Talk:Hamlet/Archive 2

Why doesn't Hamlet become King?
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!


 * Denmark had an elective monarchy, which was not all that uncommon at the time. In Shakespeare's day it was a significant issue in relations between Englisn and Irish law, part of the disputes between the two countries as England was claiming sovereign rights over Ireland. See Donal O'Sullivan for an example of the relevance of the issue at the time. Paul B 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Duh! Of course England was not an elective monarchy. The point I was making was that the absolute nature of primogeniture was an issue at the time. Donald O'Sullivan was excluded from succession to his clan leadership because he was too young. The clan elders decided to place the nearest mature relative in power. Establishment of the absolute nature of primogeniture was part of the process whereby English law was used to supercede Irish traditions. Of course Hamlet is not set in Ireland - the comparison is there simply to suggest a political context for the portrayal of royal election as potentially problematic and destabilising, a view that was part of Tudor/English propaganda at the time. Paul B 00:26, 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)

List of Characters
Commented out the assertion that Shakespeare himself played the Ghost. Reference? — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you were right. There is a tradition that he played the role, but it's certainly inappropriate to report it as a fact, or indeed to report it at all, unsourced. AndyJones 12:40, 20 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)

Archival Bot?
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)

Alas!
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 noticed this as well. This is probably second only to "To be, or not to be..." in popularity.  I feel that at least one gravedigger be mentioned in the List of Characters since this scene is as unabashedly famous as it is.
 * Padillah 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a quick mention of it in the synopsis.JeffJo 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet as a Character section removal
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)

Synopsis?
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)

Project format?
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)

Recent changes to character section
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)

Unprotection
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)

Adaptations
Didn't there used to be a section about film versions of Hamlet? Has this been removed? If so, why?


 * It was too much like a list, and very long. It still exists in the article Shakespeare on screen. It will probably be re-added once someone takes the time write it in prose. Wrad 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Well, it wasn't deleted, just moved (not by me, by the way). Anyone can fish them out of the Shakespeare on screen article and rewrite them if they want.  It would be more in line with project standards that way.  Thanks for cleaning up those play articles.  After the William Shakespeare article hits FA status, the project should probably collaborate on one play article and get it to at least GA status, in order to give other plays something to go by.  It would set a good standard. Wrad 18:00, 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)


 * You've got the history wrong of the film section: there was such a section in this article before Shakespeare on screen existed (I know this because I created Shakespeare on screen in its current incarnation). The two were very different in their style: the section on this page was more prose than the screen article, which has only ever existed as a list. It wasn't merged into Shakespeare on screen, either, it was merely deleted from Hamlet by an editor who thought it was redundant with the other article. AndyJones 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When was this? Wrad 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed image
I have removed the following image: The image is too dark.

Spoiler warning?
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 should have a spoiler warning

 * Wrad 12:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * AndyJones 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Goldfritha 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smatprt 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Waggers 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Marty Donakowski 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * --BeastKing89 06:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article should not have a spoiler warning

 * Ashenai 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul B 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * --JohnJardine 06:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brandon Christopher 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil

 * On Wikipedia, we make decisions by discussion, not by voting. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Straw polls are perfectly acceptable, and useful. For instance, I originally thought that the spoiler warning was persistently added by one or two editors, and did not reflect any sort of consensus. The straw poll proved me wrong. --Ashenai 05:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Polls are fine if they facilitate discussion, which seems to be the whole point here. Wrad 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For goodness, not another poll. Discuss, don't poll.  --Iamunknown 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If we don't put one up, people will come along and complain about it, or add it in themselves until we finally give in. I've seen it happen again and again.  It doesn't really hurt anything, so we might as well just put it in, I think. Wrad 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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, "classics" are often classics only to selected cultures. Goldfritha 00:07, 4 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)


 * I've already got lots of friends, thanks. Consensus has changed, spoilers are out. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Template:Spoiler itself notes that it should not be used in sections named "Plot summary" or similar ... as these can be presumed to contain, um, plot elements. So reverting with no edit summary, against all sanity and against the documentation contained in the very template one is including is ... silly - David Gerard 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for the spoiler tag have been stated as follows:
 * if we don't do it, others will do it until we give in
 * It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story/These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles.

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)


 * Not that I can see. It does point to Spoiler warning, a guideline that has recently been strongly opposed in discussion and, insofar as it used to advocate spoiler warnings, no longer enjoys consensus support.


 * I applied to have the page protected so that those who believe that this article should have a spoiler warning in addition to a section heading clearly marked "Synopsis" will come here and argue for it instead of just reverting every time it's removed and saying "we have more votes" (which incidentally isn't at all true). --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It now appears to be protected.


 * Personally, I see no good reason for warning that sections like 'plot' or 'synopsis' may reveal things like plot twists and endings. We do generally expect our readers to have living & functioning grey matter between the ears. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:55, 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)


 * This discussion demonstrates very well how radically consensus has changed. Moreover your arguments for inclusion of these superfluous warnings don't hold water.


 * The common man, as you put it, can read, otherwise he wouldn't be reading the article.  It follows that he can read the word "Synopsis", "Plot", "Plot summary" or somesuch at the start of a section and be informed thereby that the following text is a summary of the plot.


 * In the unlikely event that he's too stupid to realise that sections marked "Plot" in encyclopedia articles about a Shakespeare play are going to contain information about the plot, his misconceptions are easily remedied by referring him to the content disclaimer which is linked to every single page on the wiki.


 * There is no need for any extra warning, let alone these frankly insulting, ugly and intrusive warnings. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play" - I daresay less than 3% of Americans ever read an encyclopedia article on a Shakespear article, either. Those who do, do so because they are seeking information on the play, and if they choose to read the section on the play's plot, it is ridiculous to warn them that they may.. learn something they didn't know about the plot. --Stormie 03:29, 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)


 * That seems to be the view of the Shakespeare wikiproject, also: namely that all discussion should be directed to the RfC. I'll copy this discussion there. AndyJones 07:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a quick straw poll of a number of Wikipedia articles about literary "classics", e.g. Moby Dick, The Illiad, Bhagavad Gita, The Cantebury Tales, The Inferno, The Aeneid, Paradise Lost. The articles voted with their feet,none of them had spoiler warnings. I suspect that these are different from other works of literature though I'm not inclined to speculate on why. Probably don't want to stir things up. I think Hamlet belongs with these as opposed to works that might need a spoiler tag. JohnJardine 07:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You found that result because of the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I expect that if you check edit versions of the same pages from two weeks ago you'll get the opposite result. Anyway, if you have views on the topic, I'd encourage you to raise them at the RfC discussion (follow the link in my first sentence). AndyJones 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)