Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Queen Mab


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete.. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mab
By quoting Mercutio's Queen Mab speech in Romeo and Juliet and by referring to Shelley's poem Queen Mab, this would seem to be an attempt to create a theme page. As a theme, it probably doesn't lend itself to more development even though other writers (e.g., Ben Jonson) have also written about her. Although there are quotes from the poem on the Shelley page, they do not specifically refer to Queen Mab and so there would be no point in transferring them to this theme page. It might be better to move the speech to Romeo and Juliet (act I, scene IV) and to delete this article. - InvisibleSun 07:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closed: Result: Delete, with due thanks to InvisibleSun for the cut-down quote. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete page and move quote to Romeo and Juliet. - InvisibleSun 07:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete page and move a portion of the quote to Romeo and Juliet. ~ UDScott 14:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as impractically specific theme page. Anyone who wishes to can move excerpts to R&J, but we must consider an essential problem of quoting Shakespeare: many people feel it valuable to cite entire speeches, scenes, etc. from his works. Many readers (my sister among them) and actors memorize entire plays. But that doesn't mean we should make an exception to our focus on concise quotes. (I find myself troubled even over Hamlet's soliloquy, which, last time I checked, we had reproduced in its entirety.) Once we cross the line because of the fame of the person or work, we get embroiled in the argument of just how famous a person or work should be to earn this exception. There are many places on the web (not the least Wikisource) where people can find entire passages; Wikiquote is about the most memorable portions of these works. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't have a problem with the speech being shortened; although I'd like to add that some speeches, like the "Seven Ages of Man" from As You Like It ("All the world's a stage," etc.) are usually quoted without cuts because they involve a sequence, progressing from one stage to another, which probably couldn't be edited without ruining the effect altogether. Other examples would include the two longer speeches on the Richard II page, which also tend to be quoted as set pieces. Perhaps the solution would be, as on our Wikiquote page for As You Like It, to have the beginning of the speech quoted, followed by a link to the scene in which the whole speech can be found. In short, although I'm all for the idea of concision wherever possible, I think we need to keep in mind that there really are some speeches, such as the Gettysburg Address or Hamlet's best-known soliloquy, which are quoted at length because they are considered memorable from beginning to end. It seems to me that we're willing to allow much longer stretches of movie dialogue, for example, because the dialogue is divided among characters and therefore doesn't seem as inordinate; but when one character in a play speaks lines of equal length, we tend to think it excessive. - InvisibleSun 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * InvisibleSun, I don't disagree with your assessment of memorability of some of these quotes, but who are we to decide this? How do we stop others from making similar arguments for any speech? And as far as movie and TV-show dialog goes, I tend to trim those things down, too, as many editors don't quite get the concept of pithiness and focusing on essences. It's very hard to be objective about what constitutes a reasonable exception. Shakespeare is an obvious candidate, as he's stood the test of centuries. But I suspect many young readers would find wrestler diatribes more valuable to them than stuffy Early Modern English soliloquys, and the main thing stopping this is the failure to source any of them. Less obvious inanity may indeed be sourceable. We must tread carefully. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In anticipation of the closing vote consensus today, I have added a much abbreviated form of the quote to the Romeo and Juliet page. - InvisibleSun 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.