 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2023. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This is an odd sort of article. Do we really need it, and if so, shouldn't it be some sort of systematic comparison of the available collections of Shakespeare's works?
Our real problem is getting standard texts, especially of the plays, in order to reference lines unambiguously. A glance at any two extant versions of any Shakespeare play shows quickly divergent line numberings. One can limp along with some of the online sources, tho it is foolish to use the unedited Folio versions of the plays, as these are practically unreadable, and not in the form (modernised spelling and punctuation, Act and Scene divisions) that everyone uses, talks about, and expects. There are other online versions that have an unknown editor and no notes. These might be of some use but, as with the Folio dumps, their accuracy is questionable. I think the only two viable sources out there of all the plays are print books: the Riverside Shakespeare and The Complete Works by David Bevington. I have the Bevington 4th edition (1997), and use it often. I have not seen the 1997 Riverside, but understand that it is less usable (Bevington numbers every line for which a footnote exists (very handy!) but Riverside does not...). Perhaps our practice should be to put one or both of these in the References section, so that we can footnote the one we use.
The difficulty with this, of course, is that most people have neither Riverside nor Bevington, but perhaps some cheap trade paperback of the play in question. There is nothing wrong with referencing a specific edition of a play, especially if you are using some of the scholarly commentary therein. It is generally cheaper for individuals who want to follow that down to actually buy the book. The problem is simply that each edition is a bit idiosyncratic as to its text. One would like, for an encyclopedia, something more consensual. Bevington and Riverside fit the bill pretty well on that score.
Anyway, maybe what we need, for uncontroversial bits of text, is an act and scene number, an approximate line number (within 10 or 20), the starting words of the quotation in question, and an understanding that, unless the Folio or some Quarto is specified, the reader must avail him or herself of some reasonably modern edited edition! -- Jrmccall 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence beginning "The 1914 Oxford..." and the following are lifted direct from Bartleby.com. They are just unverified puffery there, and so are unattributed, plagarised, unverified puffery here. I'm removing them. -- Jrmccall 22:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could the categories within Category:William Shakespeare plays be moved to its parent, Category:Works by William Shakespeare? Which otherwise contains only one category, Category:Poetry by William Shakespeare. This would flatten the taxonomy without creating confusion or lose significant information. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested? 2600:1700:7392:4091:3578:6678:6D67:2251 (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
