Talk:Hamlet/Archive 5

message: I think we're at the point where we need to go through the GA process in order to keep things from coming to a standstill. It will help us find things that may come up for FA. It will also help us move on to FA. I think we're ready to nominate. Wrad 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Proteus, before you respond, just know that most of your improvements are carrying this article from GA to FA, so we may be ready even though you're not technically done. Wrad 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going for it. I'm sure the reviewer will bring up stuff we missed, but that always happens. Wrad 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, don't let me stop you. I work so slowly anyhow. There is more material I have to add, but no need to keep the process waiting. DionysosProteus 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm about to nominate for GA 

message: Andy divided up the Arden 3 into two separate volumes, which I think is a good idea. I've amended the biblio slightly, as the convention is to use 2006a and 2006b. However, for many of the citations in the article it is not clear which volume is being referred to. For ease of searching for a find-and-replace, I've temporarily inserted a $ next to each one; can someone with the Arden edition/s please replace these $ with either "a" for the first volume (Q2) or "b" for the second volume (Q1/F). Author-dating the rest of the notes now. DionysosProteus 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson and Taylor $ 

message: * Brian Vickers The Critical Heritage had references to 1.447 and 4.92. I've interpreted this as volumes one and four respectively. Is that right?
* Wofford's "Critical History of Hamlet" - start and end page numbers of this section of the book.
:*I have a copy of this at home and will add it. Wrad 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm having trouble finding my copy of this. Stand by. Wrad 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The List

message: : I've just undone the edit to the political context. Firstly, French wrote in 1869 - the present tense for a suggestion made more than 100yrs ago isn't appropriate. 
: Secondly, the quotation from French definitely belongs in the footnotes, if at all, since it merely repeats the information in the previous sentence. This has nothing to do with hiding anything. Its about removing a rhetorical elaboration.
: Thirdly, identifying these arguments as part of a project to support Oxford authorship claims: your edits go against the information presented above. It is not since the 1980s that they have been used in this way--all of the citations provided in the second paragraph do this (when they are addressing the comparison) as the sources on the website indicate. You can't claim that numerous mainstream scholars have noted these differences without providing the evidence for this. The current copy offers French (who was a genealogist) and Dover Wilson. 
: Finally, identifying these arguments as "arguments" is in no way POV. Just as Freud's theory about Hamlet's hesitations being caused by an oedipal conflict, they are interpretations and suggestions and should be identified as such. French calls all of his suggestions "conjecture", which is what it all is.
:DionysosProteus 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Political context 

message: I've been wondering whether we really need a theme section in this article. Most of what is in themes is covered in other sections, the article is getting kind of long, and if people want to see things separated into themes, they can go into the Critical approaches to Hamlet subarticle. Thoughts? Wrad 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to Be Bold and removed it, but the discussion is obviously still open. Wrad 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme section really needed? 

message: I think they should be ruthlessly cleaned out. Are there any that anyone feels is a "must keep". Speak now or forever... so on and so on.  Wrad 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For my money, the following six are the keeps (as for the rest, let the wrath of Wrad's merciless boldness sweep them away for good):
KEEP
* Internet Shakespeare Editions - transcripts and facsimilies of the First Quarto, Second Quarto, and First Folio versions.
* Project Gutenberg - plain vanilla etext.
* "HyperHamlet" - a hypertext project at the University of Basel
* "The Women Who Have Played Hamlet" - podcast interview with Tony Howard on research into female Hamlets
* Hamlet on the Ramparts - from MIT's Shakespeare Electronic Archive, on the encounter with the ghost
* "The Hamlet Weblog" - a weblog about the play.
The contentious one (I imagine) is the last, but from what I saw it was well-written, entertaining and informative, so it gets my vote. I could live without the MIT Ghost one if there were strong objections to it. I've amended the layout to my preferred too. DionysosProteus 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take issue with the blog, but I'll look over it more first. Also, the "Women who have played Hamlet" may do better on the Prince Hamlet page, in my opinion. Wrad 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Can we summarize the MAT bits more. They are taking up a lot of space. We don't want to be guilty of WP:Undue weight(i.e. devoting too much space to something which in the real world isn't a major part of the subject at hand. For example, the new MAT bit takes up about 8-10% of the article's prose. Very weighty.) Maybe summarize it into one paragraph or less. Right now it takes up a good tenth of the article. Maybe what we need is a Hamlet in Performance article to go into more detail? Wrad 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would offer that, from the perspective of theatre history, the MAT production is the most important production of Hamlet ever. There isn't another that comes close in significance. Stan. is the most important influence on modern acting and this production was a test case for his new methods, and Craig invented modern stage design, with this production being his most well-known production. To have two practitioners of their stature collaborate is almost unheard of. It's about 4.5% (I checked :) )DionysosProteus 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4.5% of everything, including references, templates, and pictures. When it comes to the actual body of the article, it's about twice that, which I think is a bit much. But you're the theatre expert. Wrad 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not that I'm resisting your suggestion to summarise - working on a version here - but I cut and pasted only the main body text into a document to do a word count. The main article without footnotes, captions, etc. is about 9040 words. MAT is 414. That's 4.5% approx. There is more material on this production (as you'd expect if it's as important as I claim it is), so my impulse is to give this prod. its own article. DionysosProteus 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be negative - I haven't read this yet and I'm sure it's great stuff - but yes, please break this out to its own page or something. Stanislavski is important, of course, but many of the others listed in this section are too, and there's no way I'm going to find the time to give them due weight in this section unless I live to 150 or something. AndyJones 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read this, now, and yes it is great stuff, but I really do think it is far too detailed for this article. Breaking out - and then reducing to a sentence or two here - seems needed, to me. We can always work at our leisure on expanding the new article Wrad has created. AndyJones 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the info, too, and maybe I overstated it a bit. I'll leave it to you and Andy to decide since I really don't know much about the performances of Hamlet. Wrad 19:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a skinny version there now, which is just under the size of the picture, with a wikilink to an expanded version. DionysosProteus 19:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa! MAT 

message: I just looked up Hamlet in the index of Shakespeare and Sexuality and found a section in an article by Ann Thompson which supports what this article says about Carolyn Heilbrun and Gertrude. I recall some question about that, here on the talk page, but I cannot remember what the issue was. Would it help if I added this source? AndyJones 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Yes! Add it to the end of the paragraph on Heilbrun! Wrad 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did so. AndyJones 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminism 

message: I think that this article should use British spelling, like we used for the Shakespeare article. It will make the FA process easier. They've been getting picky about this at FAC lately. Wrad 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest using regular expressions (available in the wikEd user script to search for words ending in "or" and replace it with "our". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked all the ORs. I think anything else that can be caught will be when we pull in some good copyeditors. Wrad 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intellectualization and patronizing. I'll have a look for others later. Funnily enough, for BrEng articles, I usually use -ize spellings (Oxford spelling) rather than -ise ones (Cambridge spellings) because Oxford makes the text look less jarring to American eyes. (I'm not proposing changing it back now that it's done.)--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are both quotations, which is probably why they have been left unchanged. However, the Freud passage is presumably simply one of several translations. Paul B 10:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! I took the first as a paraphrase rather than a quotation. I also meant to tie the second into my remark about Oxford spelling but didn't.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British spelling 

message: I notice Andy tried to reformat for prose in the What a piece of work is a man speech, which I think is a good idea. I was going to have a go at it myself, but I notice that it using Q2, which I don't have, so I wasn't sure about line breaks. If someone else that does have access wants to have a go, I was going to try using a typewriter typeface and extra spaces to achieve a justified layout. It may not work or may look strange, but I thought it was worth a go. DionysosProteus 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting for prose in [[What a piece of work is a man]] 

message: The text reads: "Edmund Kean was the first Hamlet to abandon the regal finery usually associated with the role in favour of a plain costume and the first to play Hamlet as serious and introspective." (after I altered it slightly). Is the second statement really true? He wasn't played as a serious character before? Otherwise, shouldn't it just be "played as introspective"? DionysosProteus 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a quick query about [[Edmund Kean]] 

message: Hello all. Had a series of exchanges with SandyGeorgia about the linking of the years in the text. She suggests looking at each one individually and confirming that the link offers information that forms an appropriate context. I've only looked at 1599 and 1601 so far, both of which clearly do (first recorded performance of Julius Caesar and beheading of Essex respectively). Calling it a night here now, but can we look at this together? Coming from a broadly New Historicist / cultural materialist approach, I'm keen to have as many of these as can be demonstrated to be appropriate. It might be appropriate to pipe a link to the year in literature article rather than the year article itself - for example, 1599 rather than 1599. I think I've fixed the other edits that she flagged in the edit history. DionysosProteus 04:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're interpretation is correct from what I understand of the MoS on this issue. Piping to a more specific topic is directly advised in the guidelines. VanTucky Talk 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking of years in the article 

message: Hello all. I've uploaded a scan of the first page of Q1 so that it's available if we want to use it.
I know that my library has a copy of the facsimile edition of Q1 too, so might be able to get the frontispiece too. 
DionysosProteus 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Quarto image 

message: Here are the automated peer-review comments, to work through (quite quickly, looking at them):
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
**. Not sure how to use this information. Does the lead not summarise the article? And it's got four paragraphs. Is that an appropriate number? Or too many or too few? We'll need more specific observations than a script can provide before we can action this one, I think. AndyJones 08:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: Hello all. I'm a little troubled to find on receiving my copy of Shapiro's 1599 that he doesn't date Hamlet to 1599... the lack of a page number always troubled me. What he actually says is:
So Shapiro dates the play to late 1600, or, since he says that further work remained to be done before it could be performed, early 1601. If the article is going to claim 1599, can we find a source to cite that says that? DionysosProteus 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one that I added. I think it's still in there (with page numbers). Wrad 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at this section as it stands today, and I've also briefly scanned the relevant (quite detailed) section of the Ard3 intro, which supports the conclusions reached in this article. That part of the article also seems thoroughly sourced. Are we happy with it, now, or do either of you still perceive problems? (I could add more material from Ard3 if anyone thought it would help.) AndyJones 12:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I added my note to our list of refs for 1599-1601. See below discussion. Wrad 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date again 

message: So, our Peer Review isn't getting us much, so I was thinking we may want to outline what we need to do before FAC here ourselves. Feel free to add to the list below: 
#Get page numbers for everything. I can personally handle Wofford and Saxo sources. What else is needed?
**Done with Wofford and Saxo. Those were the big ones, and if I remember right, the only ones left. So I think we're done there. Wrad 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to mention ... n quarto need standardizing on either initial cap or lowercase.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before FAC 

message: I changed the sentence on this film back to saying Victorian, because that's the most common way I've seen it described. It is set in Victorian times. One need only to check any source on the subject to see that this is how critics describe it. Wrad 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am at a loss to understand your point. The term Victorian refers to the period 1837-1901 in Britain. It is sometimes used by extension to refer to the same time-period in other countries, but very rarely applied to Denmark. In any case, it is a long period of over 60 years. The costume used in the film is fin-de-siecle. It not 1840s, 50s or 60s. Indeed aspects of the costume suggest the early 20th century, not the late-19th, so maybe 'around 1900' would be most accurate. 'Victorian' is absurdly vague. Paul B 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is that the sources say that the film uses Victorian costumes and settings. Our duty is to keep to our sources. Therefore we should say "Victorian" and not "around 1900", which would be original research unless, of course, we had a source which said "around 1900", in which case it would be preferred since it is more specific. Wrad 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say "around 1900" in the article. I said "late 19th century". I only referred to 1900 on this talk page. The late nineteenth century is part of the Victorian era, so there is no contradiction. The film is essentially derived from Branagh's 1992 stage version, which is regularly described as Edwardian . Here's an interview with Branagh which says it is "set in late-Victorian surroundings" . The book Shakespeare and Appropriation edited by by Christy Desmet and Robert Sawyer states that it is set in the 'late nineteenth century". Here it is in google books . Paul B 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good enough for me. Wrad 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. Paul B 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, of course it's about as Danish as the landscape of Millais's Ophelia, but that doesn't alter the fact that's where it's supposed to be. Paul B 09:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the fashions are faux-English. If anything they appear to be mittle-European, though of course they aren't accurate costume of any definite place or period. Certainly the military uniforms are very un-British, so I guess Branagh's trying to make it look as plausibly 'Danish' as he can. Paul B 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorian Branagh film 

message: There's a discussion on the Hamlet (1996 film) page about the run-time of the film. I see that it's advertised on Amazon UK at 232 mins  and at US Amazon at 242 mins , so for whatever reason there is clearly a difference in length. Not having seen the US version I can't say whether the difference is in the editing of the film, longer credits or some format factor, but of course we obviously can't go into the details on this page. However, I suggest that we simply say it's "around four hours" long, rather than over or under. Paul B 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Run time

message: I don't think our "Dating the play" section has quite got it covered. I've started a sandbox (possibly even for a main article, although a whole article on dating a play seems like overkill) at User:AndyJones/Sandbox/Dating Hamlet. AndyJones 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather make it a subarticle with a summary in this one, personally, we're already on the edge when it comes to length, and this would tip us over. Wrad 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has provoked some debate at the help desk, here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Moves from userspace to mainspace. AndyJones 17:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not remembering the conflict you seem to be referring to (if you indeed have debated a subject with me), but you're perhaps misunderstanding what I'm saying. The content is encyclopedic, but the way it's written seems to come across as just a timeline rather than a discussion of efforts to date it. Perhaps the bulleted format and lack of connecting prose is simply misleading me. Leebo T/C 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't bother me, but I can't speak for Orange Mike, who's being told his opinion should be disregarded as deletionist in a forum away from the discussion. Leebo T/C 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I will not refer to it beyond this, but my comment was related more to transparancy than the substance of your remark. Leebo T/C 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware that it was a dumb thing to say. Wrad 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: When I mentioned my opinion that it shouldn't be a timeline, I was referring to the general structure one expects from a timeline (bulleted progress with short disconnected text describing individual dates). I'm not against chronological order, which doesn't necessarily have to be presented in timeline format. Leebo T/C 20:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While I really like what you've compiled on your userpage, I don't really see anything that really needs improved in the above box. Unless someone can pinpoint something specific, I'd like to keep it as is. I think it is really good and well-written. We seem to have resolved the 1599 issue with a ref I added recently, and the authorship question in represented in what I think is a fair and reasonable way. It's been copyedited. I really like it. Wrad 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I've come to the same conclusion! The problems that set me off on this course in the first place appear to have been resolved already, and having now researched the whole subject myself in some depth, I've come to the conclusion that the summary here is a very fair one that it would be difficult for me to improve upon. I don't really approve of quotation marks around "evidence" (although I can see why you might want to imply that Harvey isn't "really" "evidence" because his note takes you nowhere). I'll make that change on the page and remove the sandbox. AndyJones 09:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: The image of the frontispiece claims that it is an image of the 3rd quarto, but the discussion of the texts of the play argues that the 1605 printings were not a separate quarto, but a second run of Q2.  It then goes on to date Q3 to 1611.  I haven't got my books at home, but I'm pretty sure that the 1605 printing isn't generally referred to as the 3rd quarto.  I'm not entirely sure, so I'm leaving it to someone else to change if necessary.Brandon Christopher 02:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ard3 agrees with you about this: Q3 means the 1611 edition. AndyJones 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q2/Q3 image 

message: Roger Davies has been proofing this page, and doing a damn good job of it, if I may say so. In the process of doing so he has left various questions and comments for us to deal with, and (partly since I'm off work ill today, oh dear) now seems like a good time to attempt to resolve them. If I have understood the page history correctly, any such comments which remain unresolved must be visible, in red, in this diff. They are:
*Richard Burbage... first performed the role<-- an approximate date? -->
**I don't think we know. The best evidence that he often played the role comes from his funeral elegy. Any guess at when is necessarily conjectural and is tied-in with the question of dating which has an entire section of its own. Scholars think Shakespeare's Hamlet in the form we know it appeared on the stage for the first time around 1600 or 1601. My view is that it's better to leave a date out rather than give one which might not be correct. AndyJones 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the story elements are also part of a medieval tale by Saxo Grammaticus called Vita Amlethi, including the prince's feigned madness, his mother's hasty marriage to the usurper, the testing of the prince's madness with a young woman, the prince talking to his mother and killing a hidden spy and his being sent to England with two retainers and substituting their execution for his own. Vita Amlethi is part of Grammaticus' Latin work Gesta Danorum, which was written around 1200 AD
**...unless that generates new problems. (I removed "larger" following the logic that if something is "part of" something else the reader will assume the second something is the larger one). AndyJones 10:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the story elements are also part of a medieval tale by Saxo Grammaticus called Vita Amlethi, including the prince's feigned madness; his mother's hasty marriage to the usurper; the testing of the prince's madness with a young woman; the prince talking to his mother and killing a hidden spy; and his being sent to England with two retainers and substituting their execution for his own. Vita Amlethi is part of Grammaticus' Latin work Gesta Danorum, which was written around 1200 AD
**If going with the first one, I wonder if we really need a comma after "spy": the difficulty being that it's that "and" (not the "and" after "retainers") which completes the list. AndyJones 10:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Older written and oral traditions from various cultures influenced Saxo's work. Amleth (as Hamlet is called in Saxo's version) probably derived from an oral tale told throughout Scandinavia. Parallels can be found with Icelandic legend, though no written version of the original Icelandic tale survives. For instance, Torfaeus, a 17th century scholar, compared Amloi (the Icelandic version of Amleth) and Prince Ambales (from the Spanish Ambales Saga) to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Similarities include the prince's feigned madness, his accidental killing of the king's counsellor in his mother's bedroom, and the eventual slaying of his uncle.
***Can we consider this ?
*This story contains similarities to Shakespeare's Hamlet in Prince Ambales' feigned madness<-- !! -->
*In Saga of Hrolf Kraki, there are two sons of the murdered king: Hroar and Helgi, who later take the names Ham and Hráni as a disguise. They spend most of the story in hiding, rather than feigning madness<-- !! -->
*The Roman story of Brutus focuses on feigned madness<-- !! -->
**Taking these three together, I'm not sure I know what !! means, and I can't really see much wrong with these sentences. Roger, you'll have to give us more guidance if there's action needed from us, I think. AndyJones 15:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Real life intervened as I had to rush off to affright the air of the vasty fields of France (whoops, wrong play). Anyhow, I'm back now and will post my peer review this evening as this will help clarify some of the inline questions and then continue with the copy stuff after that. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meddling in French affairs, eh? O gilt indeed! :) Wrad 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a gilt trip :)) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha Wrad 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Roger Davies|Roger Davies]]' Comments 

message: The second sentence seems weak to me.  I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like it needs some twisting.  Meldshal42 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that claims to universality are almost always suspect.  Do we have access to all such lists?  If not, then perhaps "often" is more appropriate. Brandon Christopher (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEcond Sentence, Paragrpah 1 

message: I have heard different arguments from people online and was interested if you would be able to include on differenet theories when interpretting Hamlet, such as the Oepidpus Complex or other theories on why Shakespear wrote Hamlet
Thanks
Foxxy 98.197.84.205 03:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oedipus Complex in Hamlet 

message: Due to a discussion here, a consensus of editors with the project had decided that the lead should only include the common title of the play, and not the titles of any quarto versions. I'd like to have this title removed from the lead per that discussion. To see the reasoning behind this, see the discussion at the link above. Wrad 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vehemently disagree. We should go with this one. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yeah. That's the general idea. -- Wrad (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1603 title 

message: Copied from User talk:AndyJones#Hamlet & Lacan:
Incidentally, re dating the play, I am less clear than you what the discussion decided regarding main article and sub-article. Could you clarify this for me please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision here is that the section on the page is good as it is, but for the moment (i.e. until I do some more work on it & add some sources) my sandbox is NOT to become a {main|article}. AndyJones (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: This is true. And there are two intervening scenes elipted by this sentence, of 256 and 135 lines long.
What has happened to the synopsis? I'm sure the first act wasn't reduced to nothing in this way when we sandboxed it? AndyJones (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to rework the synopsis so that it concentrates on and includes the main plot points - especially those that are referenced elsewhere in the article - rather than providing a summary of each scene in order. (This later approach requires many more words as characters and locations need constantly re-introducing, with time scales explained.) In any event, much material that some find significant was already omitted (the cover up of Polonius' death, Ophelia's shameful burial etc). That said, this article is very long and some sacrifices have to be made for brevity and comprehensibility. If this was too radical, please put material back in. If I've inadvertently ruffled feathers, I apologise. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops. I see what you mean! I had compressed the wedding more than I intended (I've put much back). Apologies.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horatio himself sees the ghost and then Hamlet does. 

message: Bernard Lott argues that this whole long exchange between Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern refers to the tour of the provinces on which the Globe company embarked in the autumn of 1601.
Reference: Lott (1970, xlvi)
Who are "the Globe company"? Has anyone got a copy of Lott and can check-out this reference? AndyJones (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've run them together as you suggest so the reference may no longer be needed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Globe company? 

message: So what is up with the section ordering?  I tried to put the article into the project format and was reverted. Happy to discuss (again), but haven't we hashed this out? The following order, developed on the project page [], worked very well for R&J, yes?Smatprt (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section order

message: I'm trying to pick out good examples from the text of asyndeton and anaphora. Let me know what you think of these and feel free to add suggestions. The trick with these is that they are longer forms of rhetoric and will unavoidably take up a lot of space:
Asydeton:
"It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd;" 
Anaphora:
"... how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
* Wrad (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Do you feel that would be a good example, to highlight both at once, or would it confuse people? Wrad (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Both together. It'll also help them understand why it's such a memorable line. I'll work it in tomorrow morning when I review that section. Okay with you? --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Wrad (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language examples 

message: Taylor's book measures popularity in two ways: by "allusions to his work" and "the number of reprints". From the number of reprints he can work out what are the best-selling works, which gives him a list of the top five Shakespearean plays. So the article should indicate Hamlet is the fourth most popular based on no. of reprints.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbcXyz (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have an "Influences" section to show this. I think it's important to show how popular/influential the play is. We just have to bring together the research to create the section. Wrad (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking along the same lines. Literary references aren't discussed, for instance.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got enough material to hand to write a reasonable length paragraph on this. Probably best is that I write it, post that and then watch it expand :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. What we ended up with on R&J was two paragraphs: one on literary influence and another on general influence. Wrad (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done this now. I've got to add a bit on Ulysses but otherwise it's done. It mostly derives from one source so supplementary sources would be good. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of Hamlet 

message: I think we have consensus for this. If so, who fancies doing the template? And, in particular, a graphic? --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well...A skull, perhaps? (To be, or not to be, that is the question, you know.) Awadewit | talk 11:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What now then? Practised I am not in this grafick art; and mine hand by a contagion of ill and little employment would swift turn to dungstones the yearning and oft-jewelled pixels that crave in coloured majesty to leap and dance on the silvered firmament in communication of our purpose.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ye Olde Clippe Arte. Awadewit | talk 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *There are a bunch of paintings here that you could cut the skull out of using photoshop or gimp. Awadewit | talk 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a template in the see also section. Do we need another one? Wrad (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was the one I was referring to :) I was thinking more of whatever updating it requires and whether a coloured picture, à la R&J, might be prettier. Sorry if I was a bit oblique. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. I think we should also create a Minor characters page. Wrad (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Created Minor characters in Hamlet. The characters need padding out a bit and cross-referencing to scenes. I've added some  tags but obviously every character needs one. Could I ask others to do this please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the  tags. Could others look and flesh?--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters > Template 

message: I think:
::charts the course of his real or feigned madness
is more accurate than
::veering between real and feigned madness
since the whole point of the debate is surely whether (and the extant that) Hamlet is really mad or merely pretends to be mad. The second version seems to be telling us that the play contains identifiable periods of real madness and identifiable periods of feigned madness, which surely begs the question. AndyJones (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've changed it back. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madness 

message: I didn't know the peer review was about to close. What prompted that? Does the fact that it's been archived mean that we shouldn't edit it anymore? AndyJones (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything saying we can't. Wrad (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor I. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That happened to me before, too, and we just continued on the talk page of the article. I thought you weren't supposed to edit archived discussions. Perhaps I am too timid, though. Awadewit | talk 16:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On other archives with more finality (for lack of better word), such as RfDs and FAC discussions, they put a big message on the page saying not to edit it. But peer reviews aren't quite as "final". I think it's fine. Wrad 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Awadewit | talk 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Closed 

message: Excellent work by Roger today. Just one point that struck me and I don't have time to check at the moment:
::Notable London stagings include Jessner's 1925 production at the Haymarket; it greatly influenced subsequent performances by John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier...
Surely Barrymore not Jessner?? AndyJones 13:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, Andy, silly typo. Now fixed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stage History 

message: Quoted in MacCary's "Hamlet: A guide to the play". Do we know which Wright this was and can anyone add a word for characterisation purposes (scholar, actor, etc) him? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: George T. Wright, Hendiadys & Hamlet. Publications of the Modern Language Assoiation of America. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hendiadys & Wright

message: I've reverted (cack-handedly as the system slowed down in the middle; what was meant to be one revert took three) some extensive contributions made overnight. The article is already right at the limit, length-wise, and they push it right over. Many of the additions duplicate material that is already included in the article. I've left a message on the main new contributor's talk page asking them to discuss any putative changes here first.--ROGER DAVIES talk 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the changes were pretty good, though, even though this may not have been the right place for them. I may dig them out and put them in the Critical approaches article. Wrad (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with you. The main problems were length and introducing a parallel structure to the existing one.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree also: this was good stuff, it's just that this particlular article didn't need it. Finding a home in one of the sub-articles is a good idea. AndyJones (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes overnight

message: It would appear that the lead is the last thing that needs addressing from the Peer Review. Is this the case? Wrad (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, though I'd appreciate some eyes going over the new influences section (which needs a reference to Ulysses adding and some supplementary cites to Arden would be good) and I've found some very good stuff in Shapiro's Shakespeare's Language for the language section. I'm away this weekend and was going to use the opportunity to review the synoposis (which is still a bit patchy) and work my copious notes into coherent text for the intro. This could be incorporated into the text next Mon/Tue, given a close proof-read, and then off to FAC say Thu/Fri of next week? Sound about right? --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Awadewit has confirmed she can do the final read-thru on 20th/21st. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Extra references would be very useful but I'd caution against expanding the actual text much as the article is about 5% overlength. Strictly, I suppose, we're at the point where we should really be removing TWO words for every ONE added. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree. I promise to add very little, unless I conclude there is an improtant gap! AndyJones (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Re: Synopsis. I've just read through your thoughtful and useful comments, and have no problems with the vast bulk of them. Easiest I think would be if you could finish your revisions and patch them together into a new synopsis, which I could then amend to incorporate my (small) revisions. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you, and wilco. As you've seen I'm already into the fourth act. (Also, the existing synopsis has fewer problems in the last couple of acts than in the first two, in my opinion. AndyJones (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *. AndyJones (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks, Andy. I've now done my bit; please check that no violence has been done to sense :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excellent: yes, I've had a look and all of those changes are improvements. AndyJones (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro