Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

1 Character Lists in Play Articles
2 Duckie for broadway has found her calling
3 Importance Scale Criteria
4 AFD - List of stock characters in comedy
5 Coordinates
6 Sondheim's Saturday Night

[edit] 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)

Though I agree with LiniShu (talk · contribs), I do not know of a uniform consensus on this across all of Wiki, so it is probably a case by case issue. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How does one build a uniform consensus across Wiki? It seems that this is the logical place to start. Smatprt (talk) 06:41, 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. — Music Maker 5376 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)

[edit] 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 should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. 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: It is not necessary to have a guideline on character lists. Editors are capable of making the decision about whether to include such a list and how best to structure it for the specific topic under consideration on their own.

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. (Withdrawn. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

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'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.

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)

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)

Somehow I doubt the outcome of this discussion is going to dishearten any editor to the point that they will stop contributing.Nrswanson (talk) 09:30, 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). You should also be able to eyeball the entire list all at once (unless there are a lot of characters in which case probably the list could be trimmed of some minor characters). 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. Also I don't really want to establish a mandatory structure for lists either, just a suggested one. Certain articles may be served better by a different structure than others and editors for individual articles should feel free to adapt that as needed.Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To deal with the key points as concisely as I can:

I agree that it is very useful to eyeball the entire cast list. No one is saying otherwise. My proposal doesn't ban cast lists. It says either have them in the main article or, in a separate dedicated one.
I also note that you don't want to establish a mandatory structure and believe that editors of individual articles should be free to adapt as necessary. How is that incompatible with what I propose?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:39, 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)

Again, here, you are moving to prescribe the nature of the character list. What use is a character list in reading a synopsis if it follows it as you suggest?

And, again, your underlying asumption that we (I?) are talking about doing away with character lists? No one is suggesting that. I'm saying either have them in the main or in a separate article as the article editors determine. To take your play program analogy, if play programs can publish the synopsis and chracter list on separate pages, why should we have the information in separate articles? Much ado about nothing here I think :)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And there YOU go again - just arguing for the sake of arguing. I did NOT suggest the character list follow the synopsis. I suggest that things like "notable performances" appear separately. Do you purposely throw in these red herrings? It is such a useless tactic. And is there one play program with a character list, and another for the synopsis? No! (Again - I find answering these silly assumptions of yours just laughable.) To be extra clear - just for you Roger - I am against having the option of stowing the character list in a separate article. That is what you are suggesting and that is what you made happen with Hamlet. Opening two articles and flipping back and forth between pop-ups??? I hardly think that is user-friendly. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1 You wrote "helpful when following a synopsis".

Yes, and I meant following the facts of the story. (different use of following) - and frankly, based on your past discussions with me on this very subject, you should have known that - or are you intentionally being difficult? Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not being psychic :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2 "Red herrings" - please assume good faith and remember that civility is policy. It applies to edit summaries as well, by the way.

sorry - but the red herrings you have already introduced here lead me to believe that this is simply the way you choose to debate. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They're only red herrings in your book :) A character list section for a one- two- or three- character play is completely unnecessary. A well-written paragraph would do it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

3 No, of course, the synopsis and character lists aren't in separate programs but they are frequently on different pages (especially in opera). There's really no difference between looking at different pages and looking at separate articles.

I respectfully disagree. No difference? Does that not depend on the computor, amount of memory, size of screen, familiarity with programs, etc., etc., etc. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue here.

4 I do not make a separate article the default option. The default option is to keep it within the article.

glad to hear that. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

5 "Stowing" in a separate article is ready no different to "stowing" on a separate page of a program.

Again - respectfully disagree for all reasons listed above. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

6 I keep the two articles open side-by-side on the monitor. Easy-peasy. No need to flip between them and much easier than scrolling up and down between two sections. Your mileage may vary.

Again - and if someone has a small monitor? Low memory? etc.?Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue on my clapped-out old laptop. I toggle between them. Easy. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to dispute the assumption behind this proposal, outlined several times above: "In an effort to bring a more uniform approach to character lists on articles within the performing arts". However, the genres listed above are not uniform, so I do not believe this goal is achievable. Describing the genres or their characters in a uniform way is impossible. French plays from the twentieth century are often very dissimilar from Chinese plays of the sixth century. To impose a standard form on all such articles is pointless. The sections of articles on the performing arts should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, although I am usually against character lists, the article on the novel El Señor Presidente actually presented the character list in a useful way because it included analytical material, not just plot material. Rather than demanding an identical layout for genres that have vastly differing artistic styles across cultures and times, I would like to propose that we leave it up to the editors to decide what is best for each individual article. Sometimes that may mean the inclusion of character lists and sometimes that may not mean that. Let's avoid instruction creep. I see no need for dictating this kind of detail. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. Instead of attempting to stop a discussion that you don't agree with, why not actually participate and explain why you think character lists should not be a part of every play article? Smatprt (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she just did. I tend to agree with her. Plays are not only different from culture to culture, but from time period to time period. We can't make a blanket rule for everything. I am very uncomfortable with making such a rule and think it should be decided on a case by case basis. Like it or not, that is how everything is decided anyway. Wrad (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Several points. First examples from literature do not apply. This conversation is for productions of live theatre only, i.e. not novels and stories not meant to be performed on stage. Second, the structure being suggested is merely a list of characters which should apply across all cultural and historical genres of theatrical productions. Third, this is a guideline and not policy which means that if a particular articles needs could be better solved through another solution than an editor can do so in good faith. Fourth, no one is or has been suggesting a mandatory format for such lists, only that a list be included on an article which I think is not only reasonable but essential for all plays in all time periods in all cultures. Lastly, these arguements are out of order. You might not like the proposals but the debate has enough interest so it is going to happen. Right now the focus should be to set up a structure for the debate and not to debate the issues for the debate. So please restrict your comments to either making a new guideline proposal or comments on the order/structure of debate. This discsussion involves several wikiprojects so it needs to organized fairly, clearly, and concisely. Thank you.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I gave an example from literature because it was an example of lists of characters that worked. It supports your argument. You should welcome it. I was unaware that this was "live theatre" only - so, closet dramas written by the Romantics is out? Percy Shelley's, The Cenci, for example, or Byron's Cain (play)? These lines are very blurry and trying to draw them is inevitably doomed to failure because of these kinds of examples.

2) My point is that lists of characters cannot apply across all genres, all cultures, and all times. Ballets, operas, and plays from across history and across the world are too different - they require different article layouts. Demanding that they fit into a predetermined article layout will make the articles worse, not better, because we will not be allowing editors to consider the needs of the work under consideration.

3) Guidelines have a way of becoming written in stone. The MOS is a guideline, yet articles must adhere to it if they want to pass FAC. There is no reason to add something arbitrary like this.

4) Questioning the assumption of an argument is never out of order. If you want to defend your assumption - that all of these genres are sufficiently alike that we can make lists for them, do so - but simply asserting that the assumption doesn't warrant discussion is not sufficient. Part of a rational debate is figuring out the assumptions behind the arguments. I have identified one and questioned it.

5) I do not need to present a new proposal as I see no need for a proposal at all in this area. That is the point of what I am saying. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

3) Guidelines have a way of becoming written in stone. The MOS is a guideline, yet articles must adhere to it if they want to pass FAC. There is no reason to add something arbitrary like this.

5) I do not need to present a new proposal as I see no need for a proposal at all in this area. That is the point of what I am saying. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1. A Closet Drama is live theatre in the sense that it is meant to be performed (read aloud) and not simply read in solitude. And I think you are deliberately trying to muddy water that is pretty crystal clear. If it falls within the perview of one of the performing arts projects it should be included.
2. This guideline is not interested in putting together a uniform article structure. Merely requiring a list of characters. There can be any number of possible structural formats that could be possible and not mutually exclusive. Also where the list is placed on particular pages is left of to individual editors and article talk pages. Although I personally think it should go before the synopsis.
3. This guideline is suggesting what I view as necessary information, organized (although in a very loose way) in a necessary way. People expect to see a list of characters.
4. You are perfectly right that you may question the assumptions of the arguments. However, per the overwhelming consensus above this discussion has enough interest that it should go forward in a more formal manner.
5. You should put a proposal in place articulating that you feel editors should be left to their own discression in such matters. This will help people argue for or against that opinion and help ultimately to bring about a consensus.
6. You should also give some feedback on how a fair debate should be set up.

Thank you for your input.Broadweighbabe (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more anxious about this. She's right, guidelines do have a way of getting set in stone. Whatever is decided here will held over editor's heads as a weapon by people who don't know better. I believe that part of the proposal should be simply that no guideline be established and all character list issues be decided on a case by case basis. I'm reverting to my original stance. Wrad (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As broadweighbabe has bowed out, I guess I will respond. I think that the goal right now is to press forward for a discussion that includes all relevent wikiprojects. Lets forget for now whether we agree or disagree with the issue of the debate and work on setting that discussion up. Agreed? I would suggest commenting on the above proposals.Nrswanson (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. How can a discussion hurt? Smatprt (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially removed the character list from Romeo and Juliet because of concerns about WP:SIZE, and it removed 2KB from the article, which has now almost been added back by the readding of the character list. As part of removing the character list, I linked all the individual character articles, and sections in the split article to replace the in-article character list. At WP:FICT, which has recently undergone a shake-up, it is becoming more acceptable for character lists to be split out from main articles, usually leaving a short summary of only the most important characters behind. I would suggest that all fiction-related projects be included in this proposed discussion, as it is not only a matter for the theatre, opera, and Shakespeare projects - this discussion and proposed guideline could theoretically affect all fiction articles. -Malkinann (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, discussion is great, but right now all three proposals are for introducing a new guideline when several (I count three and growing) don't want a new guideline at all. We need to have an actual choice here b/w guideline or no guideline, otherwise it won't be a very fair or inclusive debate. Why not discuss whether or not we want a guideline first, and then if that passes decided on what the guideline should be? Wrad (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's just two proposals now. I've withdrawn mine (proposal 3). I only introduced it as a compromise measure. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't counting you. Just Awadewit, Malkinnan, and I :). Wrad (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can include me in too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So in your mind, it's a case of instruction creep? If so, I wholeheartedly agree. ;) Just bringing up that this has the potential to creep over into all fiction-related articles and trying to bring it into context with what's been happening at WP:FICT of late. -Malkinann (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be limited to Performing arts articles where "casts of characters" are involved. No one is suggesting that all articles on "fiction" be included under this potential guideline and the fear of instruction creep should be allayed. Regarding Wrad's comment above, the 3 editors against having this discussion at all are the same 3 editors that pushed for removing the Character list from Hamlet, so it is not surprising that they want to suppress this discussion. However, as evidenced by the far larger number of editors that feel character lists should be included in all theatrical production articles, putting up roadblocks such as "let's first build a consensus whether to discuss this at all" or "let's attack the premise" are merely tactics to protect their own viewpoint. No one involved in any of these debates has ever contemplated adding all fiction articles - after all, do the authors of plays and operas, etc include a cast of characters as part of their work? Yes. Do writers of fiction include a cast of characters as a part of their work? No. I believe that part of this discussion should be respect for the author and what that author provided to us. For the most part, authors of plays and the like have given us character lists so that is the medium we should be discussing. Thanks for letting me babble on. Smatprt (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop accusing me of trying to "suppress this discussion"? When have I ever done that? I have, in fact, done the opposite. Wrad (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So the performing arts aren't concerned with fiction??? Please understand that my worries of instruction creep are based on what's been happening at WP:FICT of late. (Including arbitration cases...erk!) In Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, the character list was deleted from the main article, but a larger character list was created and important characters linked in the synopses. The character lists were not deleted, they were spun out into their own article which could treat the characters in more depth. The plot synopsis, in the case of R&J, did not expand to include any more 'flavour-text' description of who a character was. -Malkinann (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: When I originally commented in favor of character lists in articles on plays, my understanding was that the point of the discussion was to allow editors interested in Theatre articles to participate in a discussion, that had begun elsewhere, that seemed to be trending toward a consensus among only a small group of people, that character lists should be deleted from all articles on plays (which is the way I read the concerns of the initiator of the discussion). Although I expressed my opinion as being in favor of allowing articles on plays to include character lists, I would not endorse mandating character lists on articles about plays (that seems to be against the spirit of Wikipedia!) Thanks, Lini (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And she's (he's?) not even from the original Hamlet group! (Neither is Malkinnan, though.) Wrad (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1) ""let's attack the premise" are merely tactics to protect their own viewpoint" - Arguments rest on assumptions - I am asking those putting forth this proposal to set up a guideline suggesting the inclusion of character lists to defend theirs. I have defended mine - that all of these genres are too disparate to support even a guideline suggesting that they all have character lists.

2) My participation in this discussion is evidence of my interest in it and my desire to contribute to it. Please stop accusing me and others who do not agree with the proposal to include a character list in these articles of "suppress[ing] this discussion" - we are most obviously not doing so. We are responding to you and attempting to engage in a debate based on logical principles.

3) "Do writers of fiction include a cast of characters as a part of their work? No" - This is demonstrably untrue. For example, Samuel Richardson's novel Clarissa includes a list of "Principal Characters". This is true of many eighteenth-century novels. These lines that you are attempting to draw are arbitrary. You argue that the cast of characters should be included because the author included it. However, are you sure every playwright, opera libretticist, etc. included that list? Often these lists were included by printers and publishers, particularly before the twentieth century. We are not always "respecting the author", as you say, by including them. I am unconvinced by your reasoning here. I am willing to listen to other arguments, but this one does not make sense. Your conclusions do not follow from your own reasons.

Interesting. I imagine there are exceptions to everything - but you seem to know more about these things. Would you say these examples are exceptions? To be specific, do the majority of novels have cast lists and do the majority of plays lack them? Smatprt (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These are representative examples rather than exceptions. Many novels from the eighteenth century (British, French, and American, as far as I know) have character lists. Whether it is a majority I cannot say. I have not read all of them, so I am not in a position to make that call. However, I have read a great many of the major novels of the century and they frequently include such lists (whether the character lists were added by the author is usually unknown - we know from printing history that such things were often added by printers). British and French plays of the eighteenth century often, but not always, include character lists. I know that sixteenth and seventeenth-century plays did not always include character lists. Modern reprints of these plays often include such lists, but the original publications did not always have them. For example, the First Folio of Shakespeare's works contains a list of actors who participated in the plays, but not casts of characters for each play. Each play just "starts". If you want to make a historical argument or an argument based on the "original text", I'm afraid that you are going to run into quagmires like Shakespeare, where the textual history is disputed (there are also quarto versions of the plays). Also, while there are strong reasons for trying to remain "true to the original text" (we do this in quotations, for example), I am not sure that the same reasoning follows for article layout. Such an argument would certainly not support the position of standardization of articles "when possible", as the proposal outlines. Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

4) My initial position was and remains that there should be no guideline on character lists. Whether or not there should be character lists in an article should decided on a case-by-case basis. To be perfectly clear: I am not advocating the deletion of all character lists. Awadewit (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for being clear on that. I appreciate that. Smatprt (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And let me add to that the last thing any of us want to do is make a rule stating you can't have character lists. Of course you can! We just don't want it to be a guideline. We want it to be something each article can decide. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See my new non-proposal proposal. Editors should decide. We shouldn't institute a new guideline that will become a defacto rule. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought a guideline was...well... as guideline - and not a "rule". In fact, I thought there were no hard and fast rules here on Wikipedia. On the Shakespeare project page, for example, do we not have a guideline that suggests a format for all shakespeare play articles (Lead, synopsis, sources, dating, etc.) and have we not deviated it from time to time? What is different here? If there is a difference, perhaps it can be addressed? Smatprt (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say anything? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, guidelines become rules because they migrate into things like the MOS. So, for example, although the MOS is technically a guideline, all articles that want to pass FAC must adhere to it. One cannot argue, as I once tried to against Roger Davies, that WP:ENGVAR is only a guideline. It is not a good idea to set up a guideline if you don't want it to eventually be invoked as a rule. Also, most new editors view WikiProject guidelines as rules. I have had to explain to countless editors that the WikiProject Film guidelines and the WikiProject Novel guidelines do not have to be followed, although it says that very thing at those project pages. They have always responded with astonishment. Establishing all of these guidelines encourages people to follow them rather than think for themselves about what would be best for the topic under consideration. We do not need guidelines at this level of detail, especially when they have the potential to migrate into the MOS like the WikiProject Film guidelines already have. Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree on this and think a guideline is just a guideline. I think vigilant editors (like we have for theatre articles) will always prevail. For further input, please see my comments below. Smatprt (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. The fact is that the WikiProject Film guidelines are now part of the MOS, which any film article has to adhere to become an FA. Also, the MOS is itself a guideline, which any article has to adhere to become an FA. Editors appeal to the MOS in disputes as if it is a rule, not as if it is a guideline. That is why I worry about setting up a guideline like this. Awadewit (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing that I can disagree. Now can we agree to disagree and move on? This endless repeating of yourself does not further the debate. I'm sorry you worry about things like this, but the "fact is" that numerous guidelines - like this very one in the Opera and Musical Theatre articles - are not treated as hard and fast rules. That's the facts, mam! Smatprt (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you are wrong. Guidelines have become and are rules. My argument is that we should not contribute to that process. There is no compelling reason to add this guideline. Awadewit (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow - you just have to be "right" - even when the facts don't support you. I have given examples of where you are simply incorrect. Here is another - on the WikiProject Shakespeare page there is a list of "guidelines" - and these "guidelines" are not always followed, nor have they been used as hard and fast rules. So - demonstrably, Guidelines are NOT rules. Smatprt (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts do support me. See WP:MOS where it says at the top that it is a guideline. Then at WP:FA? it says that all articles must follow that guideline. That means it is no longer a guideline, but a rule. Also, if you look at the box on the side of the main MOS page, you will see all of the links to the various WikiProject "guidelines" that have managed to weasel their way into the MOS. Those pages are now part of the MOS. Debate is now ensuing over how binding those are. I'm sorry, but when you hang around FAC as much as I do, you see all of these "guidelines" invoked as "rules" all of the time. Awadewit (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are speaking in absolutes. I have shown you that they are not so. That is all I'm saying (just like you pointed out that all plays do not have character lists, even though many (most?) do) Smatprt (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Throughout this conversation I have avoided speaking in absolutes. I did not say that all guidelines become rules - I said that some have so we should avoid making guidelines that we would not like to see as rules. The fact that WikiProject guidelines are migrating into the MOS is particularly worrisome as you are proposing to make this proposal part of a WikiProject guideline - that is why I mentioned the Film guidelines in particular (there are other WikiProject guidelines in the MOS, by the way). That is one reason why I am against this proposal. Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines warns against the kind of polling attempted above. It also gives instructions as to how to go about making a new policy/guideline, as does the essay Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance. -Malkinann (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why from the start I had said some other alternative to voting would be fine with me. Smatprt (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents: every publisher I've ever encountered has had style manuals/guidelines/rules (or whatever). The reason for this is (1) it's faster and more accurate to publish that way, (2) it's easier for the reader to get around and find information if the information is presented in a consistent way. A general encyclopedia needs overall guidelines/rules etc for the work as a whole, but also special ones for special subjects. For example on the opera project we have had to solve style problems that haven't come up in connection with other subjects, hence we've needed to create some special guidelines, which I hope are in line with those of the publication as a whole. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aside

Having not read the above insanity and having absolutely no intention of doing so, let me say this: Whatever you decide here will apply only to plays. Musical Theatre and Opera have their own guidelines and, frankly, will not take suggestions from another project. Make your own decision, but any attempts to unilaterally apply whatever you decide here to articles on musicals or operas will be met with severe resistance, so please take those considerations out of your discussion. I appreciate having been extended the opportunity to take part in these discussions (such as they are), and I wish your project luck. — Music Maker 5376 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this reaction representative of the projects at large? Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say "probably". Opera has historically been resistant to any of the decisions at MT. — Music Maker 5376 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out the Opera comes under Performing Arts, not Music or Theatre. (MT comes under Theatre, is that right?) So there are structural reasons for the way things have developed. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Opera Project, I've just read (albeit rather fast) through the discussion above and to be frank I'm surprised this has generated so much heat. My focus is opera, and like Music Maker 5376 I feel this is really a matter for the Theatre Project itself. As far as the Opera Project goes the problem is already solved. Moreover the solution adopted really only applies to opera. Theatre needs to have its own approach. Regarding guidelines, I am in favour of them because they speed up editing and deter people from re-inventing wheels, and they can easily be changed. (BTW The issue of defining the scope of this project is a much bigger and more pressing one IMO.) Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would probably agree with that. (Being in favor of guidelines so as not to have to re-invent the rule for every play (that has a character list, that is.) Smatprt (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MM and Kleinzach: There are separate projects govening different performing arts, and the members of each of those projects have worked for years to develop article structure guidelines for their projects. It is nice to try to coordinate and communicate among projects, but you can't supersede the work already done by each of the separate projects. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (member of WP:G&S)

Well nobody seems to have pointed out the obvious. The Ballet, Opera, and G & S wikiprojects already follow the above guideline and it is really only the theatre, music theatre, and Shakespear projects that don't.Nrswanson (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which guideline? MT has guidelines re: cast lists -- it's neither encouraged nor discouraged, but entire cast lists are usually discouraged. Some articles benefit from them, some do not. Most people know which is which without it being codified. — Music Maker 5376 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the WP:BALLET guideline (other than a general one) but Opera guidelines are a model of friendly advice couched in moderate terms rather than prescription.

On other hand, the Gilbert and Sullivan guideline is fearsomely prescriptive but headed "this is only a guide" and, amusingly, the assessment section further down the page shows that several "required sections" aren't actually yet present in any of their articles. (It also contradicts WP:MOS in places, so heavens knows what would happen at WP:FAC.)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is instructive, creative and fulfilling to imitate a good example, but severe enforcement makes a free spirit detest rules, and those who impose them, even if they are good ones.Eebahgum (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out, too, that while the projects try not to impose things on one another, we try to help out one another when we can. There isn't any animosity between projects -- probably because we haven't tried to impose things on one another. Whatever Theatre decides here is fine -- feel free to let us know once it's decided -- but don't expect us to follow it. Good luck. — Music Maker 5376 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restating the value of Character Lists

Note: This recent refactoring has grossly distorted the thrust of the discussion. The issue is not whether to dispense with character lists altogether but whether they should be mandatory within the body of the main article as opposed to being in a sub-article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above note is the opinion of an editor who likes to restate the discussion to suit his own agenda. As the editor who started this discussion, my issue is that every play article should have a character list and (noting that nothing on Wikipedia is "mandatory") that this should be a guideline. Further, this character list should not be deleted from the main article in favor of an expanded character list in a separate article.Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Guideline proposal #1, above. Smatprt (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings once again - I think I would like to step back, having reassessed a few things:

1) First, I think my original intent was broadened in a way that I did not forsee the consequences. I agree that including ballet, opera, etc is waaaaaay beyond my original intent - which was to revisit the subject of "character lists in play articles". While it is good to know that operas and musical theatre articles have already come to a conclusion on this subject, those are indeed different genres and are off point from my original issue. To get back to that - I think articles on plays should have character lists wherever possible.

2) I agree with Roger that for one or two person plays (and maybe even 3 or 4!) they probably are not needed. But in Shakespeare articles - where this all started, the abundant number of characters - often from competing factions, armies, households, etc. - make visible character lists a useful tool for the reader. With due reverence for Roger's position, I still find it easier for the reader - and therefore more useful - to have the list in the same article instead of a separate one. It's as simple as that.

3) I also find that in many cases, the synopsis section becomes strained when we try and account for each character and who they represent within the synopsis itself. In this regard, trying to remember whether Servilius (or whoever) is a servant to Brutus or Cassius or Antony can become tiresome and having to scan the synopsis for a reminder can be frustrating. A quick jaunt up to the cast list will remind me and then it's back down to the article.

4) As a theatre professional - say - a costumer - a quick look at the list is a great service. A prop master can quickly determine how many of each sword or flag a play might require, and so forth. Printing out one good article is also more helpful than printing out two - and less time consuming. All these examples are to do a service to the reader, the theatre practitioner, the student and, yes, the teacher. I will continue to argue these points and will raise them at every FA and GA review I can - not to be tiresome, but because I believe in this wholeheartedly.

5) Regarding "imposing" my will on other projects. This was never intended. I still believe a guideline is a guideline and not a rule. We have seen numerous examples quoted on this page where this proves to be so. Good editors will always keep guidelines just that and no more. Cheers all. Smatprt (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As to point 3 - the synopsis does not need to account for every character - it is a synopsis - a summary. This is an encyclopedia article, not a reprint of the play. Awadewit (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone ever say this was a reprint of the play? You really didn't address this at all. Smatprt (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But you are asking for a level of detail that would require such a reprint. Ex from your statement above: " A prop master can quickly determine how many of each sword or flag a play might require, and so forth." Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As to point 4 - again, I say this is an encyclopedia article, not a reference for professionals. Professionals have copies of the play. They can also look at Wikisource, if they want. Encyclopedia articles do not contain the entire text of a play or all of the details necessary for putting on a production. That is not their function or role. To expect an encyclopedia article to have all of the details necessary for a prop master is ridiculous. Awadewit (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For someone who preaches civility and respect, you seem to be displaying "the other side of your angry face" (to paraphrase a play quote - name that play!)Smatprt (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But seriously - I know plenty of theatre professional that use Wikipedia as a source for quick information. God forbid that we become a resource! Again, you don't really address the point - you just deny something that you really are not familiar with. Smatprt (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The more appropriate venue for these queries is Wikisource. One cannot do what you are saying with an encyclopedia article - there is not enough information to make prop, costume, etc. decisions. Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having spent over 30 years in all levels of the theatre, I can tell you from experience that you are mistaken. When it comes to simple info, such as how many characters, etc. are in a particular play - or faction -, a quick glance at a character list is all one needs for some decisions. Again - when you speak in absolutes,or assume to know everything about certian topics (like the theatre) your argument loses credibility. Smatprt (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've said what you feel is bad or less-than-ideal about having a separate character list which is more fleshed out, as is the case in Hamlet. I'd be wary of trying to include prop and costuming choices in the articles, as they would vary widely and be subject to WP:OR. -Malkinann (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First - I think it's GREAT to have a separate character list that is more fleshed out, like Hamlet does. But like many others, I do not feel that having a separate fleshed out list should automatically cause the deletion of the more simple character list from the main article. Regarding your second point, I think Awadewit has pulled this discussion off track - having prop or costuming choices as part of the article is not even part of this discussion, nor something I am advocating. I am saying that having a simple character list as part of the main article can be useful for a VARIETY of readers, from students wanting to understand the synopsis easier, to a costumer who simply wants a quick reference. Of course detailed decisions on such matters (props, costumes, etc) would come from a thorough reading of the SCRIPT - and more important - consultation with the DIRECTOR, but that is entirely off topic. Again, let me bring you back to the basic argument - that having a simple character list should be part of every play article for MANY reasons and as a helpful tool for MANY readers. (I also know many a casting director who often take a quick glance at a simple cast list as a first step in the casting process - but let's not warp that statement into more than what it is!) Smatprt (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And let me bring you back to a basic counter-argument. Why, in a paperless hyper-linked encyclopedia, does this character list need to be an integral part of the main article as against a prominently linked sub-article? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered above. To recap a basic reply: Having the character list (which introduces the characters and their basic function/faction/etc) followed by a synopsis makes the synopsis (especially in the case of a complicated multi-plot Shakespeare play) easier to understand. Why go to another article for a SIMPLE character introduction, then back to the first article for the synopsis? Seems like overkill. Having said that, I still think having separate articles for in depth character descriptions is a good thing. Smatprt (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Because a well-written synoposis contains sufficient information to adequately introduce and contextualise the principal characters. You don't need to repeat that Hamlet is the prince of Denmark or that Gertrude is his mum in an adjacent character list. The information in a character list is essentially duplicatory. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If you went to see a play and bought a programme what would you expect to find in it? Would you expect to see a cast list? --Kleinzach (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I go to see plays (which is often) the cast list tells me which actors play the main roles. The minor roles are ignored with a footnote saying "All other roles are played by members of the company" or similar. Both the Globe and the Old Vic do this and neither theatre includes character descriptions in the cast list. They do not list the credits, including the cast list, on the same page as the synopsis. Furthermore, the synopses are self-sufficient, incorporating adequate introduction and context for the characters referred to.

But is the character list in a different program than the synopsis? Hardly! Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To once again revisit the core point. No one is proposing deleting cast/character lists. We are simply saying that it ought to be a matter of editorial discretion whether they are included in the main article or in a dedicated sub-article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But you did in fact delete the character list from Hamlet, prefering to relegate the list to a separate article.Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved a mountain of stuff from Hamlet to sub-articles in order to get the article down to the required length. It would never have passed FAC as it was. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you point me to an example of a dedicated sub-article?--Kleinzach (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Hamlet. The main characters are in any case adequately introduced in narrative in the Hamlet#Synopsis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Romeo and Juliet. Wrad (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And in both cases these were expanded, in depth character lists, and the simple character lists, helpful in understanding the synopsis were deleted from the main article.Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See (outdent) below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet and Gertrude....well,,,duh. Now apply the same argument to supporting characters in Henry VI or Julius Caesar. I can hear readers thinking - "now whose side is Somerset on?" Will the synopsis keep repeating who is wearing a red rose and who a white one? Or "now is Volumnius a follower of Brutus? or Cassius? or is he related to Volumnia" (ok - that was just a joke). But surely you see what I mean. (I do agree with you that anyone would be able to remember who Hamlet or Gertrude was - but that was hardly my issue - I kept saying it would help follow who is on what faction, not who the leader of the faction was!).Smatprt (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

← We have only your word for it that articles are diminished by the absence of a stonking great character list. Let's see what the community at large think of an article without one (extracts from the Hamlet FAC):

spankingly good – Tony
a remarkably good article Noetica
extremely impressive twelsht
Incredibly thorough, and well-written to boot. If only the rest of our articles on Mr. Shakespeare's works received such attention. :) GeeJo
Wonderful article, nothing seems to be missed, professional standard of writing and well presented, what more can you ask? Harland1
… incredibly and meticulously well written and entirely comprehensive. This really sets the bar for theatre Featured Articles. María]
Fine article. indopug

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again - off point Roger. "Stonking great character list"? What a joke. I keep saying a simple character list, and you keep misquoting, exaggerating, and throwing in off point facts and issues. Jeez. Smatprt (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your guideline says that character list "should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well.". This is what such a list for Hamlet would look like.

Hamlet – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Claudius – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Gertrude – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
The Ghost – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Polonius – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Laertes – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Ophelia – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Horatio – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Rosencrantz – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Guildenstern – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Fortinbras – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Marcellus – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Barnardo – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Francisco – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Voltemand – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Cornelius – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Reynaldo – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
A Gentleman – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Osric – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Messengers – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
First Player or Player King – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Second Player or Player Queen – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Third Player / Lucianus – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Fourth Player – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
A sexton gravedigger – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
A bailiff – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
A Priest, or Doctor of Divinity – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
A Captain – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
Sailors (pirates) – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
English Ambassadors – Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How disingenuous! - you added almost 4K of material, when the list is closer to 2K of visible material! And the Captain needs a full line of description? How silly. This is how you make your point? (Note that my guideline says wherever possible - meaning not all minor characters (a bailiff, a gentleman) need be mentioned - also, certain characters can share a line, but you know that!)Smatprt (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(Just noticed this.) The proposed guideline says "should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well". Given (1) that guidelines have a propensity to become rules, (2) that rules have tendency to be followed slavishly and (3) that including all the minor characters is within the realms of possibility, I don't think I was being disingenuous at all :) Please note, by the way, that the sexton gravedigger and the bailiff (ie the gravediggers) are mentioned, in context, in the synopsis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree the guidelines become rules and rules are followed slavishly. One only has to look at the Shakespeare project guidelines and the way we have use common sense so as not to slavishly follow them, and one will see that you are incorrect. And I repeat, you purposely added an overly long list that used no common sense in order to make your point. And I see you have not responded to the list I posted below (that uses grouping, common sense, and is half the size of yours, while being complete and thorough. Smatprt (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Hamlet, it duplicates (and in some cases, triplicates) material that is already elsewhere. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See a better (imo) attempt below.Smatprt (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In some interpretations of summary style, when dealing with a media article and a daughter character article, only the most important characters must be mentioned in the main article about the work as a whole - minor characters like the Nurse's servant Peter or the chorus just don't rate. Any character mentioned in the synopsis should be linked out to their section in the character list, and if they're important, they should have a little flavour-text. Like, Juliet is described as a thirteen year old girl. So if you think 'so who's this Rosencrantz fella then?', there he is.-Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to you here as well. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think this interpretation of SS really applies. And in the Fiction guidelines, it mentions that depending on "complexity" some of these guidelines might not apply either. Shakespeare's plays are certainly complex and this is precisely one of the points I have been trying to make - due to the complexity of plot, multiple subplots, multiple factions, etc, I still believe that complete cast lists are a greater help than a hindrance to a good article on the plays of Shakespeare. (But I do believe in grouping some characters on a single line would be a good use of the "common sense" guideline and reduce overall length). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that the novel guidelines say

The character section should consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Another option is to delete the character section entirely to prevent the article from looking like SparkNotes (rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry). Instead, use a finely crafted plot summary to introduce the characters to the reader.

The second of which is pretty much my position. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And a NOVEL is certainly not a PLAY. Again, you use a disingenuous approach to try and make your point. Why can't you simply respond to what is actually presented instead of twisting things?Smatprt (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Plays and novels are very similar for plot explanation purposes.
Please stop the ad hominem attacks. I am getting very close to the point of inviting an uninvolved admin to review your remarks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Smartprt, I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between "literature" and plays. Plays are fictional, plays are literature (where literature just means story) and plays are plays. -Malkinann (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example of short, concise (but complete) Character List

How about this? Do you honestly feel this would lesson the article in any way? On the contrary, I think it helps from the various standpoints that I have already described above, and is in keeping with the thrust of my proposed guideline. Smatprt (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. Son to the late, and nephew to the present, king.
Claudius is the King of Denmark, elected to the throne after the death of his brother, King Hamlet. Claudius has married Gertrude, his brother's widow.
Gertrude is the Queen of Denmark, and King Hamlet's widow, now married to Claudius, and mother to Hamlet.
Ghost, appears in the image of Hamlet's father, the late King Hamlet (Old Hamlet).
Polonius is Claudius's chief advisor, and the father of Ophelia and Laertes. (This character is called "Corambis" in Q1.)
Laertes is the son of Polonius, and has returned to Elsinore from Paris.
Ophelia is Polonius's daughter, and Laertes's sister, who lives with her father at Elsinore.
Horatio is a good friend of Hamlet, from the university at Wittenberg, who came to Elsinore Castle to attend King Hamlet's funeral.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are childhood friends and schoolmates of Hamlet, who were summoned to Elsinore by Claudius and Gertrude.
Marcellus, Barnardo, and Francisco are sentries who guard Elsinore Castle.
Voltemand and Cornelius are ambassadors King Claudius sends to old King Norway.
Reynaldo is Polonius's servant. (This character is called "Montano" in the First Quarto.)
Fortinbras is the nephew of old King Norway. He is also the son of Fortinbras Sr., who was killed in single combat by Hamlet's father.
Two Clowns, a gravedigger and his companion.
Osric, a courtier (named "Ostricke" in Q2).
Players in a company of Players who arrive at Elsinore:

First Player or Player King.
Second Player or Player Queen, a lad.
Third Player, Lucianus in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")
Fourth Player, the Prologue in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")

Also: Lords, ladies, messengers, courtiers, servants, sailors, guards, officers, Ambassadors, followers of Laertes, Norwegian soldiers, Priest.

As you've asked for specific comments on this, lines 1, 2 & 3 are in themselves longwinded and repetitive; they also triplicate material contained in the lead and the synopsis. The names of sentries and ambassadors are unnecessary for understanding the plot, as are the number of players. In fact, there is virtually nothing in it that not in the synopsis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with it, from the point of view you've been arguing, is that it is quite impossible for the costumemaster/mistress to know how many frocks to order and the propertymaster/mistress is completely at sea about swords and similar ironmongery. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

this is not the main point of view I was arguing and you know it. This was one of many examples I gave where it might be helpful. I chiefly argued understandability of complex plots, in addition to providing on overview for theatre professionals. Of course, the prop and costume folks will read the play, meet with the director, note the size of the cast being used and then get into detail. But I imagine you know that. (Also - using the above example, the props and costume masters would actually hardly be "completely at sea". Hmmm - 2 clowns, 4 players and who they play, key nobles and courtiers, - more than enough to get a leg up! Again, you exaggerate.) Smatprt (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the main thrust of your argument. Surely, without precise numbers, while they might be able to kit out the main characters, the minor ones would be left to perform in their underwear :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why it is necessary to duplicate material that is in the synoposis and bloat the article accordingly. I know you personally believe it helps understand the play but theatre programmes don't find a character list necessary and nobodsy, but nobody, bemoaned its absence during the Hamlet FAC. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because nobody brought it up does not mean it's not a valid concern. In fact, asking for criticism about something that is missing is not really asking, is it? At the next FAC let's simply raise the question and see what discussion follows!Smatprt (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It indicates that while a character list may be a valid concern to some people, it isn't a universally held one.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

There are three ways that could go - they could chuck the nomination out on its ear because the content of the article is "unstable" or is likely to be so due to the discussion and consensus seeking, or they could insist on one way or another, most likely following what's already been featured - Hamlet. Or they could insist first one way, then the other.-Malkinann (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Theatre Programs don't find a character list necessary? What on earth are you talking about now???Smatprt (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the examples I gave above, the programs contained credits, ie the names of the main characters followed by the name of actor. They had nothing in common with what you propose. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that in some theatre programs, only the names of the main characters are mentioned? Gee - I feel sorry for the other actors in those productions (not that I believe any such theatre programs exist!). Smatprt (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, with a footnote saying something to the effect of "All other characters are played by members of the company". I've got several Globe and the Old Vic programmes in front of me even as I type. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you are referring to. Those footnotes are referring to, for example, "Lords, ladies, messengers, courtiers, servants, sailors, guards, officers, Ambassadors, followers of Laertes, Norwegian soldiers, Priest." - ie. bit parts (commonly referred to in the theatre as "ensemble parts"). In theatrical jargon, there is a difference between 1) Major, supporting and minor characters, and, 2) ensemble or bit parts. My view is supportive of including 1), but not 2) (except in a one line footnote to the cast list - just as I have shown above. these would be the "all other parts played by the company" that you are referring to. Now do you understand??Smatprt (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you here. The programmes I looked at only listed about 12 or 14 characters, which is certainly fewer than your (1) list. Yes, I understand perfectly. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

12 or 14 works for some plays (if everyone else is grouped as you mention). Which plays are your programs from? Smatprt (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I only looked at the Shakespeare ones (of which I've got about thirty). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I meant Shakespeare plays - 12 or 14 primary and supporting characters works for many - Othello, Lear, Errors, As You Like It come to mind. Just wondering which titles you were looking at that had 12-14 (and no more). Smatprt (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of them is the short answer :) You're just going to have to assume good faith on this, I'm afraid, as it will be a huge waste of both our times to list each here and haggle individually :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good comments - the above list was what was in the article prior to deletion. I rather like this one better:

Characters

CLAUDIUS, King of Denmark

HAMLET, Son to the late, and Nephew to the present King

GERTRUDE, Queen of Denmark and Mother to Hamlet

POLONIUS, Lord Chamberlain

LAERTES, his Son

OPHELIA, Daughter to Polonius

HORATIO, Friend to Hamlet

FORTINBRAS, Prince of Norway

VOLTIMAND, CORNELIUS, ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN, OSRIC, & A Gentleman, Courtiers

MARCELLUS & BERNARDO, Officers

FRANCISCO, a Soldier

REYNALDO, Servant to Polonius

Two Clowns, Grave-diggers

Players who arrive at Elsinore:

First Player or Player King.

Second Player or Player Queen, a lad.

Third Player, Lucianus in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")

Fourth Player, the Prologue in "The Mousetrap" (or "The Murder of Gonzago")

Lords, Ladies, Officers, Soldiers, Sailors, English Ambassadors, Messengers, Attendants, A Captain and a Priest

This is more in keeping with what might be found in a theatre program (where 'the company' or 'the ensemble' plays all the bit parts). It also starts with the King and moves down the family ladders in a logical way. It removes the repetitive stuff from that is duplicated in the synopsis except the bare bones descriptions that would be expected in a simple character list. I just don't understand how a list like this would do anything but improve the article (and don't understand how it would actually hurt it). Smatprt (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we differ. I don't see how this actually improves an article. For a start, it's visually highly disjunctive, introducing a great marble tombstone after the TOC (which is itself a great slab of white). Second, it doesn't actually add any information. The characters worth talking about are already discussed in context elsewhere (often in several elsewheres). Third, it doesn't actually reflect what your guideline proposes. I appreciate your efforts to find compromise but in all honesty I believe that the cast list issue is best left to be dealt by with the good judgment of the contributing editors on a case by case basis. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do - I have always understood that having sections with white space was a good thing. White space, graphics, graphs, etc break up an otherwise daunting (for some) amount of text, and make an article actually more readable. Thus readers might actually get all the way through the longer articles. This is why modern textbooks have more illustrations and the like - to break up the text. After years of laying out newsletters, brochures, etc, I can attest that the more visually interesting an article, the more people actually read and respond to them. To your second point - I find that the list does add info - the make-up of the players and the fact that the gravediggers are comic figures (clowns) for example. Lastly - I do find that it follows my proposed guideline - All major and minor characters are indeed listed, so I am not sure what you are referring to in this regard. Smatprt (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a matter of taste, I suppose. Without getting into a "I've-got-more-experience-than-you" discussion, you're not the only one with some knowledge of publishing and what works in print doesn't necessarily work in the very different environment of web publishing. Now, as this discussion shows every indication of continuing indefinitely and I'm currently busy and even busier next week, I intend bugging out unless there are significant new developments. Thank you for what has been a stimulating and (mostly) interesting discussion, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I havnt tried to follow the entire discussion, but if I may comment: the dramatis personae is such a well established convention that partial cast lists are misleading and should be discouraged. The fact that even after following the redirect to characters in Hamlet I still cannot find the information in summary form (ie, a simple list) is a serious blemish on both articles, and one I am quite unable to understand from the arguments advanced above. Roger, would you care to try to convince me? Sparafucil (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, it's entirely a matter of personal taste and expectations. As for rehearsing the arguments de novo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint. The angels of the arguments on both sides are comprehensively discussed on this page and its archived predessor. I understand you may not have the time to read a novella-length debate but, equally, I don't have the time to summarise it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duckie for broadway has found her calling

Hello may I introduce myself as Duckie for broadway or just simply, Duckie. I really felt I had to do something useful with my WikiTime and with my theatre experience onstage and backstage, so I thought I would join this project. So here I am. Spreading the love Duckie for broadway (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and have fun --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you! --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance Scale Criteria

Looking through the lists of articles by importance, it seemed to me that there is a wide disparity between different editors' assessments. For example, A Streetcar Named Desire (play) was assigned low, The Merchant of Venice was assigned medium, while A Raisin in the Sun was assigned high; what justifies these differences? There is a similar divergence between theatrical terms, playwrights, etc. Has any criteria more specific than "little/relatively little/fairly important" and "highly specific/specific" been set or discussed? If the importance scale is going to have any meaning at all, we need to make it more specific. Dozenthey (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been assessing a lot of plays recently. I've marked almost all of them as Low importance, citing the "highly specific area of knowledge" guideline. Lacking any further external guidance, I've gone by these guidelines in my assessment process:

Top priority should be reserved for plays that might be candidates for "single most important and/or well-known play ever", such as Romeo and Juliet (granted, it's only marked High).
High priority should be reserved for those plays that "everyone knows of", or are very commonly researched by students in their secondary school education, like Macbeth or A Streetcar Named Desire (play).
Medium should be designated to plays that are well-known amongst the theater-going crowd, like The Odd Couple or Shakespeare's less-performed works (i.e., The Merchant of Venice).
Everything else is Low importance, and this should be the bulk of what's out there.

Completely subjective, I know, but as you noted, there's not a lot to go by. --Dereksmootz (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD - List of stock characters in comedy

Didn't see a place to put a Theatre-related AFD, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy. Cheers ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

Someone with the know how, please add these coordinates to Alamo Theater (Mississippi). I've tried every way I know how and could learn how but can't get it to work. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sondheim's Saturday Night

I just had a look at the article on Saturday Night (musical) for the first time and it has some major problems in the "Productions" section which make that part of the article unreadable. I would fix it if I could make sense of it. That's how bad it is. Granted I am not familiar with this show at all though. Perhaps one of you all can come to the rescue. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)