Talk:Hamlet/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why doesn't Hamlet become King? 

message: Commented out the assertion that Shakespeare himself played the Ghost. Reference? — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of Characters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archival Bot? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hamlet as a Character section removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Synopsis? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project format? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes to character section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adaptations 

message: * Wrad 12:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The article ''should'' have a spoiler warning'''

message: * Ashenai 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The article ''should not'' have a spoiler warning'''

message: * On Wikipedia, we make decisions by discussion, not by voting. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Voting is evil|Voting is evil]]