Talk:Richard III (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard III (play) article.
Article policies
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.
Richard III (play) 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.
B This article has been rated as b-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.
Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] full title?

Is "Life and death of King Richard III" its complete title? --Menchi 03:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, its full title is The Tragedy of Richard the Third. Or, in the Quarto, it's The tragedy of King Richard the third Containing, his treacherous plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther of his iunocent [sic] nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. The Singing Badger 15:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Now is the winter...

Is the word "eulogising" correct in there? Methinks it should be "praising", as the alluded person is alive... elpincha 22:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is correct, Elpincha, you have the right to change it if you prefer different wording. That's what this place is all about. Deb 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I was asking because I am not 100% sure. Some people here have English degrees... not me... elpincha 10:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] clearification

Early in the synopsis section is the phrase, "With little attempt at chronological accuracy (which he professes to despise.)" The "who" is ambiguous. Does Richard despise accuracy or Shakespeare? --Amanaplanacanalpanama 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right it was confusing. I've rewritten. Is that better? AndyJones 08:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy or history sentences...

It seems like this sentence "The play is sometimes interpreted as a tragedy (as it is called in its earliest quarto); however, it more correctly belongs among the histories, as it is does in the First Folio." might have a POV issue. The emphasis is mine. Unless scholarly debate is closed on the issue, stating where it belongs seems to be adhering to a certain POV. I would like to change the second half of the sentence to something like "however, it is more often labeled a history (as is the case in the First Folio)." However, I have no citation stating that such is the case. So the best I can probably do is "The play is sometimes interpreted as a tragedy (as it is called in its earliest quarto), and sometimes as a history (as is the case in the First Folio). It is a brilliant written play, and is great to wathc at the theatres! i advise you to watch it if you are studying it for SATs."

The sentence immediately proceeding this one may also be statement of POV. "It is a Shakespearean attempt to adapt history into theatre."

Thoughts? - ACodispo 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the sentence "It is a Shakespearean attempt to adapt history into theatre" is unhelpful. The categorization of Shakespearean plays into "histories" and "tragedies" is fairly well defined, though, I'd have thought. It's not a question of whether the history is accurate; none of his "history" plays are. Deb 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article moves

Before attempting to move an article as heavily-edited as this one, please go through the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure (and also check the article naming conventions!). Deb 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R.D. McLean

I removed this text from the article, since most of the information belongs on a page for R.D. McLean (if verified).

R.D. McLean, noted American Shakespearean actor whose real name was R.D. Shepherd and who left Shepherdstown WV in 1911 to pursue a career in the theater in Hollywood, CA, portrayed King Richard III at the Westwood, CA, Theater in 1925.

Dylan Thurston 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you could have left the image and the name and date of the actor -- since the article includes stuff about other actors. Deb 12:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warnig?

Honestly isn't a spoiler warning for Richard III a bit odd?

Richard III is a work of fiction. There are millions of people in the world who don't know the ending. Deb 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

no other encyclopedia article on a Shakespeare play has spoiler warnings. One can also reasonably assume a plot discription in a section titled synopsis.

Which encylopedia were you reading, that had spoiler warnings on other articles but not Shakespeare's? AndyJones 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


spoiler warnings in general (especially in classic and older literature) should not be used in an encylopedia article, but this article is about Shakespeare and one of his works, so I just used that as a general statement.


We certainly shouldn't place these unnecessary warnings on the article, and especially not directly following a heading that clearly says "Synopsis", "Plot", or something else that tells the reader that the plot is about to be discussed. If for no other reason, then because it would be redundant, and insults the intelligence of the reader. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't only for the intelligent. It is for those who want to learn. I can well imagine someone who is about to go and see this play in the theatre looking up our article to find out roughly what it's about and being disappointed to find the kind of blow-by-blow account given here. Deb 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article is more than enough to provide an idea of "roughly what it's about". Omitting the ending or providing spoiler warnings is absurd, especially since the play is based on history. There's not spoiler warnings on the article for the real Richard III. 24.22.53.24 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

I had not even started reading the article when I noticed the Characters section rudely interrupted the article. Surely this list can be relegated to the end of the article or it can be made into less of a tedious list? Perhaps if it were restructured, the list might observe the niceties expected by readers (division into major and minor characters, for example). RedRabbit1983 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Why not do it? Deb 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is beyond my capacity. I prefer just to complain. RedRabbit1983 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I changed my mind. RedRabbit1983 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I deleted useless sections. Don't worry: no one will notice they're gone. RedRabbit1983 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please visit the shakespeare project discussion page. If you want to delete entire sections, it would be better to discuss there. We have a consensus on a format for all the SH plays. (Trivia is out, so I let that edit stand, although it's better to try to incorporate relevent information in the appropriate catagories.) Cultural references are in, but we have been encouraged to turn those lists into prose.Smatprt 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but the fact that a Shakespeare project exists does not obviate the need to make the article readable, nor does it have any status in terms of forcing editors to comply with a given format. Deb 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No offence taken and no one is suggesting that any group can force (or enforce) anything. I hope you join the discussions at the project page simply to avoid having the same discussion on numerous pages. Smatprt 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, but one would hope that editors would take their ideas and concerns there so we can improve the outline. As of yet it's still in the works. Wrad 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suggest removing Cultural References from the outline so that we are not forced to endure it here. RedRabbit1983 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the best things about the project is the ability to discuss changes and formats that will work for all of the Sh plays. Can we move this discussion there and consider RedRabbit's proposal to delete all cultural references? i think we'd all rather have 1 good discussion instead of 37 individual ones. Smatprt 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I noted that the cultural references section is uncited, so I have added citation tags. Naturally, on a list of individual unrelated things, it is necessary to have citations on each one; it is very easy for rumors, misinterpretations, and so forth to slip in. --Aquillion (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed most of these tags where you are disputing a fact that can only be verified by seeing the primary source, and cannot be proved by a third party citation. Either the stated usages are true or they are not true. To challenge them you merely need to either remove them straight away and see if they are re-added, or request clarification here, or go and check for yourself. Tagging is pointless for these cases. I have left some where additional info would be helpful, such as an episode title or some other clarification. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why the play is cut

I would like to point out that Shakespeare originally intended the play to be a sequel to the Henry VI trilogy and expected the audience to know who Queen Margaret was, why Elizabeth was unpopular, and what everybody's prior criminal record was. That's not true for modern audiences, so the play needs to be edited to make some of the background clearer in performance, either by cutting backwards references or incorporating scenes from the trilogy. Thus McLellan's "Fascist 30s version" shows the murders of Herny VI and his son (from the end of the trilogy), and many versions leave out Queen Margeret's scenes. The famous ad-lib "Off with his head-- so much for Buckingham!" was intended to replace a long speech about Buckingham's guilt in the earlier plays. It's not just because of length that the play gets cut in performance. CharlesTheBold 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. Why not add this to the article? Deb 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Richardthird.jpg

Image:Richardthird.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)