→Proposed structure for debate: new proposal and archiving |
→Proposed structure for debate: examples of play lists where no role originator is known. Amended my proposal (now Proposal 1) |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days. After which, voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time. |
In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days. After which, voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time. |
||
'''Guideline Proposal 1''': When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. |
'''Guideline Proposal 1''': When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. Further information about the characters, including role originators or other performances should be included in a separate section such as "Notable Performances" or in a separate article such as "Characters in Hamlet". |
||
'''Guideline Proposal 2''': When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. |
'''Guideline Proposal 2''': When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. |
||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
::New proposed structure: In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days in order to allow for a possible non-vote consensus. If no consensus is possible through this means than voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time. If there is a clear majority than that guideline will be established.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
::New proposed structure: In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days in order to allow for a possible non-vote consensus. If no consensus is possible through this means than voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time. If there is a clear majority than that guideline will be established.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
Regarding the examples given above, I agree with Nrswanson that those examples are either too long or too short. I rather like these used for Comedy of Errors and Julius Caesar: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comedy_of_Errors#Characters]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_%28play%29#Characters]]. These would be examples, or course , where no known role originator was known. For the reasons described by Nrswanson above - short and concise, easy to follow, helpful when following a synopsis. I think we might take our cue from the thousands of play programs that offer the same information - in an attempt to help the playgoer understand what is going on. It also includes minor characters (Cinna the Poet in Julius Caesar) in a brief, but understandable way. Personally, upon reflection, I think role originators should not be included in these lists, but should be in separate sections such as "Notable Peformances". I will amend my proposal to say so. Cheers! [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Cherrie Moraga's ''Heroes and Saints'' == |
== Cherrie Moraga's ''Heroes and Saints'' == |
Revision as of 17:13, 20 April 2008
Character Lists in Play Articles
There is a discussion going on at the Shakespeare project page that should interest the editors of this project. I wasn't sure whether the discussion should do on here or there or on the Elizabethan project page. I think the discussion is quite important. Does anyone know where the best place is? Here is the link: [[1]] and here is the text of the new section:
Can we revisit the issue of Character Lists in the play articles? We made the exception in the Hamlet article and deleted the list (then turned it into a button way down at the bottom of the article), but I still believe that was a mistake. Is there a Wiki-wide policy that applies to plays in general? (not that all rules should be automatically followed!). In any case, in the Hamlet discussion, only 3 or 4 editors chimed in who wanted to do away with the Characters, but that was enough to create a (small) consensus so the character list is no longer part of the main article. Before this slowly happens with every article - or instead of revisiting the issue another 36 times, can we attempt a discussion with more participants? Also - should the discussion happen here - or on the theatre project page which, I assume, would apply to many more plays here on Wikipedia?
For the record, since the works are first and foremost, plays, I think it an essential ingredient to an in depth theatre article to have a character list (as given to us in Shakespeare's First Folio) included in the entry. I do not believe having a character list clutters up the article, but rather is an essential guide to making the overall article more understandable and easier to follow (especially with larger casts or plays with similar sounding character names, of which there are many). I also find the lists an excellent reference tool for students, teachers, actors, designers, directors and anyone who travels with their laptop instead of hauling around plays and other reference books.Smatprt (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there is value in including a character list in an article on an individual play. -- Lini (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would also agree that this is the place to do it and I think character lists are essential to play articles (and musicals for that matter). As a precedent for such lists, the opera wikiproject and the Gilbert and Sullivan wikiproject have had a long standing policy of including a list of characters on opera articles for years. Many ballet articles as well list roles. As a matter of uniformity across the performing arts in general I think a list of roles (at least principle ones) would be appropriate. If the members of the theatre wikiproject decide as a group to set it as the project's stance than I think it would spread out to related projects like the Shakespear one.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi from the Opera project. I don't know if you are interested in seeing the standard table we use for 'Roles' on opera articles? Typically the table has three columns for the name, voice type (tenor etc.) and also the creator at the premiere (often a link to a biography), see example. The roles table is always positioned before the synopsis. (For a role table positioned in an article see La fanciulla del West.) I hope this is helpful. Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I agree that this would be an excellent policy to implement on all theatrical productions be they plays, musicals, ballets, operas, operettas, etc. Character lists in my view are essential information and readers are expecting to find that information when they come to a wikipedia article. I think the format used by the opera project works very well.Nrswanson (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I once was against character lists, as they are exceedingly listy. At this point, I think a list of the MAJOR characters with a short (one-sentence) description of each is of value to the article. I think the consensus for musicals is to leave out the voice parts, as there aren't as hard-and-fast rules for musicals as there are for opera. However, I think listing every character is a bad idea. It's sometimes difficult to decide which should be up there, but that varies from article to article. As long as flame wars don't start developing over whether or not Bootsie in City of Angels is considered a major character, we can probably leave it at that. However, I would say that, we should decide whether or not they're necessary across WP, but leave it to the individual projects to decide how to implement them. — MusicMaker5376 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Three more points, based on experience in the Opera Project:
- The role table is especially useful for operas because it includes the type (or types!) of voice required for the role. This factor is somewhat less important in musicals, as mentioned above (and of no importance in plays, alas!)
- It allows for a description of the character's part in the drama (e.g. father of Juliet or Violante's servant, disguised as a gardener), which would otherwise clutter up the synopsis
- Where the information is available, the name of the original performer of the role is included. This provides a valuable two-way link between performers and dramatic work, and in many cases fruitfully results in WP articles on the performers. I fear that this column won't be too useful in articles on Shakespeare plays, though.
- --GuillaumeTell 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Working with the assumption that people know the characters before hand when dealing with plot summaries makes things unneccesarily hazy, and it is definately very helpful to have a clear and concise list, especially when you are dealing with the sheer number of characters seen in Shakespeare's theatre. Sebbi (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Greetings from another outsider! Characters in Hamlet is justifiably a separate article; some of it borders OR but there is scope for discussion of various interpreters. A simple dramatis personae list should still be part of every main article, imho. One finds chattier lists substituting for a synopsis (A Wedding (opera)), or with the more convincing rational that characterizations are those of the author (The Guilty Mother). The other extreme is the infobox in Woyzeck, where there is really to little info, aside from the fact that "characters" is interpreted as "selected characters". Sparafucil (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well obviously the manner and method of how character lists are to be represented is going to vary from project to project and to some extent from article to article. I think the discussion here is to decide to include a list of characters on all the theatre related articles be they plays, musicals, operas, ballets, etc. I think the consensus so far seems to be yes and now I guess the opera template above provides us with a good model that can be adapted to different projects needs accordingly.Nrswanson (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be a case by case thing as several others seem to. I the Opera people want to make that a rule for Opera then that's their decision. I don't see any reason to make one solid rule for every single play out there. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- No I think this group is deciding to include character lists of some kind across all plays, opera, musicals, etc. The method in which that is done will vary from project to project. I personally think that at least a list of major characters should be included on all play articles including Shakespear. Readers are expecting to find such information and in my view a play article is seriously lacking without such a list.Broadweighbabe (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Who exactly qualifies as a "major" character (Smatprt will appreciate this question :) ). I really don't think requiring it makes much sense. If it is really that necessary, people will do it naturally, without a rule. It will go to FA and people will say "Where's the character list?" That wasn't the case with Hamlet. Hamlet just doesn't need a list like that. A lot of editors were working on it and decided not to have one, and it passed FA with hardly a hiccup. These things should be done case-by-case. Wrad (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- No - this should be a policy across all play articles, which the consensus on this page clearly agrees with. In Hamlet, I believe a few strong willed editors unrelentingly built a small consensus and I believe it was a mistake, which is why I brought the question to this larger forum. These editors believed that the work was "literature" first, and a "play" second, which I, quite frankly, think is laughable. These are the greatest PLAYS of all time. If we can't agree on that, then I think we look foolish, as does any play article that fails to list the CHARACTERS. If everything on WP were left to "case by case", we would end up with one big mess. Regarding only major characters - I actually think all characters should be listed. Smatprt (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think arguing specifics here is distracting from the main topic (although personally I would expect to see a list of characters on the Hamlet article). I believe the point of this discussion is to decide on a policy regaurding a list of characters (of at least major ones) on all play articles. Obviously what characters should and should not be included must be worked out on individual talk pages. To this end I am proposing to make a proposition on which people can give a vote for or against. Would you all support such a step?Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- What does a list of characters really accomplish that a good, solid plot synopsis doesn't? A plot synopsis would name all major characters naturally. A character list could get really ugly, what with all the Peaseblossoms, Guards 1, 2, and 3, etc. We definitely need to take more time on this. Most of the discussion on this took place in a mere two days, April 15 and 16 b/w Smatprt's original post and my post. That is certainly not enough to call this a policy. Set up a clear proposal that people can debate, leave some notes on project talk pages, and let the system work a little longer. A lot longer. Wrad (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually notes have already been left (several days ago) by me on all relevent wikiproject talk pages about this discussion. Up to this point opposition seems to only be coming from one project, the Shakespear project, and only from a small group of people. Also Kleinzach eloquently points out the major benefits of such lists above: 1. Prevents cluttering up of synopsis and 2. Provides an easy link between original performers and works. However, in view of fairness I am all for your proposal. And I think nrswanson was suggesting doing exactly what you are asking be done Wrad.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Now that we have enough consensus to seriously consider proposing this as policy, let's be serious about it. I know you left notes and I think that's great. Let's have a formal setup as nrswanson suggests and re-notify project so that they know just how serious this is getting. Policy is no small thing. Wrad (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually notes have already been left (several days ago) by me on all relevent wikiproject talk pages about this discussion. Up to this point opposition seems to only be coming from one project, the Shakespear project, and only from a small group of people. Also Kleinzach eloquently points out the major benefits of such lists above: 1. Prevents cluttering up of synopsis and 2. Provides an easy link between original performers and works. However, in view of fairness I am all for your proposal. And I think nrswanson was suggesting doing exactly what you are asking be done Wrad.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- What does a list of characters really accomplish that a good, solid plot synopsis doesn't? A plot synopsis would name all major characters naturally. A character list could get really ugly, what with all the Peaseblossoms, Guards 1, 2, and 3, etc. We definitely need to take more time on this. Most of the discussion on this took place in a mere two days, April 15 and 16 b/w Smatprt's original post and my post. That is certainly not enough to call this a policy. Set up a clear proposal that people can debate, leave some notes on project talk pages, and let the system work a little longer. A lot longer. Wrad (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think arguing specifics here is distracting from the main topic (although personally I would expect to see a list of characters on the Hamlet article). I believe the point of this discussion is to decide on a policy regaurding a list of characters (of at least major ones) on all play articles. Obviously what characters should and should not be included must be worked out on individual talk pages. To this end I am proposing to make a proposition on which people can give a vote for or against. Would you all support such a step?Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- No - this should be a policy across all play articles, which the consensus on this page clearly agrees with. In Hamlet, I believe a few strong willed editors unrelentingly built a small consensus and I believe it was a mistake, which is why I brought the question to this larger forum. These editors believed that the work was "literature" first, and a "play" second, which I, quite frankly, think is laughable. These are the greatest PLAYS of all time. If we can't agree on that, then I think we look foolish, as does any play article that fails to list the CHARACTERS. If everything on WP were left to "case by case", we would end up with one big mess. Regarding only major characters - I actually think all characters should be listed. Smatprt (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Who exactly qualifies as a "major" character (Smatprt will appreciate this question :) ). I really don't think requiring it makes much sense. If it is really that necessary, people will do it naturally, without a rule. It will go to FA and people will say "Where's the character list?" That wasn't the case with Hamlet. Hamlet just doesn't need a list like that. A lot of editors were working on it and decided not to have one, and it passed FA with hardly a hiccup. These things should be done case-by-case. Wrad (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed structure for debate
Note the below guidelines were developed through a discussion among various editors that is now archived in Archive number 4. The current proposal and the guidelines are still open for discussion and change. All opinions welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days. After which, voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time.
Guideline Proposal 1: When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision. Further information about the characters, including role originators or other performances should be included in a separate section such as "Notable Performances" or in a separate article such as "Characters in Hamlet".
Guideline Proposal 2: When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists need not be exhaustive but should include all major characters. They should also, when possible, correlate with the names of the original creators of such roles or performers from other notable productions. An article may not include such a list only if consensus among relevent wikiprojects support such a decision.
Guideline Proposal 3: Articles on all forms of staged production incorporating characters should include a section about, or a link to a separate article on, the main characters. Character information, whether within the main article or in a separate article, should include material about notable original creators of the roles.
What do you all think of this?Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2008
Comment - There's been absolutely no discussion of the voting structure you propose so that really needs to a separate proposal of its own, for which consensus needs to be obtained. Otherwise, I'd personally like to see considerably more discussion of the proposals to see what common ground can be established. This may well lead to consensus anyway. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good work. Thanks Broadweighbabe for taking the lead on this. Will you be leaving invitations at the various projects? Smatprt (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Smatprt. And Roger I brought it up here so we could discuss it. Hence the overhead title "proposed structure for debate". I personally feel five days of discussion without voting is plenty of time before voting to see where things lie and to possibly reach a common ground. After that discussion will continue and voting will occur as votes will give a clearer picture as to where people stand on issues and will hopefully help everyone reach a consensus.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you two can't just unilaterally decide the way things are going to operate without consensus. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Roger you are frustrating me. I am bringing this up to get input. From you and everyone else. I have placed notices on all notable wikiproject pages about this conversation. Everyone has been invited. I am asking your opinion and for your suggestions on the opposed plan above which is open to being changed. Nobody is doing anything unilaterally.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a highly reasonable proposal that should be fair to all parties. I don't see how you can say they are making unilateral decisions Roger. They have asked for input every step of the way and are still open to it.Nrswanson (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is that it rolls four things into one proposal. In my experience, the easiest way to move things forward is to break them down into bite-sized components. Discussion is much more focused that way :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a highly reasonable proposal that should be fair to all parties. I don't see how you can say they are making unilateral decisions Roger. They have asked for input every step of the way and are still open to it.Nrswanson (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Roger you are frustrating me. I am bringing this up to get input. From you and everyone else. I have placed notices on all notable wikiproject pages about this conversation. Everyone has been invited. I am asking your opinion and for your suggestions on the opposed plan above which is open to being changed. Nobody is doing anything unilaterally.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely sorry if this is upsetting you but I'm more than a little concerned about ownership of this discussion. I also think it will be a lot clearer and the issues will get a better airing if the means of moving forward is discussed in a separate section to the proposals themselves.--ROGER DAVIES talk 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly would you suggest. And I think you should assume good faith Roger. It saddens me that you are already flinging accusations around. I am merely trying to do WP:Bold. I have asked for input every step of the way.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am assuming good faith. Ownership is nearly always accidental and nearly always derives from good faith motives :) As I mentioned above, it would easier if this part of the discussion was split into separate sections, rather than rolled into one. If the discussion is structured ingeniously enough, we can probably get broad consensus without !voting (which is deprecated anyway). --ROGER DAVIES talk
- I am not exactly sure I understand you. How would it be divided exactly? I am open to the idea.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this discussion has got way too messy and sprawling so it's probably best to archive this (with a link) and start a whole new section. This will make it much easier for new editors to follow what's been happening. Structured thus:
- ==Including character lists in plays===
- Hatnote link to archived discussion (ie this one).
- Brief summary of context. Main arguments for and against.
- ===Proposal 1===
- Text of proposal. Explain this focuses on major characters. Invitation for comments.
- ===Proposal 2===
- Text of proposal. explain this includes all characters. Invitation for comments.
- ===Proposal 3===
- Text of proposal. Invitation for comments.
- ==Including character lists in plays===
- You see, with some amendments to 1, I'd support it, as 1 and 3 aren't very far apart in meaning (though the wordings are very different). So the idea is to find consensus through discussion, a negotiation if you like, rather than by !voting. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this discussion has got way too messy and sprawling so it's probably best to archive this (with a link) and start a whole new section. This will make it much easier for new editors to follow what's been happening. Structured thus:
- That seems like a fair proposal as well. I do think though that if the majority is in support of a particular course than those few dissenters should be over ruled. If twenty five people are for a proposition and only say three or four against than it seems a pretty open and shut case to me. Those are just arbitrary numbers but you know what I mean.Nrswanson (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, I do :) However, if the three or four dissenters are people doing significant amounts of quality work, and they become disheartened, what would it achieve? A guideline in place for articles that no one is actually working on :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I dunno. I've seen people storm off over infoboxes and flags before. The biggest problem is likely to come from trying to impose a guideline on the hundreds of article that don't have character lists. Many of these are the pride and joy of dedicated editors. For example, the guy (an academic) who done virtually all the quality Harold Pinter stuff has detailed character narrative sections instead of character lists and is famously defensive of his (extremely high standard) work. Broadly, on Wikipedia, people at the coal face respond very badly to being told what to do. The prime example of this is the current travails at WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM and the ill-fated, and highly divisive, attempt to make WP:MOS over-rule Wikiprojects styleguides where the two are in conflict. Still, this is all stuff that the gung-ho here will no doubt take into account :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- PS: Talking of actual real-life character sections, by the way, which would you rather have? The Birthday Party (play)#Characters or The Caretaker#List of characters? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- To respond to your first comment Roger. That is ownership (unlike what Broadweighbabe was doing yesterday) and is not a defensible behavior which I feel should be catered to. People who have a problem with implementing policy (or rather a guideline) made through consensus on "their articles" is not something to be tolerated and against everything wikipedia stands for. And frankly I wouldn't want to work with that editor. Great care is being made in developing this discussion but ultimately the goal is to establish a policy through consensus that will create as much uniformity in style and content as possible across performing arts article. Second, I dislike both of your character lists. In the one there is no brief description and no ties to original performers. In the other there is too much of a description. Descriptions should be short and concise and no longer than necessary (hopefully only a phrase such as the sister of so and so or a Merchant and the brother of this person etc). Character lists should not be interdispersed with synopsis which should be a seperate section and if done well the character list should actually make the synopsis more readable and more concise. See the template example given by Kleinzach above. Also I still feel the debate needs more structure than you have suggested so far. I still feel that voting may be an appropriate measure if consensus is not reached by a certain point. Sometimes discussion only gets you so far. Particularly if tiny minority are trying to dominate what is going on. Polling prevents that. Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- New proposed structure: In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts this discussion proposes to formulate a new guideline that is agreed upon and implimented throughout all relevent wikiprojects. All opinions and comments are welcome. Currently there are three different guideline proposals that have been formulated through prior discussion. New proposals are still open for suggestion and debate. In order to avoid a hasty decission it is asked that voting for or against the guidelines be suspended for the duration of five days in order to allow for a possible non-vote consensus. If no consensus is possible through this means than voting may commence while discussion continues for a yet to be determined period of time. If there is a clear majority than that guideline will be established.Nrswanson (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the examples given above, I agree with Nrswanson that those examples are either too long or too short. I rather like these used for Comedy of Errors and Julius Caesar: [[2]] and [[3]]. These would be examples, or course , where no known role originator was known. For the reasons described by Nrswanson above - short and concise, easy to follow, helpful when following a synopsis. I think we might take our cue from the thousands of play programs that offer the same information - in an attempt to help the playgoer understand what is going on. It also includes minor characters (Cinna the Poet in Julius Caesar) in a brief, but understandable way. Personally, upon reflection, I think role originators should not be included in these lists, but should be in separate sections such as "Notable Peformances". I will amend my proposal to say so. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Cherrie Moraga's Heroes and Saints
Moraga's play won a Critics' Circle award in 1992, but I can't figure out WHICH Critics' Circle. From what I can tell, it was a California production, so I assume it was the Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle, but I can't verify that. Help! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Master Juba at peer review
Hello! I've just put Master Juba up at peer review. Master Juba was a black American dancer who lived in the 19th century. He is, according to many authorities, the father of tap dancing and made a profound impact on American dance styles. He was also significant as the first black man to get top billing over white performers. The review page can be found here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! — Dulcem (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Where are the German playwrights?
I've noticed that a lot of the major German playwrights were not included in the project and didn't have infoboxes. I started a few (Schiller, Lessing, Hauptmann, Kleist, Hebbel, and Büchner), but German lit isn't one of my strong suits... Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Brown Grand/ask for review
Please review Brown Grand Theatre and Napoleon at Austerlitz. I'm familiar with these articles because of my inovlement in Wikiproject Kansas, but they could probably stand a good "theatre-reviewer" to check over the articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Requesting assistance on Lope de Vega article
Greetings, members of WikiProject Theatre! I'm putting out a request for any interested members of the Spain, Theatre, and/or Biography (Arts and Entertainment) Projects to provide some assistance with the article on Lope de Vega. The tone of the much of the text still seems to be from the 1911 Britannica; I believe the article could benefit from the incorporation of material from some additional references, along with the documentation of those references on the article page. "Lope" is definitely a notable figure, with articles listed at 29 "Other Language" interwikis, as of 6 April 2008, and listed as a Featured-Article on Spanish Wikipedia. There should be no shortage of references available :)
I'm requesting assistance at this time, because another editor recently (in my opinion mistakenly and/or inappropriately) deleted much of the article text as being in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability; I believe this should not have happened, and as of 6 April have restored the deleted text; but the occurence does underscore the fact that the article could use some updating and improved referencing; hopefully by a collaboration of editors.
Thanks, Lini (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
new Category:Theatre articles needing attention
see Category:Theatre articles needing attention -- Paul foord (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is this actually a necessary category? Articles needing urgent attention can always be brought to this wikiproject's talk page and non-urgent concerns can always be tagged.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is created by using the {{WikiProject Theatre}} template with attention=yes. Paul foord (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello all
Just wanted to say hi to everyone. I just joined the wikiproject. I look forward to working with you all.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to archive?
I know I just joined the project but I couldn't help but notice that some of these discussions have not been added to for over a year. Does anyone mind if I archive the older topics on this page?Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since the archive 1 had discussions archived up to October 2007, I archived discussions ending as late as October 2007 in archive number 2. As a new member I have two comments. First, this seems like a pretty inactive group as most of the discussions above contain no replies. That is sad. Second, if community discussion is going to fascilitate well than the discussion page has to be better maintained. I personally feel that any more than 20 topics at one time is a cluttered talk page that is hard to navigate. Especially when several of the discussions appear to be over.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have also gone ahead and archived discussions that have ended after October 2007.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fairly new and not very active here myself, Bwb, but I suppose it's time someone welcomed you and thanked you for your efforts. So, welcome and thanks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have also gone ahead and archived discussions that have ended after October 2007.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Steven. It is good to hear from someone. I'm new to hear so I feel kind of strange doing archiving and upkeep. lol But someone has got to do it. I also found tons of bad info on the project's main page and have been weeding through it. I also feel like the front page could do a better job listing theatre related lists and categories. Right now it is not so clear how everything is organized. I have been looking at other wikiproject pages to see how they organize things and frankly the theatre wikiproject is kind of sloppy. Take a look at Wikipedia: WikiProject Opera for an example of a good project. I would like to see this project become more active and I think the place to start is in getting more organized.Broadweighbabe (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I hope this won't be seen as any kind of attack on the members of this project who have been here a little longer, but sometimes WikiProjects become moribund and sometimes they come back to life as a result of "new blood", so feel free to dive in and be bold. If anyone has a problem, I'm sure they'll sing out. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Steven. It is good to hear from someone. I'm new to hear so I feel kind of strange doing archiving and upkeep. lol But someone has got to do it. I also found tons of bad info on the project's main page and have been weeding through it. I also feel like the front page could do a better job listing theatre related lists and categories. Right now it is not so clear how everything is organized. I have been looking at other wikiproject pages to see how they organize things and frankly the theatre wikiproject is kind of sloppy. Take a look at Wikipedia: WikiProject Opera for an example of a good project. I would like to see this project become more active and I think the place to start is in getting more organized.Broadweighbabe (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Steven. And I didn't want to sound like I was attacking older members. lol I just want to see things get better.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I set up MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) to do the archiving from now on - discussion threads with zero new posts or activity for over one month will be archived to the most recent archive. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Scope of this project?
I see the scope of this project covers: "Theatre history (including Greek theatre, Chinese theatre, Roman theatre, Commedia dell'arte, Kabuki, Renaissance theatre, Epic theatre etc)" . I wonder, particularly in the case of the Chinese and Japanese performing arts, whether this is sensible. Does this project really have any interest in these subjects, and if so any competence? Would it be better - given that so few people are involved - for this project to concentrate on English and European-language spoken drama? (BTW the Opera Project has always regarded Chinese Opera as an important performing art in its own right, completely separate from (Western) opera.) Thanks for reading this. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You raise an interesting point. I would say that until another project evolves that is interested in such topics that they fall under the scope of this project. Just as out of the opera wikiproject was birthed the Wagner project so would projects involving those topics.Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the rule of thumb is "the more eyes on a page, the better". There's no harm in having those articles as part of this project and having them as part of it can only result in more good editors paying attention to them. Additionally, anyone who took a Theatre Arts degree and studied a little theatre history is likely to have at least some passing knowledge of the subjects mentioned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)