Talk:Romeo

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shakespeare Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

I've basically rebuilt this entire page. I'm not done yet - there's a lot of crafting and polishing to be done, but to me it already looks a million times better. Does anyone else have some reccomendations? BeastKing89 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts:
  • Excellent work: a great improvement.
  • I doubt we really need such a thorough plot synopsis, when there is already one at Romeo and Juliet.
  • The main weakness at the moment is sourcing: see
    inline citation
    , and to add the sources you used in building the page: it will definitely be much easier for you to do that than it would be for another wikipedian to come along later and to try to source what you have written.
  • I'd propose a move to
    Romeo Montague. I think an admin will have to do that, since the page already exists as a redirect to the play. AndyJones 07:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Great Job BeastKing!!! I'd support the move as well, to match the comparable page at
  Juliet Capulet. I should have probably checked that when I made the page. Jvbishop 12:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, that was my fault. I created
    Romeo (character) as a red link at Romeo and Juliet. AndyJones 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No matter, it's been moved! Excellent! Now all I have to do is put some more citations in. Thanks, guys! BeastKing89 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This page has been the target of a lot of vandalism, which has been repaired mostly by my loyal friends from Wikiproject Shakespeare (thanks, guys). Can I request some protection? BeastKing89 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's unlikely you'll get any protection, at the moment. Vandalism is part of the dynamic of any open-source project. You just have to revert it and move on. This page is on quite a few watchlists already, so vandalism won't hang around here for long. Page protection is used very sparingly, and is usually only done on a short-term basis. The rationale is that we're the "encylopedia anyone can edit", so we need to be editable. There's more on the subject at
    WP:RFPP. AndyJones 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Andy's right, you probably won't get it. They usually don't approve it unless you're getting four or so attacks a day for several days (by different users), and then it may only be temporary. Wrad 14:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. BeastKing89 05:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this debate has surfaced on other articles, as well - should we have spoiler tags on this page? I think it might be fair to put it on here above the "Distinguishing Characteristics / Character Analysis" section, since it isn't explicitly labeled a plot summary section, and it does give away crucial details from the plot. However, I restrained myself from putting them back in, since I realize that Romeo's suicide is hardly a spoiler for most people. But again, this (I've noticed) is a heated topic, so I leave it up for discussion.

Also, kudos to Wrad for the template and quote box. They make the page look very professional.

--BeastKing89 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following at Talk:William Shakespeare, but it's particularly pertinent to this page, which has NO SOURCES AT ALL:

An important object lesson for new wikipedians: cite your sources at the time you put information in. There are a few fairly new wikipedians I have encouraged to do precisely that, and this i.e. the Shakespeare FA drive is the reason why. There is NO CHANCE, now, of us working out who wrote which bit of the page, and even if we worked it out, no chance of us contacting all of them and of them remembering which sources they used and contacting us back to tell us what they were. So we have to go back and do the work again. For example, consider this section about Shakespeare's reputation. Is there anything wrong with it? No. Is it factually accurate? Yes. Is it written in clear intelligent prose? Yes. Is it relevant and encyclopedic? Yes. Is it thoroughly sourced? NO! So before we could apply to promote the article to featured article status, we had to replace it with something we actually could source. We had no idea what the original sources were so some poor sap had to rewite from scratch: all the previous good work was lost, and the new version, which is here is not necessarily better, clearer, more encyclopedic or in more compelling prose. It just has the advantage of having lots of annoying little footnote tags all the way through it. AndyJones 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. This is the plague what could be some of wikipedia's finest articles, and it takes a lot of work to fix. Thanks, however, to those who took it upon themselves to expand this article the best they could. Wrad 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you two are referring to people like me, as I wrote about 90% of this article. And yes, you're right - but please remember that I've only been editing for roughly as long as this whole Wikiproject has been in existince, which isn't very long. So all I ask is for your patience. I do have a life outside Wikipedia, so forgive me if it takes me a few days (or weeks) to find the time to work out sources.

When I first saw this article, it was a complete disaster. So yes, it doesn't source well, but nothing in there is untrue, and at least the article has substance now.

I appreciate your diligence in seeking out OR, but this isn't OR. I need to source it, and that was a mistake I made (being a first-timer) but it's still not innacurate. I wish I could claim that I made this stuff up, but I didn't.

For the record, I think this whole Wikiproject should spend some more time rescuscitating articles with virtually nothing, rather than freaking out over footnotes. To me, pages that are like barren wastelands deserve more attention than those with minor flaws. Unless, of course, it's super-important (like William Shakespeare, for example.)

Anyway, I appreciate the guidance, and I promise the sources are coming. I might need some help with the technical stuff, however. --BeastKing89 09:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, and please don't take my comments the wrong way: no criticism is implied of this page or the work you're doing on it. I'm merely illustrating the importance of including your sources as you go. AndyJones 09:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]