Talk:Romeo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 Rewriting[edit]

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 WP:ATT. I'd encourage you, BeastKing89, to use 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]

Protection[edit]

  • 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:PROT, and if you're determined to seek protection, see 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]


Spoilers?[edit]

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]

Sourcing[edit]

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]

Fair use rationale for Image:Romeo Montague with poison.jpg[edit]

Image:Romeo Montague with poison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor[edit]

Wow. The style and grammar is rather poor for such an important English-language subject. It looks like the C- secondary school/high school kids have really been at it. I'll do a little remixing. Centrepull (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per primary topic. --rgpk (comment) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Montague → Romeo — Now that he is the primary meaning, I suggest moving him to plain Romeo, which I think is how most people think of him. PatGallacher (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - it's good to have his full name in the title for disambiguation purposes, if nothing else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose many characters are named "Romeo", some of them based on this character, but not a Montague. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He is never referred to as "Romeo Montague", but simply as "Romeo" and his house as "Montague". Combining the names could be seen as a form of WP:OR, especially since Montague is not actually an Italian name. Simple "Romeo" is how most people know him and as he's clearly the primary topic that's what the article name should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why does it matter if it's not an Italian name, Shakespeare wasn't Italian, he was English, the play isn't in Italian, it was written in English. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It matters because he is never referred to as "Romeo Montague". While Shakespeare was English, he firmly set his play in Italy and never used "Montague" as a surname. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lots of things are set elsewhere from the authors location does not mean that it is an accurate portrayal of all aspects of life for that foreign location. The question should be whether being a member of a House makes the name of the House an acceptable surname. Romeo, of the House of Montague vs Romeo Montague. Houses are frequently used as surnames of convenience though... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, he is Romeo of the house Montague. Treating "Montague" as a surname is not supported by the text or by any available sources. Powers T 01:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point. Just checking what Shakespeare actually wrote, the cast list describes him as "Romeo, son to Montague". Other characters are described as "Montague", "Capulet", "Juliet, daughter to Capulet", "Lady Montague", and "Lady Capulet". It is not obvious that these are surnames in the modern sense, and to treat them as anything more than what the script explicitly states is to get into complicated issues of naming conventions in England and Italy at the time, and what Shakespeare may have believed to be Italian naming conventions. PatGallacher (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As the character has been established as the primary topic of "Romeo", it then comes to is what is the character most commonly known as? The answer to that appears to be simply Romeo. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm. My instinct is that Romeo Montague is the most natural name for the article; and while I find PatGallacher's points relevant they are, to me, so far unpersuasive (in that, yes, those might be issues, but the house versus surname is commonsensically close enough; and you strictly speaking do not avoid the issue by leaving out the surname, you're just picking the opposite conclusion based on the same underlying problem). Another factor to consider is what then happens to Juliet Capulet. Just Juliet is, I think, a bit generic; and it is good to have some consistency in naming between similar articles. I am, so far, ambivalent on this point, but leaning slightly towards including the surname (i.e. opposing the move). --Xover (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a move discussion going on at Talk:Juliet at present which is running in favour of treating her as the primary meaning, and if she is then there is the serious possibility of moving her to plain "Juliet" as wsll, which I would support. PatGallacher (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh, the dab wasn't on my watchlist for some reason, so thanks for pointing that out. I am, as I said, a bit ambivalent on this (which is why I'm commenting rather than opposing); but in any case I suspect that that move will not stand over the long haul: Juliet is just too generic so somone will come along and propose a move back eventually. It's also a bit dangerous to found your reasoning on these move proposals because that tends to become circular really fast. However, by my own reasoning, if this article is moved to Romeo than that is an argument in favour of also moving the other to Juliet for consistency (and vice versa; but neither alone is an argument, cf. circular reasoning above). --Xover (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Romeo as the colloquial term for a player / womaniser is probably the most common usage. Better to leave the dab page where it is. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had that discussion earlier, we already decided that Shakespeare's characcter is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems a no-brainer to me. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, likewise. This is what he's called; the current title is not what he's called.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this should be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthem of joy (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, since it was decided that this is the primary meaning for "Romeo". The character is much more commonly known as just Romeo. Jafeluv (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Romeo's age[edit]

When is his age said to be 22? I'm removing it until someone can page source it.Samvnkauffman (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo[edit]

What is an family association in romeo and juliet? Kristian ayala15 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romeo&oldid=1205121786"