Talk:Love's Labour's Won

No more stub

How much more can this article be expanded? It's a lost play, for which we only have the title, the source of which has been accurately denoted here. I'd like to take this off the stub list if there are no further objections. Dvyost 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There to tell the connection with Love's Labour's Lost, that play had no ending, rather a foreshadowing on four possible endings (maybe for the four men?), why don't you change stub status to expanding status placing an {{expand}} tag in the talkpage, or maybe an {{todo}} list with remaining issues. --145.94.41.95 19:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll just add a mention of this (which is really speculation anyway) and take away the stub status entirely. Dvyost 21:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I removed this line:

"This episode did make a mistake in depicting the play as being written in 1599; as noted above, it had already appeared in Meres's list of Shakespeare comedies in 1598."

Is this relevant? It offers no new information, and seems to me to serve only so that the author can prove how much he knows. - 82.34.48.197 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was added in fun to show that the writers of the Doctor Who episode made a silly mistake, easily corrected if they had read the wikipedia article, or (god forbid) an actual reference book. What was your point in removing it? To demonstrate you are even more anal retentive than I am? Wikipedia: welcome to the anality contest. It's already a flippant section on popular culture references. - Jb? 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was a mistake at all, just artistic license. The Globe Theatre was also a part of the plot, and it wasn't constructed until 1599. To use both the play and theatre in the plot, something had to give. -- Chuq 10:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's only so-called "drama"?

I have removed the sentence, It is his only so-called "drama" because it has no humor, has a happy ending, and takes place in Shakespeare's modern times because I'm not quite sure if this is meant seriously. Comments welcome. <KF> 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Plural apostrophe?

I would have thought Love's Labour's would be incorrect. I am not sure but I think it means Labours (plural of labour), not Labour's (belonging to labour), if I'm wrong tell me, if I'm right I'll move the page and make this one redirect to it. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I expect it is correct. The apostrophes in Love's Labour's Lost are famously anachronistic. What do the sources say? AndyJones (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Surviving Lines"?

No sources, the second isn't in iambic pentameter, and it would seem the definition of a lost play is that it is lost. Is there any reason to keep this in the article? --67.140.36.185 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

All's Well

A late 19th-century German edition of Shakespeare's works contains "Ende gut, alles gut oder Gewonnene Liebesmüh" (All's Well That Ends Well, or Love's Labour's Won). This sort of fits with Grote's argument about generic-sounding titles for comedies, but since All's Well is dated to 1604 or 1605, it runs into the same problem as Troilus and Cressida of coming after Palladis Tamia. Very unlikely, but I thought I'd throw it out there. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)