== Re Hamlet == 

 Though I appreciate the length to which you went to accommodate the anonymous editor who is pleading for an Oxfordian section, which you then wrote, I felt, having spent/wasted a year of my life, like some others, reading through the literature, and editing with Oxfordians, that even a compromise there, unless it receives a consensus on the talk page, sets a very dangerous precedent which many agree might destabilize all Shakespearean articles, and render the whole field unworkable. 
 As written, the paras did not touch on the extensive Oxfordian theorizing on Hamlet, but tended to simply highlight the names associated with them. Promotion by celebrity lists is part and parcel of Oxfordian advocacy, and, as written, looked very much like an advertisement, though I'm convinced this was certainly not what you had in mind. 
 Shakespeare has a vast technical scholarship updated virtually daily, and even in wellworked articles, little of this is on show. They offer huge pleasure for editors, but, unfortunately, when this kind of material edges in, invariably deteriorate in POV wars, fringe theorizing, and huge talk page blogs that lead nowhere. 
 Whatever, I admire your patience, and empathy with the anon, but suggest that as a rule, that this and other Shakespearean pages only accommodate what is one of a huge body of unorthodox and often far-fetched wildtheorizing when a consensus is reached after substantial discussion on the talk page, where anons and I/Ps etc, who usually push for this material's inclusion, should  be invited to make their proposals. Apologies if this seems somewhat highhanded. I didn't intend it to be. Regards