![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maybe I'm a bit dim but in anycase I was wondering if someone could help me answer this question: wouldn't Hamlet have been the next in line to the throne after the death of his father? It seems as though Gertrude was only a Queen Consort. Someone help me out because it's driving me bananas!
It needs to be understood that Denmark was not a "popular democracy" in the modern sense, though. The Danish aristocracy made the choice of king, not the common people. The voters, or electors, were only a select few. Also, in actual Danish history, a son always succeeded his father, despite the possibility of someone else being elected. In other words, whenever a son was available, he always did become the next king, in the real history of Denmark. Historically, the election possibility was mainly for use when a king had no son. Shakespeare used the election possibility to depart from actual Danish history, and create the basic dramatic tension in the play. In relation to the comment just above, it isn't correct to imply that England was an elective monarchy. JeffJo 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't questions like that need to be in some Hamlet or Shakespeare forum on the web, instead of here? It's not directly pertinent to the article. There's no chance one article is going to answer all the questions about Hamlet. There's about three pretty good Shakespeare forums around on the web, of the phpBB and vBulletin type, which are perfect for that kind of question and discussion. JeffJo 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Commented out the assertion that Shakespeare himself played the Ghost. Reference? — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The idea of Shakespeare himself playing the Ghost comes from Nicholas Rowe, who attempted the first biography of Shakespeare, back in the 1700s. However, he gave no source for the idea, and it's probably only an anecdote he picked up, whether true or not. It shouldn't be stated as a fact. JeffJo 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that little blurb should be on the Ghost's page, rather than the Hamlet Page, with a citation referencing it to Rowe and making it clear that it is unclear whether or not it is actually true. Wrad 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, things about the specific characters should be on the pages for those characters. That makes sense. This should focus on the play, overall. JeffJo 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking for a while that this talk page is getting pretty long. It may be wise for us to get a bot to archive past discussions for us. Any objections? Wrad 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. A lot of the earlier stuff is no longer relevant. JeffJo 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, you could just get vicious - :-) - and go through the page, and chop out the obsolete or irrelevant material. JeffJo 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added an archival bot and set it to archive anything over 30 days old. Wrad 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very strange that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this article about the scene featuring Hamlet and the skull of Yorick: one of the most famous scenes in world literature and world drama...And, before you ask, this scene is not mentioned in the Prince Hamlet article either... Colin4C 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the above section should be removed. It seems out of place to me. He is explained a little in the plot and characters sections, and none of the other characters have a section for them. I think we should delete the whole thing and rely on the link to his main article in the characters section. Wrad 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. That's exactly what the different character pages are for. It also makes no sense as it stands, with the things about the Ghost and Ophelia stuck in it, who are not Hamlet. JeffJo 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So who's gonna take it out? You or me? :) Wrad 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I nuked it. I moved the Smoktunovsky image over to the Prince Hamlet page, to save it, though. JeffJo 06:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a good picture. Wrad 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How big a synopsis should the article have? I can do a complete outline overview of the play, scene by scene. But it'll be looong. It would be a sketch of the whole play. I'd also be willing to put it on another page, to link to. What do you think? JeffJo 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the one we have is really pretty good, to be honest. Wrad 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's weak. It repeats character info, which isn't necessary. It fails to specifically identify the famous Nunnery Scene, and Closet Scene. It needs better organization. It contains significant factual errors, such as "river" (should be "brook.") I'll try touching it up a little, nothing too major. JeffJo 06:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw a few glitches, but nothing major. Wrad 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did more rewrite than I thought I would. I tried to hit all the main points, include some of the most famous quotes, and mention the most famous scenes. I also tried to keep it as flatly factual as possible, without trying to interpret. I tried not to impose my own point of view, or anybody's, on it. I think that's the right approach for a basic encyclopedia article. "Just the facts, ma'am." I do think I got the basic facts of the story line right. JeffJo 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed somebody changed the order of the headings according to project format, but the old version was actually what matched the format as posted on the main project page. Another version, the one on the project talk page, is different and matches the recent change. Which one do we really want, here? Wrad 03:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wrad - it seemed from the project talk page that everyone who commented liked the talk page format (with the suggested changes of turnings lists into prose, and getting rid of the trivia section). Is that correct? Smatprt 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the conflict on the project page just came to my attention. It should be fixed. Wrad 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Just left a comment on the project talk page. Smatprt 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My personal view is that these should not give away the plot. The debate about individual characters should be taken to their character page. Presenting a character in a certain way sometimes is misleading. The summary should be as simple as possible without being misleading. Even I have been guilty of this sometimes. But I want to stress moving the information to the character page rather than deleting it. Loss of information is not a pretty thing. Wrad 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It maybe a bit POV but don't the gravediggers deserve a seperate mention? Obviously they don't deserve an infobox but they are hardly incidental charachters, they play a vital role as impartial observers, allowing the audience access Hamlet's troubled thoughts about death, to penetrate his feigned madness. You may argue that if they are so important then why aren't they given names, but that would violate their anonymity as "the most ancient of Gentlemen", "whose houses last till doomsday"[5.1]. 143.252.80.100 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've requested unprotection. I see no/minimal edit warring on the pages for other Shakespeare plays therefore no reason to think it will break out again here. AndyJones 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a section about film versions of Hamlet? Has this been removed? If so, why?
Once there, wouldn't it be better to leave the lists in place, rather than just deleting them? I've been slowly working on various play articles in this respect and it's certainly easier to start with something. By simply deleting good information, it's like starting over. I agree that lists should ultimately go, but I think thoughtful editing is more than just deleting. Smatprt 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps start with R & J since it's first on the shakespeare template and is pretty well developed? I've been working thru the plays one at a time just trying to put them into the project format and doing some slight cleaniing as I go. I am almost thru them all. At least then they will have the common format, and be ready for some serious work. Smatprt 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, R&J is good. At first I wanted to do Hamlet, but Romeo is one of the top 250 most visited articles on wikipedia. Hamlet isn't even in the top 1000. Wrad 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
When was this? Wrad 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following image:
The image is too dark.
I believe spoiler warnings on classical works are absurd. Obviously, some editors disagree. I understand that there are arguments for both sides (see this discussion), and I don't want to engage in edit warring, so I propose a straw poll.
The article must have a spoiler warning, because Wikipedia is worldwide, for one thing. Hamlet may be a classic work in English literature, but it is not so in Chinese or other cultures. It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story. JeffJo 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes - all plays should have a spoiler warning. These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles. Smatprt 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the spoiler tag because we don't treat our readers like imbeciles. There is a very large warning about spoilers in our content disclaimer and further warnings are intrusive and unnecessary. This is a 400-year-old Shakespeare play, not some bloody silly comic book. -- Tony Sidaway 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In doing that, you're acting against most editors of this page, and will definitely get reverted within minutes. Might want to try swaying the opinion before making enemies. Wrad 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] People who keep deleting the spoiler mentioned this link, I think it's pretty good, so I'll go ahead and do their job for them and post it here, although I don't think it changes anything. It's a debate, not a policy. Wrad 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The arguments for the spoiler tag have been stated as follows:
If someone puts an unnecessary comment on the page, it can be removed like anything else that doesn't belong. No question of giving in. If they persist we show them the content disclaimer which has warned about spoilers now for years.
It is absolutely true that people coming to this article may not know about the play. This is precisely why they come to the article, Furthermore, if they see a section marked "plot" or "synopsis", they know that the section is a discussion of the plot of the play. It is not necessary to say the same thing twice. -- Tony Sidaway 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where the content disclaimer page talks about removing spoiler tags. Seems like it advocates them. Wrad 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with whoever said "the concensus had changed". I see no evidence of that. In fact, I still see more editors in favor of spoilers. FYI, after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play, much less read one. As an advocate of the theatre, I think spoiler warnings should stay. Wikipedia is for the common man, not just special interest buffs. Spoilers have been on most of the plays and have been agreed to in many previous discussions. To claim "consensus" has changed is just plain wrong, as this recent discussion proves once again. Smatprt 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the wise thing to do would have been to wait until an official policy came out before changing these tags. Coming out and claiming consensus on a page that, frankly, has only had a few editors respond to it (The spoilers template page), and then blowing through and changing everything on several pages, ignoring previous debates and discussions, is inappropriate and rude. If you can point me to an official policy that says we have to take the tag out, or if a consensus for changing it develops on this page, then it would be alright to change, but your tactics now are hardly going to get us anywhere. Wrad 02:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the use of the {{ spoiler}} tag, you should go to the centralized RfC page located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. There is no point it splintering this discussion which will result in multiple "consciences agreements" that are in conflict with each other. There should be one general guideline for all. -- Farix ( Talk) 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maybe I'm a bit dim but in anycase I was wondering if someone could help me answer this question: wouldn't Hamlet have been the next in line to the throne after the death of his father? It seems as though Gertrude was only a Queen Consort. Someone help me out because it's driving me bananas!
It needs to be understood that Denmark was not a "popular democracy" in the modern sense, though. The Danish aristocracy made the choice of king, not the common people. The voters, or electors, were only a select few. Also, in actual Danish history, a son always succeeded his father, despite the possibility of someone else being elected. In other words, whenever a son was available, he always did become the next king, in the real history of Denmark. Historically, the election possibility was mainly for use when a king had no son. Shakespeare used the election possibility to depart from actual Danish history, and create the basic dramatic tension in the play. In relation to the comment just above, it isn't correct to imply that England was an elective monarchy. JeffJo 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't questions like that need to be in some Hamlet or Shakespeare forum on the web, instead of here? It's not directly pertinent to the article. There's no chance one article is going to answer all the questions about Hamlet. There's about three pretty good Shakespeare forums around on the web, of the phpBB and vBulletin type, which are perfect for that kind of question and discussion. JeffJo 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Commented out the assertion that Shakespeare himself played the Ghost. Reference? — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The idea of Shakespeare himself playing the Ghost comes from Nicholas Rowe, who attempted the first biography of Shakespeare, back in the 1700s. However, he gave no source for the idea, and it's probably only an anecdote he picked up, whether true or not. It shouldn't be stated as a fact. JeffJo 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that little blurb should be on the Ghost's page, rather than the Hamlet Page, with a citation referencing it to Rowe and making it clear that it is unclear whether or not it is actually true. Wrad 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, things about the specific characters should be on the pages for those characters. That makes sense. This should focus on the play, overall. JeffJo 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking for a while that this talk page is getting pretty long. It may be wise for us to get a bot to archive past discussions for us. Any objections? Wrad 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. A lot of the earlier stuff is no longer relevant. JeffJo 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, you could just get vicious - :-) - and go through the page, and chop out the obsolete or irrelevant material. JeffJo 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added an archival bot and set it to archive anything over 30 days old. Wrad 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very strange that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this article about the scene featuring Hamlet and the skull of Yorick: one of the most famous scenes in world literature and world drama...And, before you ask, this scene is not mentioned in the Prince Hamlet article either... Colin4C 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the above section should be removed. It seems out of place to me. He is explained a little in the plot and characters sections, and none of the other characters have a section for them. I think we should delete the whole thing and rely on the link to his main article in the characters section. Wrad 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. That's exactly what the different character pages are for. It also makes no sense as it stands, with the things about the Ghost and Ophelia stuck in it, who are not Hamlet. JeffJo 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So who's gonna take it out? You or me? :) Wrad 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I nuked it. I moved the Smoktunovsky image over to the Prince Hamlet page, to save it, though. JeffJo 06:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a good picture. Wrad 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How big a synopsis should the article have? I can do a complete outline overview of the play, scene by scene. But it'll be looong. It would be a sketch of the whole play. I'd also be willing to put it on another page, to link to. What do you think? JeffJo 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the one we have is really pretty good, to be honest. Wrad 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's weak. It repeats character info, which isn't necessary. It fails to specifically identify the famous Nunnery Scene, and Closet Scene. It needs better organization. It contains significant factual errors, such as "river" (should be "brook.") I'll try touching it up a little, nothing too major. JeffJo 06:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw a few glitches, but nothing major. Wrad 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did more rewrite than I thought I would. I tried to hit all the main points, include some of the most famous quotes, and mention the most famous scenes. I also tried to keep it as flatly factual as possible, without trying to interpret. I tried not to impose my own point of view, or anybody's, on it. I think that's the right approach for a basic encyclopedia article. "Just the facts, ma'am." I do think I got the basic facts of the story line right. JeffJo 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed somebody changed the order of the headings according to project format, but the old version was actually what matched the format as posted on the main project page. Another version, the one on the project talk page, is different and matches the recent change. Which one do we really want, here? Wrad 03:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wrad - it seemed from the project talk page that everyone who commented liked the talk page format (with the suggested changes of turnings lists into prose, and getting rid of the trivia section). Is that correct? Smatprt 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the conflict on the project page just came to my attention. It should be fixed. Wrad 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Just left a comment on the project talk page. Smatprt 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My personal view is that these should not give away the plot. The debate about individual characters should be taken to their character page. Presenting a character in a certain way sometimes is misleading. The summary should be as simple as possible without being misleading. Even I have been guilty of this sometimes. But I want to stress moving the information to the character page rather than deleting it. Loss of information is not a pretty thing. Wrad 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It maybe a bit POV but don't the gravediggers deserve a seperate mention? Obviously they don't deserve an infobox but they are hardly incidental charachters, they play a vital role as impartial observers, allowing the audience access Hamlet's troubled thoughts about death, to penetrate his feigned madness. You may argue that if they are so important then why aren't they given names, but that would violate their anonymity as "the most ancient of Gentlemen", "whose houses last till doomsday"[5.1]. 143.252.80.100 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've requested unprotection. I see no/minimal edit warring on the pages for other Shakespeare plays therefore no reason to think it will break out again here. AndyJones 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a section about film versions of Hamlet? Has this been removed? If so, why?
Once there, wouldn't it be better to leave the lists in place, rather than just deleting them? I've been slowly working on various play articles in this respect and it's certainly easier to start with something. By simply deleting good information, it's like starting over. I agree that lists should ultimately go, but I think thoughtful editing is more than just deleting. Smatprt 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps start with R & J since it's first on the shakespeare template and is pretty well developed? I've been working thru the plays one at a time just trying to put them into the project format and doing some slight cleaniing as I go. I am almost thru them all. At least then they will have the common format, and be ready for some serious work. Smatprt 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, R&J is good. At first I wanted to do Hamlet, but Romeo is one of the top 250 most visited articles on wikipedia. Hamlet isn't even in the top 1000. Wrad 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
When was this? Wrad 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following image:
The image is too dark.
I believe spoiler warnings on classical works are absurd. Obviously, some editors disagree. I understand that there are arguments for both sides (see this discussion), and I don't want to engage in edit warring, so I propose a straw poll.
The article must have a spoiler warning, because Wikipedia is worldwide, for one thing. Hamlet may be a classic work in English literature, but it is not so in Chinese or other cultures. It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story. JeffJo 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes - all plays should have a spoiler warning. These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles. Smatprt 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the spoiler tag because we don't treat our readers like imbeciles. There is a very large warning about spoilers in our content disclaimer and further warnings are intrusive and unnecessary. This is a 400-year-old Shakespeare play, not some bloody silly comic book. -- Tony Sidaway 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In doing that, you're acting against most editors of this page, and will definitely get reverted within minutes. Might want to try swaying the opinion before making enemies. Wrad 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] People who keep deleting the spoiler mentioned this link, I think it's pretty good, so I'll go ahead and do their job for them and post it here, although I don't think it changes anything. It's a debate, not a policy. Wrad 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The arguments for the spoiler tag have been stated as follows:
If someone puts an unnecessary comment on the page, it can be removed like anything else that doesn't belong. No question of giving in. If they persist we show them the content disclaimer which has warned about spoilers now for years.
It is absolutely true that people coming to this article may not know about the play. This is precisely why they come to the article, Furthermore, if they see a section marked "plot" or "synopsis", they know that the section is a discussion of the plot of the play. It is not necessary to say the same thing twice. -- Tony Sidaway 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where the content disclaimer page talks about removing spoiler tags. Seems like it advocates them. Wrad 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with whoever said "the concensus had changed". I see no evidence of that. In fact, I still see more editors in favor of spoilers. FYI, after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play, much less read one. As an advocate of the theatre, I think spoiler warnings should stay. Wikipedia is for the common man, not just special interest buffs. Spoilers have been on most of the plays and have been agreed to in many previous discussions. To claim "consensus" has changed is just plain wrong, as this recent discussion proves once again. Smatprt 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the wise thing to do would have been to wait until an official policy came out before changing these tags. Coming out and claiming consensus on a page that, frankly, has only had a few editors respond to it (The spoilers template page), and then blowing through and changing everything on several pages, ignoring previous debates and discussions, is inappropriate and rude. If you can point me to an official policy that says we have to take the tag out, or if a consensus for changing it develops on this page, then it would be alright to change, but your tactics now are hardly going to get us anywhere. Wrad 02:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the use of the {{ spoiler}} tag, you should go to the centralized RfC page located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. There is no point it splintering this discussion which will result in multiple "consciences agreements" that are in conflict with each other. There should be one general guideline for all. -- Farix ( Talk) 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)