294:. Unless there's a separate authorship article or the candidate has garnered modern attention, they should not be on template. Same goes for "theorists": if the Emmerich, the director of a movie, is included (and it is obvious by now that his support was for promotional purposes), by the same logic all the actors should be included also, since they also promoted the movie in the same manner as he.
271:
of that--hey, how about an article "List of people who have ever written about the SAQ"? Then we could split it into pro and con and get another page out of it. By that time we should be able to create "List of templates that include the SAQ" and make a template for it!), but I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about it, so I guess we're done here until things get out of hand.
226:
a case-by-case basis. I would support retitling the section "Noted theorists" and leaving Hart, Bacon, Owen, Greenwood, Lefranc, Looney, Brooks, the
Ogburns, and Hoffman. Every other person either are not Primarily notable for their anti-Stratfordism or followed the main theorists and should be properly classified as a supporter and not a theorist.
244:
Obviously we don't need to link every theorist - we don't want to make the template unwieldy. That goes for every "candidate" too of course. I don't have strong feelings about particular individuals, just that we should have a proper balance, and that the template should function as a navigation tool
225:
along with Bacon and Looney, because unfortunately his Derby theory is what he's most remembered for, at least in the
English-speaking world, but Alden Brooks and James Wilde? Brooks is on the borderline, but I suppose he belongs because he is the Dyer theory originator. I guess we need to take it on
205:
There's no reason why orthodox scholars who have written on the subject should not be included. Certainly
Shapiro should. Twain is borderline, I guess. He didn't add anything significant to arguments, beyond his name, but he did write a whole book - or booklet. As far as I'm concerned the role of the
270:
The Twain article goes to his book, Smatprt added the DRD to the theory section, and I really think that since
Emmerich and Orloff shot a movie about it, they should stay. I really don't think Fields should be there just because he wrote a derivative book (we could fill a complete page with examples
161:
Well all the theorists are mentioned and linked from their relevant articles. If they are included, why shouldn't orthodox
Shakespeare scholars who have written on the SAQ be included also? While an argument could be made that the SAQ is the only reason most of those names are notable and therefore
83:
I'm questioning whether including a list of supporters in this template is called for. No other fringe theory has its own template with a list of notable supporters. I realize that SAQ arguments include celebrity endorsements as a way of trying to mainstream the theory, but it including them in a
142:
I don't think the list should be of "supporters" as such. That serves no purpose other than promotion. If the articles make little or no reference to the support, it does not serve the reader. I think it should be changed to "theorists" or something similar, and should comprise people who have
30:
Please explain the deletion of authorship articles from the authorship template. That's what the template is for. Some theories have more than one supporter or variant. The level of coverage (weight) is directly related to the level of notability.
229:
I dunno, I go first one way and then the other. Maybe we should just take off Wilde, Clemens, Emmerich, and Orloff and add the supporters and candidate articles. I think any more than that would be taken as advocacy or provocation. What say you?
60:
Tom. You know perfectly well that there are two or three more theory-related articles, and there is the reasonable doubt article, to name a few. In the meantime, adding
Emmerich, Orloff and Fields to the supporters
143:
written texts on the topic: Delia Bacon, the
Ogburns, Mark Twain etc. Adding Orloff and Emmerich is pointless. They have not contributed to the theory. This is not supposed to be a way of getting the whole of "
220:
Well again my point is that
Clemens is not primarily notable for his promotion of anti-Stratfordism, nor are Shapiro or Schoenbaum or Bate primarily notable for their writings about it. I can see including
162:
should be included, including Mark Twain is obvious promotion as he wasn't noted mainly for his SAQ writing. A parallel could be drawn with his travel writing: while he is on a list of
173:
Right now I don't have any hard-and-fast idea of what should be on the template; I would like to hear from editors who have no dog in the fight, but I doubt that any will chime in.
280:
114:
97:
322:
254:
239:
215:
200:
182:
156:
137:
70:
55:
206:
template is to help readers find relevant articles. That includes both list articles. But it is not for listing impressive-looking names on the template.
40:
78:
303:
188:
25:
121:
125:
20:
144:
147:" into the template. We already have that article. I've no objection to adding the list article itself to the template.
290:
I've trimmed some peripheral candidates and supporters from the template according to my interpretation of
285:
163:
120:
I don't have an opinion at the moment, but if you wanted more views you might consider a post at
318:
250:
211:
152:
8:
299:
276:
235:
196:
178:
110:
93:
51:
245:
to all the main theories and articles that can actually inform readers about the topic.
133:
314:
310:
66:
36:
246:
207:
167:
148:
85:
295:
272:
231:
192:
174:
106:
89:
47:
291:
129:
222:
62:
32:
17:
102:
16:
I think this info would be better as 3 columns. Can anyone do this?
313:? He's fairly well established as an Oxfordian.
105:is the relevant guide on navigation templates.
166:, his name is certainly not displayed on the
46:Please be specific. What pages were deleted?
189:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates
79:Should supporters be in this template?
126:Talk:Shakespeare authorship question
164:notable 19th-century travel writers
145:List of Oxfordian theory supporters
128:saying there is a discussion here.
13:
14:
334:
84:template seems to me to involve
26:Deletion of Pages from Template
1:
323:05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
138:03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
115:17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
98:17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
304:18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
281:01:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
255:12:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
240:19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
216:18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
201:17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
191:? My thinking is it should.
183:17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
157:14:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
71:03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
56:05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
41:05:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
7:
10:
339:
122:WT:WikiProject Shakespeare
170:, nor that of any others.
21:14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
187:Also should it include
311:John Paul Stevens
286:Trimming template
330:
338:
337:
333:
332:
331:
329:
328:
327:
288:
81:
28:
12:
11:
5:
336:
326:
325:
287:
284:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
227:
185:
171:
80:
77:
76:
75:
74:
73:
27:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
335:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
283:
282:
278:
274:
256:
252:
248:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
228:
224:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
165:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
140:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
117:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
95:
91:
87:
72:
68:
64:
59:
58:
57:
53:
49:
45:
44:
43:
42:
38:
34:
23:
22:
19:
315:Joefromrandb
289:
269:
223:Abel Lefranc
101:
82:
29:
15:
309:How about
296:Tom Reedy
273:Tom Reedy
232:Tom Reedy
193:Tom Reedy
175:Tom Reedy
107:Tom Reedy
90:Tom Reedy
86:WP:WEIGHT
48:Tom Reedy
168:template
130:Johnuniq
88:issues.
63:Smatprt
33:Smatprt
18:Smatprt
292:WP:NAV
247:Paul B
208:Paul B
149:Paul B
61:list.
319:talk
300:talk
277:talk
251:talk
236:talk
212:talk
197:talk
179:talk
153:talk
134:talk
124:and
111:talk
103:Here
94:talk
67:talk
52:talk
37:talk
321:)
302:)
279:)
253:)
238:)
214:)
199:)
181:)
155:)
136:)
113:)
96:)
69:)
54:)
39:)
317:(
298:(
275:(
249:(
234:(
210:(
195:(
177:(
151:(
132:(
109:(
92:(
65:(
50:(
35:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.