Talk:William Shakespeare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Shakespeare article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Featured article star William Shakespeare is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 10, 2007.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for William Shakespeare: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Maintain FA status.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


Contents

[edit] excuse me?

uh... i dont know if any of the other people that read this but have you ever noticed that the picture of shakespeare had a earing... is the picture real or did someone change it a bit... just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.145.239 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe an earring was a sign that the person in the portrait was a poet. Or something... Wrad (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a sign that wore an earring. It's not uncommon. Is there some reason why he shouldn't wear one? Shall you tell him or shall I? Paul B (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the significance of it being in his left ear instead of the right? Isn't that some kind of code?Tom Reedy (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that's I'm aware of, though I think there was speculation about that at one time. I remember reading one late 19th century analysis that speculated that it meant he'd been to Italy. Then there was the argument that sailors wore them, as depicted in The Boyhood of Raleigh, so maybe he was a privateer in the 'lost years'. Paul B (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Err, umm, that's not really the kind of code I was talking about!Tom Reedy (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that there's anything wrong with that!Tom Reedy (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your question, it's part of the original image according to the NPG. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Now here's a fellow sporting a right dangler. qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Now here's a fellow sporting a right dangler. qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Authorship Debate

I hope nobody minds that I added Elizabeth I's name in with the other possible claimants. This was just an attempt to make that list more complete. (Although, I suppose I should have added the names of the Countess of Pembroke, Mary Queen of Scots, Anne Hathaway, Anne Whateley and the Countess of Rutland, too.) I had read it before in a couple places, but just used two specific references from my own library for proof that her name had been put forth in the past. I didn't think it would change the article and I certainly don't believe she wrote them myself! HaarFager (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it wrong you people here at Wikipedia? I went back in to make a minor edit to the above I had just added, (I forgot and left off the "I" behind Queen Elizabeth's title), and my edit had already been removed! Somebody named Smatprt said it was because she was never a major claimant. Nowhere in the line preceeding any of the claimants mentioned was there a point saying this was only the major candidates. As I remember it said "alternative candidates." Queen Elizabeth I has been proposed in the past as an alternative candidate. What is wrong with stating her name with the other proposed candidates? Don't you want this article to be comprehensive or do you just wish to include some facts but not all facts? HaarFager (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, without commenting on this particlular issue, it's absolutely clear that we do "wish to include some facts but not all facts". The idea that we could include all facts is laughable. The question to ask yourself is (bearing in mind that this is a featured article - one of Wikipedia's best): is the particular fact that you want to add significant enough to be here? If you can make that argument, then we have something to discuss. AndyJones (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The last I heard, there are some 70-odd names that have been put forth as "candidates." Listing all of them in an effort to be "comprehensive" is simply ridiculous, especially since none of them have evidence in the conventional sense of the word. Smarprt did the right thing.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for upsetting HaarFager. If ti helps any, Queen E is listed in the general authorship article (though not as a major claimant). Smatprt (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above. We can't include all facts. It's impossible. What we do is include the most significant ones. Other facts belong in subarticles. You may also want to read the lengthy debates about authorship in the archives to get familiar with how the current version developed. Wrad (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well done! I just had a listen and it was very smooth and professional. I'd love to see Hamlet get something like this! Wrad (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! This is great.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'll put Hamlet down on my mental "to-narrate" list. Depending on real-life commitments and what-have-you, look out in a few weeks or so for progress. I think that Shakespearean pronunciation guide website will come in handy again!! Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sugestion of Main Picture

What do people think of the following?

Modifications: This image of Shakespeare is The Chandos Portrait, the same painting in this article, but in a version more"current". This version, aesthetically speaking, it gives a clearer view of the Chandos. What do you think about this replacement?

Look the others two pictures alongside, in a version of the first cut. We will discuss? Fernandoalexgraca (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the original version we had until the current version was put up. I like it better myself, but we had a big knock-down and drag-out over the current version. See "Chandos portrait" discussion about halfway up this page. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As User:Tom Reedy. The version proposed here seems brighter and more immediate and would better grace the article. It was, however, ousted in favor of the current lead image and there seems little prospect of getting agreement to put it back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This has probably been already discussed, but - well, I like the Chandos portrait, too, but should the lead picture be one that we aren't even sure is him? Carlo (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chandos portrait up for deletion

The Chandos Portrait (Image:Shakespeare.jpg) has been nominated for deletion in Commons since February. The discussion can be found here. Editors familiar with the subject and the image are welcome to join the discussion. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Film adaptions

Why is it not mentioned in this article that there are many feature-length film adaptions of Shakespeare's plays? According to the article Shakespeare on screen, there are over 420 of such films. – Ilse@ 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Quotations on the Right

Are the two quotes included in the article, from the "stage" speech in As You Like It and the "summer's day" sonnet, really representative of Shakespeare's work? Both selections are misleading because they seem like cliches when taken out of context. In context, both lead to reversals. The "stage" speech is not about creative expression, it is about the morbidity and brevity of human existence; the "summer's day" reference is not about beauty but its rapid decline - the sonnet goes on to argue that poetry itself is the only real preserver of beauty. If these quotes are to be included, they should be longer - the entire sonnet, perhaps, and Jaques' entire speech. Seb144 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to quotations in the blue boxes that appear on the right side of the page (rather than being 'on the right' in a political semse). They are both just well-known lines. Are you suggesting that the self-ironising aspect of Shakespeare's writings should be included? How, in practice? Paul B (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm against including the entire speeches/sonnet. If you did so you'd then be able to argue that the speech lacks context without a wider knowledge of Jacques' character (that Shakespeare portrayed him as melancholy and was therefore distancing himself as writer from Jacques views, for example). Then you'd be able to argue, using the same reasoning, that we must include the entire play. Or, you could say that the sonnet lacks context outside its place in the sonnet sequence as a whole. I think the quotations are fine as they are. AndyJones (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Any quote from anybody is going to lack a certain amount of context, but some function alone better than others. My point is that these two do not fall into that latter category. You make a good point about Jacques' character, but I don't understand why the whole sonnet would be misleading absent its context in his other works. For either one, though, the quote would be too long. Maybe different quotes should be included. For example, some segments of Polonius' "fatherly advice" speech in Hamlet are quite famous, and though they are used for his characterization as self-aggrandizing and somewhat naive, they are at least mostly in tune with his larger speech - and they serve to humanize a character who otherwise operates mostly as a plot device, which implies that they aren't intended to be entirely ridiculous. That's not a great example, just a thought. Seb144 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plays

Under the Plays heading, there are several errors regarding the plot of King Lear. The first is a judgment call, but I don't think King Lear's "tragic error" was "giving up his powers." His flaw was his rash banishment of Cordelia (and Kent). And how does this flaw trigger later scenes leading to the violence? I think that sentence is poorly written. Secondly, the Earl of Gloucester, not the Duke, is the character who is tortured and blinded. Thanks.

75.111.128.201 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Brandon

Fixed—thanks for the pointer. Don't forget WP:BOLD!--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The tragic action of King Lear begins with the giving up of the powers, which leads to a series of further tragic actions throughout the play. The tragedy begins at the beginning; it does not start later on. Lear turns the world upside down by giving up his powers. qp10qp (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not so much the giving up of his powers as the way it's done - linking his abdication and dividing of the kingdom to the forced false declarations of love, rashly altering his plans when Cordelia is unable to perform, banishing Kent, etc. Ashton1983 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference here is between the words "tragic error" and "tragic flaw". Two very different things. The article as it stands is correct and no change is needed. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare and authorship

Perhaps Shakespeare's skill was "being a playwright" - and if he were alive now he would be a film director with "based on a story by...", "with specialist information provided by..." (and a few cases of funding provided in response to product placement, and inclusion of names, pet texts etc) and similar comment screens. This way everybody can be happy - the "Shakespeare done it" and the "Shakespeare was actually (insert person of choice)" arguments.

This talk page is long - can somebody "do" the archive. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info box color

Can anybody change it? I don't know how to do it and that green is ugly as hell. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that was ugly with a capital UG. I had to go to the template itself to change it, so I am not sure if the regular editors of that template will not revert my change - but I tried a dark blue to compliment the light blue links all over the page. We'll see if it holds. I left a comment at that talk page [[1]] if you want to support the change. Smatprt (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because one person does not like the color on one article is no reason to change it. The color has been in place for over six months. The color green was selected to denote library bindings of classic books. The blue that it was changed to is really fugly! pete 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was green for six months, otherwise I'm sure I would have noticed it. And classic books are bound in all kinds of colors.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)