Oscar Wilde is considered one of the most important playwrights of the Victorian period, as such, his plays, even his minor ones, are the subject of a lot of discussion. However. there are pretty much no other illustrations to the Duchess of Padua out there. The only other images I've found, searching the whole internet, are a title page and a couple rather dull shots of a production. If anyone can find any others, I'd be interested to see. As such, being able to illustrate this play is surprisingly difficult and valuable. -- Adam Cuerden (talk)
I can't link to a category; as I said, this is poorly illustrated, and we have one image of this, and are unlikely ever to get more, so it lurks in the default Category:Oscar Wilde. Alternatively, it could link to en:The Duchess of Padua, but that uses an alternate state of the image that looks washed out to me (and makes me wonder what I was thinking, since it's apparently also mine). Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can! ;) I did it. Unless there are several works called The Duchess of Padua, it is not necessary to add (play by Oscar Wilde). Personally I like rather when the background is white rather yellow. Yann (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty irrelevant, not free licenced, and would only serve to promote one modern edition over others. I think that unnecessarily over-specialising scope is actually something to be avoided at all costs - it makes our list less helpful, particularly when there's no competing scopes that could be offered: We don't have pictures of book covers. We don't have photos of productions. If we did, then we could talk about dividing up the more general scope productively; as it stands, I think that we shouldn't bother denying a general scope.
Stepping back a moment, is it clear that "(play by Oscar Wilde)" is just meant to clarify what "The Duchess of Padua" is? I was worried that it could be confusing, as, if you don't know it's a play, you might think it's a person, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are good points. No need to have a narrower scope. I don't think there can be a confusion with a person: scope labels for people are worded differently, and in any doubt, one can check in the category. Yann (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
