Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


"Alternative" Theatre not well covered

I've been having a look round at articles on "alternative"/"experimental" theatre - things like site-specific theatre, Peter Brook, Physical Theatre etc. While a few of them are quite good, there is a lot that I think is missing. I think a bit of a drive to clean up, expand and generally improve these articles would be very important, especially seeing as these are forms of theatre that receive a great deal of emphasis from Universities and some drama schools, not to mention the effect they've had on the mainstream too (imagine if Peter Brook or Artaud hadn't happened!)

I've started taking some of this into my own hands (as of when I wrote this, the entire site specific article is stuff I've written, the Empty Space section of Peter Brook as well) but I'm aware I'm not very good at writing Encyclopedically or even clearly.

Thanks Sebbi (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Low antecedent of vaudeville

I've started an article box house. I'm finding very little, and wondering if there was another name for these that I don't know (and maybe even another article with which this should be merged). "Box house" was certainly the term here in Seattle, and I've seen it occasionally in articles on places from San Francisco up to British Columbia. Not a lot on line, though. Does anyone have some sources to suggest, other than the two print sources I've found? - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Can someone have a look at Theatre Puget Sound for me?

Theatre Puget Sound came up while I was on new pages patrol, and while it looks as if it could be notable, the references provided are unconvincing. Are trade organisations such as this normally considered notable by this project? The article creator is asking what can be done to help it, but I feel I'm not the best person to answer that. Lankiveil (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

New subproject: Australian theatre

Hi all, I'm looking to start really revamping and expanding information on Australian theatre, starting with the independent theatre scene (I've done a little work on this already, with Ben Ellis (playwright) and Short and Sweet). I have proposed a seperate WikiProject for Australian Theatre, though obviously it should be a subproject of this one. If anyone is interested in helping out, it'd be great if you could check out the WikiProject proposals page and add your support; alternatively, if you think this shouldn't be a WikiProject for whatever reason, let me know. -- Guybrush (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment

I've done some work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment, and reformatted {{WikiProject Theatre}} so that you can add "class" and "quality" ratings to the talk pages. Please take a look at {{WikiProject Theatre}} - and if you feel like it, please go through and rate the unrated articles at Category:WikiProject Theatre articles and Category:Unassessed Theatre articles and Category:Unknown-importance Theatre articles (both of which should be populating hopefully automatically in the next day or so.) Cirt (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate any help that WP:THEATRE members could give with rating the Category:Unassessed Theatre articles. Cirt (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Theatre

Abbey Theatre has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Character lists in plays

Formulating a proposal for a formal discussion

Here is my suggested proposal. Please feel free to make suggestions for changes or voice your approval. Proposal: 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 other notable productions.Broadweighbabe (talk)

Also a second proposal to "Leave inclusion of character lists in play articles to be decided on a case by case basis." Wrad (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Another good thing to look over would be WP:POLICY. In the lead it says "A user who acts against the spirit of them [policies] may be reprimanded." Isn't that a bit extreme for something like this? Why not just make it a guideline? I'd have absolutely no problem with that. Wrad (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Wrad (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was just going to say that. lolBroadweighbabe (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That would mean that any article without a list would need to show a consensus and reasoning against including it. Wrad (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems perfectly reasonable to me and leaves some nice wiggle room for those difficult articles that may crop up.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hamlet was kind of an interesting case, as there was so much to be said about the play that we had to be picky about what to include. The character list wasn't the first thing to go, but it did eventually go. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave Hamlet out of it for now. I would suggest tableing that until after this proposal discussion is over.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The place to discuss Hamlet is at the Hamlet article, not here. Wrad (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Would you care to offer a counter-proposal?Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I think it's fine. I was just concerned about calling it a policy. I would still notify projects that it is close to becoming a guideline, though. Other people might be against it more than I am. Wrad (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I would like to get some more feedback on the below proposal before notifying other wikiprojects and officially starting a discussion.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised suggestion. All comments welcome.Guideline Proposal: 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.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm unconvinced about this. Obviously plays need associated character lists but that does not mean that the flow of an article should be interrupted by huge swathes of telephone-directory-style text. As Wikipedia is not paper, it doesn't much matter whether the character list is within the article or in a separate article. In fact, the advantages of having a list of major character in a separate article hatnoted in the synopsis are much greater than having it as a separate sub-section. For instance, you can open the character list with minimal fuss in one tab while you read the synopsis in another. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Another thought. Mandating a list is bothering me. For example, do plays with only one or two characters need a character list? The more I think about the more I conclude this is a bad idea. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A further thought. Why are we mandating information about the creators of the original roles? Surely, this is only important if the original creator was notable? Otherwise, I see this as becoming a fertile field for trivia, cruft and similar bloat. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Two points Roger Davies. One we are trying to set up a structure for discussion right now per the overwhelming interest in establishing a new guideline so your comments could hold until that is set up. Two, most plays don't have substantial enough characters to warrant seperate articles. However, under the above proposed guideline there would be an option to create such a system if relevent wikiprojects agreed.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I too would like to see a guideline but not necessarily in the same terms as yours :) See the text below. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Revised Proposal (2)
Proposal: 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. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally would be against the provision and would suggest you make a completely seperate proposal that people can discuss. No reason not to give people options.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? Your proposed text, to all intends and purposes, locks editors into built-in character lists. The only way round it is not, as Wrad proposed, at article level but at Project level. To be honest, this is instruction creep. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that relevent projects must be notified, not that the discussion/ vote should be made at the project level like we are doing here. And the point is to create uniformity across articles within the performing arts where possible. I have more specific arguements as to why character lists are a must but I would like to save those for the later discussion. The point is, I don't want there to be any more wiggle room than there is already in my proposal. You are welcome to make a counter-proposal and we can all discuss both.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The requirement that "relevant projects must be notified" flies in the face of long-established policy and is therefore unenforceable. It may also lead to edit-wars.
My underlying problem with your proposal is that one size doesn't fit all. I raised the entirely practical point that by mandating character lists for all plays, you are mandating a list for stagings with one character (of which there are many).
--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Roger Davies once again you are jumping ahead of yourself. I am not wanting to debate the proposal itself right now. I am trying to structure a formal debate. I don't like your suggestions for changes. If you want them formulate a counter proposal. Also the proviso in the Guideline (i.e. not policy) leaves wiggle room for that instance. As a guideline it doesn't have to be followed if in good faith another action seems more appropriate.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're trying to do but it may be premature. If it's a guideline, formulate it in guideline language. And all this talk of wiggle room leaves me perplexed. Where is the wiggle room? It all seems highly prescriptive to me :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is in guideline language. And "a guideline doesn't have to be followed if in good faith another action seems more appropriate". A one character play could reasonably not have a list of characters so an editor could not include one in good faith. I can't forsee every other issue but again it is only a guideline, and people can do otherwise if good faith permits. As for the rest, in my opinion 99.999999999% of multiple character plays require a list of main characters (including Hamlet). I leave it to individual talk pages to work out the details. I am not budging on this. Go ahead and make another proposal.Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, find Roger Davies proposals unsupportable. Throwing in 1 or 2 character plays is a red herring (especially since the cheif objections come from one or two editors of the Shakespeare project, which represents no one or two character plays. To address this, it would be simple to exclude one or two character plays from the policy of having Character lists. Ditto with "originating performer" - in the case where this information is not known, then that section of the list would be excluded (duh). Roger Davies led the charge against having a list in Hamlet (certainly more than 1 or 2 characters) by claiming that it made the article look unprofessional. Does this mean that every playbook, script, etc. that has a character list is unprofessional? Hardly.
For all the reasons identified by numerous editors above, a character list helps understand the play, the structure, the various factions represented, etc. The character list is an essential ingredient in EVERY play. Many plays have no essential time period, no set description, no costume requirements - none of these things set forth by the AUTHOR (remember him/her?) But EVERY play has characters and having a list of those characters in hand when studying or discussing the play is essential. I'm sorry, but this issue is becoming laughable.Smatprt (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find it was Awadewit - perhaps the single most respected literature editor on Wikipedia, with 21 or so featured articles - who reckoned built-in character lists were unprofessional.
You're distorting my point: I am not saying that characters are unimportant - my proposal has inclusion as the default option - but I give editors the option to have them as lists or as narrative.
In my view - and it is supported by policy - is that character information is just as easy in a separate article.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also - I completely disagree that having a Character list spoils the "flow" of the article. Numerous articles have tables, templates, graphics, etc - and I have never heard that any of these things interrupt the "flow". In fact, I find things like this actually make an article more interesting and more readable!Smatprt (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Smatprt that is all very well and good but also off topic. Would you guys stop debating the issue and help move this forward to a formalized discussion. Do I need to move your comments to a more appropriate place or are you going to cool it?Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Finally - Sorry, but I too am getting ahead of myself, but I felt the need to answer Roger's comments. I agree that we should put forth the proposal by Broadweighbabe, perhaps with some tweaking and some counter proposals, and then alert the various projects for input and a vote (or other format) to build a consensus among all the performing arts projects. Smatprt (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. What suggestions would you like to make to the proposal. Or would you like to make a counter proposal? And I srill feel that a counter proposal approved by Roger Davies should be written for the purposes of fair debate.Broadweighbabe (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... I have written a proposal. Why do I need to approve someone else's? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe minor characters should be listed as well (perhaps as groups, like "Also: Attendants, servants & soldiers" so I would like to offer the following version of Broadweighbabe's :

Guideline Proposal #3: When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. They should also, when appropriate, 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. Smatprt (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's three now. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally would not go with that proviso Smatprt. Alright I am going to work on putting together a summary which includes all three proposals.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need a summary? The precise texts are below :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for discussion

Here are the three current proposals:

1. When possible articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists 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. (Broadwaybabe)

2. 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.(Roger Davies)

3. When possible, articles on plays, musicals, operas, operettas, ballets, and other theatrical productions with characters should include a list of roles with brief character descriptions. Such lists should include all major characters and, wherever possible, minor characters as well. They should also, when appropriate, 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. (Smatprt)

Probably best is to see how they can be fine-tuned or whether anyone has any further proposals to make. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really meant a proposal for the structure of the debate and not a summary. This section is sort of redundant. Mind if I delete it?Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's only redundant because you have made it so by duplicating its contents below. I think the Proposals and the structure ought to be two separate discussions. easiest is to leave this as it is for the proposals themselves and remove the proposals below to leave just the structure. (On this schema, you'll need to change the heading below to something like "Proposed way forward". --ROGER DAVIES talk
Actually, on second thoughts, "Proposed structure for debate" is fine. However, rolling the actual proposals is does confuse the discussion. (And, by the way Broadweighbabe, would you mind using edit summaries? It's very difficult following what's happening from the history without them. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I will do that in the future.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ownership?

Yes - it's too early to start the old "Ownership" accusation. I think everyone is being above board and inclusive here. Smatprt (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Old? Where has it been raised before? In fact, where have I ever raised it before, in any topic? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Woah! Calm down everyone. I don't like this sort of dialogue at all. I want everyone to go into this debate happy with how it is set up. Let's not go into it with bad feelings please!Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No more name calling both of you. Lets move on peacefully and kindly. I repeat my above question Roger. What changes would you like to see made?Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes - sorry Roger - I have seen this raised on other articles by other editors as a tactic. I didn't mean to imply that you had any history of this. I think I'll step back for a day or so and come back afresh. Cheers everyone. Smatprt (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah Braodway - you did accuse Roger of flinging accusations - perhaps you should take a break as well. See you all tomorrow. Smatprt (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am logging off. I hope we can come to a solution for the structure of the debate that all parties are satisfied with in the next day or two.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cherrie Moraga's Heroes and Saints

Moraga's play won a Critics' Circle award in 1992, but I can't figure out WHICH Critics' Circle. From what I can tell, it was a California production, so I assume it was the Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle, but I can't verify that. Help! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Master Juba at peer review

Hello! I've just put Master Juba up at peer review. Master Juba was a black American dancer who lived in the 19th century. He is, according to many authorities, the father of tap dancing and made a profound impact on American dance styles. He was also significant as the first black man to get top billing over white performers. The review page can be found here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! — Dulcem (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the German playwrights?

I've noticed that a lot of the major German playwrights were not included in the project and didn't have infoboxes. I started a few (Schiller, Lessing, Hauptmann, Kleist, Hebbel, and Büchner), but German lit isn't one of my strong suits... Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brown Grand/ask for review

Please review Brown Grand Theatre and Napoleon at Austerlitz. I'm familiar with these articles because of my inovlement in Wikiproject Kansas, but they could probably stand a good "theatre-reviewer" to check over the articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on Lope de Vega article

Greetings, members of WikiProject Theatre! I'm putting out a request for any interested members of the Spain, Theatre, and/or Biography (Arts and Entertainment) Projects to provide some assistance with the article on Lope de Vega. The tone of the much of the text still seems to be from the 1911 Britannica; I believe the article could benefit from the incorporation of material from some additional references, along with the documentation of those references on the article page. "Lope" is definitely a notable figure, with articles listed at 29 "Other Language" interwikis, as of 6 April 2008, and listed as a Featured-Article on Spanish Wikipedia. There should be no shortage of references available :)

I'm requesting assistance at this time, because another editor recently (in my opinion mistakenly and/or inappropriately) deleted much of the article text as being in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability; I believe this should not have happened, and as of 6 April have restored the deleted text; but the occurence does underscore the fact that the article could use some updating and improved referencing; hopefully by a collaboration of editors.

Thanks, Lini (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello all

Just wanted to say hi to everyone. I just joined the wikiproject. I look forward to working with you all.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

new Category:Theatre articles needing attention

see Category:Theatre articles needing attention -- Paul foord (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a necessary category? Articles needing urgent attention can always be brought to this wikiproject's talk page and non-urgent concerns can always be tagged.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is created by using the {{WikiProject Theatre}} template with attention=yes. Paul foord (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to archive?

I know I just joined the project but I couldn't help but notice that some of these discussions have not been added to for over a year. Does anyone mind if I archive the older topics on this page?Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the archive 1 had discussions archived up to October 2007, I archived discussions ending as late as October 2007 in archive number 2. As a new member I have two comments. First, this seems like a pretty inactive group as most of the discussions above contain no replies. That is sad. Second, if community discussion is going to fascilitate well than the discussion page has to be better maintained. I personally feel that any more than 20 topics at one time is a cluttered talk page that is hard to navigate. Especially when several of the discussions appear to be over.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also gone ahead and archived discussions that have ended after October 2007.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly new and not very active here myself, Bwb, but I suppose it's time someone welcomed you and thanked you for your efforts. So, welcome and thanks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steven. It is good to hear from someone. I'm new to hear so I feel kind of strange doing archiving and upkeep. lol But someone has got to do it. I also found tons of bad info on the project's main page and have been weeding through it. I also feel like the front page could do a better job listing theatre related lists and categories. Right now it is not so clear how everything is organized. I have been looking at other wikiproject pages to see how they organize things and frankly the theatre wikiproject is kind of sloppy. Take a look at Wikipedia: WikiProject Opera for an example of a good project. I would like to see this project become more active and I think the place to start is in getting more organized.Broadweighbabe (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope this won't be seen as any kind of attack on the members of this project who have been here a little longer, but sometimes WikiProjects become moribund and sometimes they come back to life as a result of "new blood", so feel free to dive in and be bold. If anyone has a problem, I'm sure they'll sing out. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steven. And I didn't want to sound like I was attacking older members. lol I just want to see things get better.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I set up MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) to do the archiving from now on - discussion threads with zero new posts or activity for over one month will be archived to the most recent archive. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this project?

I see the scope of this project covers: "Theatre history (including Greek theatre, Chinese theatre, Roman theatre, Commedia dell'arte, Kabuki, Renaissance theatre, Epic theatre etc)" . I wonder, particularly in the case of the Chinese and Japanese performing arts, whether this is sensible. Does this project really have any interest in these subjects, and if so any competence? Would it be better - given that so few people are involved - for this project to concentrate on English and European-language spoken drama? (BTW the Opera Project has always regarded Chinese Opera as an important performing art in its own right, completely separate from (Western) opera.) Thanks for reading this. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. I would say that until another project evolves that is interested in such topics that they fall under the scope of this project. Just as out of the opera wikiproject was birthed the Wagner project so would projects involving those topics.Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the rule of thumb is "the more eyes on a page, the better". There's no harm in having those articles as part of this project and having them as part of it can only result in more good editors paying attention to them. Additionally, anyone who took a Theatre Arts degree and studied a little theatre history is likely to have at least some passing knowledge of the subjects mentioned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As a general point, I believe that projects that are well-defined have an impetus and sense of purpose that projects which are ill-defined lack. A project is after all just a group of editors struggling to focus and maintain a NPOV approach and that's difficult if the enterprise turns into an empire. I've seen this happen on a lot of projects, over-inflation IMO leads quickly to inactivity. Re Wagner - that's at the core of the Opera Project. The reason for having a separate (descendant) project was to work to a higher standard than usual and specifically to introduce assessments. (So for example this project might do the same thing with Shakespeare or Molière or somebody.) --Kleinzach (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadweighbabe bows out

Hello all. I am having to leave off editing on wikipedia for a while due to personal reasons. Best of luck with editing. And I hope someone else will take over the editing of the above discussion. Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)