Talk:BBC Television Shakespeare

Reception

How about adding a section for the critical and general reception for these productions, like with just about every other film article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Android the Andrew (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Telecast isn't a word that is a usual..."

Telecast isn't a word that is a usual part of UK English. As the series was made, and first transmitted, in the UK, I've changed "telecast" to "transmitted"--Jeffjn 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Before plunging in and editing two parts of this, I'd like to question the sources of information.

"extremely low production values" - In terms of budget and the skills of those working on the series, the "production values" were little different to "I Claudius". The studio setting and video production methods may look dated now, but I don't agree that these were extremely low

(rehearsal and filming typically took place in less than a week)is misleading, as there was a period of at least two weeks outside rehearsal for the actors and the blocking before the production arrived in the studio, and while there was sometimes as little as 5 days allocated for the shooting, these were generally 13 hour days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jeffjn (talk • contribs).

Hello, do you have a source for the information about rehearsal time? It would be great to include this, and better if we could cite a reliable source. The Singing Badger 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose the source is myself. I was a cameraman at the BBC from 1973 to 1990. I attended the "tech runs" at the Outside Rehearsal Rooms in Acton for a number of dramas shot in the studios at Television Centre. Even the simplest Sit-Com had 3 days of rehearsals. Although I was never the Camera Supervisor on any of the BBC Television Shakespeares I'm still in contact with someone who was. I was also one of the camera operators on Loves Labours Lost and Coriolanus.

I've now qualified the two statements to make them less subjective and misleading.

Risible - does that mean that it lead to laughter at the time of the original transmission, or just in hindsight?

"now looks very dated" would be a far more mature comment.

Thank you for all your comments! If you see something blatantly subjective, such as the word 'risible', just be bold and remove it. Such language has no place in an encyclopedia. As for your own experiences of filming these programmes it's really helpful to have your information; obviously someone still needs to find a published source to make things look perfect, but this is very helpful regardless. The Singing Badger 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Omissions

• Richard II
  • The trial/multiple challenges portion of Act IV is omitted (which, in my opinion, rather subverts the entire play).
  • All mention of Henry IV's son, later Henry V.

• Henry IV, Part 2
  • The Epilogue is omitted.
  • Much other material, especially involving Falstaff, is cut.

See also Michael Connors’ review at Amazon UK:

• Taming of the Shrew.
  • Act 1, Scene 1
  • Petruchio and Kate's exit
• Cymbeline
  • Acts four and five are heavily cut and scenes and speeches are freely rearranged.
• Henry VI Part 3
  • Act 2, Scene 1 is rearranged

— FlashSheridan 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete this article

I oppose the deletion of this article for several reasons. First, and most important, this was a notable attempt on the part of the BBC to produce, and make available to a wide audience, all of the bard's plays in the television format. No comprehensive attempt has been made since. The project was noted both in the UK and here in the US (by TV Guide along with other newspapers and magazines). Second, it brought many UK actors to the notice of US audiences. Well known actors like Anthony Quayle were complemented by names like Patrick Stewert, Michael Kitchen, Helen Mirren and Felicity Kendall who have become known today, but were (and still can be seen through the DVD's) early in their careers. Third, several actors filmographies have links to this page.

This page may well need work. Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands of pages about British television programs that also need fleshing out. But, it should be here to be fleshed out. The joys of seeing Derek Jacobi as Hamlet and Richard II, of seeing Anthony Hopkins Othello playing off of Bob Hoskin's cockney Iago, of Anthony Quayle's superb (sorry POV I know) Falstaff, of Jane Laportaire's Lady Macbeth, even the experimental casting of John Cleese as Petruchio or Roger Daltry as the two Dromio's should not be casually tossed aside. Now I know that wikipedia is a communal project and if there is a consensus to delete this page I hope that I will at least be given a chance to print it out for my library before it goes. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the only practical way for most people to see many of the works by the most important dramatist ever to write in English. The productions are, in my admittedly limited experience, generally accurate, though imperfect; information on the productions, and their limitations, is far more important than, for instance, the many undeleted articles on movies of only transient interest.

—FlashSheridan 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that it is a moot point, but I would also like to urge that this article NOT be deleted.--Drboisclair 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given all the meaningless dreck and pop culture articles on Wikipedia, which often go on forever, it would be outrageous for this article to have ever been deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.123.86 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in this article

Just a note to any who come to this page. A factual error has crept into this article. The article intimates that, in order to get the US money for the project, it was the Time/Life who insisted on "traditional" staging, along with Elizabethan costuming, of the plays. This is not entirely correct. While there was no real stylistic experimenting in any of the stagings (although the casting of John Cleese and Roger Daltry was an interesting choice at the time) of these plays the switch to the Elizabethan costumes did not occur until Jonathan Miller took over the production reins. I remember reading in our TV Guide that, when the change from Cedric Messina's overseeing the series to Jonathan Miller occurred, that there may have been some disgruntlement with Messina. I think the way that they put it was something like "after negotiating the "straits of Messina" Mr Miller is taking over to bring a fresh perspective to the series" and one of those changes was to switch to the Elizabethan clothing for every play.

Now I am not sure that there will be anyway to clear this up. The external article that has been linked to this one contains the error in question. But, as it has been properly (in wikiterms) sourced I don't feel that is right to simply remove the info. Unfortunately, I was not as far seeing as Homer Simpson (or was it Al Bundy?) and I did not keep every copy of TV Guide that I read growing up. Also, it has been awhile since I have seen any of these productions so my memory of some of the details could be incorrect. But, I will say this to any of you who have some or all of these on DVD. Please take a look at Richard II and Julius Caeser (from the 1st season) as they have costuming of the period they were set in. I remember togas worn in JC. Then compare this with Troilus and Cressida or Pericles where the big frilled collars seemed such an odd anachronism.

It may not be important in the grand scheme of things but I am posting this in the hopes that, in the future, some wikipedian who has a better memory, or more accurate source material, may be able to clean up this part of the article. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about Richard II and Julius Caesar and Troilus and Cressida. There is a difference between having the costumes match the time period and using costumes that would have been used in Elizabethan-Jacobean theater. The scenario could be that Time/Life simply wanted the BBC to keep from doing what many modern producers do: use modern costumes and props like Ian McKellen's Richard III or Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet or Love's Labour's Lost. The Time/Life people: "if it is staged in Ancient Rome, let's use the costumes, scenery, and props of Ancient Rome." Jonathan Miller: "let's go one better! Lets use the same costumes, props, and scenery that Shakespeare would have used." I notice also in Jonathan Miller's work that he likes to have his interiors resemble Baroque paintings. This is what Willis wrote: "Concerned lest the productions get too wild or experimental, the American underwriters sanctioned Messina's stated goal, which was to make solid, basic televised versions of Shakespeare's plays to reach a wide television audience and to enhance the teaching of Shakespeare. They used their promised financial contributions for aesthetic leverage and wrote into the contract a brief description as guideline for the productions: the plays were to be set in Shakespeare's own time or in the historical period of the events (such as ancient Rome for Julius Caesar, around 1400 for Richard II), they were to be no more than 2½ hours long, and they were to have 'maximum acceptability to the widest possible audience.'" The BBC Shakespeare Plays, pp. 10-11--Drboisclair 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Allotment of Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies

The BBC designates 17 of the Shakespeare plays as comedies, 10 as tragedies, and 10 as histories. Although one could also consider Richard II and Richard III as tragedies too if one wanted to. I think that we should follow the BBC designation and leave it at that. If one wants to argue that Cymbeline and The Winter's Tale are tragedies, then they along with The Tempest and Pericles should be considered Romances. One might also consider Measure for Measure a romance as well, but A. L. Rowse does not think that it is romance.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your research into this Drboisclair (and you too AndyJones should you be posting here later today) and it is nice to see your name(s) again. While the debate over the proper designation of a given play is always an interesting one in this instance the final numbers used should be decided by, as Drboisclair states, the way that the BBC designated them. If memory serves AndyJones has the complete set of these on DVD so their labeling should settle things. We could add a note explaining where these numbers came from, and why there maybe some variance, to the section shich explains why 37 rather than 39 plays were performed. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I too have all 37 of the BBC TV Shakespeare as well as the book by Susan Willis. Perhaps it isn't right to classify Cymbeline and The Winter's Tale and Measure for Measure as comedies because people die in them, but it is incorrect to classify them as tragedies. Melodramas or romances is the fourth classification. Of course, Measure is considered a comedy by most authorities.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Drboisclair is right. 17 comedies, 10 tragedies, and 10 histories per BBC. Calling "Romances" the fourth category is hugely problematic: "problem plays" is equally tenable. And then, where do you stop? AndyJones (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyJones, I completely agree with you about classifications. Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies are the traditional designations. Between comedies and tragedies the deciding factor is if the hero and heroine remain alive at the end and if the ending is something brighter than that of tragedy. In the ten tragedies the hero (antihero as in Macbeth) and heroine die: 1) Othello, 2) Hamlet, 3) Romeo and Juliet, 4) Macbeth, 5) Timon of Athens, 6) Julius Caesar, 7) King Lear, 8) Coriolanus, 9) Titus Andronicus, 10) Antony and Cleopatra.--Drboisclair (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

The intro is too long. Past the intro there is not one complete sentence. The headings are incorrectly formatted and are full of links and references and that's just to start.--Marcus Brute (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag demanding references is unnecessary since all the information as to the specific films is taken from Susan Willis's The BBC Shakespeare Plays (Chapel Hill, 1991).--drb (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The newcomer tagger also accuses the article of being too long in one tag and too short in another! I removed his second accusation.--drb (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article overhaul

As y'all can see, I've made some fairly major alterations to the page. So, just to run through them: Firstly, I listed the films under the title as it appears in the opening credits for each episode. Secondly, every character name which could be linked, I did so (it made little sense to have some linked and some not). Thirdly, I linked every actor name, even if they don't have a page here (again, I felt one should either link them all of none of them). Fourthly, I greatly increased the cast list for each episode to now include every actor who played a named character, and I compiled the cast list in the order it appears in the closing credits for each episode. Fifth, I moved the director's name above the dates for each episode section, on advice from some colleagues who said it's easier to use the list at a glance that way. Sixth, I added a much expanded introduction section and behind the scenes information where applicable. I also added a couple of pictures. As I work through all the DVDs, I will no doubt make some addititional edits here and there (not the least of which will be in the 'Omissions and changes' section) and I will add more pictures, with the ultimate goal to be one picture for all thirty seven episodes. Anyway, for now, I'm pretty happy with how it's turned out so I hope you guys like it. Bertaut (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have done an admirable job; however, some of the pedants will challenge you to support your statements. If you can, footnote as much as possible. I imagine much of the material comes from "special features" in the comprehensive British collection of the plays. I have all of them individually, and there are not any special features apart from a "*.doc" file copy of the script. Out of curiosity: does the British comprehensive collection have many "behind the scenes" special features?--Drboisclair (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As to your question, sadly not. Apart from the booklet, there's nothing in the box-set by way of special features. Which is a pain, because when they originally aired, each episode had an accompanying 15/20 minute interview/making of featurette which screened on the BBC the night before. I thought the 37 featurettes would be included on the DVDs and was disappointed not to see them. Bertaut (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Running times

I added the running times for each play based on what is listed on the DVD cases. Galenfott (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are not necessarily the original run times. The DVD formatting is different from the original film/video tape run times. MarnetteD | Talk 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that? Some of them were edited for US broadcast, but I have the complete DVD series from the UK (which I am watching in the US on a region free DVD player). I painstakingly notated the running times of all 37 plays from the very tiny print on the back of each DVD case, so I could share the information. Granted each time is listed as "approx.", which I might have added. But surely listing these times here, even if they are off by a minute or two here and there, is better than not listing them at all. Please reinstate the ones you removed.Galenfott (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have the same DVD set and a region free player. The point is that in transferring them from the master videotapes of the time the to the DVD format the run times will have changed. The only info that is relevant to this article is the original runtimes. I have asked other editors to comment here and per WP:CONSENSUS we need to wait until they comment before partaking of further editing. MarnetteD | Talk 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Video is my profession and I cannot conceive of any technical reason the running time would change from master tape to DVD. Both would be in PAL format, which is 25 frames per second. Galenfott (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not quite sure how much someone from Tennessee has worked with transferring items from 70s and 80s BBC vaults to the DVD technology of today. Even within PAL technology the way they work today is not the same as 30 years ago. You also have no info on whether cuts or additions were made to the the original tapes. So again lets wait and see what other editors have to say on the subject. MarnetteD | Talk 04:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I suppose I'd know more about PAL if I were from LA or NYC, yes? You're rude. Do whatever you want. Galenfott (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I know it's somewhat after the fact, but I think having the run times is a good idea, as long as it's noted that the times are the approximate PAL DVD times. Bertaut (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

First let me state my thanks for your long term work on this article B. Your suggestion to note that they are coming from the UK DVDs is a good one - I also have that set so I don't know if there are any discrepancies with the US DVDs. Please feel free to add then as you wish - I do have an unrelated question for you so I will add that below. MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncredited roles

I've noticed that in the credits for the first historical tetralogy (Henry VI, Parts 1, 2 & 3 and Richard III), a lot of the roles aren't listed. I've checked with the credits on the actual episode itself, and these roles are indeed uncredited. For example, David Pugh plays William Stafford in 2 Henry VI, but he isn't credited as such in either the end creidts of on IMDb. I'm wondering should we list the uncredited roles here, or simply reproduce the credits as they appear in the episode itself. I've made a list of all the uncredited appearences, so the work is done, I'm just not sure if it's appropriate to include it. Bertaut (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is that this constitutes WP:OR. However we also have WP:IAR so I would suggest (based on what I am used to seeing here at WikiP) that you add them at the end of a given cast list and and {uncredited) to each person that you enter. MarnetteD | Talk 21:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Season five six and six seven listings

I know that there is a quirk to the way that we have these last two seasons listed due to the fact that some of the plays actually aired on PBS before they aired on the Beeb but there is one discrepancy that I think we need to look at. The "Viewing Notes" guide that came with my box set lists Pericles as a part of season six seven and this article has it listed in season five six. If any other watchers of this page have the some booklet would you please check yours and see if it matches mine. If so then I think we might move that play to its proper section. Thanks for your time in this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean that the article has it in season six and it should be in season seven? Actually, in checking this, I've noticed that a few of the episodes are in the wrong season, Cymbeline, for example, is in season 5 but in the booklet it's in season 6. I think, to avoid confusion, we should change the order to reflect the British sequence, as long as we note that the episode had already aired in the States. So rather than the sequence being:

King Lear, Cymbeline, Merry Wives, Henry VI (1-3), Richard III (season 5)

Macbeth, The Comedy of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Coriolanus, Pericles (season 6)

Much Ado About Nothing, King John, Love's Labour's Lost, Titus Andronicus (season 7)

We'd have King Lear, Merry Wives, Henry IV (1-3), Richard III (season 5)

Cymbeline, Macbeth, The Comedy of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Coriolanus, (season 6)

King John, Pericles, Much Ado, Love's Labour's and Titus (season 7).

I'd be happy to do the necessary copying and pasting. Bertaut (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. I misread the note that I had made in my pamphlet regarding the numbering of the seasons and I have amended my first post. I agree with your suggestion that we should alter the listings to reflect the UK order of airings and seasons with additional notes about the plays that aired first in the US. That will better reflect the UK production blocs and the verifiable sources. I say get out your scissors and Elmer's glue (and maybe some glitter for Midsummer's Night Dream :->) and get this article looking better even then your efforts on it have already accomplished. Thanks again for all your work. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Right then, rather than having three conversations at once, I'll deal with everything here! Firstly, thanks very much for the encouragment, I really appreciate it a great deal. So, to the edits. Firstly, I've reorganised the episodes to reflect the order in which they were broadcast in the UK, retaining the info on which ones aired in the US first. Secondly, I've added PAL DVD running times. Thirdly, I've added the uncredited roles to 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI. I'm still working through 3 Henry VI and Richard III. However, I'm not sure if the way I've done it is appropriate. I know you said to add uncredited roles at the end of the cast, and that would be the obvious thing to do under normal circumstances, but in this case, all of the uncredited roles are played by actors who are already credited for other roles (if that makes sense). So take Peter Wyatt for example - he's credited in 2 Henry VI as playing Stafford, so rather than add his name again at the bottom, I listed his uncredited roles beside his credited ones. I'm not too sure this is a satisfactory way of doing it myself, but I thought I'd post it as is and get some feedback. Bertaut (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The first two items addressed look great. As to the third one I see your dilemma. I had not payed attention to the fact that you were referring to the various roles that one actor played. I think it is a tradition with that run of historical plays that actors play more than one role within each play. I know that they did the same thing in the 1960 TV adaptation of the plays An Age of Kings (which features a very young pre-James Bond Sean Connery BTW). I think putting them on one line is okay, though, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, it might look better with a <br> in between each role. That might not work with the way you have laid out the page and it would make it even longer so I wouldn't insist on it. So, once again, I will say good work and thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential Taping Date Error for "Titus Andronicus"

I own the complete BBC 37 DVD edition of "The Shakespeare Collection". In the "Viewing Notes" booklet which accompanies the DVD set, it states that the play "Titus Andronicus" was "Recorded: 11-17 February 1985". In this Wikipedia article, it states "Taping dates: 10-17 February 1985". 10-Feb-85 is a Sunday. Checking the start dates of the other 36 plays, I find no other production started taping on a Sunday which leads me to believe this article should be amended to state "Taping dates: 11-17 February 1985". Is there a way this can be independently confirmed or denied? Auric79 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice spot. I don't think there's really any need to confirm this outside the booklet. I would imagine it's a simple typo in the article. So I'll fix it. Bertaut (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Style

I do think this is a terrific article and I salute the hours of work obviously put in by Bertaut and others here. Like people ^^ up there somewhere earlier, I do have the odd concern about the style and some of the assertions, which can come close to reading like a personal essay - even though they may well be perfectly true! I've really rather enjoyed reading it and I am not going to start tampering with it in any major way - I killed off some non-quoted contractions, didn't I, because I think they're a bit matey for an an encyclopaedia, aren't they? (Yes, laboured: sorry.) But I do worry that some faceless grey person is going to come and slap tags all over it. Can this be fixed without wrecking it?? I don't do not know, and I am going to make a nice cup of tea right now instead of worrying about it. :) Well done and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Composers and behind the scenes information

Sorry, me again. Two quick points:

(1) why are the composers listed as "behind the scenes" rather than in the list of personnel? The director - who also can't be seen in shot (usually!) is listed with the actors; it seems odd to relegate the composer to something that sounds (haha no pun intended) a bit incidental (hoho) in comparison. And yes, I do have a really rather mild COI here having played on King John - but the COI does not per se make me wrong! <g>

(2) Why is the oft-used subsection head "Behind the scenes" hyphenated like that? I don't see it as a compound adjective describing something else like a missing noun, but rather just as a header directly labelling its content. In other words I don't think it is short for "Behind-the-scenes information" (which I would hate to use, but would hyphenate if so) but rather that it is saying "This is what happened behind the scenes" in which case the hyphens would, I think, be wrong. My belief - for what fabulously little it is worth - is that it would read better, and be more correct, without the hyphens.

Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One suggestion is to change the "BtS" titles to pre-production, production and/or post-production depending on what info is there. Those are the usual section headers in other TV and film articles. Thanks for your input DBaK - good chuckles on the pun(s) BTW. If you are interested dig into the article history to see the state it was in back in 05-06. Working from that article to is a good example the positive evolution that a Wikipedia article can go through. Cheers to all for their efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All the edits you've made seen fine to me, I do have a nasty habit of using contractions when I should not (see what I did there?) As regards the hyphenated "behind-the-scenes", I agree with you, I don't like it hyphenated either, I don't think it should be, but it seems to be the norm. I've encountered it on quite a few websites and in some printed material (actually have a book on Micheal Mann right here in front of me which has a "Behind-the-scenes" section for each of his films). However, if you think I should remove the hyphens, then I've no problem with that. As regards your other point about the composer, well when I started working on this article it was laid out with the director on top folllowed by the cast list, and I didn't really see any need to change it. Obviously, listing the director for each production is necessary, and I guess we could add the composer under the director, but could the argument not then be made that we should add the camera person, lighting supervisor, costume designer, production designer etc? I'm just thinking, why would we privilege the composer over the other departmental heads? And I have to ask, what did you play on King John? Bertaut (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair points, thank you very much,and thanks also for your kind comments about my edits. I hadn't realized that B-t-s is part of a larger pattern across other articles, so in fact it's inappropriate for me to start a crusade here (I hate people who do that!) so I will either look for a project to take it up with or, perhaps more likely, just stfu (as the Young People™ so charmingly put it) as it's not actually killing anyone! Composer: hmm, yes, you are probably right - there has to be a cutoff somewhere and "cast + director" may well be it. I hadn't thought this through properly. KJ: I was in the small orchestra or ensemble or whatever. I've emailed you. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing I wanted to ask. Images. I was thinking of adding some images to the page. However, because I know some Wikipedians can get very picky about what does and does not constitute the correct and proper use of a copyrighted image, I was going to ensure that each one illustrated something specificlly mentioned - for example, showing the cherubs in the image for Two Gentlemen or the decayed set for Richard III or the circular map for Comedy of Errors. That kind of thing. Do you think that would be something worth pursuing, so would the thoughts of an article with 37 copyrighted images send the powers that wish they were into a simultaneous tail and head spin? Don't want to go to the trouble of finding and uploading a bunch of images only for them all to be removed and/or deleted. Bertaut (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think it is worth pursuing, but I have no idea about the copyright. It would I believe enliven the article, but I don't know how that interacts with the rules. Expert advice must I suppose be available somewhere... Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First let me state that the Byzantine nature of our free use/fair use policy regarding pics has always left me baffled. I know that at some point in the last two years we had several screen shots from the various plays in this article. They were removed not so much for copyright reasons as for "they didn't illustrate anything" in the article. I even went through and tried to add captions to improve the situation yet they were still removed. You might try asking at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page and see if you can get any guidance there. At the very least they might be able to get you to a place where your questions could be answered. Best of luck. MarnetteD | Talk 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing with copyrighted images is that they must illustrate something mentioned in the text - that's the general rule of thumb. When I was doing the Titus Andronicus page, I uploaded this image to put it into the article as illustration of a "realistic" production. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was six miunutes after I'd uploaded it, someone had put it up for speedy deletion because it was an orphan. I hadn't even got the chance to put it into the article! Of course, as soon as I did, a couple of people opposed the deletion and all was well, but there are some very, we'll politely say, fastidious people on here when it comes to copyrighted images. That's why, if I do start adding images to this page, I'm going to make sure they really do illustrate something very specifically mentioned in the text. Thanks for the link anyhow, I'll have a look around and see what's what. Bertaut (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Expand lead section?

Hello. I am thinking about expanding the lead section to at least three to four paragraphs. I am thinking about getting this article an FL, but I would like to have some thoughts on how to improve it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, welcome to the WikiProject Shakespeare. I think you and I encountered one another on some Final Fantasy VII related articles a few months back didn't we? As regards getting this article to FL status, I have to be honest, I don't know much about the grading criteria here on Wikipedia. I actually have the article rating thing turned off in my preferences. As such, the following comments may not be of much use to you. Firstly, I think expanding the lead-in is a good idea; all the info that would be required can be found in the article itself; everything from major problems to the fact that the series was a financial success, so that shouldn't be too big a task. I think the two things that may stand in the way of FL status are 1) the article isn't really finished yet - I'm working on the "Omissions and changes" section as I move through each play (the behind-the-scenes section of each play tends to be expanded as I go as well - if you look at the history for example, you'll see I did Love's Labour's Lost just last week), but it's very slow going; 2) this would probably be a bigger problem regarding FL; the reception section is quite weak at the moment, and mainly contains only negative stuff (I take 100% responsibility for that, seeing as how I wrote it!), so I think that would need some considerable work. User:MarnetteD has been on this article longer than I have and he may know more about getting something to FL status than me, so perhaps he may offer some advice. But I'm all for any efforts to improve the article. Bertaut (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the FL criteria is at WP:WIAFL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll take a read through it when I get the chance, probably be the weekend before I get around to it though. Bertaut (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Split

So, as watchers of this page have no doubt noticed, the fine folk at NFCR have queried the use of non-free images in the article. I haven't been able to muster the enthusiasm (or interest) to get involved in the discussion myself, but the general gist of it is this: the use of the nine images at the moment is fine because they all support something described in the text. Blah blah blah. Right, one user did make a suggestion I'd been thinking about for some time however; splitting the article up into individual articles for each production. Generally, I dislike Wikipedia's tendency to split subjects up like this, but in this case, it may actually be warranted. The article has grown a great deal, I don't think it should even be considered a list anymore. When (or indeed if) I ever finish it, it will be considerably larger than it is now; when I add more details to the behind-the-scenes sections of each play I've haven't done yet, plus (much) more info in the omissions and changes section. The thing is also, if we continue to add images to each entry (which I plan on doing), even if they "support the text", it will get to a point where the enforcers of all things copyright will spontaneously combust; an article with 38 non-free images? Western society itself may, in fact, fall. So the question is this? Do you guys think splitting the article up is a good idea. All the intro stuff would remain here, and we'd keep the same layout per season, but everything else would be removed except date, director and maybe two or three cast members. Plus, obviously, a link to the new article. All behind-the-scenes stuff, all omissions and changes, all of that, would go in their own articles, which would be laid out like a basic film article (I could upload a copy of the DVD cover for each info box); lead, cast, plot, development, changes to original, reception etc. Plot summaries I could simply copy and paste from the relevant play. It'll be a lot of leg work, but mainly only logistical stuff, nothing too taxing. There'll also be the matter of ensuring the new articles are correctly linked to in articles and templates, but again, that wouldn't be a major hassle. So, thoughts? The layout would be something along these lines:

The Life of Henry the Fift

Main article: Henry V (1979)

• Directed by David Giles
• Taping dates: 18–25 June 1979
• First transmitted in the UK: 23 December 1979
• First transmitted in the US: 23 April 1980
• Running Time (PAL DVD): 166 minutes
• Main cast: Alec McCowen as Chorus, David Gwillim as King Henry the Fifth, Martin Smith as the Duke of Gloucester

Twelfth Night, Or What You Will

Main article: Twelfth Night, Or What You Will (1980)

• Directed by John Gorrie
• Taping dates: 16–21 May 1979
• First transmitted in the UK: 6 January 1980
• First transmitted in the US: 27 February 1980
• Running Time (PAL DVD): 128 minutes
• Main cast: Alec McCowen as Malvolio, Robert Hardy as Sir Toby Belch, Felicity Kendal as Viola

Discussion

Thanks for the post and I am sorry that the pics are still causing a problem. Here are a couple suggestions

1. It might be better to name each article BBC Television Shakespeare: Name of play - I believe there is enough sourcing that "BBC TV S:" is the overarching title for the series. It would also tie the individual articles back to this one in the most obvious way possible. Now I know that this is cumbersome but I do not know how many DAB problems that we will run into by only using the year as the title qualifier. This would avoid any of those.
2. For those plays that do not have enough info for a separate article the question is "Do we split them off anyway and see what happens if an AFD forces them to be moved back into this article?" or "Do we leave then here and split them off when enough new info is added"

Of course, these are just suggestions and if they do not satisfy please feel free to reject them. It can't be said often enough that the state of this article when I first found it 8 years ago was very dodgy. All praises and thanks to those of you who have worked so diligently. MarnetteD | Talk 02:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, that's a good idea regarding the titles. I could also create redirects for pages like Twelfth Night, Or What You Will (1980). My one question regarding using the "BBC Television Shakespeare" prefix would be how would we handle the two parts of Henry IV, with their folio/quarto style titles. We can't really create a page called BBC Television Shakespeare: The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth, including his death and the coronation of King Henry the Fifth, so would we just use BBC Television Shakespeare: Henry IV , Part 2? As regards AfD, I don't really think that would ever become an issue. Every article will have a minimum of a cast list, a plot summary, a DVD cover and at least one piece of critically sourced behind-the-scenes info. I've seen articles with a hell of a lot less. Even, say, Pericles, which at a quick glance is probably the least developed entry in the series would have info and links etc. And if anyone was to question notability on any individual article, we can just explain it's all part of a larger whole, and will be getting expanded at some point in the future. Bertaut (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that WP:COMMONNAME allows us to use the simpler BBC Television Shakespeare: Henry IV , Part 2 and then use the lede to explain the longer title. I would also think that we should probably use the Roman numerals - Henry V (play). That helps avoid the "do we use the h or don't we" situation. Good to know your thoughts about any AFD's. I don't know whether you want to get more feedback from other editors but if no one else posts here in the next few days I would say you could proceed with the split(s). I know that the new articles will be in good hands! MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly welcome any thoughts from anyone else watching this page. In the meantime, I'll make a start. However, it's going to be a while before I produce anything. What I'm going to do is create all of the articles and then introduce them over a couple of days, rather than introducing them one by one as I create them. That way, if for any reason I need to stop for a time, we won't have a situation where half the films have their own article and half don't. So it'll be a few weeks, at least, before I get finished. Uploading the DVD covers will probably be the biggest task, and I'll have to leave that right to the end, as they'll be deleted as orphans if I upload them before I'm ready to use them. Watch this space! Any questions I have or problems I run into, I'll post them here. Bertaut (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

How embarrassing. I have a question/problem already! What infobox should do y'all think I should use: Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox television, Template:Infobox television film or Template:Infobox television episode? I suppose technically, the television film one would be correct, as they are TV movies, and the layout on the page wouldn't really be changed no matter if I used film or television film. But there are some nice advantages to the television episode one, such as linking to the next and previous episodes, and linking back to the main article. However, the linking to the other episodes is complicated by the different order of screening in the UK/US. I also don't like the way it handles cast; everyone would be under the "Guest actors" banner. Thoughts? Bertaut (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not embarrassing at all - we have too many choices :-) I would suggest one of the last two and I would lean towards Template:Infobox television episode. IMO It has a couple benefits. It has this field " Episode list =" which will allow you to link back to this article. It also has the "Airdate =" field which I think is preferable to the "first aired" "last aired" fields in the TV film template. Now, again, this is just my opinion and if you find any of the others preferable you should go with the one that you find easiest to work with. MarnetteD | Talk 02:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I was heavily leaning towards Template:Infobox television episode myself. Bertaut (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick thing about the titles of the new articles. I was chatting with some work colleagues about this, and was telling them what I was up to, and they pretty much unanimously felt that rather than going with BBC Television Shakespeare: Romeo & Juliet, BBC Television Shakespeare: Hamlet, BBC Television Shakespeare: Henry VI, Part 1 etc, I'd be better off going with Hamlet (BBC Television Shakespeare), Henry VI, Part 1 (BBC Television Shakespeare). So what I'm thinking of doing is using the parentheses in the actual articles, but also creating re-directs from each title using the prefix. That way, when someone types in "BBC Television Shakespeare" in the search box, they'll get a drop list of all the titles, but at the same time, someone typing in, say, "Pericles", will still get the film as an option (if we called it BBC Television Shakespeare: Pericles, someone typing "Pericles" into the search box wouldn't see it). If that makes any sense at all! Bertaut (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My feelings are mixed. IMO the BBC Television Shakespeare: Romeo & Juliet fits better with our naming conventions. But the Romeo and Juliet (BBC Television Shakespeare) may well help in leading a reader to the article that you are creating. You might ask for opinions here Wikipedia talk:Article titles but I would again say go with what you feel is best since you are doing all the work. I suspect that you already aware of this - along with redirects you will want to add your new articles to any DAB pages as well. For example Pericles (disambiguation). Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just stumbled upon this article, and it's very impressive. Lots of information, most of it well-organized and well-written. Very nicely done.

Splitting the very long "The 37 Plays" section into 37 articles seems like a very good idea; the "Introduction" section alone would make a very good standalone article, especially if it's augmented by a few relevant details, and perhaps an image or two, from the second section. If the split occurs, I'd suggest replacing the "The 37 Plays" section with an episode list, something along these lines:

No.	Title	Director	Taping dates	UK air date	US air date	Running time
1	"Romeo & Juliet"	Alvin Rakoff	31 January 1978 (1978-01-31)–5 February 1978 (1978-02-05)	3 December 1978 (1978-12-03)	14 March 1979 (1979-03-14)	168 minutes
Patrick Ryecart as Romeo, Rebecca Saire as Juliet
2	"King Richard the Second"	David Giles	12 April 1978 (1978-04-12)–17 April 1978 (1978-04-17)	10 December 1978 (1978-12-10)	28 March 1979 (1979-03-28)	158 minutes
Derek Jacobi as King Richard, John Gielgud as John of Gaunt

...etcetera, etcetera. Each episode title can be linked to the article about that episode, e.g. "Romeo and Juliet" above would link to the article "Romeo and Juliet (BBC Television Shakespeare)." Just a thought.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an excellent idea Lemuellio. The real challenge is finding the time to make the split. I started and I think I got about half way through the second season, but haven't progressed since. I will get around to it someday, assuming I don't die or such before hand, but when that day may be who can say. But having an episode list table on the main page is a great idea. Bertaut (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional Info for King John ?

First: Excellent article, thanks to ALL the editors and contributors. As a very new contributor to WIKI-anything, I hope, if this comment is misplaced, it will be removed or redirected to a more appropriate location. I happened to arrive at this article searching for more information about the production of "The Life and Death of King John" ...casting, directorial choices, etc. While I found wonderful minutiae on several other plays, this one seems to have gotten rather short shrift. If anyone would care to add a little info to that section, One reader (at least) would be much appreciative.

Beyond that, let me just say again, EXCELLENT resource page on a truly remarkable production of an entire set of classical work... this article absolutely deserves to remain on Wikipedia.

StormCrow23 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I know who played the trumpet on it, for sure ... :) DBaK (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol. He knows who played the trumpet because he did!! Firstly, StormCrow thanks for the kind of words regarding the article. Myself and others have put quite a bit of work into it over the last few years, and it's in a pretty good state all things considered. Secondly, just to assure you this isn't the wrong place for such a comment, this is exactly where you should be (and by way of a tangent, welcome to Wikipedia!). Now, as regards King John. Yeah, compared to some of the others there's pretty much no info on it. Unfortunately, that's a situation that's pretty much mirrored outside Wikipedia as well. The Susan Willis book for example, the definitive guide to the series, makes almost no mention of it, and there's very little info on it in any of the critical editions of the play that I know of. One place, however, that no doubt would have info is a book by Geraldine Cousins called Shakespeare in Performance: King John. This was one of a really excellent series of books done by Manchester University Press in the 1980s (you'll find several referred to in the article, Titus Andronicus, Taming of the Shrew, Richard II, Richard III, Love's Labours Lost. It really was a superb series, and is currently being republished in a series of second editions). I haven't read the King John one, but Cousins' coverage of the adaptation starts on page 84, and the book is partially available through Google books (here). I'm sure you'd find info there. Bertaut (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I promise I will stop rabbiting on about it now. Faded glories, an ting. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates

Now that each of the plays have their own template, I've added each template to the article, but collapsed by season. I think organizing them by season, as opposed to by genre makes more sense in this particular article. What do people think? The only thing I'm not crazy about is doubling up the Henriad template in season one and two, but it can't really be helped. Bertaut (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Henry the Fift / Henry the Eight / "Taping date" in boldface

"Henry the Fift" and "Henry the Eight" are marked in the edit windows with a comment; "Not a typo". Whilst I realise that this article is about the BBC programmes and not documents such as The Alexander Text and that there is no typo (in fact the original documents were titled in that way), perhaps for the casual reader we should put [sic] next to the appropriate section headings. I also think that items such as "Taping dates" and "Running time" should not be presented in boldface which is discouraged by WP:Boldface. Jodosma (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Henry the Eight isn't marked with a typo comment - 2 Henry IV, Henry V and the three parts of Henry VI are. Well, these are the titles of the episodes as they appear in the opening credits. I don't think putting [sic] in the section heading is a good idea at all. Seeing a strange word at the end of a title is more likely to confuse a reader than a missing "h". The advantage of the "not a typo" comment is that it's hidden. Don't forget, the word "sic" would also show up in the contents at the top of the page, which I think would look terrible. As for the boldface, well I've never been one to pay the slightest attention to WP:THIS or WP:THAT, but I think the bold text helps to distinguish the factual data at the top of each entry from the cast list immediately below it. But that's just me. Bertaut (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Bertaut's reason for not adding sic to the title. Having had this page on my watchlist for 9 years I can say that there was only the occasional edit to add the "h" (surprisingly rare in fact) to the title and none (well maybe one that I might have missed) since the hidden notes were added. Perhaps an explanatory note could be added as a footnote if needed. As to the bolding, in many cases I favo(u)r removing it but this is a good case for WP:IAR and leaving it as is. MarnetteD | Talk 00:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Oof I did that very naughty thing of focusing on the beginning of your post Jodosma and missing the point you were making at the end. Many apologies. IMO the boldface could be removed from "Taping dates" and "Running time" without adversely affecting the article. We don't bold them in either TV or Film infoboxes. As B says that is just me and if other editors who have this page on their watchlist could add their input that would be helpful. Again my apologies for the confusing nature of my posts. MarnetteD | Talk 01:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You've convinced me about not putting sic in the headings; the comments in the edit window should do the job. I would still like to remove the boldface from "Taping dates" etc. These entries should be distinguished from the cast lists so I would like to suggest a presentation such as this

Romeo & Juliet

• Directed by Alvin Rakoff
• Taping dates: 31 January-5 February 1978
• First transmitted in the UK: 3 December 1978
• First transmitted in the US: 14 March 1979
• Running Time (PAL DVD): 168 minutes

Cast

• Patrick Ryecart as Romeo
• Rebecca Saire as Juliet

etc. Of course the sub-heading "Cast" would not appear in the table of contents, cluttering it up and making it larger than necessary. Jodosma (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Actually, I think it looks better than how they're laid out now. Good thinking Batman. Bertaut (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks to you both for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 02:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks chaps, working on it now. Jodosma (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Photos of people NOT involved in the production

Why are there pictures of people who were not involved in the productions? (James Earl Jones, Peter Brook). This seems opposite to the Wikipedia goal of relevance. If you want to do this, you could have pictures of Laurence Olivier (who was not even considered for a role in any of the plays) or Orson Welles (who was not considered to direct any of the episodes). This makes no sense.

We should only have pictures of people who are involved in the topic of any page. I'll wait for a few comments and then delete the pictures if no one objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoneAlarm5 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@ZoneAlarm5: The Image captions explain the respective images' relevance to the article's text. Jones, for instance, is discussed in the section where the image of him appears. --Xover (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)