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
Edits
(Copied from
WP:WAWARD
) 12:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you look at recent changes to
Hey. I've had a look through them and here's my thoughts. I agree with the removal 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
]
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
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
]
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]
---
The above content was copied from a user talk page.--
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... --
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.--
