Talk:Hamlet

Active discussions
Hamlet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 27, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 7, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
April 1, 2012Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Featured article


"See also" sectionEdit

First, I am surprised that an article on a work as great as Hamlet has no "See also" entries. Second, I have added an entry describing the fact that Walt Disney's The Lion King is modeled after Hamlet. It is sourced. Someone (User:Hollarbohem) keeps removing it. He calls it "not pertinent", "trivial", and "not sourced". He also says "the content does not inform regarding the topic of the article". I disagree with all of his assessments. So, I am here at the Talk Page. Most people have no idea that The Lion King is based on Hamlet. Most readers of Hamlet and/or this Hamlet page don't know. So, I thought it was a worthwhile entry. Also, per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). Thanks, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that Lion King is already mentioned in the Hamlet footer template, as well as several other films that draw inspiration from the play:
WanderingWanda (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had not noticed that. So, that's one further point bolstering my argument. And another further point rejecting the other editor's claims that The Lion King connection is "not pertinent"; is "trivial"; is "not sourced"; and that it is "content that does not inform regarding the topic of the article". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The See Also content regarding The Lion King does not accurately represent the source in the citation when it claims that The Lion King is modeled on Hamlet. In fact, the cited source, Oprah Magazine, states that The Lion King is not based on Hamlet, it suggests that it’s based on Bambi, and it points out that it shares plot points with Bambi. The source states that The Lion King draws from the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph. And the source states that it is the "first animated feature film from Disney that told an original story, as opposed to reinterpreting a myth or folk fairytale".
The source indicates that it contains a few similarities (like a wicked uncle), but so many, many stories contain similarities to other stories, that it’s trivial and not notable to simply point them out. The content makes it sound as if The Lion King is based on Hamlet — which the citation indicates is not true. No one is making it clear how this content contributes to an article on the play by Shakespeare. I deleted the content, and I think it should continue to be discussed here before putting it back. - Hollarbohem (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, you just keep changing your "reasons" and "rationales" and "objections". One reason you cite: the claim (about The Lion King being modeled after Hamlet) is "not pertinent". Second reason: the claim is "trivial". Third reason: the claim is "not sourced". Fourth reason: the claim is "content that does not inform regarding the topic of the article". Question: if any of those were true, tell me how is it exactly that the entry of The Lion King would be placed into the Nav-Box of Hamlet. Being placed in the Nav-Box is almost a "higher honor" (for lack of a better word) than simply being listed in the "See also" list. I highly doubt that it is Wikipedia convention to place into the Nav-Box of some topic, other topics that are "not pertinent"; are "trivial"; are "not sourced"; and that "do not inform regarding the topic of the article". Now, you have come up with a new reason: that the source does not say that The Lion King is modeled after Hamlet. I can very easily go into the sourced article and grab an exact quote, and "parrot" that quote in the "See also" section. Semantics aside, the entire crux of that source is that The Lion King is based on / modeled after / inspired by -- whatever semantics you want to use -- Hamlet. And I am sure there are plenty of other sources out there, as well. That say the same. So, let's start by you narrowing down your objections. Or is it still all five objections? I am replacing the "See also" section. I was the one that brought this to Talk, after you reverted two or three times. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, your above reply is very misleading. You want us to believe that the cited source states that there is no "correlation" (modeling, based on, inspired by, etc.) between The Lion King and Hamlet. The cited source says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). And, really none of this matters, anyway. Because, as I stated above: Also, per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). In other words, you don't need any source at all, to list a tangentially related item in a "See also" list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think this is rather trivial. If we're going to start "See also'ing" such things, there's a bunch of things that deserve higher billing--and what we have here is a very chatty article in a popular magazine, which reads like a sophomore survey essay. Joseph A. Spadaro, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't adopt ridicule as a rhetorical mode in a talk page discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Trivial or not, it's the topic we are here discussing. I don't see any "ridicule" in my arguments above. If you see "ridicule", you yourself are injecting that into my words. (And then complaining that my words are ridiculing!). Take the words at face value. Don't "read into them" that they offend you; ridicule you; etc. (And then complain that my words are offensive, ridiculing, etc.) Take them at face value. In other words, "assume good faith". In other words, Drmies, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of doing things, when I am not even doing them. You state that my arguments are "ridiculing". Half of my comments are direct quotes of another editor (and my counter-arguments to those quotes). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Are you aware that the more you yell at people the less likely you are to achieve whatever it is you are looking for? That you don't see the ridicule is sad; I do. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Where exactly do you see me "yelling"? Please clarify exactly where you see that. I have to laugh. Out of whole cloth, you make up something that is not there (i.e., yelling) and then complain about the very thing that you just fabricated. Unreal. In any event, please calrify exactly where you see me "yelling". Look forward to your reply. Thanks. And, by the way, re-read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. It's something you tend to fully bypass with your fabrications out of whole cloth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that this debate is more heated than it needs to be, but while we're discussing it, I thought I'd say that Hamlet's influence on the Lion King seems to be less a fact about Hamlet and more a fact about the Lion King. There's nothing wrong with a link to the cartoon, but its current spot in the navbox seems like a the best place for it. Making it the only link in a new "See also" section strikes me as giving it undue weight. The navbox serves as a "See also" section already, and in that context the relative importance of the Lion King to Hamlet is communicated more clearly—viz., that the Lion King is one of many works that bear the influence of the play. Swper (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I like your suggestion that we add more to the "See also" list. Do you have any specific suggestions? It's odd to me that such an important work (and article) has no "See also" list at all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear above. I meant to say that the navbox as it is currently constituted already serves as a "See also" section and that I see no need to reproduce its links in a "See also section." In other words, I would support removing the "See also section" and relying solely on the link to the Lion King that is already in the navbox. Swper (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Relatedly, is there a good reason for the navboxes at the bottom to be auto-collapsed? It makes it less likely people will see the content inside. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. People have a way of "missing" the Nav-Boxes at the bottom. They tend to get "clumped together" with the "bottom clutter" (External links, categories, etc.). And people tend to miss them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The source that’s cited, the Oprah Magazine story says explicitly that The Lion King is not based on Hamlet. Instead it says, “The Lion King was the first animated feature film from Disney that told an original story”. Not based on? And not derived from? It may share a few themes or aspects — as do thousand of other stories. The connection with Hamlet is way too trivial. And the phrase in the “See Also” section incorrectly claims the story is “modeled on" Hamlet — nowhere does the source make that claim. The new Lion King film, by the way, just opened a few days ago. Maybe Joseph A. Spadaro has caught the excitement of that, as many have, but this connection is too weak, and the source doesn’t support it properly. - Hollarbohem (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I stated this above. I am cutting-and-pasting it again here. ... Also, your above reply is very misleading. You want us to believe that the cited source states that there is no "correlation" (modeling, based on, inspired by, etc.) between The Lion King and Hamlet. The cited source says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). This is in Paragraph 6; last sentence (of the Oprah Magazine source). And, really none of this matters, anyway. Because, as I stated above: Also, per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). In other words, you don't need any source at all, to list a tangentially related item in a "See also" list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I do think Lion King has verifiable connections to Hamlet that have been noted by the filmmakers and critics, even if it's not correct to say that it was "based on" Hamlet. Perhaps we could make a "Popular culture" section for it to go into? But then, it would probably be hard to keep such a section from ballooning to unreasonable size, since, well, what doesn't reference Hamlet? WanderingWanda (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Great suggestion! Thanks! I will get one started! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the connection is certainly "there" and verifiable. I honestly don't care if we use the semantics "based on" or "modeled on" or "inspired by" or whatever. The specific source that is now listed says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). This is in Paragraph 6; last sentence (of the Oprah Magazine source). So, if we want to be "married to" this source, we can say "modeled on". But, again, we do not need any source at all to include an item in a "See also" list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Joseph, now you added a "Popular culture" subsection including The Lion King as its only item. Do you really think the other editors who thought TLK shouldn't be in the "See also" subsection will agree to this solution? ---Sluzzelin talk 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Yes, it was suggested above. I thought that was a great idea! It's the only one, now, because I can only type so fast. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I will list more, later. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit that created a new "In Popular culture" section is I believe an example of "gaming the system". See: Wikipedia:Gaming the system. The editor was not yet able to garner consensus to add a "See also" section devoted to The Lion King, so he’s now attempting to evade the spirit of community consensus, by creating a yet another new section, and by adding the same content, still without consensus. I’ll revert the edit.Hollarbohem (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It is edit-warring because there is clearly consensus against both adding a "See also" section and "In popular culture" section. The latter is a construction actively discouraged on Wikipedia. The relevant aspects are already covered in Cultural references to Hamlet and Hamlet on screen—where The Lion King is already included, and sourced—and including either here would be against both current and previously established consensus (in a FA) and undue weight. The Hamlet connection is a significant issue for The Lion King, but it is barely mentioned by Shakespeare scholars working on Hamlet (I know, I've looked for sources to support that connection before). And this article already had to prune mercilessly in material of far greater historical and cultural significance than The Lion King, so it would take some pretty impressive sourcing to justify incuding it. Oprah Magazine and Entertainnment Weekly just won't cut it. --Xover (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's rather clear that this is a page that a small group of editors think that they "own". What collegiality! For a refresher, read WP:OWN. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Joseph, I'm not opposed to including how great works of art have inspired or influenced other works of art (though I think a lot of thought should be put in selecting which ones might be mentioned, and only listing The Lion King is not a good start, in my opinion. Plus there is a link to the article on cultural references to Hamlet, as pointed out by Xover). I do not think you were intentionally gaming the system, but the accusation you just posted here is highly unfair. Finding consensus is often limited to whoever is watching the page (and I'm guessing a lot of people are watching this one) That doesn't make those who voice their opposition self-declared "owners". ---Sluzzelin talk 23:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sluzzelin: Thanks for your opinion. And for assuming good faith on my part. But, I disagree (with your opinion). The "reasons" (for exclusion) kept "changing" at the drop of a hat. And if The Lion King reference is immaterial, not pertinent, not sourced, and trivial (reasons listed for its exclusion), how do we justify including it in that Nav Box Template? You really can't have it both ways. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Whether The Lion King belongs in the navbox is indeed a legitimate, if orthogonal, question. Navboxes are a pure navigation tool unlike other article content, and the standards for navboxes are different than for article content. The current navboxes are the result of one editor adding more or less everything they thought even remotely connected to all the play navboxes. I have a long-put-off todo of trying to come up with some reasonable inclusion/exclusion criteria for them so we can have a reasoned discussion about such issues. I am certain that the current state is way too inclusive (the items included have either too tenous a connection or are only one-way connections), but from there to deciding what should be pruned is a longer road. --Xover (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Fair point. However ... if anything ... inclusion in a "See also" list has a lower hurdle than inclusion in a Nav Box. As I have stated above, repeatedly: Per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). That's a very low bar. Lower than inclusion in a Nav Box. And, in this case, we allow The Lion King to be included in the Nav Box, but not the "See also" list. Really, only due to "preferences" of a select group of editors. Nothing policy-based. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Actually, no, inclusion in "See also" is a higher bar: Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles … include this section.. The reason is that the "See also" section so strongly overlaps wikilinks in running text and the navbox: in a featured article, anything that might reasonably be included in "See also" has a high probability of also being something that should be covered and linked in article prose; and conversely, anything that does not merit being covered in article prose is unlikely to be appropriate for "See also".
Note also that WP:SEEALSO explicitly calls out "editorial judgement". There are plenty of policy based arguments above, but even if there weren't, consensus on such matters always allows for some level of editorial judgement. To characterise all the arguments who disagree with you as "only due to 'preferences' of a select group of editors. Nothing policy-based" comes across as both dismissive and combative. I am presumably safe to assume that that is not your intent?
However, if you want to remove The Lion King from the navbox I wouldn't object. I might conceivably re-add it at a later date if I came across a high-quality reliable source that discusses the connection, but it is not something I would object to based on the sources I am currently familiar with. I cannot, of course, speak for any other editor, so someone else might object though. --Xover (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: All Wikipedia entries utilize and rely on editorial discretion, judgement, etc. Whether it is a "see also" entry or a Nav Box item. The policy (WP:SEEALSO) specifically says that a "see also" entry may be "only" indirectly related and/or "only" tangentially related to the article topic. I highly doubt that we are allowed to add to Nav Boxes items that are indirect or tangential. Thus, the "lower bar" is for the "See also" inclusion, not for the "Nav Box" inclusion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
About the navbox, I think The Lion King(s) fit better under "Related" than "Adaptations". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro has incorrectly claimed five times that his content is being unfairly said to be “not sourced”. In fact, he first added the content with no source, after this was pointed out — he then added a source. After he added a source (Oprah), he then began repeatedly to make his unwarranted claim of unfairness. I wouldn’t bother to set the record strait — but it’s been repeated so many times. This may be inadvertent on his part, but enough.Hollarbohem (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hollarbohem: First of all, a "see also" entry does not require a source. You can view millions of Wikipedia articles. The "see also" lists are not cluttered with sources, footnotes, etc. In this case, some editor (maybe it was you?) "demanded" a source. So, I placed one in (the Oprah source). Then, some editor (maybe it was you?) kept (wrongfully) asserting that the source did not say that The Lion King was based on Hamlet. When that is exactly what the source said. I will repeat the relevant quote here: The cited source says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). This is in Paragraph 6; last sentence (of the Oprah Magazine source). So, they are very clearly saying in the source that the directors/producers themselves admit that they "modeled" one story after the other. Some editor (maybe it was you?) repeatedly argued that my source did not uphold the proposition that one story was based/modeled on the other. What part am I wrong about? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be beating a dead horse. Saying the same things over-and-over, while ignoring what the others are saying suggests that we’re stuck in the mud. Joseph, your rhetorical finger-pointing (“It was you! It was you! It was you!”) indicates that you may be editing in anger, or at any rate, that you want me to know that I am being singled out as a particular target for what’s making you unhappy. Note taken. Your first point is contradicted on this page: Wikipedia:Verifiability, where it says that all content must be verifiable, and that any material… etc. The quote you keep repeating in a variety of fonts does not support what you’re trying to claim for it. You are welcome to your interpretation, but the film-makers themselves strongly contradict the idea you’re trying to promote. I wish you the best. Hollarbohem (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hollarbohem: Dude ... (1) Get over yourself. You are not that important in my life. In fact, you are not important at all. (2) I notice that you do not answer any of my valid questions. You just try to side-step them and "change the issue". A good rhetorical device ... if you are a politician. Not so much for a Wikipedia edit discussion. (3) Learn how to read. I got through reading comprehension in, I think, fifth grade or so. The director clearly said -- for the 20th time here -- Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet).'' The producers just said -- explicitly -- that they "modeled" one story after the other. Your interpretation is the exact opposite -- that they did not. Go sell some ice to Eskimos, dude. Seriously. I know how to read. And I have reading comprehension skills. AND a "See also" entry does not require a source. Bye. For good. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph, the source you quote asks, "Is The Lion King based on Hamlet?”; it then answers, "No." The filmmakers indicate that they initially thought of Lion King as "Bambi in Africa", but that they consider Lion King an "original story". The filmmakers indicate they were not aware of any similarities to Hamlet. When your source, Joseph, inaccurately states that someone at a "roundtable discussion" [sic] claimed there were some "unintended" parallels, the filmmakers responded by saying that if that’s true, it was done "unconsciously". Your source says that they went "looking for ways" to model the film on Hamlet, but if they did go looking — did they find anything? Your source doesn’t say, and you don’t. Your source, Joseph, is a less-than-accurate rehashing of an earlier article (which they link to) published by Blu-ray, in which the filmmakers are even more emphatic in denying that Lion King is modeled on Hamlet. - Hollarbohem (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hollarbohem: Great. Thanks. I guess that I do not know how to read, since that is the premise of your argument. Thanks for letting me know. I actually, for all these many years, thought that I did indeed know how to read. Wow. Silly me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Source for OpheliaEdit

The timing and events of the life of the handmaiden to Elizabeth I, “Elizabeth Throckmorton (Raleigh) make it impossible to not consider her a possible source for the character of Ophelia. Throckmorton’s scandalous secret marriage to the royal favourite, Walter Raleigh, occurred right at the time Shakespeare was drafting Hamlet as it was finally produced (regardless of any prior editions) Inclusion of this major current event would have resonated with the audience & is typical of Shakespeare & many other playwrights of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Raleigh Glen McConnell (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

To add this theory to the article you'll have to find reliable sources that talk about it. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

External links to Shakespeare NetworkEdit

Are there any objections to the addition of links to the website ShakespeareNetwork.net? It's a new site with full texts of Shakespeare plays. (It seems to be associated with an organization called Quintessence Studios and a musician/filmmaker named Maximianno Cobra.) A new editor, Robert L. Crawford, added links to the site to a few Shakespeare-related articles recently, including Hamlet. I was a bit dubious about the links so I removed them, asking Robert L. Crawford if he was connected to the site. He replied:

Please be so kind to note that I am not connected to this site. I simply use this site for my personal researches. In fact, in my view, the unique (?) full online readable text site reference you have considered for Timon of Athens on Wikipedia is particularly inappropriate; it has a poor editorial standard and is a website clearly based on monetised advertisements. http://www.maximumedge.com/shakespeare/timon.htm There are indeed several good Shakespeare sites proposing his complete works online but my personal choice goes to the advertising-free one I use. Allow me also to stress that I haven't found the the case for this specific site on a talk page with a consensus procedure. Could you please provide me with the talk page link showing the consensus of this specific case? I would like to propose the removal of this inappropriate site leaving up to Wikipedia administrators the choice of an appropriate external link. Thank you in advance.

WanderingWanda (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. There is no need for a new site of unknown providence. There are oodles of sites with the texts of the plays available, so each site considered should provide something unique. The two standard sites are the Folger Shakespeare Library's online texts in the Folger Digital Editions, which provides a professionally edited (by Barbara Mowat) modern-spelling text, and the facsimilies and old-spelling transcriptions at the Internet Shakespeare Editions. There is generally no pressing need for any other external links, but there are exceptions like The Enfolded Hamlet which provide something unique and can be worth considering. Based on a cursory examination I do not see that ShakespeareNetwork.net provides any such. --Xover (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviated or full page rangesEdit

It's getting to be about time to do another bit of gnoming to clean up cruft and inconsistencies that have accumulated since the last run. But this time I am going to propose to at the same time change our established citation style by switching from abbreviated (i.e. pp. 123–4) to full (i.e. pp. 123–124) page ranges.

The abbreviated style was originally chosen partly because an early contributor had used it, partly because several of the editors involved in bringing the article to FA preferred it, and partly because it was the predominant style employed by the secondary sources in the field. At the time I supported that choice for those reasons.

In the decade since I have changed my mind on this. I now think the abbreviated page ranges are unnecessarily complicated, even for those who are used to them; that they are confusing to readers who are not used to them; that they are primarily a relic of the constraints of paper publication that do not make sense in a medium without those constraints; that they make it harder for drive-by contributors to get this right (i.e. consistent); and, annoyingly enough on its own, that we periodically get script-assisted "cleanup" runs that completely botch them, but which it is highly likely that full page ranges will not.

Since I do not really expect that anyone watching this talk page will care enough about this particular issue to formulate an opinion on it, I am simply going to state my intention to make a change to the article's established citation style—per WP:CITEVAR—from abbreviated to full page ranges. If nobody objects I will do so whenever I next have the time to do a cleanup run on the article.

If anyone actually does care about this issue and wishes to see it discussed before any change is made then do please say so. I am "stating my intent" only because I do not expect anyone cares, not because I have any desire to short-circuit discussion. As always, the more editors express their opinion the easier it will be to determine consensus, so I encourage everyone to do so, even if it is simply "Dunno" or "Don't care" or "Wait! I need to think about it a bit first!". --Xover (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. MOS:NUMRANGE says that page ranges should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Do it, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with this change (assuming it hasn't already completed). BrianTung (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019Edit

In the section "act I" the phrase "To thine own self be true" is referred to as an "ironic maxim". I believe this is a typo and should read "iconic maxim" as I have found no readily available information arguing that that phrase is now or was at the time "ironic". Paulc8347 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 17:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Elsinore? That's the town, not the castle, right???Edit

Elsinore is the English name of the town/subsdistrict of Copenhagen where Kronborg is located, not the name of the castle itself. In Danish it is called Helsingør. Are you sure Shakespeare calls the castle itself Elsinore in the text? --Luka1184 (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You could look it up yourself, Luka.GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Hamlet" page.