it as you hadn't seemed to have read the notes I had put on the talk pages - not the one left last week, but today. DionysosProteus 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely had read the recent talk pages comments - about the content not appearing quickly enough and so on, hence my clumsy attempt to try and explain what a stub is & that as they stand at the moment the articles are not even stubs & therefore in order to prevent them being deleted (and let me assure you I'm not trying to get them deleted, if I was I would have speedied them) you really need to add at least some content, as I said, even one small intro sentence will do just to give some context. I would do it myself if I felt up to the topic. Kind regards, • nancy • 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd give it a go anyway and, after reference to my trusty (if ancient) Penguin Dictionary of Theatre have made a start with Non-Aristotelian Drama - what do you think? • nancy • 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Aha. Hmmm. Erm, no. :) I will try to put a brief sentence for each today. My apologies if I seemed a little curt; I have spent some considerable time today defending categorization work I'd done on Brecht to some fanatical opera enthusiasts, so the experience as a whole was becoming a little wearisome - particularly as they appeared to be objecting from ill-informed (i.e., no primary contact with the creative works discussed) positions. A sentence or two, though, is not an unreasonable request. (BTW, the problem with the penguin dict. definition is that it does not make the distinction between Brecht's theatrical innovations Epic Theatre and his dramatic ones Non-Aristotelian Drama; his subsequent influence diverges along these lines (British playwrights like Edgar, Brenton, Arden, Churchill, for example; very different from theatrical epic of Dario Fo, Augusto Boal), though they were united in his practice.) DionysosProteus 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmn, I should have stuck with my first assessment of my abilities in this area & yes you are right about the dictionary, it doesn't even give non-AD an entry of its own. I see you have expanded the article now - probably enough to remove the stub tag too. Good luck with your editing; it looks like the theatre pages will be greatly improved and expanded by your involvement. Kind regards, • nancy • 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blank - free verse?

Thanks for the help. I am working through the list of pages that just link to "Verse". Your help, and expertise, is greatly appreciated as my knowledge is more limited than I thought. The wikipedia list of pages with links that go nowhere is at: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2007-08-02 dump, if you want to contribute.Stellar 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Fried

You're right there is a theatricality/absorption shaped hole in the Fried article. I'll see what I can do.--Ethicoaestheticist 10:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Aristotelian Drama

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Non-Aristotelian Drama. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. • nancy • 16:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is a template message. What you did was right in that the captialisation on the new page is correct however the way you went about it - via cut and paste - wasn't. To rename a page always use move as otherwise the page history gets splatted. If you ahve done cut and paste moves on other articles they will need to be fixed in the same way. There is so much to learn isn't there! Kind regards, • nancy • 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How do I delete the new one in order to use the move now? DionysosProteus 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will tag it for speedy deletion on the grounds of 'author blanked' and once it has gone you will be able to move the old article to the new one. • nancy • 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brecht subcats

Look. I really don't care whether the Lerstruche are in the plays subcat or not. You're the one who's been making noise throughout the AFD of how awful it would be to have them under "plays" instead of "dramatic works," so in the wake of the rename to "plays" I was merely trying to locate them in the category that, based on my understanding of your own statements, would be most appropriate. Your reversion with the petulant "if those are plays then these are too" comment is not condusive to any effort by anyone else to get the articles in the most appropriate categories. If you're satisfied with the L's living in the plays category then that's fine. Screenplays, however, are not plays and do not belong categorized under plays. They should be in the parent works category. Otto4711 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • If you disagree with the outcome of a CFD, take it to deletion review. There is no reason to be disruptive regarding the proper placement of other categories because you're mad about another category. Otto4711 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever you say, Perfesser. Otto4711 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation template question

{{helpme}}I want to use a template for a block text quotation, but I can't see one that enables multiple 'paragraphs' within the block quote. This is necessary for a quotation from a play, where each character's line needs to be on its own, erm, line. Which should I use and how to produce the new line? Thanks DionysosProteus 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use the <br> and <p> html tags like this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

WODUP 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly missing topics

Greetings. Sorry for bothering you but I have a couple of pages that list missing topics in areas I know only superficially and do not feel qualified to write about. I wonder if you could find time to have a brief look at this one. Thank you. - Skysmith 13:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:JoeOrtonBiographyFilm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JoeOrtonBiographyFilm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template

Definitely has its merits over my version (the picture's quite sharp, too). But it seems like it'd be hard to navigate (small text, zero space, no breaks). Perhaps consider a combination of the two (i.e. maintain chronology, but organize them into categories)? A good example of what I'm thinking of is the Tennessee Williams template (Template:Tennesseew). Not chronological, but it does provide some needed white space for such a massive number of plays. Anyway, food for thought. -- Yossarian 10:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template request

Was wondering if I could recruit you to make a template for Romeo and Juliet as you did for Hamlet? Wrad 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For sure, no problem. Any special formatting, colours, requests? DionysosProteus 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References question Nikolai Evreinov

Hello. Maybe just a technical point, but a bilbliography is typically a list of additional, related materials that may shed light on the subject. References are cited because they specifically contributed to the body of the article. If your biblio cite is a source for the body of the article then it should probably be listed as such. The page has a very professional appearance so suspect the tag will be removed shortly. Altzinn 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The following guidelines address the subject. Wikipedia:Citing sources, Further reading/External links section advises that An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". Let me know if this helps. Altzinn 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They are listed in the notes - it's using the MLA date system. DionysosProteus 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mani Madhava Chakyar

Thank you for the corrections in the article about Mani Madhava Chakyar. Hope you will cooperate with me to make the article a better one..M too is interested in old Sanskrit theatres...Thanks Sreekanthv 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

And thankyou for your contributions! We share the same interests in drama, theatre and acting so I thought I'd give you a nice Wiki-welcome! Happy editing! Lradrama 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're welcome. Yes it looks like an interesting discussion and I've posted a comment, although I'll probably post more as things progress! I've joined the Wikiproject fully actually - it's one of three I'm involved in, so my time is getting increasingly divided! BTW, as yet I'm unsure about the Douglas school. I know Central kind of merged with the University of London, which means students can have accomodation and such like from that university, but I'm as yet unsure about the Douglas bit. It'll need research. I haven't found anything in Central's prospectus on that, but I'll probably need to have another thorough read through! Happy editing! Lradrama 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Brecht plays

hello...i read the discussion page for template:Brecht plays, yet i still don't understand your objections the changes i made. am i missing something? --emerson7 | Talk 00:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand? I've explained my reasoning in some detail. The changes to make it collapsible were originated by Kleinach in each case. The template is present on theatre pages to which he has made no contributions. He's initiated a discussion on the project page and then solicited others to make the changes he wants. DionysosProteus 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
all of the above may be true, yet it has no bearing on my question regarding what you find objectionable about the changes i made. --emerson7 | Talk 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your question. The changes make the template collapsible. My reasoning for a non-collapsible box are given in some detail on the talk page. Please explain what you mean. DionysosProteus 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
the changes i made to the template were specifically designed to accommodate you and the concerns you voiced. other than taking the attitude, i just like my version better, you have yet to offer a cogent argument for your position, or even a reasonable compromise. this is why the claim of ownership has been charged. --emerson7 | Talk 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
DionysosProteus, just because some editors have no made edits on a page does not mean that they should not be allowed to make edits to templates transcluded on that page. I agree that the only argument you've made against the improvements of others is "I don't like it". I suggest you re-read WP:OWN. The templates you originally put together contain very good information that certainly should be in a navigation box and are much appreciated, but just because you created them does not give you authority to undo the good faith changes of others. Thanks, --CapitalR 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on template:Brecht plays. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. emerson7 | Talk 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undid (fiction) form

DionysosProteus - Thank you for taking the time to bring these concerns to my attention. I thought giving these articles a (fiction) tag was logical, but I now appreciate your concern. I don't necessarily agree with your views regarding the (fiction) vs. (narrative/literature/whatever) tags, but I've reversed/undid my changes in the interest of concensus. Regarding original research/self-promotion/conflict of interest, I've reviewed the Wiki policies and will edit accordingly in the future. I've already made some revisions with that in mind. Regarding citing references, I agree that there is way too much in many of these articles that appears to be original research. I've reviewed the guidelines, and I am beginning to work citations into my editing. I'm new to Wikipedia and have much to learn. I appreciate your patience. Mike Klaassen 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 20 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nikolai Yevreinov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] ☆

For your great work pertaining to the world of theatre I award you the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Keep up the good work! --Ghirla-трёп- 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For your great work pertaining to the world of theatre I award you the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Keep up the good work! --Ghirla-трёп- 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Re spelling. Well, it's just like "Yeltsin" and "Eltsin" I guess. Consistency is welcome, although it's not all that clear-cut. Apparently both versions would be in line with WP:RUS. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Here we go. You just click the "move" button at the top of the page you want to move. Best, Ghirla-трёп- 20:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Bishonen, I'm not really into theatre, but if you need to look up something in a Russian source, just let me know. I'm always ready to help with such things. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. S. Gilbert

Please do not re-categorize W. S. Gilbert works. If you have a category question, please post it on the WP:G&S talk page. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche Article

About the picture you put back... I now see that it is there; however, it is off to the side and leaving a huge block of blank space in the middle of the Biography section of the Nietzsche article. I have not experienced a problem like this before and I tend not to believe it is a problem soley with my browser or computer. Is there anyway we can move this picture so that the previously highlighted problem is no longer? PhilipDSullivan 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iambic pentameter and notation for scansion

Hi ... yes, I certainly won't object to any rework/improvement you make to the iambic pentameter article. My chief thought about scansion notation is simply that it should be a commonly used notation that many readers will already be familiar with, and that we can provide references to other works that use the same notation. I don't think wikipedia should get into advocating a new or little used notation, regardless of its merits. On this count I think ictus and breve looks pretty good: Fussell, Turco, and Williams all use it. Am I right in thinking you prefer some version of the Bridges notation? I think Bridges is one of the finest thinkers about meter, and his work is unjustly neglected ... but I can't think of any other book that uses this notation. I'd rather not rely on Bridges as a source, I think his book on Milton may well be out of print. If you know of a couple of references I'd have absolutely no objection to using it, but in the absence of other references I'd be cautious about us adopting it. Stumps 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again ... I like what you have done with the lead section, and I have made a couple of minor changes. There are a couple of more adjustments I want to make, when I've had more of a chance to think it through. Please re-modify any of my changes which you think make things worse ... they were done quickly, and I prefer to think-aloud/collaborate-aloud ... I'll be looking some more at the intro over the next couple of days I hope. Stumps 07:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Closet play" was used seven times.

See talk:closet drama. --Hermes the Merchant 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet Analysis

Thanks for fixing the sources section up. I'm especially interested in your thoughts on the Analysis and Criticism bits as well. Most of what I do is research regurgitation, so my prose may not quite be there yet. Wrad 22:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, usually I'm on my own with Analysis sections, and it certainly isn't an easy task! That is a good caption, too, I'll have to admit. Wrad 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloom

Hi - the page ref (pp. xiii, 383), goes with Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human Bloom. Both books delve into his beliefs about the Ur-Hamlet. I'm not sure if Sams is in Blooms stuff or not. I didn't add the Sams mention - it was there when I got there. I moved most of it from the Ur Hamlet article, which I did some clean-up work on. I'll look for the Sams ref as well. Please restore it in the meantime. Thanks Smatprt 01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - the Sams opinion can be referenced to: Shakespeare Survey By Stanley Wells, Cambridge University Press. 2002, pp267. Of all places! Smatprt 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - it's Wells' "Shakespeare Survey 43, The Tempest and After" He disucces both Alexander and Sams.Smatprt 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey 43 - page 267. I thought I had that in the original reference. I do now. I also put most of the info back into the article. Iam against overly long notes in the note section. IMHO, that should be for citations and references, not where we hide things that might be controversial. Why make readers look to a note box when it can be said right in the article (it takes the same amount of space and might actually get read!). ThanksSmatprt 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet Date note

Usually wikipedians tend to frown on overlong footnotes because the general readership never reads them. It may be best to work that long footnote into the main body. I would prefer it that way, for one. No need to hide such good information. Wrad 00:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1599 was cited before. I'm the one who added it. I don't like the paragraph as it is now, it just seems watered down to me. Wrad 00:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to look at it again. I vaguely remember some reasoning behind the 1599-ness. Wrad 00:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried to sort that out with my resources, but it was just too much of a job. My great love is analysis sections. Wrad 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians by philosophy and subcats deletion

Hi Dionysos, you may have noticed that User: jc37 closed his own deletion discussion for Wikipedians by philosophy and subcats. It seems to me that an administrator who nominates something for deletion should let someone who does not have a vested interest in the subject close it. I’m not sure if this conflict of interest actually violates policy, but I suspect it does. His statement “since the majority of the comments which actually address the nom have been rename or delete,” also seems to me spectacularly wrong. Of the 111 votes (I know this doesn’t work by majority) 68 were keep or strong keep and many others were move. jc37 also claims there was widespread canvassing and personal attacks. Over all I believe that the “Closed to be relisted” decision was motivated by a wish to avoid a “keep” and set up a future deletion attempt. Anyway, I’m thinking of asking for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment and a Wikipedia:Deletion review. I wanted to ask you first though whether you think my concerns about this discussion are justified or just my own POV. Since you were also heavily involved in that deletion discussion I thought I’d ask you what you think. Thanks, --S.dedalus 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a review of the deletion discussion. Due to the somewhat unusual nature of the situation and because it did not fit within the standard deletion review, I have chosen to request a review of Wikipedians by philosophy and subcats at WP:AN/I as suggested by the instructions. If you are interested discussion it can be found here. --S.dedalus 07:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muller? Müller?

Hi, "Wikipedia recognises Muller and Müller as synonymous" (your edit summary). Says who? Would you like to include all Müllers on the Muller page or just the two or three you readded? Next thing someone else would want to separate the two pages again (and for good reason). There is, after all, a disambiguation note at the top of the page. And, pray, who is Jeb Muller?

All the best, <KF> 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer is on my talk page. <KF> 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] MAT on main page

I'm going to submit the new MAT to be featured in the Did You Know section of the main page. I'm just wondering if you could tell me what the most important bit you would like to emphasize is. It would start with something like: "Did you know that The MAT production of Hamlet etc. etc.... ?" Wrad 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Wrad 21:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated it here. Wrad 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my link to a good gallery example? Wrad 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Which period? MAT or contemporary to Shakespeare? Wrad 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've usually heard it called Elizabethan theatre. Wrad 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'm not sure. It's hard to tell from the text. Shakespeare isn't famous for being historically accurate. Denmark was Protestant in his day, but seems a bit Catholic in the play, but at the same time has Protestant elements. The philosophies in the play are very contemporary to Shakespeare, but the story and legend itself is taken from Beowulf days. Maybe we shouldn't make such a bold statement of time in the article. Wrad 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think MAT is ready for a GA nomination, unless you know something I don't. Wrad 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With Critical approaches, I guess you'd have to take it one step at a time. It's kind of a jumbled collection of the main page and other things. Several sections, though, are copies from the main page. GA status criteria is at WP:WIAGA. Wrad 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, the statement has been there for awhile. Wrad 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Hamlet synopses

Common sense might dictate that a synopses should fall under the same rules as a lead; that since it speaks in generalizations or the like it doesn't need inline citations. But there isn't really any clear guideline that makes it okay to disregard at least one inline ref at the end covering the section, so for work that's supposed to stick to even the most minute guidelines of the Manual of Style (i.e. the best of Wikipedia, FA) I don't think it's okay not to have at least one ref in the section. But if you want to know what parts I should generally think need a cite, I would say that anywhere the synopsis goes beyond simply recounting events. Example: Hamlet did this, which means that. Any interpretation of cause and effect or the like should need a ref. But if there isn't any of that, it's probably fine without the usual amount of refs in my opinion. I just hate to see an entire section in a GA or FA article go uncited based on a precedent that hasn't been cemented into guideline. But no big deal. VanTucky Talk 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henrik Ibsen

Hi Dionysos,

I am confused as to why you removed Norma from the list of Henrik Ibsen's works. He wrote a play by that name in 1851. Google it - it does indeed exist.

Neelix 13:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Hamlet

It's a one-page article. Brandon Christopher 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The MAT production of Hamlet

Updated DYK query On 1 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The MAT production of Hamlet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Hello, DionysosProteus! I happened to find my way here through The MAT production of Hamlet, and just wanted to say it looks like you are doing some great work. Please accept these apples which are full of vitamins and are far more healthy than WikiCookies. Best, Dar-Ape 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reply

About Sidney: the best source I have immediately at hand, Chambers' Elizabethan Stage (Vol. 4, p. 226), says that The Defence of Poesie was entered into the Stationers' Register on Nov. 29, 1594, and the first edition was published in 1595 by William Ponsonby. A second edition was issued by Henry Olney, also in 1595, under the title An Apologie for Poetrie. The work was next published in 1598 when it was included with the Arcadia. (For whatever it's worth to you, Internet sources agree.) So, apparently there was no 1593 edition; that date might be a simple misprint. There was an edition of the Arcadia in 1593 (the second edition; the "mixed Arcadia" as opposed to the "new Arcadia" of 1590), and that might also be a source of confusion; but as far as I can determine the Defence of Poesie was first printed in 1595, and first issued with the Arcadia in 1598. Ugajin 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Came over to answer your question, but I see it's been well answered above. In any case, the Oxford edition of the Defense confirms that it was first published in 1595 in the two editions Ugajin mentioned. --Matthew 140.180.18.123 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey. Thought you might be interested in my proposal to create a literature wikiproject. We would cover theory, forms, history, and just about everything. Right now this is supposedly covered by the Books WikiProject, but I feel that that is inadequate. It's about so much more than just books! Anyway, add your name here so we can get this project started! Thanks, Wrad 23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if you could chime in to the WP:BOOKS talk page about this, too. Eventually we're going to need to find our place in regards to them and I may need help doing that. Wrad 23:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't believe it, but I've had people tell me not to add literary criticism to articles because it was POV. Lots of people have no clue what literary criticism is. They think it's just people talking trash about a book. Gives me the shivers. Wrad 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks for the support. I've wanted a project like this for a long time. Wrad 01:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Project has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature. Wrad 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The MAT production of Hamlet

I placed The MAT production of Hamlet on hold a few days ago. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that so that you could respond. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tempest

Tom Reedy and myself have been trying to replicate your excellent work on the sourcing of Hamlet at The Tempest. Now that it's complete (so far as I'm capable of doing so) I wonder if you'd mind taking a look to see if we've got it right? You'll see I've raised a few questions at the talk page. Specifically, I wondered how we should source that website: not that I think it's really an acceptable source in this particular case, but I do need to know how websites fit in to your sourcing method. AndyJones 12:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Co-op

I saw that you have a connection to Stanford University and was hoping that you (or someone you know) might have some information to add to the Chi Theta Chi article. I wanted to give it a chance before proposing it for deletion. Do you have any sources for it? —ScouterSig 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of High Culture
For stunning work on the FA drive for Hamlet, I hereby award you this Barnstar of High Culture. AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over a Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Hamlet new

A tag has been placed on Template:Hamlet new requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Theatre March 2008 Newsletter

[edit] WikiProject Theatre April 2008 Newsletter

[edit] WikiProject Theatre May 2008 Newsletter

[edit] WikiProject Theatre June 2008 Newsletter