Talk:Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Rosencrantz is the minor protaganist in Hamlet. He is the cause of in depth connurbations within the inner circles of the royal Denmark family

This article should be purely about the characters in the Shakespeare play. There should be disambiguation link to the Tom Stoppard film, nothing more than that. Palefire (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Since there is already a page about the Stoppard Film, having most of this article about it as well is just confusing, and doesn't help people who are looking for the characters from Hamlet. 71.218.245.226 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural References

With the exception of the W. S. Gilbert play, none of the cultural references seem particularly notable. Could this list be pruned? -Verdatum 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability tag

The fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as characters were used in the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, a production that is entirely independent of the original work, means it satisfies the criteria of notability as described in WP:FICT. In fact, I'd consider this a classic example of an appropriate article about a fictional subject. I don't understand why this tag was added, so I'm removing it. If you disagree, please provide your arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has a single source and does nothing to establish its being notable. It shows no extensive, academic discussion of the characters, nor any other outside work beyond an additional play. Their notability apart from either work is not established and both could be covered in the respective articles for those works. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article should be improved with acedemic discussion of the characters (I was just searching, and found a couple, will add later). But the existence of the two plays outside of the original work is indeed a real-world establishment of notability. In other words, "The characters are so notable that both Guilbert & Sullivan and Tom Stoppard wrote/published/performed plays involving the characters". Perhaps a more appropriate tag can be used requesting the addition of additional information. -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability tag is appropriate as it shows that the article is not establishing its notability and I don't think there is another tag to say "may be notable, but isn't showing it". If you have found sources discussing the characters,then the article can probably be fixed up to make its notability clearer, after which the tag can be removed. Collectonian (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hamlet article is far too long to take these characters in, my friend, since there is so much that can be said about them. You would not believe how much academic material there is out there on the most minor Shakespeare characters. Please see Rosaline and Sycorax (Shakespeare). These two characters are notable. No argument. Notability is not the issue, referencing is. I would suggest the tag be replaced with a references needed tag. Seems like references are what your really want, anyway. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just a matter of references. The article also contains little content showing notability. Collectonian (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)