Talk:Lope de Vega
|Lope de Vega has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article contains a translation of Lope de Vega from es.wikipedia. (535798389 et seq.)|
Why do we call him Lope, and not Vega? Even if the Spanish have this convention, do we definitely follow it in English? Thanks a lot.
Vandalism reverted - December 2006
I reverted a passage referring to Hugh Heffner (sic) and other irrelevant crudities. If there's a reason for that to be there, please reinstate and explain here.Militiades 15:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism - April 2007
I corrected some vandalism in the page.
Article text removed - March 2008
Editors, please be advised that the entire text of the article between the opening paragraph and the References section was removed, per the edit summary "entire article is unsourced", without prior tagging or discussion, by Otolemur crassicaudatus on 24 March. I reverted shortly thereafter, with a request for discussion prior to blanket removal of the majority of the article. "O.c." reverted back within a few minutes, citing WP:RS and WP:V in the edit summary. I also left a message on his talk page, protesting the behavior; the response, in summary, is that he believes he is appropriately enforcing WP:V. The article, is, actually, not entirely unsourced, because it has a 1911-Britannica tag.
I am requesting the assistance of editors interested in the article; it truly could use better references; we also need to get the removed text restored, hopefully without edit warring; the text needs to "be there" in order to be able to add citations where appropriate.
As time allows (have to "run" off to work now), I will also request assistance at the Wikiprojects which would have interest in this article: Theatre, Bio, and Spain. Thanks, Lini (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The deleted text has been restored, along with the additon of a reference, that I used for some additions to the list of works (apologies to the WP project for not adding the reference at the time that I made the additions to the article). This reference (Hayes), as a biography of Lope de Vega, is also a good general reference for the article. After giving the matter some thought, and given a closer look at the content and history of the page, I am making the assumption that the removal of the text on 24 March was done in error, without a careful enough look at the article, because the article was indeed, already referenced (1911-Britannica), and also already had one in-text citation (of the Catholic Encyclopedia), which was removed in the blanket removal of text. Therefore the rationale "entire article is unsourced" was incorrect, and the action was not appropriate. --Lini (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Tagged article for tone and Improved References
I have placed tags on this article requesting work on the article to improve the tone (needs updates from 1911 Britannica verbiage to be more consistent with 21st century encyclopedic tone) and for the incorporation of additional references. Thanks, Lini (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for assistance posted to relevant Wikiprojects
I've posted the following request for assistance at the talk pages of the Spain, Theatre, and Biography (Arts and Entertainment) projects:
I removed the title "El Persona Quien Bebe Leche" because it's not one of Lope de Vega's plays. You won't find any source for it other than wikipedia itself. It was added almost a year ago by user 184.108.40.206 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lope_de_Vega&diff=next&oldid=173168004).
"When it was starting to become a mass cultural phenomenon"
I'm not sure I understand the sense of this part of the introduction. Is Spanish theater's becoming a mass cultural phenomenon supposed to be that from which Lope de Vega renewed it, or is it a result of Lope de Vega's renewal? This is a really pedantic question, so I apologize if it turns out to be nitpicking.
- He wrote many plays in a typical month. I believe he claimed to turn out 20 script pages a day, and those pages would have been fairly long. Obviously there was considerable repetition from earlier works, his own and other playwrights. He didn't write over a thousand completely original works, and it's questionable whether he wrote even one that wasn't derivative of earlier plays, but his output was staggering by any standard. It's better not to think of him in terms of modern playwrights, but more in terms of somebody who is simultaneously writing for what was effectively the television of his day--soap operas, procedurals, and sitcoms--and even then, you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody else who wrote that much. There was so much demand for new plays, and nobody cared if they were a lot like the old plays. Today, a successful playwright would have a hard time finding an audience for even one play a year. Xfpisher (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Under Life he libeled Elena and 'his' family. The Spanish article, which quotes a libelous verse, seems to confirm the more plausible idea that he libeled her and her family. A mistaken, or automatic, translation of spanish 'su' as 'his' rather than 'her'? Richard Robert (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Length of exile
Modified as per comments above
I have just modified the article according to the facts reported in the (featured) Spanish article as pertaining to 'Libeled who?' and 'Length of exile' comments above. Richard Robert (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to this page says, "... the sheer volume of his literary output is unequalled, making him one of the most prolific authors in the history of literature."
If the volume is unequalled, he is not "one of the most prolific," he is the most prolific.
If it cannot be proven that the volume is unequalled, then it shouldn't say so.