This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Support - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split (if not deleted). Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with a suggested alternative - I've never seen a Wikipedia article wrap around the footnote counter. Perhaps we could find some references that talk about many plays at once, instead of citing the manuscript for each play. I don't know how you would rationally divide this article. Maybe it would be useful to tighten up the list criteria to "Plays that have had at least two cited public performances by a professional company for a paying audience". An easier criterion would be "either the play or the author has an article" - we could apply that mechanically without a lot of research. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Because the year of publication already appears in the current list, the list could easily be split into three lists: List of Canadian plays: 19th century, List of Canadian plays: 20th century, List of Canadian plays: 21st century. On one hand, blue ink throughout (article already in existence) makes the page more attractive. On the other hand, people may be more inclined to contribute if they already see the play in red ink. Neojacob (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit the vast number of Red Links makes me think the delete option is the better option. If the article is to be split, then please do it properly i.e. 1 article per first letter with a template for navigating etc. The way this split has started is not a long term solution. Op47 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
