Talk:Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

Rosary

The article is claiming that Rosencrantz is the Danish for rosary. This is erroneous. It actually is the Danish for rose wreath, which can be seen on the coat of arms of the Danish branch of the Rosencrantz family. I'm changing the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.82.74 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Rosencrantz is the minor protaganist in Hamlet. He is the cause of in depth connurbations within the inner circles of the royal Denmark family

This article should be purely about the characters in the Shakespeare play. There should be disambiguation link to the Tom Stoppard film, nothing more than that. Palefire (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Since there is already a page about the Stoppard Film, having most of this article about it as well is just confusing, and doesn't help people who are looking for the characters from Hamlet. 71.218.245.226 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

With the exception of the W. S. Gilbert play, none of the cultural references seem particularly notable. Could this list be pruned? -Verdatum 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag

The fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as characters were used in the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, a production that is entirely independent of the original work, means it satisfies the criteria of notability as described in WP:FICT. In fact, I'd consider this a classic example of an appropriate article about a fictional subject. I don't understand why this tag was added, so I'm removing it. If you disagree, please provide your arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has a single source and does nothing to establish its being notable. It shows no extensive, academic discussion of the characters, nor any other outside work beyond an additional play. Their notability apart from either work is not established and both could be covered in the respective articles for those works. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article should be improved with acedemic discussion of the characters (I was just searching, and found a couple, will add later). But the existence of the two plays outside of the original work is indeed a real-world establishment of notability. In other words, "The characters are so notable that both Guilbert & Sullivan and Tom Stoppard wrote/published/performed plays involving the characters". Perhaps a more appropriate tag can be used requesting the addition of additional information. -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability tag is appropriate as it shows that the article is not establishing its notability and I don't think there is another tag to say "may be notable, but isn't showing it". If you have found sources discussing the characters,then the article can probably be fixed up to make its notability clearer, after which the tag can be removed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hamlet article is far too long to take these characters in, my friend, since there is so much that can be said about them. You would not believe how much academic material there is out there on the most minor Shakespeare characters. Please see Rosaline and Sycorax (Shakespeare). These two characters are notable. No argument. Notability is not the issue, referencing is. I would suggest the tag be replaced with a references needed tag. Seems like references are what your really want, anyway. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just a matter of references. The article also contains little content showing notability. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Roles in Stoppard

The characters depart from their epiphanies as quickly as they come to them. At times, one appears to be more enlightened than the other; however this light is traded off throughout the course of the drama.

As far as I remember, Guildenstern is the smarter of the two more or less throughout the play. Can anyone provide any support for Rosencrantz as sometimes being the smarter one? john k (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. The two characters in the play (and film) are very distinctive. It is quite impossible to muddle them up. The difficulty (for an audience) is remembering which is which because while Guildenstern is never muddled, Rosencrantz is. That is one of the character differences. Stoppard makes it clear in the initial stage directions by giving them different character notes. Guildenstern is generally more reflective and aware of their predicament, Rosencrantz does reflect (eg "life in a box is better than no life at all isn't it?") but is not aware in the same way of their situation. I could go on. It strikes me that whoever wrote about their roles either had not seen the play or had seen a single bad production. Francis Davey (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

England! query

Why do R&G go on to England? Surely if they're meant to escort Hamlet there and he gets captured by pirates, R&G should return to Denmark for advice from Claudius. They have no needto go to England. Anyone know why they do?

Thanks. 87.114.133.121 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Just the R and G scenes"

   As I write Charlie Rose is interviewing two drama guys who say they made a point of doing , or concentrating their energies on , just those parts of the WS play. They are Sam Gold (a dir) and ( -- from Daily Telegraph coverage July 14 --- ) I speculate the actor Oscar Isaac. video & perhaps a transcript should be on-line in the next 24.
--Jerzy•t 04:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a 9-actor production at Public Theater until Sept 3.
--Jerzy•t 04:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

   (By saving this edit of the whole section, it seems i'll've magically reformatted the whole section. Shazam!)
--Jerzy•t 04:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908041936/http://www.undeadflick.com/ to http://www.undeadflick.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)