This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
This template is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the template attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Hey. I've had a look through them and here's my thoughts. I agree with the removal of Son of a bitch, "Tears of Rage" and Wheel of fire, but Flibbertigibbet should definitely be put back. The last edit is also very problematic. Lumping the direct film and TV adaptations in with the loose adaptations is contrary to every other sizable Shakespearean template. Nav boxes are supposed to aid a reader. Burying the direct adaptations like this doesn't aid anybody. As for the removal of the character names, I'm in two minds. He is correct insofar as the links go to titles, not characters, and there may be an element of WP:EGG for users who were to click on the links expecting character articles. Let me ping Five Antonios and get his thoughts. He hasn't been active on here in a good while, but I do know he's about and he's not overly busy, so he may weigh in. Bertaut (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you didn't ping me, I missed your response. Basically, I am asking you to revert as you see fit or call on others for more opinions. This is an important enough template that maybe we should just bring it up at WP:SHAKESPEARE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi gentlemen, apologies about my tardiness. My interpretation of the edits is similar, but not identical, to Bertaut. I too agree with the removal of Son of a bitch, "Tears of Rage" and Wheel of fire, and I too think Flibbertigibbet should be returned. In relation to the links in the character list, I agree with their removal; linking to the titles is pointless. As for the final edit concerning the filmic adaptations, I think a straight revert is justified. Moving the direct adaptations into the indirect ones is a highly questionable idea. Five Antonios (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there you go Tony, there's mine and Five's opinions. If you want to raise the issue at the Project talk page, that's fine, we can hang off doing anything for a few days. The Project isn't exactly very active these days though, so not sure you'll get much of a response. Bertaut (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bertaut and Five Antonios, I agree that "Tears of Rage" and Wheel of fire were reasonable removals. However, it seems that Shakespeare's uses of Son of a bitch's may be the seminal uses of the term. As such, I think it should be on the template. In terms of links to the titles, I just think all the Shakespeare templates should be handled identically, whatever we do. I think if we remove historical title links here, it means that there should be changes to a bunch of the other templates. We just need to be consistent. I am glad we have consensus to reseparate the adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved all the "adaptations" to the same line because, let's face it, they are all adaptations. Maybe a split between "Adaptations" for the direct adaptations, and "Derived works" (or similar) for the non-direct adaptations could be appropriate to satisfy everyone? The problem there though is that the line between a direct and indirect adaption is not always that easy to define... --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know enough about the adaptations to say how direct each is, but the rule of thumb that I have used on most Shakespearean play templates has been whether the title was identical to the Shakespearean play. This has not been previously challenged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
