Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 2

6357:

much easier to accomplish in Italian, a language more rich in rhyming words, than in English. The first eight lines create an octet, with the rhyme scheme a b b a a b b a. The last six lines make up a sestet and may consist of following rhyme schemes: 1) c d e c d e 2) c d e d c e 3) c d c d c d." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/Petrarchan) Now this doesn't apply anywhere; Neither; ROMEO 171 Alas, that love, whose view is muffled still, a 172 Should, without eyes, see pathways to his will! a 173 Where shall we dine? O me! What fray was here? b 174 Yet tell me not, for I have heard it all. c 175 Here's much to do with hate, but more with love. d 176 Why, then, O brawling love! O loving hate! ... 177 O any thing, of nothing first create! 178 O heavy lightness! serious vanity! 179 Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms! 180 Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health! 181 Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is! 182 This love feel I, that feel no love in this. 183 Dost thou not laugh? nor ROMEO 185 Why, such is love's transgression. a 186 Griefs of mine own lie heavy in my breast, b 187 Which thou wilt propagate, to have it prest b 188 With more of thine. This love that thou hast shown c 189 Doth add more grief to too much of mine own. c 190 Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs; d 191 Being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes; d 192 Being vex'd a sea nourish'd with lovers' tears: e 193 What is it else? a madness most discreet, f 194 A choking gall and a preserving sweet. f 195 Farewell, my coz. fullfills the criteria. Not even if I add what benvolio says... Do you understand my problem? Btw. does anyone now of a accurate collection of all sonnets in R+J? Would be helpful. ~~~~ - Go on - answer me!

6227:, you are welcome to try to find theatre-based sources for inclusion at any time. As we are currently preparing for a FA drive on this article, (and the only item left is the mandatory copy-editing) additional sources would be quite useful. :) In regards to the fiction guideline, are you aware of the reasons why it is currently a proposed guideline (despite existing since 2005)? My understanding of it is that a new consensus was formed quietly for a much tougher guideline, which was then enthusiastically applied. This led to a lot of heartache, and a lot of articles were deleted or forcibly merged into lists. This led to an ArbCom, and the WP:FICT guideline got put into revision. So I believe being familiar with the recent history of that case may be useful to your endeavours - those who do not know their history etc. etc. It also says that spun-out lists of characters are quite acceptable, and does not describe how they should be linked or whatever. In 5957:

Donaldbain flees there. And even from a literary standpoint, Shakespeare did NOT create a character of Rosalind (as "character" is normally defined when referring to a character list from a play)! She is a plot device. Malkinann, you seem upset that no one responded to you on the project page. I don't think anyone was intentionally ignoring you and if you feel that way, then please accept my apologies. Frankly, Roger was keeping my plenty busy responding to the (often) pointless red herrings (imo) that he continued to throw into that conversation. I do think you raise an interesting issue, and I might agree that a cut down list is better than no list at all. However, I still think a complete list is better than a list that is cut down based on "Notability" or "Importance". I think many (if not most) authors would argue that every character serves an "important" function to their play. Remember the old saying - "There are no small parts, only small actors"!

295:"Comment - Romeo and Juliet, tragedy of Fortune - Destiny and free will in the medieval age - Romeo and Juliet is still in large parts a medieval drama, anchored in the argument profane: a lot of these works, told also in short stories, spoke of the rise of kings, lords and emperors and of their fall as being fated. The same is true for the more romantic versions of these edifying stories, almost always the unhappy stories of lovers. In general in the medieval age, personal defects and self-determination had no power in the events of men, regulated alone from an often cruel providence and inscrutable, literary opposing party of the varied 4809:. It goes to a great site, TheFinalClub.org, designed as a free-education portal for everyone. You can read countless public domain texts with hypertext annotations like the ones that accompany Romeo and Juliet. All of the content is free to view, highly accessible, and especially inspiring to young students. Most importantly, anyone can add his or her own annotations to any text that appears on the site. This is a perfect portal for wikipedia users to share their literary thoughts with others, sans threat of being deleted. 6000:

not proposed "guidelines" (plural) as you accuse - I raised ONE topic and when another editor proposed a guideline as a solution, I added in ONE guideline to a list of them being offered. So please don't characterize me as a guideline proposing maniac when my ONE guideline proposal was an exception to my normal editing practices. Having said that, and while my intent here is not first and foremost to "prove you wrong" I would like you to consider the following excerpts from the two guidelines you keep referring to:

677:"As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. While ideally every assertion and assumption that is not necessarily true would have the various positions on it detailed and referenced, in practice much of human knowledge relies on the probably true rather than the necessarily true, and actually doing this would result in the article devolving into an incoherent jumble of backtracking explanations and justifications." 5864:, and she has an important plot function (contrast between her and Juliet) which was why I left her in the list when I did my initial removals. Lady Montague on the other hand is largely ignored, even by feminist critics. If there is criticism from reliable sources on the mentions of the Black Prince or Henry V in the plays, I don't see why they could not be mentioned in a spun out "List of X characters", or something. The nature of the criticism itself could provide guidance on its use. Please read 5985:. These have been kicking around Knowledge for quite some time, and so are probably worth a look. ;) And they apply to all fiction articles - of which plays are included. I have mentioned these previously numerous times, and still you refer to notability in scare quotes - which to me indicates that you have not read the guidelines, and by extension that you're not interested in what I have to say. Please prove me wrong by reading the notability and fiction guidelines, if you haven't already. - 544:

perhaps others would take up the cause. I've been coming across some sources where they're saying when taught in high school, the play can be used to broach the topic of teenage suicide, but I wasn't sure if the pedagogy of Romeo and Juliet really fitted anywhere. Chances are any 14 year old who's looking up the play on Knowledge to get their head around this old play that they got assigned will be canny enough to realise that they could end up talking about teenage suicide in class. -

31: 3622: 6155:. No-one will deny you the right of self-expression here unless it goes into personal attack or vandalism/tendentious editing territory, and I trust you to behave better than that. :) I would disagree with the fundamental thrust of your "plays, not novels" approach in that it sets up a false dichotomy - plays are lots of things. Plays are of-fiction, plays are literature (if you understand the word literature to mean stories), and plays are plays. - 1641:

plot and I know of no scholars who say it is not. In fact, if we simply listen to the Chorus, the play is indeed about "two households" and how R&J's deaths cause their parents to end their "strife". Of course it's not ABOUT death, but how their deaths put an end to the age-old rivalry. Without an end to the rivalry, the play would be a glorification of suicide. But I return to the Chorus, who does indeed tell audiences what the play is about:

4131:'s article structure guidelines at some point. I've linked the R&J characters as they appear in the synopsis section, but I've linked the apothecary to the profession's page rather than the entry in the minor characters. (which didn't even link to the profession's page!) What kind of historical context would be helpful? There may be a little in the Italian FA page, but we'd have to go on a citation hunt. - 5142:], a consensus has developed that all articles about plays, operas, etc., should have a character list, and that this should be a policy across all such Wiki articles. Currently, there is a 100% consensus that this should be the case. Rather than go into reasons here, please see that discussion. In the meantime, I have restored the Character list to this article in recognition of that consensus. 6050:"If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia. Such coverage may be placed as part of the main article on the work of fiction, or if better suited, an article on another, notable fictional element." (I quote this to remind you to build a consensus instead of being Bold.) 6218:. Although I find it interesting that although you agree that guidelines can be ignored, the consensus that you were initially going for was Knowledge-wide... So any smaller group of editors is therefore ignoring consensus. Although I think you've scaled back your ideas of unanimous agreement (which is different from consensus). What I was wanting you to take away from 6236:), so I simply quoted you - and I am still perplexed as to why if you feel his comments were "pointless" and mine were "interesting" why you didn't respond to mine, but you did to his. I feel that your comments about "respecting the author by including a cast list" are founded in an adversarial philosophy - insinuating 'people who don't want cast lists don't 5655:

character is notable enough to have it's own article? As I said, I saw a production once where Peter was included in a number of scenes and became a poignant witness to the entire action of the play. In this production, the character almost "stole the show" as they say. (Well..not really - but he certainly became a major character by anyone's standards)

6067:

rules, and allow for common sense and exceptions and, in every case, encourage building a consensus for major changes to any long-standing article that has been worked and reworked by a large and changing group of editors. I hope I have at least now proven to you that I do indeed read the guidelines here! Thanks

5161:. Besides, you've got a pretty big group of editors in this project, which is a branch of the theatre project, who are against including it. It's not time to start using the words "consensus" or especially "policy" quite yet. That said, I'm not going to revert anything without comments from other editors. 6417:

We all know that it is about two people named Romeo and Juliet who fall inlove, but Romeo falls inlove with another girl who becomes a nun. It seems to me that Romeo is trying to find not true love, but sexual love instead. I don't mean to be rude, but mabey he thinks he is searching for true love,

6066:

I admit that I am quoting only specific bits and acknowledge that there are other bits that leave the door open for what you propose and what other editors have proposed. However, these bits certainly allow for my interpretation and my point of view. But please remember that these are guidelines, not

5768:

may also be worth considering, although it is still recovering from the ArbCom. My comments on WP:SS were to try to make people aware of other ways to deal with the issue (a cut down list rather than a whole list or no list). Peter may have been significant in that production you saw, but in a fair

5373:

One other thing - in reviewing the discussion on character lists at the Shakespeare project - I found a total of 5 editors that actually participated - 2 wanted to keep the lists, and 3 did not. Hardly "a pretty big group of editors" as Wrad described above. Far more than 3, however, have chimed in

3671:

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

1377:

Another thing I'm concerned about is that some sections only have a couple of citations.. for GA it is desirable for every paragraph to have a citation, if possible/needed. The variety of English used in the article will need to be changed to British English at some point as a Manual of Style issue.

543:

No worries - the themes section is kind of first-draft anyway. I've been hoping that just by starting it with sources (although I think maybe that reference to Shakespeare Online could be replaced with a reference to Draper's starcrossed lovers paper... I'll have to have another look at it...) that

410:

P.S. - While I will still participate in Talk, I am keeping my edits light or non-existant for a few days. I don't want to bog down any pages being such a "controversial" editor right now, so I have also stopped any formatting work on the plays themselves (I had just about gotten thru them all, just

6356:

Hey there, In the Article it says that Romeo uses the Petrarchan Sonnet when describing Rosaline and that Lady Capulet does so, too, when describing Paris. However, to me it seems that neihter he nor she does; "The Petrarchan Sonnet consists of many rhymed lines, more than any other sonnet. This is

6101:

Smatprt, the plays exist in both worlds. To completely ignore that and only pay attention to the theatrical side of things is POV, UNDUE weight, and a whole lot of other things. You have to respect the fact that this is collaborative and your view isn't the only one out there. It would be absolutely

5518:

I have reverted the edits to this section. Let's build a consensus on these pages before changing the list willy-nilly based on interpretations of various guidelines. After some more thought, I still believe that full character lists are better for play articles than cut down ones according to what

5109:

nor any of the external links cited there make any reference to any Stalin-approval. The 2nd link is the most useful, as it says that Prokofiev originally intended a happy ending (plus the article states - BUT without any citations - that the original version is to be performed later this year), so

5016:

Well, Benvolio suggests that he should go to the ball to "examine other beauties", but Romeo goes "no such sight to be shown, but to rejoice in splendour of mine own", that is, to see Rosaline. As for Lady Montague's death, Montague says "grief of my son's exile hath stopped her breath". It couldn't

4895:

I think we're still languishing for want of a "critical history" section which is difficult to write - google scholar for "critical history" "Romeo and Juliet" gives about 300 hits, the same for "critical history of romeo and juliet" give none. :o I'd be inclined to say "stuff the critical history"

3298:

perhaps you might get at what you want by talking in terms of cinema, rather than adaptations in general, as the audio-visual qualities are specific to modern adaptations? less focus on the verse, more on the visuals, along with a contemporary setting / relocated to... etc. ... something along those

3284:

While I agree that we didn't invent the idea, it is nevertheless true that adapting the plays is a current trend that was not followed in the early nineteenth century as much as it is now. Early nineteenth century directors focused more and more on being true to the text until around 1960-70. I want

1796:

I looked it over, and I don't know whether it is important enough to be added in the main article. The situation with G & G is kind of complicated and would take up a lot of space, and this article sums up relevant points pretty well. We may want to put it in a sub article though, for characters

1168:

I figure I'll start this conversation. I added this statement because the source, Draper, outlines it as a fairly significant viewpoint. He names several scholars with this opinion in a pretty impressive list, and then implies that there are others. I know that it may be controversial to big fans of

6333:

And while we're here, why assume he's an older man? He usually is cast as older and he certainly behaves older - his man-to-man conversations with Lord Capulet, for example - but the play doesn't say that he's older. Indeed almost every production I've seen has cast Juliet as older than Shakespeare

4943:

It claims that "Volumes one through ten present critical overviews of each play and feature criticism from the 17th century to the present". eNotes.com says that volumes 5, 11, 33 and 51 deal with Romeo and Juliet... so volume 5 seems like the magic book to look up at the local library. If you feel

4527:

is not as well covered by the critics as some of the other plays, there are so many books that I'm sure I'd find something. (They'd be more in the line of literary analysis than performance criticism.) On the other hand, I don't have a lot of time at the moment. Could someone point me to an article

4486:

I promised to write this last week. However, after a thorough look through my sources (virtually the complete set of Cambridge Companions to Shakespeare, and various books by Shapiro and Kermode) I simply haven't anywhere near enough information to do this. I'm away for the weekend and don't really

1459:

I don't really know myself what the first sentence should say, but I have noticed the debate going on over what the play is "about". The fact is, scholars can't even agree on this issue. Is it about love? Reconciliation? The evils of family feuds? There is no consensus. It may be best to just avoid

1178:

And Draper speaks for all scholars and audiences? I think this kind of sweeping statement belongs elsewhere (if at all) - but certainly not in the lead. Hamlet is seen by "some" as melodramatic. Many see all of Shakespeare as melodramatic. Do these opinons belong in the lead?? Also - two of the

617:

Well, it seems I was wrong. Now it looks as though the themes will do well as part of the Analysis section, followed by a Criticism section outlining the play as viewed through different literary theories. I organized our list into different themes that a rough review of my material seemed to show

406:

Excellent work guys. Really! I had a question about the Burbage graphic - I recall seeing some images somewhere of a younger Burbage. It would be great to see that image on this page (instead of the older Burbage) - to give us more of a visual of what he looked like when he played Romeo. Also -

6231:

and all articles dealing with guidelines it is pointed out that the best guidelines describe what the practice is, not say what it should be. Perhaps you would be better off proposing this to be part of a theatre Manual of Style?? I do not feel comfortable describing some of Roger's behaviour in

6208:

I feel ignored when you would rather engage in responding to what you describe as "pointless red herrings" than answering my questions. The reason I said guidelines was because I was unclear on which guideline options were yours and which belonged to others. Please don't characterise anything of

6124:

Completely ignore? "Only" pay attention to the theatrical side??. Wrad...Did I ever say that? Did I say delete performance history and theatrical criticism?? What on earth are you talking about? Did I say that my view is the only one? I think perhaps it's time for you to calm down. In fact - all

5999:

I believe I am addressing an interesting issue now, so calm down. It seems that whenever I don't respond directly to each and every item you mention, you feel ignored and get upset. Rest assured, I have read the guidelines you have mentioned in the past and through-out this discussion. BTW -I have

4731:

Why is it "ridiculous" for me to ask for a source on "Romeo and Juliet ranks with Hamlet as one of Shakespeare's most-performed plays"? It strikes me as potentially easy to source if correct, but far from inherently obvious. If we are intending to push for FA on this article isn't it reasonable to

3748:

I've never heard of it, and I doubt it's true. Here's why: Shakespeare was borrowing his plot from an old Italian story. In Italy, it wasn't quite as crazy to do such things, especially in literature. Elizabethan England seems to have had a high demand for such Italian stories since they seemed to

3701:

This section just isn't notable enough to be in this article, given all the much more famous performances of the play that are already here. We don't want this article to be a haphazard list of every TV show that ever mentioned Romeo and Juliet. It isn't possible to make the list comprehensive, it

1640:

The previous edit that RedRabbit is concerned with did NOT say the play was about death. It said that R&J's "untimely deaths" brought an end to the rivalry and united the families. And that IS one of the main subjects the play is about. Rivalry and reconciliation are certainly central to the

1292:

I agree - especially in regards to West Side Story - which was groundbreaking in so many respects. The line in the "Music" section is appropriate to the stage musical, but the film itself should be under screen as well and could certainly be expanded. Like High School Musical, WSS was responsible

6265:

Incidentally, Shakespeare characters, even the most minor, are very resilient at AfD. Most editors there recognize that the Bard has a lot of sources about him, and precedent has been set by previous AfDs of minor characters. I haven't seen one fail yet. If you've got some stuff on Peter we could

6222:

was the definition of notability - notability is defined by having reliable, independant, secondary sources talk about it. I believe that these sources are no less valid in Knowledge's eyes whether they belong to "the theatre world" or to "the literature world" - if you feel there is an issue of

5972:

I am disappointed that you are more interested in proposing new guidelines and responding to "pointless red herrings" than reading and understanding the current guidelines and addressing an "interesting issue". Although you wish to add to the guidelines, you seem unwilling to read or consider the

5919:

Smatprt, you are speaking from a Theatrical standpoint. From that standpoint she shouldn't be on the list, but from a literary standpoint she is quite important. The play exists in both worlds. Peter may for all I know merit inclusion, someone would just have to be able to prove it by creating an

5000:

In the article it says Romeo whent to the ball to meet Rosaline, in the play however it's so he can meet other women and forget about Rosaline. Which is the correct way? Also, I recall that Lady Montague died because of her son's death, not because he was in excile. Again wich is the correct way?

4608:

i really need some information about romeo and juliet. im contrasting the following characters romeo and benvolio, benvolio and tybalt, romoe and tybalt, lady capulet and nurse, and mercutio im suppose to pick one set and im having a little trouble can u help me pick some and give me some detals

557:

Surely we can come up with true "Theme" sections on these plays and not wrap them into another section. Admittedly, no success right now, but there are lots of editors out there who have the expertise to write a proper section. Shakespeare's themes are universal and he clarified them so like no

4346:

One of the more bizarre requests I've seen in some FAC is the request that there be no red links in the article. Just so that we're prepared for this eventuality - you can argue that it isn't a FA requirement. I've seen some Africa-related articles put up for FAC, with a few to quite a few red

687:

Since a source is provided for all of the statements at the end of the paragraph, and to list all of the individuals who said this or that would be an "incoherent jumble" in my mind, I don't think I should do it. I wouldn't call these statements weasel words, anyway, since they don't really give

532:

I'm about to start this section, and based on similar articles I've done in the past, I think that the Themes section is basically just going to melt into a series of subsections within the Criticism section. There will be themes, they will just be a part of that section. Just giving everyone a

256:

I just proposed a plan for GA status in the to do box at the top of the page. This seemed to work well on the Shakespeare page, so I think it will do well here. The main problems I see so far are breadth and citation issues, so those should probably be resolved first. I'm going to go ahead and

6082:

Also - I don't use quotes in the sense of "scare quotes" - I use quotes for the good old intention of identifying a direct quotation. And the use of quotes should in no way imply that I have not read the accompanying guideline. Btw, I take no offense in your use of the same! :) I would like to

5809:

Exactly. And in some productions major characters are even combined under one character name. Does this make the excised one less notable? Regarding Rosalind - she isn't even IN the play. But she is on the list because she is mentioned? That makes no sense to me. Does that mean the Black Prince

1346:

I'm about to apply for GA. I think the article more than satisfies the breadth and reliable sources requirements. The images are good. The only thing that may be needed is more copyediting, but I think that can be handled during a GA hold just as well as any other time. Are there any things we

5956:

Carrying on the conversation above: Wrad - first, these are indeed plays, not novels, and so (IMO) belong first and foremost in a theatrical context. Besides, strictly speaking, Rosalind is NOT a listed "character" in the play. No more than Ireland is a listed location in Macbeth, even though

5071:

Several ballet versions have also been composed; the best-known is Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, first performed in 1938. This version is perhaps the most well known story ballet still performed to this day. This Stalin-approved version is dramatically different than what Prokofiev originally

5654:

and I don't think that it was created with character lists in mind. I think, perhaps, the reason no one responded to the comment at the theatre project page was that it was somewhat offpoint from the discussion at hand. Regarding Wrad's suggestion above, I'm wondering who is to decide if a

5502:

I really don't believe that she's major enough to be mentioned here - she appears twice and dies, for goodness's sake! We don't spend as much time with the Montagues in general as we do with the Capulets, but she's just not that major, and I would speculate that she's only included here for

558:

other author that they actually do stand the test of time. At least Malkinann got some stuff up to start, and Andy has been doing great work turning lists into prose - why not let Malkinann keep coming up with various tidbits and sources and then let Andy and others turn it into Wiki prose?

6013:"These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles…" (It does make an exception about "People", but surely you are not arguing that fictional characters fall under that catagory as defined on WP.) 3721:

I had heard that Romeo and Juliet is really either a farce or comedy, not a tragedy. The rationale was that it was absolutely unthinkable that teenagers of that day would go against their parents wishes on such a matter, and that audiences would have found it not just funny, but completely

370:, anyway. I've replaced the film and tv sections of this article with its lede by way of summary. I'd be grateful for views on whether this is a good approach to keeping this detail, which is sometimes rather crufty, out of the main article. I've left a separate message on the topic at 6240:

respect the author' and thus I've not previously responded to them. On "these are plays, so we shouldn't treat them like literature" - again I feel you're setting up a false dichotomy. Plays are fictional works, and plays are also literature, and plays are plays. If you look at the

3485:

OK, well, in the absence of dissenting voices, I've inserted the above into the article in a way that I hope makes sense. I've left in the "citation needed" flags, however - can someone provide them? (And am I dreaming, or does the Nurse actually talk prose most of the time?)

5623:

Hm, not sure if want. The apothecary and the-friar-who-got-locked-up-with-the-vital-message are important, but are both just plot devices. Otherwise it sounds reasonable - assuming that all potential has been mined for R&J characters. (I know it hasn't for King Lear...)

6125:

I've argued for was including Character lists, using (yes) primarily theatrical arguments, but also in an attempt to be helpful to all readers. Besides, I have a perfect right to to keep reminding folks that these are plays and not novels, etc. Are you denying me that right?

1387:

I agree about style. Are there any paragraphs besides synopsis without refs? I just checked, and all paragraphs seem to have at least three. The one with the least is language. I could divide that up into narrower page ranges later on, but I doubt that will be a GA issue...

4145:

I don't think there will be as much relevant context for R&J as for Hamlet. Hamlet is just so over-examined! I could be wrong, though. The characters section was removed because it was thought that relevant characters could be covered well enough in the plot section.

6034:

First and foremost: "The following is a proposed Knowledge policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as

1064:

I agree. I was trying to find a way to express that. If something in the synopsis is likely to be challenged, it should be cited. Otherwise, we should just be as clear as we can without citations. Good point. Whether or not this is likely to happen remains to be seen.

902:

I think what you are talking about has been moved to the Screen section to highlight its importance a little better. You are right, it exists, and not only that, but it is one of the more critically acclaimed versions of the story on film. Definitely deserves a spot.

688:

unfair credence to any point of view. I'm pretty clear in the paragraph that none of the ideas are accepted as mainstream, so no one is going to think that anyway. To me, weasel words are another form of POV pushing, and i don't see that as a problem at all, here.

632:

I've been using MLA format with all my references. Can we make this the standard, so we don't have a lot of cleanup to do afterwards? If anyone isn't sure how to do it, they can copy my form, or look it up on the net. Either that or I can fix their refs for them.

3516:

Everything is cited by the final ref at the end of the section, believe it or not. Also, to whoever put cite tags on the sources section, all of that is cited as well. It's just not cited at the end of each sentence, but at the end of general lines of thought.

5579:

Rosaline has an important plot function, and she is mentioned in the literature. Lady Montague doesn't have a plot function, and I've not really seen her in the literature, not even really in the feminist stuff. When I posted about this interpretation of

1777:

I've seen them referred to as G and Gs, but not in anything scholarly. I was wondering if anyone knew. Have you read the whole "Origins" article to see if the Montecchi and Cappelletti were associated with G and G? I can only see page one unless I sign up.

4824:

Possibly. Go ahead, put it in the external links, use bits of it in the article. But I don't understand, having it as an external link is not going to improve the article. Use references from it in the sections abou the actual play itself. Have a nice

3924:

I only have one objection to this: the quotation sourced by ref 56 in the Gender section. This quote is in the source quoted later in the paragraph, and I think it is necessary to use their version since it is crucial to their point, if that makes sense.

407:

the statement about Burbage being a first Romeo is unsourced. Anyone know where that came from? As an actor and director, these facts intrique me and other theatre professionals, even though they have little or nothing to do with the authorship! Thanks.

4879:

Things have been pretty quiet of late. Maybe we're still grieving over Mercutio's death. Or Tybalt's, though that's less likely. I know AndyJ has been working on the screen subarticle. Still, though, what's the plan? What should we do to get this to FA?

5559:

Ay - there's the rub. One could argue the importance of many minor characters. Peter, for example, has been more important in some versions I have seen, depending on how much time the production's director gives him onstage as a witness to the action.

4755:

and it was frustrating to me. I can never tell where to put those darn tags. Seems like someone always thinks there's either too few or too many. The rest of your tags made sense, I just thought that one was overkill and I probably overreacted. Sorry.

287:

The Italian page wouldn't make GA if it was translated over here - it's severely lacking in inline citations. Not every sentence needs an inline citation, but certainly every challengeable or obscure-to-a-layman claim does. If you take a peek at

976:

Now, setting aside the fact that there's clearly a typo towards the end there, this seems to me to be a wikipedian trying to explain what he or she thinks the passage means. But in fact I think it means more-or-less the opposite. The passage...

6102:

ludicrous to simply ignore all the literary criticism that exist about these plays and their characters...just as ludicrous as ignoring performance history and theatrical criticism. This is an encyclopedia, not a theatre director's guidebook.

292:, the process where delisting articles takes place, the most common argument for delisting is lack of inline citations. Here's a rough translation of part of the section beginning with Commento, using an online translator and some rewording: 6023:"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (I have consistently argued that it is common sense to expect a character list in a play article.) 6440:

If you'll have a look at the Critical history section, you'll see that that is indeed one of the basic ways the play is interpreted. Shakespeare isn't too clear on it, though, so scholars are still puzzling over the question to this day.

4409:

Red links are good. People who complain about them at FAC need to have the principles explained to them. (In fact, I remember a thread at WPtalk:FAC on this very topic.) However, the red-links need to be good ones, so I'd suggest turning

4910:

Me too. I think we're trying too hard to make this exactly like Hamlet when the comparison really just isn't there. R&J doesn't have the critical interest Hamlet does. I think we need to move on to other issues such as copyediting.

6505:). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, 1700:

I can't see why Hoiby's opera gets a special mention, especially as the Hoiby article says that it "awaits its world premiere"! Perhaps this was put in by some publicist or by Hoiby himself? I'd be extremely inclined to remove this

1078:

Andy, no-one's stopping you from adding information from York Notes. Corroborating the information sourced from academia with citations from York Notes or other such guides would probably be very useful to teenagers studying R&J.

4508:

When I researched this for GA, I didn't find much either. Romeo and Juliet just isn't valued critically as much as other plays. Its value lies mainly in its performance history. I don't think we need a critical history section.

1715:

No comment at all is made in the article on Gounod's opera, which, like Bellini's, doesn't exactly stick to Shakespeare's story. It is also a lot more well-known than the Bellini. Should I add something about it (sourced, of

5469:

I really don't see the need for a "mandate". The discussions I was referrring to took place on Hamlet as well as the project page. Still not that many editors, but not much fewer than what you had over at the theater project.

3267:

many stories of doomed lovers. It's also fair to say that more recent stories such as those I've listed above are adaptations of Romeo and Juliet. It's only the statement that "more recent version" are about this. They're

596:

I'd feel a lot happier in the work I've done if other people were also to contribute (sourced ;) ) bits and bobs to the themes section, especially from more recent scholarship, or from books, or from journals not available on

3840:

I've just realised that I've taken out journal page nos from the refs (though they are in the cites). Are we happy with them like this (it gives consistency to the cites, I suppose) or should I put them back into the refs

6055:

Under depth of coverage: "The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration…" (Shakespeare’s work is certainly complex, a point I have been arguing consistently as a reason in include complet character

6213:

and cool. I tend to take the line that more guidelines, especially prescriptive guidelines (as I believe this proposed one to be), are not needed on WP as they are annoying and stop me from wanting to improve WP - so,

3206:. These are some of the more common examples, as well as the ones already on the template. Also maybe put the film adaptations after the film performances, if that makes sense. All in all, I think it looks wonderful. 1250:

This section needs more development. We could probably talk more about the West side story film, as well as the other copycats. This would keep the High School Musical from stealing the stage so much (pun intended).

954:

I can guess what you may be thinking in response to that comment: does it really matter? Can't the play simply be its own source on the question of what its own plot is? Isn't this merely a technical infringement of

936:

Out of all these, I think the shakiest is the "earliest triumph" one. Wasn't Henry VI a much earlier triumph? The rest we may be able to find refs for, but I'm sure we can find some even better things, as well.

3359:

Above seems very misleading. Blank Verse and Iambic Pentameter aren't two different verse styles, as this implies. Blank verse is verse written in unrhymed iambic pentameter. Can we rethink this whole section?

5872:

for further guidance. Also, if anyone had responded to me when I initially alerted everyone to these interpretations of WP:SS, then we would be having this discussion (or a similar one) on the project page.

6083:

remind you that this is a 2-way street. You have rarely responded to my points - neither here nor on the theatre project page. Isn't it time you practiced what you preached instead of just feeling ignored?

6249:

treating R&J as a play, not overly related to any one production (as that places undue weight on that production). Have I missed any of your main gist? If so, it would be helpful if you restated it.

435: 6061:

Editors should review specific guidelines or approaches outlined in the appropriate WikiProject" (The Shakespeare Project does indeed recommend cast lists be included in the main article, just before the

5454:

Yes, I agree. However I always thought it a shame more editors did not chime in - as the margin was so small that no real mandate was ever truly created. Hopefully we'll get one soon that includes more

1226:

I liked it. I just added all but melodrama back on criticism, though. I just hope that we don't get hammered for being too pro-Bard again, and was trying to compensate for it... Probably not a good idea.

1655:

I really did think that the early version (before this whole debate) was an elegant summary of the plot. these changes have cut most of this summary, leaving a bit of a hole in the intro, in my opinion.

5197:

Just to clarify, I don't really know how I feel about having the list in this article. I'm undecided. I'm just wary of using the word "policy" on this. It isn't. There is still a lot of debating to do.

931:

It is one of the most famous of Shakespeare's plays, one of his earliest theatrical triumphs, and is thought to be the most archetypal love story of the Renaissance and indeed in the history of Western

5685:

If it isn't notable, then a consensus of editors will get the article deleted. That's the nature of the 'pedia :) . I've seen many a character article subjected to AfD. Seems like a worthy test to me.

4523:

I don't want to make promises that I might not be able to follow through with, but I might be able to help. I do have access to a lot of old books of Shakespearean criticism, and while I agree that

1043:- "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." under When to Cite Sources). The plot of romeo and juliet is not likely to be challenged, as it is common knowledge.-- 1029:

I think we should keep it as clean of sources as we can, but if we feel a need, we shouldn't hesitate to add them. We also need to be sure to have an accurate-as-possible plot synopsis, obviously.

6018:"The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines (we are discussing a section within an article, not an article itself)." 3971:

Alright, if this is going to be the next wikiproject FA drive, here's a personal AndyJones-will-be-doing-list, which I'm posting here so that I don't unintentionally step on everyone else's toes:

4081:. For a start, it is not as closely cited. The synopsis also needs some work and the basic structure is different. Give me a day or two to think about it and I'm sure this can be put down into a 6375:

Halio says that Romeo is not very good at the Petrarchan form. He uses the themes of the sonnet and tries to meet the form, but falls short. His language gets better only after he meets Juliet.

3749:

represent a Romantic, emotional world foreign to their own. I don't think they would have seen it as a comedy, especially since in all early publications of the play it was called a tragedy.

1645:"The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, And the continuance of their parents' rage, Which, but their children's end, nought could remove, Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;" 892:

I added R+J in the stage adaptations section and it has been removed. It definitely exists and it is based off Romeo and Juliet and uses text from the script in the play. Why was it removed?

1008:

and that's part of my point. It's not for Wikipedians to interpret the primary facts: that's the professional critic's job. Our role is to record existing knowledge (which is the core of the

3657: 3629: 4160:

Context wise I was reading some interesting stuff about duelling and its importance in Elizabethan society, and tying this into why there is so much fencing in R&J. I'll dig it out. --

1283:. I don't agree. Of course they're mentioned elsewhere, but one sentence under "films" listing them and mentioning that they've been filmed hardly seems inappropriate, or overkill, to me. 3668:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1696:

I've corrected the rather ignorantly-written section about the Gounod and Bellini operas and added a bit (apologies for not putting in an edit summary). Three things strike me, though:

3616: 6334:

made her, so there's no reason Paris and Juliet couldn't be around the same age. I was in a successful amateur production once where the actors playing Paris and Juliet were both 17.

6245:

article the definition is quite broad. Uncited, but broad. If you feel that the articles could be treated more as a play (whatever that means to you), then please find some

4995: 3691: 5157:

Well, there isn't a 100% consensus there now I look at it. (Also now that I added my own opinion against it.) And there is certainly not a wide enough consensus to call it a

3722:

hysterical that these two would have committed suicide, professing true love at such an age. Is there any truth to this, and, if so, shouldn't it be added to the article?

1745:

Is there no suggestion that the Capulets and Montagues were inspired by Guelphs and Ghibellines? Since there were factions in Verona, it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

5852:

My point was that these articles should not be based upon one production or another - for the purposes of Knowledge, we should use a Wikipedian definition of notability -

4352: 824: 1834:. (it appears collapsed because there are other templates on this talk page - it wouldn't be collapsed on the articles unless there was another template there already). 6467: 4382:

Unless someone feels sufficiently impelled to create articles, do nothing. It's a nurban myth than redlinks are not permitted in FA candidates. I've often thought that

1302:

I don't mind re-adding them, but please reword it, keeping in mind that it has already been mentioned in the article. I'd like a bit more on the WSS film, to be honest!

4620: 4347:

links, and that's just due to a bias issue in Knowledge. Or you could remove the red link, either through making it plaintext, or quickly throwing together a stub.

847: 5810:

should be listed in every history play he is mentioned? Should Henry V be listed in the Henry VI's? Should this entire discussion be taken over to the project page?

4672: 652:

No, they're not different. I'd rather not use them. I don't really like them because they can't handle complex citations. I do use them for web citations though.

6429: 3252:

This isn't such a new idea. Romeo and Juliet's principal themes are, as explored well in this article, quite well covered in the drama of Pyramus and Thisbe (see

2816: 2806: 5010: 4243:

so we've got a complete character list somewhere. This is now hatnoted in the synopsis. The Characters article will need cleaning up a bit there at some stage.--

3994:(also mostly written by me the first time around) to be less discursive and more direct - and very probably shorter. More like a shorter version of the layout at 759:, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per 951:

I think the biggest problem with this page at the moment is a lack of sources for the plot synopsis. Footnotes skip from 18 in Date and Text to 19 in Analysis.

4810: 1637:"details" sounds like we are describing a technical manual, not a work of art. I find nothing wrong with "about", but maybe there is another word out there... 1207:

On the melodrama thing, you may be right about it not belonging in the lead, but the most performed I think definitely belongs. It's obvious and well-sourced.

830:

Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “

6418:

but instead finds sexual love. When he thinks Juliet has died, he kills himself. Was it true love or was he just sad he didn't have someone to do it with?

303:, with a scythe in hand; to varied statuettes on the same subject." - I think that means they kept tiny statues of Death in their houses. Hope that helps. - 4709:, which would be Shakespeare in this case. You might want to read the "Themes and motifs" section thoroughly for thoughts on what his message(s) might be. - 6522:

It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.

6361:

I'd suggest you try to get your hands on Jay Halio's book - he may go into more depths on why it's that form. I've not read it, so I can't help you, sorry.-

4105:

Brainstorming out loud: Basic structure isn't too different. Seems like we just need to cut the character section and possibly add some historical context.

1779: 1746: 383:

My next task will be to merge Opera, Ballet and Musicals into one section called "Music", and to prosify it, to seek out any necessary sources, and to add

3309: 4589: 4062:

I think other than Andy's stuff the article just needs a copy-edit. Other problems may come up with that kind of close reading that we can fix as we go.

2811: 1563: 1532: 1499: 1472: 1045: 4840: 4430:

Can we get a free image of a juliet cap? Might be worth putting in with a caption? - "this is what a juliet cap looks like", or something. Given that

3649:, 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 5331: 5036: 5006: 3856: 1543: 1039:

The stated examples should be fixed - but sources aren't needed for the synopsis. Sources are only needed if a piece of information is challenged (per

5129: 4644: 4007:

to the extent that I think it can usefully be expanded from the sources I have here. That should be much quicker and easier than the same exercise at

4434:

redirected to "Who comes to a wedding" until I redirected it to veil, I don't think WP needs a full article on it, although an image would be nice. -

3788: 1782: 1357:

Fix up the three High School Musical citations in the "on screen" section. I've had a go at them, but I'm not sure if it's got enough information. -

4953: 4401: 4337: 4272: 3741: 1083: 6152: 4849:

FYI, please keep in mind that the person making the request is the site's owner. Please see the discussion regarding this link on his talk page. --

3716: 2860: 5427: 5383: 5297: 5271: 5243: 5229: 3323: 6535:; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed. 5951: 4443: 4423: 4258: 3369: 1685: 1287: 391: 378: 6471: 4692: 4569: 4560:

Thanks. I'll see if I can find anything worthwhile and add it over the next few days. But I'll be quite happy if someone else gets there first.

4555: 4537: 3526: 3495: 3468: 3446: 1791: 1759: 1734: 1131: 656: 647: 6450: 6343: 6164: 5994: 5882: 5778: 5664: 5528: 4967: 4518: 4230: 4114: 4100: 4021:

I've done some work on this page in the past myself (although I wasn't part of the GA drive) so some of my material is, no doubt, already here.

3958: 3934: 3882: 3827: 3803: 3289: 1574: 1552: 1525: 1510: 1492: 1483: 1297: 1069: 916: 907: 562: 488: 459: 6324: 5054: 5040: 5026: 4940: 4866: 3673: 1841: 6433: 6092: 5819: 5464: 2855: 2769: 6402: 6384: 6275: 6194: 5929: 5633: 5612: 5179:

Well, now with you and Roger it's still over 80% in favor of character lists - whether major character only or not seems to be the question.

4934: 4920: 4905: 4765: 4718: 4502: 4471: 4457: 4313: 4204: 4190: 4155: 4140: 4051: 3598: 3560: 3384: 1772: 1392: 1382: 1370: 1361: 1274: 1033: 605: 548: 513: 442: 307: 261: 3918: 3241:

More recent versions, including those on film, have adapted the play for a modern audience, often placing the action in a familiar context.

882: 710: 6259: 6134: 6111: 5732: 5694: 5569: 5546: 5479: 5188: 5170: 4941:

Shakespearean Criticism: Criticism of William Shakespeare's Plays & Poetry, from the First Published Appraisals to Current Evaluations

1749: 1660: 1327: 1211: 1202: 1148: 820: 579: 425: 3764: 3758: 2515: 2280: 6076: 5966: 5017:

have been the other way, since she could hardly have been aware Romeo had died before Act V scene 3, since that's the scene he dies in.

3249:

We can name in the current generation, only by widely known film, the following: West Side Story, Romeo+Juliet, and Highschool Musical.

1830:

one, but I don't think it's quite ready yet to go onto the main page and the related articles. Please take a look and leave suggestions

1270:

Sorry, I can't quite see what you've tried to do. Haven't you removed WSS (& Romanoff and possbily others)? Was that the intention?

5537:

I've got to say, Rosaline has no lines and she's on there, though you could argue she's more important to the plot than Lady Montague.

5207: 4676: 4462:

It might just be picturecruft, anyway. The picture of Juliet and her nurse will be deleted off commons - it's not public domain yet. -

3331: 1871: 1801: 1724: 1401: 1265: 1119: 274: 4624: 1188:

Also - Doesn't that kind of statement (if needed at all) belong under critical response or something? It is opinion and not fact, yes?

1109:

Romeo and Juliet has been peformed and adapted many times, on stage, in film, and in musical and operatic forms, since its publication

1964: 5151: 3276: 1708:). Shall I expand this section a bit? Would there be any merit in a separate page entitled "List of operas based on Shakespeare's 1704:

A few of the other 22, or whatever, operas on the subject are still being performed today (indeed, I saw one of them last month, by

1099:

Romeo and Juliet has been performed and adapted many times since its publication, including stage, film, musical and operatic forms.

250: 6510: 4818: 4528:

about one of Shakespeare's plays that does have a good critical history section, so that I can look at it and see what's involved?

3210: 1056: 896: 421:

I have a source, but I'm looking for a better one. I also thought the picture was a bit old. A younger version would be welcome.

2337: 5920:

article about him, no big deal. Even if the entire article is from a theatrical standpoint, as long as we can show he's notable.

4791: 3646: 2596: 2262: 1602: 3246:

It is the fallacy of successive generations to believe that they invented the idea of setting an old story in a modern context.

1323:

I did a bit more than just that, too. I expanded on Romeo must die and Shakespeare in Love from some scholarly sources I found.

1023: 480:, the UK has much stricter public domain laws concerning photos of old pictures than some other countries. The site itself has 6370: 5045:

Maybe, but it's reading and understanding this stuff for yourself that's important, not relying on your English teacher. ;-)

3665: 3661: 3638: 3222:

Someone added this as an external link. I don't think it belongs there, but it may be good to put it somewhere in the article.

2865: 2850: 2845: 2840: 2835: 867: 6309: 6185:

I get defensive when it comes to Rosaline, Smatprt, sorry :) . In any case, all I'm saying is that we need to find a balance.

3903:, does anyone object if the text is standardised on Arden? The latest is the second edition, which is quite elderly (1980). -- 706:

Now this may seem a bit silly, but I've had an article put on hold because an automated tool came back with too many lines. -

6532: 6509:, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the 6463: 4301: 2465: 5597: 5512: 4036: 3352:, a more fluid, nonstructured approach, although Shakespeare uses this form less often in this play than in his later plays. 1765: 1255: 1164:

The play is less critically acclaimed than Shakespeare's other great tragedies, being seen by some as merely melodramatic...

1104:

If you read it as "Rome and Juliet has been performed... many times, including stage form", you can see the error. Perhaps,

357: 219:. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. 4616: 4236: 4027:

To some extent this means I'll be off-wikipedia more than usual in the first few days of this, reading up on these things.

3272:

about bringing a classic story up to date. Each adds its own weight, according to its stature in the fullness of time. --

2870: 2522: 2141: 1675: 1649: 741: 701: 622: 537: 3226: 415: 6412: 4668: 3773:? This is a nightmare to edit with templates all over the place, and the citations themselves are far from consistant. -- 3711: 3677: 1446: 1240: 1221: 1192: 1183: 941: 341: 239: 4376: 2331: 1464: 1425: 6425: 5603:

What if we make a major character any character notable enough for their own individual article for our purposes here?

5089: 4745: 4481: 169: 1231: 1173: 575:

It'll happen however it happens. I may be right, I may be wrong. In the end, we'll just have to see how it develops.

5497: 5111: 4783: 3894: 1815: 1198:

Well... is anything in criticism a real fact? :), but I kind of agree, maybe it shouldn't be in the lead. See below.

1179:

world' most performed plays? Who on earth is keeping count? Again - it should not be inthe lead, if at all. In MHO.

1470:

Is it possible that we can just take 'about' literally - as in - put simply, "the play is about romeo and juliet"?--

637: 6296:

and I need help. What is the whole reason why Lord and Lady Capulet want their daughter to marry an older man like

5087: 4838: 4294: 4071: 3051: 3016: 2738: 2578: 2508: 2491: 2285: 2226: 692: 4990: 4889: 1497:

In an introduction I would say it is - sure it's obvious to us - but what's obvious to one is mystery to another--

1001:...is not a defiant "I'll make up my own mind, thank you", but a submissive "I'll do whatever you think is best". 737:. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) 5135: 4733: 2320: 2149: 1740: 1280: 81: 76: 71: 59: 4896:

and nominate anyway, if that's the only issue - FAC can't really expect us to find something that isn't there. -

4650: 1351: 1015:

As for sourcing, I suggest looking first at student texts like York Notes or similar. I think they're perfectly

4632: 4580:. Sorry. I may still try, if I find anything useful, but perhaps others might be able to find something first? 4240: 2995: 2764: 2571: 2240: 2093: 1894: 1864: 1831: 1598:

is about Macbeth dying. Death is the result of the play, not the centre of it (the thing which it is "about").

2232: 2192: 1236:

Good last addition. I think the lead reads much better now and has a better chance of passing FA (eventually)

6498: 4958:

Thanks for the lead. I've found the volume and it has a nice summary and some good primary material as well.

3127: 2821: 2801: 2663: 2353: 387:(which really needs an article, by the way: I studied it for O-level, it's hardly of borderline notability). 289: 89: 744:, headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called 455:

Well..? That certainly looks alot more like a Romeo than the old guy! Surely it is in public domain by now!

5106: 3737: 3175: 3140: 2604: 2370: 2348: 2326: 2315: 2310: 2305: 2300: 2295: 2290: 2275: 2270: 2026: 2010: 1691: 1558: 1089: 778:, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 775: 670: 4487:

want to hold this up further. Can someone else write - or perhaps draft - this? Many thanks in advance, --

231: 4859: 3133: 3023: 2981: 2897: 2543: 2394: 2200: 969:

Juliet states that she will make an effort to love him, but will not go express a love that is not there.

6045:"Fictional coverage describes the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story" 4318:

I've done this, and made one or two changes to section headings and nesting to more closely reflect the

3394: 6502: 4603: 4003: 3977: 3231: 2829: 2449: 2253: 2133: 2101: 2034: 1245: 726: 363: 350: 235: 38: 4574:

Hmm, I took a look and found it was more complicated than it seemed, and then I got carried away with

862:

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of

242:

and be labeled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.

4814: 3101: 2746: 2378: 2066: 2042: 2018: 1857: 946: 887: 527: 109: 6544:

Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

5234:

And there was no large consensus to remove the character list from this article in the first place.

3633:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

6351: 6281: 5340:

Ah - I see it now - you , wrad and one other editor. Well... not too impressive as a "consensus".

4771: 4576: 3687: 3253: 3215: 2904: 2501: 2410: 2109: 2058: 1978: 1932: 3981:(mostly written by me the first time around) to be more like the format subsequently developed at 1849: 682:

Also, the "in a nutshell" section says: "Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources."

5124: 4585: 4565: 4533: 3696: 3491: 3442: 3154: 3096: 3002: 2960: 2883: 2875: 1442: 924: 823:

that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's

760: 730: 714: 371: 337: 300: 215:; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing 195: 133: 4178: 3393:

The quote above seems to be implying that "iambic pentameter" means exactly five iambs, whereas

1488:

Well, nobody would argue about that, but it's so obvious it isn't really necessary to say it...

6040:"Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work…" 4949: 4800: 3348:, with ten syllables of alternating stress in each line. However, the most common form used is 3273: 2529: 2484: 1568: 1537: 1504: 1477: 1454: 1050: 875: 789:. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. 4177:

That, and they're covered in their own articles, or in the Minor R&J characters page. In

4787: 4215:

I've added a critical history sub-section. Which will need writing. I can do some of this. --

3966: 3114: 2925: 2636: 2564: 2536: 2402: 1397:

Copyediting having been done by several editors over the past few days, I have nominated it.

734: 401: 367: 317: 270:

Can anyone read Italian? The Italian version of this article is an FA, and looks very good.

47: 17: 6459: 6421: 5082: 4833: 4779: 4664: 4612: 4082: 3725: 3305: 3300: 3196: 3121: 3009: 2784: 2628: 2168: 1985: 1838: 1434: 1158: 962:

Well, I'll give one example of why I think it does matter. As it stands, the article says:

366:. I'm pretty happy with it at first glance: it's an improvement on the relevant section of 329: 5519:

one editor may believe is a major character, a supporting character or a minor character.

4806: 4348: 4195:

Might have been cut out in a copyedit. I'll have to look back at the edit history a ways.

3990: 3812:

Just done the first step. I'll do it in stages to protect against accidental data loss. --

2125: 8: 6398: 6366: 6339: 6315:

Paris is a great catch - he's rich, handsome, accomplished - and he's close to the duke.

6255: 6160: 5990: 5878: 5774: 5629: 5593: 5508: 5050: 5022: 4930: 4901: 4741: 4714: 4640: 4467: 4439: 4419: 4372: 4309: 4268: 4186: 4136: 4032: 3683: 3556: 3365: 3037: 2687: 2671: 2184: 1880: 1672: 384: 484:

that says that images should only be used non-commercially, which contradicts the GFDL.-

6305: 5119: 4581: 4561: 4529: 4285:

We also have the synopsis first in the Hamlet article. Do we want to do the same here?

3634: 3487: 3438: 3190: 2939: 2703: 2550: 2426: 1971: 1721: 1599: 1438: 1422: 1116: 807: 644: 627: 333: 227: 216: 4925:

There are still a couple of fact-tags in the Ballet section which need dealing with. -

6320: 6130: 6088: 6072: 5962: 5860:

enough to have her own character article as she has been discussed at some length in

5815: 5728: 5660: 5565: 5524: 5460: 5413: 5379: 5345: 5317: 5293: 5257: 5239: 5215: 5184: 5147: 4945: 4488: 4387: 4383: 4367:

are all the red links currently in this article. What do we plan to do about them? -

4323: 4244: 4216: 4161: 4086: 4077:

I agree it needs a copy edit but I'm not sure it's yet quite of the same standard as

4057: 4018:

The section on this page is already in pretty good shape and has lots of breadth; and

3944: 3904: 3842: 3813: 3774: 3551:

Perhaps that particular reference (Halio, pp.48-60) needs splitting up a bit, then? -

3420: 3345: 3161: 3090: 3058: 2988: 2911: 2795: 913: 893: 722: 664: 481: 2386: 929:

Some of the claims in the first paragraph either need to be referenced or replaced.

6506: 6224: 5095:

How about deleting the second sentence and either deleting or modifying the third?

4874: 4805:

I think the Romeo and Juliet page would be greatly improved by the following link:

4726: 3995: 3982: 3733: 3216: 3147: 2711: 2695: 2679: 2612: 2418: 2050: 1885: 1517: 223: 121: 117: 6531:

This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by

5098:"The most well known story ballet" - what is a "story ballet"? Isn't, let's say, 2557: 770:, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is 6228: 6210: 5076: 5064: 4857: 4827: 4658:

fair enough it might not be that hard but not everyone gets it as easily as some

3260:, sometimes identified with an actual queen who lives in the ninth century BC... 3168: 2953: 2946: 2932: 2457: 2343: 2176: 2085: 1666: 1127:

That's the solution that popped into my head as I was looking at it. Looks good.

863: 756: 477: 1293:

for introducing millions to the story of R & J - and that is a great thing!

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6446: 6394: 6390: 6380: 6362: 6335: 6271: 6251: 6190: 6156: 6107: 5986: 5982: 5925: 5874: 5869: 5770: 5765: 5690: 5625: 5608: 5589: 5585: 5542: 5504: 5475: 5203: 5166: 5046: 5018: 4986: 4963: 4926: 4916: 4897: 4885: 4761: 4737: 4710: 4688: 4636: 4551: 4514: 4463: 4453: 4435: 4415: 4368: 4305: 4290: 4264: 4200: 4182: 4151: 4132: 4128: 4110: 4067: 4047: 4028: 3930: 3878: 3799: 3754: 3707: 3594: 3552: 3522: 3464: 3380: 3361: 3044: 2967: 2117: 1927: 1769: 1590:

Please don't restore "about... how rival families are united by their deaths".

1379: 1358: 1341: 1284: 1271: 1080: 1020: 879: 707: 602: 545: 485: 439: 388: 375: 354: 304: 247: 204: 158: 113: 5140:

After bringing the discussion of character lists to WikiProject Theatre - see

2918: 6301: 6233: 6215: 4356: 3702:

isn't very informative, and it just isn't that important to the play itself.

3202: 3065: 2620: 1992: 1411: 1217:

I tried a compromise that addresses both of our concerns. What do you think?

1040: 786: 771: 176: 129: 125: 669:

I took them off of the top of the theme section per this statement from the

6316: 6266:

easily create a good article about him. I could throw in some of my stuff.

6246: 6126: 6084: 6068: 5958: 5861: 5811: 5724: 5656: 5651: 5581: 5561: 5520: 5456: 5412:

discussion, I suppose, than simply post stuff as guidelines without any. --

5375: 5341: 5289: 5235: 5180: 5143: 4364: 4124: 3650: 3107: 2974: 2774: 1764:

Is the theory on the Guelphs and the Ghibellines more recent than the 1930

1646: 1294: 1237: 1218: 1189: 1180: 1145: 1016: 1009: 956: 767: 559: 456: 412: 296: 194:(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see 161: 4939:

Before you give up the search on critical histories you could try finding

4448:

I tried to find one and failed. Maybe drop a note at the fashion project.

4042:

Andy, I wrote a lot of these sections so if you have questions, just ask.

6297: 6219: 5978: 5865: 5857: 5853: 5761: 5720: 5069:

An FA push is near, but first I think we should verify these statements:

5032: 5002: 4431: 4012: 3729: 3423:, with less rhythmic variation than in most of Shakespeare's later plays. 3416: 3349: 3256:). Of course that drama was set during the reign of the legendary queen 2719: 2655: 2208: 1937: 1755:

We'd need a source for it if we wanted to add it. Then it would be fine.

1705: 1671:

Absolutely fantastic work. Now get working on Shakespeare's other plays.

1530:

Nononono - i changed the actual article - i was wondering how that was.--

782: 326:

is messy. I suggest turning it into paragraphs. 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

165: 146: 3621: 6288: 6242: 4851: 4706: 4360: 3397:

allows variations, and indeed starts by quoting Shakespeare. How about

1548:

Yeah, I like the new wording replacing "about". Is eachother one word?

6442: 6376: 6267: 6186: 6103: 5921: 5686: 5604: 5538: 5471: 5199: 5162: 4982: 4959: 4912: 4881: 4757: 4702: 4684: 4547: 4510: 4449: 4286: 4196: 4147: 4106: 4063: 4043: 3926: 3874: 3795: 3750: 3703: 3590: 3518: 3460: 3376: 3320: 3286: 3257: 3223: 3207: 1947: 1798: 1788: 1756: 1731: 1682: 1657: 1549: 1522: 1489: 1461: 1398: 1389: 1367: 1348: 1324: 1262: 1252: 1228: 1208: 1199: 1170: 1128: 1066: 1030: 938: 904: 689: 653: 634: 619: 576: 534: 510: 422: 271: 258: 5374:

for keeping lists on the current discussion at the Theatre project.

4386:

is the best reply to FAC naysayers. I see you share this view :)) --

1730:

Please do expand this. Opera is one of my weak spots, to be honest.

2890: 1942: 1922: 1912: 1879: 6300:? XANA (in human form) is playing the Count, and Sissi is Juliet. 3769:

Does anyone mind if I convert this to the same format we used for

5584:

on the central WP:THEATRE discussion, no-one responded, so I was

4655:

i noticed you didn't include any info in the dramatist's message

3285:

to keep some semblance of that idea in the lead. Any ideas how?

1768:? Cos that article says stuff about other political factions. - 411:

hadn't gone back to check) as well as any additons I might make.

4543: 4319: 4120: 4078: 4008: 3900: 3770: 1917: 1907: 1826: 5110:

maybe the sentence can be reworked. Maybe raise the issue at

1019:, and they're likely to contain the type of material we need. 859:, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. 3072: 3030: 1902: 1417:

The exact date Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet is unknown.

713:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic

598: 353:. Can you leave that little project with me for a day or so? 208:; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 5977:(or currently-being-revised) guidelines, which include the 5769:

few others (perhaps even most), he is excised completely. -

3645:

Knowledge article constitutes fair use. In addition to the

3617:

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

717:, and might not be applicable for the article in question. 299:

guarded in medieval homes, from the gruesome black-cloaked

6488:

be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.

5408:

That's the way it goes sometimes. However, better to have

806:

might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper

226:

it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct

5102:

one? And isn't it better-known than Prokofiev's R&J?

643:

I usually use the Citation Templates. Are those in MLA?--

6497:

Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or

4807:

http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=4

4996:

Why did Romeo when to the ball and why did his mom die

4635:

and the sub-articles on each character for starters. -

1766:

The Origins of the Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

105:(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and 4683:

I can't understand you. Exactly what is it you want?

1366:

You're right, let me check... I think it's good now.

1115:

Would that work? I am not a wizard, so I don't know.

810:(if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please 4944:

this section is necessary to include at this time.--

845:

Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-: -->

5719:If that is the case, then I would be against using 5288:Where? Please show in a link, perhaps I missed it. 3676:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 3375:The whole section? Why not just say it's unrhymed? 855:The script has spotted the following contractions: 1521:is about Romeo and Juliet is no mystery at all :) 1787:It does talk about them. I'll see what I can do. 191:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and 4776:Do you think Romeo and Juliet deserved to die? 994:Than your consent gives strength to make it fly. 803:- covered by the "Sex, love and death" citation. 438:, but I'm not sure about copyright issues etc. - 6209:what I say as an accusation, let's keep things 5031:Well then my English teacher misinturpreted it. 4414:into plain text, and letting the others stand. 4235:I've copied the deleted Character section into 3263:It's pretty fair to say that Romeo and Juliet 4732:expect that everything will be sourced? (see 4304:about the placing of the synopsis is sound. - 2770:A rose by any other name would smell as sweet 1865: 94:A good article has the following attributes: 1460:the word "about" and say it in another way. 5650:I don't agree with this interpretation of 4181:, who is Saunders? It's cited to Halio. - 1872: 1858: 984:I'll look to like, if looking liking move. 257:start putting tags on uncited material... 5316:The copy-edit section above covers it. -- 5214:Absolutely, there is no consensus yet. -- 4300:Sounds good to me - the reasoning in the 1965:The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet 1094:It's difficult to correct this sentence: 846:to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, 3717:Really a farce or comedy, not a tragedy? 2193:Roméo et Juliette, de la Haine à l'Amour 1347:absolutely should do before nominating? 912:I did not know it was also a film! Wow! 166:is challenged or likely to be challenged 154:(a) provides references to sources used; 5256:Yes there was. See discussion above. -- 1004:Obviously, I could be wrong about this 989:But no more deep will I endart mine eye 774:, than an appropriate subpage would be 618:are commonly talked about by scholars. 14: 4127:? Perhaps this could be reflected in 3666:Knowledge:Fair use rationale guideline 868:User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a 601:. The ones I've used thus far span. - 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4701:The "dramatist's message".. hmmm.... 4302:Knowledge:Peer review/Hamlet/archive1 4119:Was the character section cut out in 1853: 1421:Shakespeare wrote it all in one day? 164:for quotations and for material that 6484:Although the entire Manual of Style 4237:Minor characters in Romeo and Juliet 4004:Romeo and Juliet#Performance history 3630:Image:Romeo Montague with poison.jpg 3395:iambic pentameter#Rhythmic variation 1431:Nevermind. I rewrote the sentence. 742:Knowledge:Manual of Style (headings) 25: 3765:Notes, citations and references etc 1006:I'm not, of course, but I could be, 725:for this article. For example, see 23: 6501:at the end of a sentence (see the 3620: 3332:De dum de dum de dum de dum de dum 1449:) 13:55:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC). 246:Above posted here for discussion. 24: 6556: 6511:guideline on scientific citations 5112:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Ballet 3236:I've removed this from the lead: 766:This article may need to undergo 3873:I'm fine with leaving them out. 3664:. Using one of the templates at 3017:The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke 2739:Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene 2227:Beethoven's String Quartet No. 1 1712:", which I could easily provide? 1515:Well, to say that a play titled 836:pigs are pink, so we thought of 785:in this article- please observe 509:I just added a ref for Burbage. 29: 6513:should adhere to the guideline. 3319:So just getting more specific? 874:You may wish to browse through 781:There are a few occurrences of 6538: 6525: 6516: 6491: 6478: 4633:Characters in Romeo and Juliet 4241:Characters in Romeo and Juliet 3678:Media copyright questions page 3227:21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 3211:00:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 2996:Smart Girls Get What They Want 1842:23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 1824:, along the same lines as the 1802:05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 1792:04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 1783:04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 1681:Wow, that was quick! Will do! 13: 1: 4981:Critical history now added!! 4766:16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 4746:08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 4719:23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 4693:16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 4677:11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 4645:23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 4179:Romeo_and_Juliet#19th_century 3692:19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 3647:boilerplate fair use template 3599:22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3561:21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3527:00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 3496:22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 3469:23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3447:22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3385:17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3370:08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3128:Inge Sylten and Heinz Drosihn 2765:A plague o' both your houses! 1773:11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 1760:03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 1750:23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 959:, but not really a big deal? 349:I'm doing some work on that, 290:Knowledge:Good article review 5107:Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) 4751:Well, the source was in the 4625:20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4570:21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4556:20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4538:20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4519:20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4503:15:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 4472:00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 4458:16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 4444:12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 4424:08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 4402:08:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 4377:06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 4338:08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4314:02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4295:01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4273:00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 4259:08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4231:08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4205:01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4191:01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4156:00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4141:00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 4115:18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 4101:23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 4072:22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 4052:22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 4037:13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3883:00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 3674:criteria for speedy deletion 3324:02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3310:02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3290:01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3277:01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3176:Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo 3141:My Wedding and Other Secrets 776:History of the United States 702:Automated review suggestions 671:Knowledge:Avoid weasel words 240:criteria for fair use images 7: 6413:Romeo and Juliet True love? 5952:There are no small parts... 5723:as a "test" for inclusion. 3959:20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3935:17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3919:16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3857:23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3828:20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3804:16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3789:16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3759:02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3742:02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3712:01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3419:, and much of it in strict 2898:Nothing Broken but My Heart 1735:15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1725:15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1686:15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1676:15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1661:18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1650:18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1603:06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1594:is no more about that than 1575:05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1553:05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1544:05:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1526:05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1511:04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1493:04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1484:04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1465:04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1426:13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1402:14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1393:01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1383:01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1371:00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1362:00:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1352:22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1328:22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1298:21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1288:21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1275:21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1266:20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1256:17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1241:16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1232:16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1222:16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1212:16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1203:16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1193:16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1184:16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1174:16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1149:16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1132:14:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1120:11:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1084:01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1070:03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1057:20:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 1034:19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 1024:18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 942:23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 917:01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 908:23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 883:01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 878:for further ideas. Thanks, 721:There may be an applicable 232:acceptable copyright status 10: 6561: 6310:14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 5480:15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5465:07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5428:06:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5384:06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5332:06:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5298:06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5272:06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5244:06:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5230:03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5208:22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 5189:07:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 5171:22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 5152:22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 5130:21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 5090:19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4991:21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4968:20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4867:05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 4841:22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 4819:20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 4590:16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4482:Critical history/reception 4353:Folger Shakespeare Theatre 3996:Hamlet#Screen performances 3978:Romeo and Juliet on screen 3658:the image description page 2830:The Picture of Dorian Gray 2134:A Village Romeo and Juliet 1279:Ah, I've found your edit, 897:23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 748:, it should be changed to 727:Template:Infobox Biography 364:Romeo and Juliet on screen 6472:08:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 6403:08:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 6385:02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 5764:seems a fairer test. ;) 5055:18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 5041:17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 5027:16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 5011:16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 4954:05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 4935:05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 4921:05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 4906:05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 4890:23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 4792:11:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 3660:and edit it to include a 3082: 2783: 2757: 2730: 2647: 2588: 2476: 2441: 2362: 2261: 2252: 2219: 2160: 2077: 2002: 1956: 1893: 1820:I've made a template for 1816:Romeo and Juliet template 1169:the Bard, but it's true. 842:ways to turn them green.” 711:09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 693:16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 657:20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 648:20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 638:15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 623:21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 606:09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 580:03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 563:03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 549:02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 538:02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 514:21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 489:07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 460:02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 443:03:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 426:03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 416:22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 392:07:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 379:21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 358:13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 308:01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 275:04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 262:21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 251:20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 108:(b) it complies with the 6451:02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6434:01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6344:07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 4835:Comments and Suggestions 4577:The History of King Lear 3639:explanation or rationale 2688:The Destruction of Faena 2110:I Capuleti e i Montecchi 673:page that they link to: 172:for longer articles; and 6389:Maybe that could go in 6371:00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 6325:20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 6276:22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 6260:21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 6195:01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 6165:01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 6135:00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 6112:18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 6093:16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 6077:15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5995:06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5967:05:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5930:03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5883:01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5820:01:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5779:00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5733:01:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 5695:23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5665:23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5634:23:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5613:23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5598:23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5570:23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5547:22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5529:22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5513:22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 5136:Restored Character List 3991:Romeo and Juliet#Screen 3188:To Sources I would add 3097:Romeo and Juliet effect 2502:(Don't Fear) The Reaper 1741:Guelphs and Ghibellines 761:Knowledge:Summary style 731:Template:Infobox School 372:User talk:RedRabbit1983 187:. In this respect, it: 150:. In this respect, it: 6503:inline citations essay 3625: 2485:Montagues and Capulets 876:User:AndyZ/Suggestions 3641:as to why its use in 3624: 3459:I like that version. 3115:Upper West Side Story 3102:Romeo and Juliet laws 2926:The Sky Is Everywhere 2565:Mademoiselle Juliette 2403:Harina de otro costal 1559:this random amazon ad 1437:comment was added by 864:Knowledge's best work 735:Template:Infobox City 368:Shakespeare on screen 238:images must meet the 185:broad in its coverage 142:factually accurat e 90:Good article criteria 42:of past discussions. 18:Talk:Romeo and Juliet 5979:notability guideline 5072:intended to create.. 4705:is another word for 4651:Dramatist's message? 3197:Troilus and Criseyde 3122:Millennium Dome Show 3010:The Thief of Baghead 2169:The Belle of Mayfair 2145:(1940, Sutermeister) 1986:Troilus and Criseyde 1692:Operatic adaptations 1090:Troublesome sentence 857:didn't, don't, don't 825:redundancy exercises 177:no original research 4407:after edit conflict 3943:Perfect sense :) -- 3899:Referring again to 3794:By all means, yes! 3038:Phileine Says Sorry 2861:1917 Hungarian film 2672:The Stolen Dormouse 2450:Romanoff and Juliet 2245:(1870, Tchaikovsky) 2185:Once on This Island 1881:William Shakespeare 385:Romanoff and Juliet 168:, preferably using 101:. In this respect: 6499:Harvard references 5503:symmetry's sake. - 4753:very next sentence 4661:please put it in 4604:romeo and benvolio 3662:fair use rationale 3626: 3232:Modern adaptations 3191:Palace of Pleasure 3052:Say You'll Be Mine 2940:The White Mercedes 2704:Romiette and Julio 2427:Still Star-Crossed 2097:(1796, Zingarelli) 1979:Palace of Pleasure 1972:Pyramus and Thisbe 1620:A couple of things 1246:screen adaptations 1144:I made an attempt. 715:javascript program 482:a copyright policy 134:list incorporation 6474: 6462:comment added by 6436: 6424:comment added by 6153:calm, blue, ocean 5983:fiction guideline 5423: 5419: 5327: 5323: 5267: 5263: 5225: 5221: 4864: 4794: 4782:comment added by 4679: 4667:comment added by 4627: 4615:comment added by 4498: 4494: 4408: 4397: 4393: 4349:Gérard Presgurvic 4333: 4329: 4263:Cheers mate. :) - 4254: 4250: 4226: 4222: 4171: 4167: 4096: 4092: 3954: 3950: 3914: 3910: 3852: 3848: 3823: 3819: 3784: 3780: 3744: 3728:comment added by 3421:iambic pentameter 3346:iambic pentameter 3312: 3185: 3184: 3162:Letters to Juliet 3091:Such Tweet Sorrow 3059:Into the Gauntlet 2912:Bare: A Pop Opera 2796:Nicholas Nickleby 2696:Ronny & Julia 2664:The Wandering Jew 2613:Romeo & Julia 2437: 2436: 2419:Romil & Jugal 2371:Ronny & Julia 2234:Roméo et Juliette 2201:Giulietta e Romeo 2126:Roméo et Juliette 2102:Giulietta e Romeo 2094:Giulietta e Romeo 2030:(1965, MacMillan) 2014:(1938, Prokofiev) 1573: 1542: 1509: 1482: 1450: 1055: 1007: 947:Sourcing synopsis 888:Stage Adaptations 746:==The Biography== 528:Criticism section 362:OK, I've created 345: 332:comment added by 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6552: 6545: 6542: 6536: 6529: 6523: 6520: 6514: 6507:common knowledge 6495: 6489: 6482: 6457: 6419: 6352:Petrachan Sonnet 6294:Romeo and Juliet 6282:Juliet and Paris 6247:reliable sources 5862:reliable sources 5425: 5421: 5417: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5269: 5265: 5261: 5227: 5223: 5219: 5079: 4856: 4830: 4777: 4772:Romeo and Juliet 4662: 4610: 4525:Romeo and Juliet 4500: 4496: 4492: 4406: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4098: 4094: 4090: 3983:Hamlet on screen 3956: 3952: 3948: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3723: 3637:but there is no 3589:Yeah, probably. 3413:Romeo and Juliet 3342:Romeo and Juliet 3303: 3217:Butterfly Lovers 3148:Donkey in Lahore 2856:1917 German film 2747:Romeo and Juliet 2680:The Faraway Lurs 2597:Romeo and Juliet 2523:Romeo and Juliet 2516:Romeo and Juliet 2494:Romeo and Juliet 2492:Love Theme from 2466:Romeo and Juliet 2259: 2258: 2242:Romeo and Juliet 2067:Romeo and Juliet 2051:Radio and Juliet 2043:Romeo and Juliet 2035:Romeo and Juliet 2027:Romeo and Juliet 2019:Romeo and Juliet 2011:Romeo and Juliet 1886:Romeo and Juliet 1874: 1867: 1860: 1851: 1850: 1822:Romeo and Juliet 1710:Romeo and Juliet 1592:Romeo and Juliet 1571: 1566: 1562: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1518:Romeo and Juliet 1507: 1502: 1498: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1432: 1053: 1048: 1044: 1017:reliable sources 1005: 841: 835: 327: 170:inline citations 162:reliable sources 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6560: 6559: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6548: 6543: 6539: 6530: 6526: 6521: 6517: 6496: 6492: 6483: 6479: 6475: 6464:121.220.110.207 6415: 6358: 6354: 6284: 5954: 5856:. Rosaline is 5500: 5414: 5318: 5258: 5216: 5138: 5085: 5077: 5067: 4998: 4877: 4862: 4836: 4828: 4811:Andrewmagliozzi 4803: 4774: 4729: 4653: 4606: 4489: 4484: 4388: 4324: 4245: 4239:and renamed it 4217: 4162: 4087: 4060: 3969: 3945: 3905: 3897: 3895:"Official" text 3843: 3814: 3775: 3767: 3719: 3699: 3697:Animated series 3619: 3334: 3301:DionysosProteus 3234: 3220: 3186: 3181: 3169:Sherlock Gnomes 3078: 3024:Prince Charming 2982:The Frog Prince 2954:Moonshine River 2947:She Died a Lady 2933:Pay as You Exit 2871:1976 TV special 2779: 2753: 2726: 2643: 2584: 2472: 2433: 2395:Romeo y Julieta 2358: 2248: 2237:(1839, Berlioz) 2215: 2177:West Side Story 2156: 2153:(1943, Blacher) 2150:Romeo und Julia 2142:Romeo und Julia 2113:(1830, Bellini) 2086:Romeo und Julie 2073: 2062:(2007, Martins) 2038:(1977, Nureyev) 1998: 1952: 1889: 1878: 1839:DionysosProteus 1818: 1743: 1694: 1669: 1569: 1564: 1538: 1533: 1505: 1500: 1478: 1473: 1457: 1433:—The preceding 1414: 1344: 1248: 1161: 1092: 1051: 1046: 949: 927: 925:First paragraph 890: 837: 831: 704: 667: 630: 530: 478:Commons:COM:ART 404: 320: 112:guidelines for 110:manual of style 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6558: 6547: 6546: 6537: 6524: 6515: 6490: 6476: 6455: 6454: 6453: 6414: 6411: 6410: 6409: 6408: 6407: 6406: 6405: 6391:Romeo Montague 6355: 6353: 6350: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6328: 6327: 6283: 6280: 6279: 6278: 6206: 6205: 6204: 6203: 6202: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6167: 6142: 6141: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6096: 6095: 6064: 6063: 6058: 6057: 6052: 6051: 6047: 6046: 6042: 6041: 6037: 6036: 6025: 6024: 6020: 6019: 6015: 6014: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6001: 5953: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5887: 5886: 5885: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5829: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5794: 5793: 5792: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5786: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5674: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5641: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5616: 5615: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5532: 5531: 5499: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5137: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5103: 5083: 5066: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 4997: 4994: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4946:Torchwood Who? 4876: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4860: 4844: 4843: 4834: 4802: 4801:External Links 4799: 4797: 4773: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4728: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4696: 4695: 4652: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4617:66.103.253.126 4605: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4483: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4427: 4426: 4404: 4345: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4284: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4233: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4175: 4059: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4019: 3999: 3986: 3968: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3938: 3937: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3807: 3806: 3766: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3718: 3715: 3698: 3695: 3684:BetacommandBot 3618: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3415:is written in 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3388: 3387: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3344:is written in 3333: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3314: 3313: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3244: 3243: 3233: 3230: 3219: 3214: 3183: 3182: 3180: 3179: 3172: 3165: 3158: 3151: 3144: 3137: 3134:Boys Don't Cry 3130: 3125: 3118: 3111: 3104: 3099: 3094: 3086: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3077: 3076: 3069: 3062: 3055: 3048: 3045:Hamateur Night 3041: 3034: 3027: 3020: 3013: 3006: 2999: 2992: 2985: 2978: 2971: 2964: 2957: 2950: 2943: 2936: 2929: 2922: 2915: 2908: 2901: 2894: 2887: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2873: 2868: 2863: 2858: 2853: 2848: 2843: 2838: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2819: 2814: 2809: 2804: 2791: 2789: 2786: 2781: 2780: 2778: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2761: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2752: 2751: 2743: 2734: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2725: 2724: 2716: 2708: 2700: 2692: 2684: 2676: 2668: 2660: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2642: 2641: 2633: 2625: 2617: 2609: 2605:Romeo + Juliet 2601: 2592: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2583: 2582: 2575: 2568: 2561: 2554: 2547: 2540: 2537:Amor Prohibido 2533: 2526: 2519: 2512: 2505: 2498: 2488: 2480: 2478: 2474: 2473: 2471: 2470: 2462: 2458:People's Romeo 2454: 2445: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2435: 2434: 2432: 2431: 2423: 2415: 2407: 2399: 2391: 2387:Romeo × Juliet 2383: 2375: 2366: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2357: 2356: 2351: 2346: 2341: 2335: 2329: 2324: 2318: 2313: 2308: 2303: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2283: 2278: 2273: 2267: 2265: 2256: 2250: 2249: 2247: 2246: 2238: 2230: 2223: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2214: 2213: 2205: 2197: 2189: 2181: 2173: 2164: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2155: 2154: 2146: 2138: 2137:(1907, Delius) 2130: 2129:(1867, Gounod) 2122: 2114: 2106: 2105:(1825, Vaccai) 2098: 2090: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2072: 2071: 2070:(2008, Pastor) 2063: 2059:Romeo + Juliet 2055: 2047: 2046:(1965, Lavery) 2039: 2031: 2023: 2022:(1962, Cranko) 2015: 2006: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1997: 1996: 1989: 1982: 1975: 1968: 1960: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1951: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1935: 1930: 1928:Friar Laurence 1925: 1920: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1899: 1897: 1891: 1890: 1877: 1876: 1869: 1862: 1854: 1847: 1845: 1844: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1797:or something. 1742: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1702: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1673:Alientraveller 1668: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1528: 1456: 1455:First sentence 1453: 1452: 1451: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1261:I added some. 1247: 1244: 1215: 1214: 1205: 1160: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1113: 1112: 1102: 1101: 1091: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1037: 1036: 999: 998: 997: 996: 991: 986: 974: 973: 972: 971: 948: 945: 926: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 889: 886: 872: 871: 860: 853: 852: 851: 843: 817: 816: 815: 814:this comment). 804: 796: 795:- in the lead. 779: 764: 753: 738: 703: 700: 698: 696: 695: 684: 683: 679: 678: 666: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 629: 626: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 568: 567: 566: 565: 552: 551: 529: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 448: 447: 446: 445: 429: 428: 403: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 319: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 293: 280: 279: 278: 277: 265: 264: 245: 200: 199: 192: 181: 180: 173: 155: 138: 137: 126:words to avoid 106: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6557: 6541: 6534: 6528: 6519: 6512: 6508: 6504: 6500: 6494: 6487: 6481: 6477: 6473: 6469: 6465: 6461: 6452: 6448: 6444: 6439: 6438: 6437: 6435: 6431: 6427: 6423: 6404: 6400: 6396: 6392: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6382: 6378: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6368: 6364: 6360: 6359: 6345: 6341: 6337: 6332: 6331: 6330: 6329: 6326: 6322: 6318: 6314: 6313: 6312: 6311: 6307: 6303: 6299: 6295: 6291: 6290: 6277: 6273: 6269: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6257: 6253: 6248: 6244: 6239: 6235: 6230: 6226: 6221: 6217: 6212: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6166: 6162: 6158: 6154: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6146: 6145: 6144: 6143: 6136: 6132: 6128: 6123: 6122: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6118: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6094: 6090: 6086: 6081: 6080: 6079: 6078: 6074: 6070: 6060: 6059: 6054: 6053: 6049: 6048: 6044: 6043: 6039: 6038: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6029: 6022: 6021: 6017: 6016: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6008: 6007:WP:Notability 5998: 5997: 5996: 5992: 5988: 5984: 5980: 5976: 5973:value of the 5971: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5964: 5960: 5931: 5927: 5923: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5909: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5884: 5880: 5876: 5871: 5867: 5863: 5859: 5855: 5851: 5850: 5849: 5848: 5847: 5846: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5838: 5837: 5836: 5821: 5817: 5813: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5780: 5776: 5772: 5767: 5763: 5760: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5734: 5730: 5726: 5722: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5709: 5708: 5707: 5696: 5692: 5688: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5666: 5662: 5658: 5653: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5635: 5631: 5627: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5595: 5591: 5587: 5583: 5571: 5567: 5563: 5558: 5557: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5553: 5548: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5510: 5506: 5498:Lady Montague 5481: 5477: 5473: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5462: 5458: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5429: 5426: 5424: 5411: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5397: 5396: 5385: 5381: 5377: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5330: 5328: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5299: 5295: 5291: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5273: 5270: 5268: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5228: 5226: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5196: 5190: 5186: 5182: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5149: 5145: 5141: 5131: 5128: 5127: 5123: 5122: 5118: 5113: 5108: 5104: 5101: 5097: 5096: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5088: 5086: 5081: 5080: 5073: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5008: 5004: 4993: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4942: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4868: 4865: 4863: 4858: 4854: 4853: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4842: 4839: 4837: 4832: 4831: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4798: 4795: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4754: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4669:81.106.246.59 4666: 4659: 4656: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4582:Cowardly Lion 4579: 4578: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4562:Cowardly Lion 4559: 4558: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4546: 4545: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4530:Cowardly Lion 4526: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4501: 4499: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4405: 4403: 4400: 4398: 4385: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4357:Mary McVicker 4354: 4350: 4339: 4336: 4334: 4321: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4257: 4255: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4232: 4229: 4227: 4214: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4174: 4172: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4125:summary style 4122: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4097: 4084: 4083:critical path 4080: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4020: 4017: 4016: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4005: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3987: 3984: 3980: 3979: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3967:My to-do list 3960: 3957: 3955: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3917: 3915: 3902: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3858: 3855: 3853: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3829: 3826: 3824: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3787: 3785: 3772: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3714: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3694: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3680:. Thank you. 3679: 3675: 3669: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3656:Please go to 3654: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3623: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488:GuillaumeTell 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3439:GuillaumeTell 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3424: 3422: 3418: 3412: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3353: 3351: 3347: 3341: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3311: 3308:was added at 3307: 3302: 3297: 3296: 3291: 3288: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3275: 3271: 3266: 3261: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3247: 3242: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3229: 3228: 3225: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3205: 3204: 3199: 3198: 3193: 3192: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3164: 3163: 3159: 3157: 3156: 3152: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3143: 3142: 3138: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3129: 3126: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3095: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3087: 3085: 3081: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3068: 3067: 3066:Wandering Son 3063: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3033: 3032: 3028: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3011: 3007: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2963: 2962: 2958: 2955: 2951: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2899: 2895: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2886: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2872: 2869: 2867: 2864: 2862: 2859: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2849: 2847: 2844: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2818: 2815: 2813: 2810: 2808: 2805: 2803: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2790: 2788: 2782: 2776: 2773: 2771: 2768: 2766: 2763: 2762: 2760: 2756: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2733: 2729: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2682: 2681: 2677: 2674: 2673: 2669: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2650: 2646: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2622: 2621:Tragic Lovers 2618: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2591: 2587: 2580: 2579:Love Me Again 2576: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2558:Peut-être toi 2555: 2552: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2495: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2479: 2475: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2413: 2412: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2365: 2361: 2355: 2352: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2317: 2314: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2299: 2297: 2294: 2292: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2282: 2279: 2277: 2274: 2272: 2269: 2268: 2266: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2255: 2251: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2228: 2225: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2163: 2159: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2123: 2121:(1874, Cilea) 2120: 2119: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2089:(1776, Benda) 2088: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2080: 2076: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2005: 2001: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1959: 1955: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1936: 1934: 1931: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1909: 1906: 1904: 1901: 1900: 1898: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1882: 1875: 1870: 1868: 1863: 1861: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1823: 1803: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1780:Ninquerinquar 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1747:Ninquerinquar 1736: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1722:GuillaumeTell 1714: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1687: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1662: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1529: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1463: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439:RedRabbit1983 1436: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1403: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1329: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1243: 1242: 1239: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1166: 1165: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1110: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1085: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1042: 1035: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1018: 1013: 1011: 1002: 995: 992: 990: 987: 985: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 970: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 960: 958: 952: 944: 943: 940: 934: 933: 918: 915: 911: 910: 909: 906: 901: 900: 899: 898: 895: 885: 884: 881: 877: 869: 865: 861: 858: 854: 849: 844: 840: 834: 829: 828: 826: 822: 818: 813: 809: 805: 802: 801: 797: 794: 791: 790: 788: 784: 780: 777: 773: 772:United States 769: 768:summary style 765: 762: 758: 754: 751: 750:==Biography== 747: 743: 739: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 719: 718: 716: 712: 709: 699: 694: 691: 686: 685: 681: 680: 676: 675: 674: 672: 658: 655: 651: 650: 649: 646: 645:Romeo in love 642: 641: 640: 639: 636: 625: 624: 621: 607: 604: 600: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 581: 578: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 564: 561: 556: 555: 554: 553: 550: 547: 542: 541: 540: 539: 536: 515: 512: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 490: 487: 483: 479: 476:According to 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 461: 458: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 444: 441: 437: 433: 432: 431: 430: 427: 424: 420: 419: 418: 417: 414: 408: 402:Burbage Photo 393: 390: 386: 382: 381: 380: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 360: 359: 356: 352: 348: 347: 346: 343: 339: 335: 334:RedRabbit1983 331: 325: 318:Films section 309: 306: 302: 298: 294: 291: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 276: 273: 269: 268: 267: 266: 263: 260: 255: 254: 253: 252: 249: 243: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 220: 218: 214: 209: 207: 206: 197: 196:summary style 193: 190: 189: 188: 186: 178: 175:(c) contains 174: 171: 167: 163: 160: 156: 153: 152: 151: 149: 148: 143: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 114:lead sections 111: 107: 104: 103: 102: 100: 95: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6540: 6527: 6518: 6493: 6485: 6480: 6426:70.105.79.11 6416: 6293: 6287: 6286:I'm doing a 6285: 6237: 6207: 6065: 6027: 6026: 6006: 6005: 5974: 5955: 5578: 5501: 5415: 5409: 5319: 5259: 5217: 5158: 5139: 5125: 5120: 5099: 5075: 5070: 5068: 4999: 4980: 4878: 4855: 4850: 4826: 4804: 4796: 4775: 4752: 4730: 4660: 4657: 4654: 4607: 4575: 4542: 4524: 4490: 4485: 4411: 4389: 4365:Il Novellino 4344: 4325: 4322:structure.-- 4283: 4246: 4218: 4163: 4088: 4061: 4026: 4002: 3989: 3976: 3970: 3946: 3906: 3898: 3844: 3815: 3776: 3768: 3720: 3700: 3682: 3670: 3655: 3642: 3628: 3627: 3414: 3410: 3358: 3343: 3339: 3274:Tony Sidaway 3269: 3264: 3262: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3240: 3235: 3221: 3201: 3195: 3189: 3187: 3174: 3167: 3160: 3153: 3146: 3139: 3132: 3120: 3108:After Juliet 3106: 3089: 3071: 3064: 3057: 3043: 3036: 3029: 3022: 3015: 3001: 2994: 2987: 2980: 2975:I Am Unicorn 2966: 2959: 2945: 2938: 2931: 2924: 2917: 2910: 2905:Panic Button 2903: 2889: 2884:Harlequinade 2882: 2828: 2794: 2785:Story within 2775:Star-crossed 2745: 2737: 2718: 2710: 2702: 2694: 2686: 2678: 2670: 2662: 2654: 2635: 2629:Star-Crossed 2627: 2619: 2611: 2603: 2595: 2493: 2464: 2456: 2448: 2425: 2417: 2411:Star-Crossed 2409: 2401: 2393: 2385: 2377: 2369: 2241: 2233: 2209:& Juliet 2207: 2199: 2191: 2183: 2175: 2167: 2148: 2140: 2132: 2124: 2116: 2108: 2100: 2092: 2084: 2065: 2057: 2049: 2041: 2033: 2025: 2017: 2009: 1991: 1984: 1977: 1970: 1963: 1884: 1846: 1825: 1821: 1819: 1744: 1719: 1709: 1695: 1670: 1644: 1595: 1591: 1589: 1516: 1458: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1345: 1249: 1235: 1225: 1216: 1187: 1177: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1159:Melodramatic 1114: 1108: 1103: 1098: 1093: 1038: 1014: 1003: 1000: 993: 988: 983: 975: 968: 961: 953: 950: 935: 930: 928: 914:Sydneysaurus 894:Sydneysaurus 891: 873: 856: 838: 832: 821:redundancies 811: 799: 798: 792: 783:weasel words 749: 745: 705: 697: 668: 631: 616: 531: 409: 405: 323: 321: 297:memento mori 244: 221: 212: 210: 203: 201: 184: 182: 145: 141: 139: 99:well written 98: 96: 93: 65: 43: 37: 6458:—Preceding 6456:By Saumya 6420:—Preceding 6298:Count Paris 6232:this case ( 4784:119.11.1.28 4778:—Preceding 4663:—Preceding 4611:—Preceding 4609:about it? 4432:bridal veil 4123:because of 4013:The Tempest 3841:tomorrow?-- 3724:—Preceding 3417:blank verse 3350:blank verse 3304:—Preceding 3155:Upside Down 3003:Tumbleweeds 2961:Rendez-vous 2919:Bolji život 2720:Warm Bodies 2656:Les Chouans 2551:Starcrossed 2544:Kissing You 1706:Georg Benda 866:. See also 839:a number of 793:it has been 328:—Preceding 36:This is an 6289:Code Lyoko 6243:literature 6035:"policy"." 6028:WP:Fiction 5078:Meldshal42 4829:Meldshal42 4707:playwright 4631:Check out 4412:juliet cap 4384:WP:SOFIXIT 4361:juliet cap 4001:Reworking 3988:Reworking 3975:Reworking 2648:Literature 2572:Love Story 2281:1916 Metro 1895:Characters 819:Watch for 628:MLA format 533:heads up. 147:verifiable 6395:Malkinann 6393:, Wrad? - 6363:Malkinann 6336:AndyJones 6292:spoof of 6252:Malkinann 6225:WP:WEIGHT 6157:Malkinann 6062:synopsis) 5987:Malkinann 5875:Malkinann 5771:Malkinann 5626:Malkinann 5590:Malkinann 5505:Malkinann 5121:Guillaume 5100:Swan Lake 5047:AndyJones 5019:AndyJones 4927:Malkinann 4898:Malkinann 4738:AndyJones 4711:Malkinann 4703:dramatist 4637:Malkinann 4464:Malkinann 4436:Malkinann 4416:AndyJones 4369:Malkinann 4306:Malkinann 4265:Malkinann 4183:Malkinann 4133:Malkinann 4058:Copy-edit 4029:AndyJones 4015:because: 3553:Malkinann 3362:AndyJones 3258:Semiramis 3203:Ephisaica 2876:2009 film 2866:1945 film 2851:1916 film 2846:1915 film 2841:1913 film 2836:1910 film 2822:2002 film 2817:2001 film 2812:1980 play 2807:1947 film 2802:1912 film 2363:TV series 2254:On screen 2229:(c. 1800) 2220:Classical 1993:Ephesiaca 1948:Queen Mab 1770:Malkinann 1701:sentence. 1600:RedRabbit 1557:based on 1423:RedRabbit 1380:Malkinann 1359:Malkinann 1285:AndyJones 1272:AndyJones 1117:RedRabbit 1081:Malkinann 1021:AndyJones 1012:policy). 880:Malkinann 808:citations 708:Malkinann 665:Who? tags 603:Malkinann 546:Malkinann 486:Malkinann 440:Malkinann 389:AndyJones 376:AndyJones 355:AndyJones 305:Malkinann 248:AndyJones 211:5. It is 202:4. It is 183:3. It is 140:2. It is 97:1. It is 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 6460:unsigned 6422:unsigned 6302:Angie Y. 6229:WP:GUIDE 5981:and the 5105:Neither 5074:Thanks, 4875:FA plan? 4780:unsigned 4727:Sourcing 4665:unsigned 4613:unsigned 4085:list. -- 3738:contribs 3726:unsigned 3651:fair use 3635:fair use 3411:most of 3340:much of 3265:inspires 3117:" (2012) 2891:W Juliet 2712:New Moon 2637:Rosaline 2581:" (2013) 2574:" (2008) 2567:" (2007) 2560:" (2006) 2553:" (2004) 2546:" (1996) 2539:" (1994) 2532:" (1989) 2525:" (1981) 2518:" (1978) 2511:" (1978) 2504:" (1976) 2497:" (1968) 2487:" (1935) 2286:1916 Fox 2161:Musicals 1943:Rosaline 1923:Benvolio 1913:Mercutio 1716:course)? 1447:contribs 1435:unsigned 932:culture. 800:arguably 757:WP:WIAFA 436:this one 434:There's 342:contribs 330:unsigned 236:Non-free 228:captions 217:edit war 6317:Smatprt 6127:Smatprt 6085:Smatprt 6069:Smatprt 5975:current 5959:Smatprt 5870:WP:FICT 5858:notable 5812:Smatprt 5766:WP:FICT 5725:Smatprt 5657:Smatprt 5562:Smatprt 5521:Smatprt 5457:Smatprt 5376:Smatprt 5342:Smatprt 5290:Smatprt 5236:Smatprt 5181:Smatprt 5144:Smatprt 5065:FA Push 4129:WP:BARD 3306:comment 3299:lines? 2787:a story 2758:Phrases 2530:Cherish 2003:Ballets 1957:Sources 1667:GA pass 1647:Smatprt 1596:Macbeth 1561:: no.-- 1295:Smatprt 1238:Smatprt 1219:Smatprt 1190:Smatprt 1181:Smatprt 1146:Smatprt 723:infobox 560:Smatprt 457:Smatprt 413:Smatprt 222:6. Any 205:neutral 130:fiction 39:archive 6533:WP:FAC 6486:should 6234:WP:NPA 6216:WP:IAR 6151:Dude, 6056:lists) 5455:input. 5159:policy 5084:Hit me 5033:Rdrg93 5003:Rdrg93 4544:Hamlet 4320:Hamlet 4121:Hamlet 4079:Hamlet 4009:Hamlet 3901:Hamlet 3771:Hamlet 3730:Mmoyer 3200:, and 2750:(1978) 2742:(1790) 2723:(2010) 2715:(2006) 2707:(2001) 2699:(1995) 2691:(1989) 2683:(1963) 2675:(1941) 2667:(1844) 2659:(1829) 2640:(2022) 2632:(2021) 2624:(2008) 2616:(2006) 2608:(1996) 2600:(1968) 2589:Albums 2509:Angelo 2469:(2013) 2461:(2010) 2453:(1956) 2430:(2017) 2422:(2017) 2414:(2014) 2406:(2010) 2398:(2007) 2390:(2007) 2382:(2003) 2374:(2000) 2212:(2019) 2204:(2007) 2196:(2001) 2188:(1990) 2180:(1957) 2172:(1906) 2118:Gloria 2078:Operas 2054:(2005) 1918:Tybalt 1908:Juliet 1827:Hamlet 1570:folsom 1565:daniel 1539:folsom 1534:daniel 1506:folsom 1501:daniel 1479:folsom 1474:daniel 1342:GA nom 1052:folsom 1047:daniel 1041:WP:REF 812:strike 787:WP:AWT 224:images 213:stable 132:, and 122:jargon 118:layout 6238:truly 6211:civil 5652:WP:SS 5582:WP:SS 5422:AVIES 5326:AVIES 5266:AVIES 5224:AVIES 4852:Ckatz 4497:AVIES 4396:AVIES 4332:AVIES 4253:AVIES 4225:AVIES 4170:AVIES 4095:AVIES 3953:AVIES 3913:AVIES 3851:AVIES 3822:AVIES 3783:AVIES 3083:Other 3073:K-On! 3031:Km. 0 2989:Molly 2477:Songs 2442:Plays 2263:Films 1938:Paris 1933:Nurse 1903:Romeo 1412:Date? 1010:WP:OR 957:WP:OR 733:, or 599:JSTOR 324:Films 301:Death 159:cites 16:< 6468:talk 6447:talk 6443:Wrad 6430:talk 6399:talk 6381:talk 6377:Wrad 6367:talk 6340:talk 6321:talk 6306:talk 6272:talk 6268:Wrad 6256:talk 6220:WP:N 6191:talk 6187:Wrad 6161:talk 6131:talk 6108:talk 6104:Wrad 6089:talk 6073:talk 5991:talk 5963:talk 5926:talk 5922:Wrad 5879:talk 5868:and 5866:WP:N 5854:WP:N 5816:talk 5775:talk 5762:WP:N 5729:talk 5721:WP:N 5691:talk 5687:Wrad 5661:talk 5630:talk 5609:talk 5605:Wrad 5594:talk 5586:bold 5566:talk 5543:talk 5539:Wrad 5525:talk 5509:talk 5476:talk 5472:Wrad 5461:talk 5418:OGER 5410:some 5380:talk 5346:talk 5322:OGER 5294:talk 5262:OGER 5240:talk 5220:OGER 5204:talk 5200:Wrad 5185:talk 5167:talk 5163:Wrad 5148:talk 5126:Tell 5051:talk 5037:talk 5023:talk 5007:talk 4987:talk 4983:Wrad 4964:talk 4960:Wrad 4950:talk 4931:talk 4917:talk 4913:Wrad 4902:talk 4886:talk 4882:Wrad 4825:day, 4815:talk 4788:talk 4762:talk 4758:Wrad 4742:talk 4734:here 4715:talk 4689:talk 4685:Wrad 4673:talk 4641:talk 4621:talk 4586:talk 4566:talk 4552:talk 4548:Wrad 4534:talk 4515:talk 4511:Wrad 4493:OGER 4468:talk 4454:talk 4450:Wrad 4440:talk 4420:talk 4392:OGER 4373:talk 4328:OGER 4310:talk 4291:talk 4287:Wrad 4269:talk 4249:OGER 4221:OGER 4201:talk 4197:Wrad 4187:talk 4166:OGER 4152:talk 4148:Wrad 4137:talk 4111:talk 4107:Wrad 4091:OGER 4068:talk 4064:Wrad 4048:talk 4044:Wrad 4033:talk 4011:and 3949:OGER 3931:talk 3927:Wrad 3909:OGER 3879:talk 3875:Wrad 3847:OGER 3818:OGER 3800:talk 3796:Wrad 3779:OGER 3755:talk 3751:Wrad 3734:talk 3708:talk 3704:Wrad 3688:talk 3643:this 3595:talk 3591:Wrad 3557:talk 3523:talk 3519:Wrad 3492:talk 3465:talk 3461:Wrad 3443:talk 3381:talk 3377:Wrad 3366:talk 3321:Wrad 3287:Wrad 3254:this 3224:Wrad 3208:Wrad 2968:Fame 2379:Skin 2354:2013 2349:2006 2344:1996 2340:(TV) 2338:1992 2334:(TV) 2332:1978 2327:1968 2323:(TV) 2321:1967 2316:1964 2311:1955 2306:1954 2301:1953 2296:1940 2291:1936 2276:1908 2271:1900 1832:here 1799:Wrad 1789:Wrad 1757:Wrad 1732:Wrad 1683:Wrad 1658:Wrad 1550:Wrad 1523:Wrad 1490:Wrad 1462:Wrad 1443:talk 1399:Wrad 1390:Wrad 1368:Wrad 1349:Wrad 1325:Wrad 1281:here 1263:Wrad 1253:Wrad 1229:Wrad 1209:Wrad 1200:Wrad 1171:Wrad 1129:Wrad 1067:Wrad 1031:Wrad 939:Wrad 905:Wrad 755:Per 740:Per 690:Wrad 654:Wrad 635:Wrad 620:Wrad 577:Wrad 535:Wrad 511:Wrad 423:Wrad 351:here 338:talk 322:The 272:Wrad 259:Wrad 230:and 157:(b) 144:and 6009:– 5588:. - 4861:spy 3270:all 2731:Art 1883:'s 848:etc 833:All 827:.) 6470:) 6449:) 6432:) 6401:) 6383:) 6369:) 6342:) 6323:) 6308:) 6274:) 6258:) 6193:) 6163:) 6133:) 6110:) 6091:) 6075:) 6030:- 5993:) 5965:) 5928:) 5881:) 5818:) 5777:) 5731:) 5693:) 5663:) 5632:) 5611:) 5596:) 5568:) 5545:) 5527:) 5511:) 5478:) 5463:) 5382:) 5296:) 5242:) 5206:) 5187:) 5169:) 5150:) 5053:) 5039:) 5025:) 5009:) 4989:) 4966:) 4952:) 4933:) 4919:) 4904:) 4888:) 4817:) 4790:) 4764:) 4744:) 4736:) 4717:) 4691:) 4675:) 4643:) 4623:) 4588:) 4568:) 4554:) 4536:) 4517:) 4470:) 4456:) 4442:) 4422:) 4375:) 4363:, 4359:, 4355:, 4351:, 4312:) 4293:) 4271:) 4203:) 4189:) 4154:) 4139:) 4113:) 4070:) 4050:) 4035:) 3933:) 3881:) 3802:) 3757:) 3740:) 3736:• 3710:) 3690:) 3653:. 3597:) 3559:) 3525:) 3494:) 3486:-- 3467:) 3445:) 3437:-- 3383:) 3368:) 3194:, 1720:-- 1445:• 729:, 374:. 344:) 340:• 234:. 198:). 128:, 124:, 120:, 116:, 6466:( 6445:( 6428:( 6397:( 6379:( 6365:( 6338:( 6319:( 6304:( 6270:( 6254:( 6250:- 6189:( 6159:( 6129:( 6106:( 6087:( 6071:( 5989:( 5961:( 5924:( 5877:( 5873:- 5814:( 5773:( 5727:( 5689:( 5659:( 5628:( 5624:- 5607:( 5592:( 5564:( 5541:( 5523:( 5507:( 5474:( 5459:( 5420:D 5416:R 5378:( 5348:) 5344:( 5324:D 5320:R 5292:( 5264:D 5260:R 5238:( 5222:D 5218:R 5202:( 5183:( 5165:( 5146:( 5114:? 5049:( 5035:( 5021:( 5005:( 4985:( 4962:( 4948:( 4929:( 4915:( 4900:( 4884:( 4813:( 4786:( 4760:( 4740:( 4713:( 4687:( 4671:( 4639:( 4619:( 4584:( 4564:( 4550:( 4532:( 4513:( 4495:D 4491:R 4466:( 4452:( 4438:( 4418:( 4394:D 4390:R 4371:( 4330:D 4326:R 4308:( 4289:( 4267:( 4251:D 4247:R 4223:D 4219:R 4199:( 4185:( 4168:D 4164:R 4150:( 4135:( 4109:( 4093:D 4089:R 4066:( 4046:( 4031:( 3998:. 3985:. 3951:D 3947:R 3929:( 3911:D 3907:R 3877:( 3849:D 3845:R 3820:D 3816:R 3798:( 3781:D 3777:R 3753:( 3732:( 3706:( 3686:( 3593:( 3555:( 3521:( 3490:( 3463:( 3441:( 3379:( 3364:( 3113:" 3054:" 3050:" 3012:" 3008:" 2977:" 2973:" 2956:" 2952:" 2900:" 2896:" 2577:" 2570:" 2563:" 2556:" 2549:" 2542:" 2535:" 2528:" 2521:" 2514:" 2507:" 2500:" 2490:" 2483:" 1873:e 1866:t 1859:v 1441:( 1378:- 1111:? 1079:- 870:. 850:. 763:. 752:. 336:( 179:. 136:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index