Misplaced Pages

Talk:Theatre Royal, Drury Lane: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:08, 1 June 2006 editHam II (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers56,289 editsm This month's showcase article on Portal:London!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:22, 15 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,091 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] 
(118 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=y}}
{{featured}}
{{Article history
{{pl-sa|June 2006}}
|action1=PR
{{oldpeerreview}}
|action1date=02:06, 20 April 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Theatre Royal, Drury Lane/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=49192027


|action2=FAC
==Little Theatre, Haymarket vs. Queen's Theatre Haymarket==
|action2date=16:36, 3 May 2006
Oooh. We also need someone to figure out the Little Theatre, Haymarket vs. Queen's Theatre Haymarket. As for this one, I can probably find a contemporary discussion from ], although it would be of the post-fire theater. A reputation/background would be a large section, as well as theatrical management (and that I think has to exist) and, to some degree, the patent system, since this was one of only two official theaters. Covent Garden was a rough place, apparently. I don't know the geography well, so a map of London from the 18th c. showing where the thing was would help. (Gould suggests that Navy men fresh off the boat would hand around in Covent Garden looking for the prostitutes who apparently were thick as flies in the neighborhood, and they would accost theater-goers as they went home. To prove to their "girlfriend" how tough they were, they'd beat up some innocent patron. (This from ''The Play-house a Satyr''.)) ] 12:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Theatre Royal, Drury Lane
:Haymarket Theatres? What those?
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=51225248


|currentstatus=FA
:Rereading ye olde ], I also see that this article now creates the false impression that Drury Lane was the King's Company's ''first'' theater, when in fact they were up and running in some pedestrian venue on Vere Street for a while before they were forced into building a Proscenim-arch-and-moving-shutters type of place thanks to the competition from the Duke's Company's Lincoln's Inn Fields. Of course my only source right now for all that ''is'' the Restoration spectacular article, so I guess I have some work to do there. —] (]) 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
|maindate=March 18, 2007
::Yeah, but bear in mind that your subject is Drury Lane, not the King's Company! There were a number of older theatres in London in 1660, but do you really care? OK, if you do: the theatre in Vere Street was pretty new in 1660, and as so many venues throughout the period, it was a refurbished tennis court. Only the big expensive Wren theatres that I mention in RS were built from scratch for dramatic purposes, as far as I can remember, and even they tended, architecturally, to imitate tennis courts. Davenant had started doing operas and various stuff well before 1660, as you know (yes, you do! RS!) and he had probably outfitted Vere Street and used it from 1658 (speculation: public playacting was a criminal activity, so it's vague). This is the theatre that Pepys, with a touching lack of prescience, thought so fine, when the King's Company used it from November 1660 till 7 May 1663, while Bridges Street was being built.
|otd1date=2012-02-24|otd1oldid=478518267
|otd2date=2015-02-24|otd2oldid=648638646
|otd3date=2018-02-24|otd3oldid=827268597
|otd4date=2022-02-24|otd4oldid=1073677791
|otd5date=2023-02-24|otd5oldid=1141280896
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Theatre|importance=Mid}}
}}


==SeatPlan ref==
::Do you happen to have access to a library that enjoys possession of ''The London Stage 1660-1800'', btw? Because everything of this nature is collected there. The somewhat unmanageable copy of the 1660—1700 volume now on my desk belongs to my uni library--they keep trying to get it back from me--but it's my precioussss....! . I sleep with it under my pillow. I'll bet you good money it's Beauclerk's source, if he's serious about what he's doing. If it was '''possible''' to buy it second-hand or from the publisher, I'd sell my son to a cotton plantation and buy it, and charter the ''Queen Elizabeth II'' to take it to Stockholm for me, and have my own copy, and be happy for ever. But I digress. If there's a copy near you, you'll find it useful, is what I mean to say.
The new SeatPlan ref seems to be commercial spam. I suggest deleting the new additions: If something hasn't changed, you don't need to say so. Moreover, all theatres offer seats at various prices throughout the house, so it's a trivial statement that does not add anything. I do not watch this page, but I watch other London theatres, and this IP has been adding lots of commercial spam links. -- ] (]) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


==First fire sprinkler system in the world?==
::Haymarket is just a place, a square. "The" theatre in /the/ Haymarket (some of them the "Queens Theatre in Haymarket") is one of those messes, with a vast number of theatres through the centuries on different sites along the sides of the Haymarket square. Geogre, why are you doing that to nice Bunchofgrapes, what did he ever do to you? He's not writing ]. Haymarket is nothing to do with Drury Lane. ] ] 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC).
] claims (though a citation is missing) that ] was the first place where a (non-automatic) fire sprinkler system was ever installed, in 1812. If this is indeed true, it is notable for the article here as well, and the two articles should cross-reference each other. Searching the Theatre Royal article for the word "fire" reveals that the structure burned down at least twice (in 1672 and in 1809), significant landmarks in the history of the building. The fact that the third version of the Theatre is still standing may be a vindication of the fire suppression system(s) installed there. Was the original sprinkler system ever activated? Was it ever replaced or supplemented, and are there any original elements from the sprinkler remaining? Could somebody better equipped to research this either verify or disprove the historic claim, and modify the article(s) accordingly? -- ] (]) 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==
Well, I knew Geogre was trying to trick me! <raspberries> While I'm here, what's the source for Wren having designed the 1663 theatre? Or did I make that up? Or Beauclerk? I'm seeing a lot of stuff that's pretty sure Wren designed 1674, but very little regarding him and 1663. (Library? Outside of academia, I don't think we are allowed useful libraries in America anymore.) &mdash;] (]) 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:I reckon you made it up out of whole cloth. :-( They didn't care much who designed what, it looks like. That Wren designed the 1674 house is just a rumour--maybe based on that very same longitudinal section, I dunno--the London Stage doesn't say anything about the architect of either of those buildings. But I agree Wren is likely for the 1674, and that there's not a whisper for Bridges Street. Would it make you feel better to have a fine quote about the interior of Bridges Street that's not even by Pepys, but by Prince Cosmo III of Tuscany? Remind me to transcribe it tomorrow... zZzZzZzZ...it's only short, but today is o-ver...zzzzz. Goodnight, Geogre. ] ] ] 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
::Ah-hah! Somebody might have made it up but it wasn't me; I was just going along with the misstatements that were in the article before I got there. ''There was a factual error in Misplaced Pages''! Geogre, you call Britannica, I'll get on the horn with Seigenthaler's people, Bishonen, drop ''Nature'' a note telling them they had it all wrong, and ALoan, if you're listening, perhaps you could drop by the offices of '']'' and let them know what's up. Thanks all. &mdash;] (]) 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Me? I'm hardly even here. See, I'm working on ], on a conference paper. Now, it ''seems'' from the various passing accounts I get, that "the little theatre in the Haymarket" was Fielding's theater. That's ''important.'' In fact, that's ''very, very important.'' It's important because it's non-patent, and it was where dissident plays went to be performed (imagine it as Off Broadway). So, Haymarket becomes the place where Patriot Plays were put on in the 1730's -- and Carey's there -- which is to say ] plays, which is to say anti-Walpolean plays. In my micro-narrative of the death of the Augustan Stage, capitalist control and market pressures make the two patent theatres toothless -- they have to run soft plays and "butts in the seats" plays -- while the daring Haymarket can take big risks, both with ''Nancy'' and with ''Pasquin.'' However, there is this other creature that appears almost as soon as the Haymarket was demolished by the ] of 1737: The Queen's Theatre at the Haymarket. Now ''this'' is important because the "queen" in question is Caroline of Ansbach, and that means something -- it means Walpole. So, ] flees her father to little theatre Haymarket, and ] uses that theatre to give the finger to Fielding by altering his play to make a happy reconciliation scene between Tom Thumb and the Queen and then goes on to official Whig support. See? I did have a reason for asking. (No, my library doesn't have ''The London Stage,'' but my last library had it on microfiche (bleh).) ] 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:Now Bishonen will worry once more that I will attempt to incorporate some of that irrelevantly into this article. What she fails to appreciate is that I'm too dim to understand anything you just said there. &mdash;] (]) 03:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Oh, I was just trying to get someone else to do my work for me again. I don't like theater, you see, and yet that's not really an option for anyone who specializes in 1660-1750. No matter how I feel about the theater, the authors themselves were interested in theatrical pay days, and they thought (even when it was too late) that the theater was the best place to make a timely and incendiary political statement, so the politics of the houses (which was a big worry of theirs) becomes a thing I need to know, and the basic rule is that, if there is a ''living'' arts institution, there must always be a place for the weird and dissenting. By 1730, it ''looks'' like there is no such thing in Covent Garden or Drury Lane, which only means that something else had to be the pressure valve. I just want someone to tell me (without my doing the research) whether the Little Theatre at the Haymarket was it so that I can allude to it properly in my upcoming paper. ] 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages.
:When you say someone, of course you don't mean me; you ''know'' I only do the 1695—96 season! :-). Sorry, Geogre, you know more about that stuff than I do. Bunch, here's Price Cosmo visiting Bridges Street on 15 April 1669 and commenting on the liberated English gender roles: "This theatre is nearly of a circular form, surrounded, in the inside, by boxes separated from each other, and divided into several rows of seats, for the better accommodation of the ladies and gentlemen, who, in conformity with the freedom of the country, sit together indiscriminately; a large space being left on the ground-floor for the rest of the audience" (quoted from the LS, part 1, xxxvii). What, no galleries, or did Prince Cosmo classify galleries as really big boxes? ] ] ] 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
::I believe the first and second galleries were both divided into boxes; the first gallery (and/or the side boxes, which seem often confused with or perhaps seamlessly wrapped into the first gallery) being reserved for the court. &mdash;] (]) 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the ].
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the ].
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the ].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.


'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''
== Info that won't fit ==


*<nowiki>http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/the-producers-drury-lane.html</nowiki>
I'm compiling a Guide to the Drury Lane Wildlife according to Robert Gould. Who you meet in the box, who in the pit, who in the middle gallery, who you meet ducking out of the play early (and, given that it's Robert Gould, every section seems to have whores in it). The problem is that the information won't fit here, and ] would be a bad idea for an article. It also won't warrant an entry for the Gould poem itself, since virtually no one has heard of it. Oh, well. It's still interesting. ] 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
*:''Triggered by <code>\bstay*\.co\.uk\b</code> on the local blacklist''
:It's a satire, too, right, not a factual account? So its difficult to tease out those elements that reveal a deep social truth from those that just mean Gould was having a bad day while writing it? &mdash;] (]) 02:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
::Geogre, who cares if anybody's heard of the Playhouse poem? This isn't the kind of encyclopedia where article size, or even existence, is proportionate to some kind of instrinsic importance, as you know only too well. Write about what you like. Don't go being so purist, in a place full of would-be (and actual, too) FA's about individual pop songs, create ] already! It's a very attractive article title, much more tempting than the name of a person nobody ever heard of either (er, ], sorry, yes). Oh, yes, and I ''will'' check if I can find your annotated text in the frozen depths of my classic-Mac-version Word files. Or the swamp, rather. Right away. Bunch, you're going like a train, excellent work! ] | ] 10:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC).


If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.
:::Thanks, Bishonen! &mdash;] (]) 15:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a satire, but it would have been a flop had it not represented a reality. I.e. it only works because the readers go, "Oh-ho! He's going to talk about those guys who think they're witty because they flirt with the orange girl!" It ''was'' a successful poem. So we can regard it as dyspeptic, but not invented. (E.g. when Swift makes fun of the "projectors" trying to get sunlight out of cucumbers or who try to inflate dogs to make them speak (by means of a bellows up the anus), you can think it's too outlandish to be true, but it isn't. He picks the most obviously outlandish examples, but those were real projects only presented in ''Gulliver's Travels'' without their reasoning.) Bish, I suppose you're right, but being a purist is the way I've been going since I got here. I don't know. The thing is that we would do well with something like "the Restoration playhouse" or "the pit" and "the middle gallery" and the like. ...I don't know. An article on the poem would be full, with reception notes, and I really wanted to illustrate the people who go to the theater (which is why Montagu Somers included the poem in ''London Stage'', I think). Well, maybe I'll just compile this and use it for some real life purpose. ] 11:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


== Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary ==
:Obviously an article on the poem would be an absolutely fine article, but I see where the article you ''want'' to write isn't quite that one. I believe you ''should'' write ]. It would serve a useful purpose, describing physical and especially social elements which were largely similar between the various theatres of the two companies. &mdash;] (]) 15:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi folks, I don't feel as if we need the "Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary" section. At most, this could be included in the text, but I'm not eager on that idea either. I would like to see this footnoted as it certainly isn't important enough to qualify for its own section, thoughts? ]] 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
==Redlink in intro==
I would not object anywhere else, and I am certain patent theatres deserve an article, but IMHO either stub it or unlink it (and the latter is probably prefereable since a stub linked in the intro is not much of an improvement over a redlink.) ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
:OK, I've unlinked it for now (and gotten rid of the word "patent" there, since without a link, it's a fairly obscure term. One day I hope there's a decent ] article though. Britannica has one ;-) &mdash;] (]) 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
::How ''nice'' it must be for you to have your next project all lined up!!! <small>(said in annoying cheerful chipper voice, in case that wasn't clear from the context)</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


== Refimprove template added ==
::''hem hem'' -- ] ] 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::THANKS, ALoan! Have a cranberry-walnut muffin! &mdash;] (]) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi everyone: I have added a Refimprove template, as significant portions of content remain unverified. The following is an example:
==Items from the ''Oxford Companion''==
BOG, if you haven't seen my note regarding this on the perr review page, check that out first. I'll put these items in chronological order to aid adding them to the article. Add what you think is necessary.


<blockquote>
*The first structure was hemmed in by buildings and could only be reached by a narrow passage.
The picture-frame-like separation between audience and performance was a new phenomenon in English theatre, though it had been found on the Continent earlier. However, theatre design in London remained ambivalent about the merits of the "picture-box" stage, and for many decades to come, London theatres including Drury Lane had large forestages protruding beyond the arch, often including the thrust stages found in the Elizabethan theatres. The players could still step forward and bridge the distance between performer and audience, and in addition, it was not unusual for audience members to mount the stage themselves.</blockquote>
*]'s stage debut in ]'s ''The Indian Emperor'' occured at Drury Lane, 1665.
*Ah ha! I did find the info about the name...it was the second theatre that was called the Theatre Royal, not the first.
** Could you give me an exact quote here? I've seen a lot of sources calling it "Theatre Royal in Bridges Street". &mdash;] (]) 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*Let me throw in a compliment here...your description of the theatre interiors far exceed anything that Oxford provides!
**Yeah, too bad it's half wrong! (see below.) &mdash;] (]) 15:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
***I saw that after I had posted this...but the compliment still stands, even with part missing you still have better architectural coverage than Oxford. ] | ] 15:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
*You may note that while audiences did "mount" the stage during performances, they also outright sat onstage. It was common for audiences to sit on Elizabethan stages and men could even purchase the wiles of certain boy players. (this is not from Oxford and I can provide a source if need be).
*The first play to open the 1674 theatre was Fletcher's ''The Beggar's Bush''.
*After opening, the theatre was successful, but only briefly. The Duke's Men at the Dorset Garden Theatre atrracted many of the younger actors from the company forcing the closure of Drury Lane (DL) in 1676. Oxford doesn't state when the DL reopened, but it was sometime prior to 1682 when the United Company was created.
*Under Fleetwood there was rioting on 5 May 1737 when he abolished the Footman's Gallery. This was the upper gallery and under Fleetwood the footmen of audience members could be admitted free at the end of the fourth act. Under Rich's earlier management, however, the gallery was open for free to the footmen from the beginning of the play. Thus the name "Footman's Gallery." In 1737, Fleetwood abolished the practice completely due to the noise and ruckus coming from the gallery. This led to the rioting. Fleetwood proceeded to drive the theatre into financial straits with his gambling.
*During this period one of the most notable performances was Macklin's performance of Shylock in ''The Merchant of Venice'', 11 Jan. 1741. This introduced the public to his more realistic style of acting that abandoned the bombast of preceeding eras. It may also be noted that Macklin coached Garrick for his debut performance at Goodman's Fields, later that year in Richard III.
*Garrick's first appearance at DL, 11 May 1742, in ]'s ''The Orphan''.
*The first show under Garrick's management was ''Merchant of Venice'' with Maklin as Shylock but included many of the leading lights of the British stage including ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].
*Garrick was also responsible for major alterations done by ], 1776.
*The first production under Sheridan's management was his ''School for Scandal'', 8 May 1777.
*The theatre was damaged in 1780 during the ] and guards were posted nightly outside the theatre. They remained until 1896.
*The third theatre opened with Kemble and Siddons in ''Macbeth'' after which the iron safety curtain was lowered to prove that the theatre was fire-proof.
** That proved it :-) &mdash;] (]) 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*] made his first appearance as Shylock, 26 Jan 1814 and he played there until 1820.
*Elliston was succeeed by American impresario Stephen Price (1783-1840). He managed from 1826-1830.
*The period following Price's management included a number of failures both artistically and financially including Macready's performances in the '40s. This period ended in 1878 with the resignation of manager F. B. Chatterton who is quoted as saying "Shakespeare spells ruin, and Byron bankruptcy."
*Harris instituted an annual ] that became exceedingly popular and starred ] in ].
*Other prominent events during Collins' tenure include ]'s final London season (1905), ]'s 1905 Jubilee and ]'s farewell appearance in 1913.
*Shakespeare's tercentenary (1916) was celebrated with a performance by ] in ''Julius Caesar'' after which ] knighted him with a prop sword in the royal box.
*] presented his musicals there from 1931 until the theatre were closed in 1939.
*During WWII, the theatre became the headquarters for Entertainments National Service Association under ].
*The theatre re-opened with ]'s ''Pacific 1860'' in 1946.
*Many of Rodgers and Hammerstein's musicals made their London debuts there including '']'' (1946), '']'' (1951), '']'' (1953) and '']'' (1958) which ran for five years.
*Other notable modern shows include '']'' and '']''.


I am not just being "lazy," as a copyeditor has stated—this can be verified by viewing my editing history—but please let me know if you think this template is unwarranted. Thanks.--] (]) 09:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So those are my notes. I would have included them myself, but I figure you can fit them in more easily since you wrote most of the article. The citation should read: Hartnoll, Phyllis, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to the Theatre''. 4th edition. London:Oxford UP, 1983. pps. 230-232. I hope this is useful, if you have any questions, please leave them here or my talk page. Cheers! ] | ] 05:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


:* The {{tl|refimprove}} template seems too vague and general for an article of this standard. Please use more specific templates such as {{tl|cn}} to tag particular passages if they seem to need more support. ] (]) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:I promise I'll start incorporating soon. Thanks for the work. &mdash;] (]) 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Agreed with Andrew.♦ ] 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::'']''...something told me that wasn't right, but it was 2:30 AM when I was writing that and I didn't care. Another mistake in Oxford! I've found a few rather interesting ones throughout. I'm glad you caught the error! ] | ] 03:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::Ahh, I did that, but they were removed, so what next?--] (]) 09:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I will add the tags while I await further guidance, but yes, they were removed—the rationale was that it is a feature article. So feature articles do not need ot be verified? Thanks.--] (]) 09:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Your tag pinning was, IMO, lazy and a simple note on the talk page would have been sufficient enough to generate someone into sourcing the information that you yourself couldn't be bothered to find. I think you'll also find that you won't make any allies by going around tagging featured content; if you have a problem with a featured article, or in fact any article come to that, either approach the primary author if it has one, make an enquiry on the talk page, or research the information yourself. I think you'll find people's "tone" a bit more light and fluffy if you adopted either of those alternatives. ]] 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


*I agree with the template removal as well; several editors are now in the process of working on this as shown in the recent article history. Personally I believe a modicum of respect should be given to the extensive work done by the previous editors who initially brought this to FA standard. If we are unable to bring it back up to standard, rest assured we will take it to FAR for a proper re-assessment. ] - ] 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I was wondering if I should blame Oxford or you, Gan! Always nice when Misplaced Pages's links give a little internal fact-checking of their own. &mdash;] (]) 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::I am unsure of what was disrespectful? Wouldn't it be more disrespectful to allow unverified content to remain? My intention was not to be disrespectful, as you will see from my editing history. I am merely trying to make Misplaced Pages encyclopedic. Please do not misinterpret my actions. Thanks.--] (]) 09:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Thank you to everyone who has contributed. If anyone else can offer guidance, it will be most welcomed. I do not wish to cast aspersions or be disrespectful—I just want to make this article encyclopedic. I am struggling with Cassianto's tone—I understand that this may be due to subjective issues—so the contributions of other copyeditors will help. Again, this is not a personal matter to me, as I am just trying to contribute to an encyclopedic online resource. Thanks.--] (]) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::{{u|Soulparadox}}, by simply adding tags you '''are''' allowing unverified content to remain. You have doing nothing to try and fix the problem, only to make it someone else's. ]] 10:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, I am not trying to make allies or friends, as I don't see Misplaced Pages as a social network or game—again, I just want to contribute to the development of an encyclopedic resource. Can we hear from other copyeditors? Thanks.--] (]) 10:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
But two other copyeditors in this discussion requested the addition of tags?--] (]) 10:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:I have contributed to this article, and I am happy to do more, but I added the tags so that others can also help.--] (]) 10:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::I have removed the large banner template again and one <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag - even FA doesn't require refs after commas unless it's for a quotation. Soulparadox, is it really worth edit warring over a template? Our time would be better spent looking for the refs and attempting to sort the article out, surely? ] - ] 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I do not wish to war either, but the rationale is insufficient. The template is warranted simply because there are significant sections of content that are not verified. As I said, I am happy to undertake the research, but readers need to know in the meantime that this article is not yet completely verified. I think it is unethical to publish data in an encyclopedic resource that is not verified. People use Misplaced Pages for media articles, research, etc., so I think it is important to maintain the integrity of the resource. I am not trying to attack anyone at all! Thanks.--] (]) 10:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::As per ] Soulparadox, do not keep reverting. ]] 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::I am merely trying to await further discussion, which you are most welcome to contribute to. Thanks.--] (]) 10:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::If there are any admin or other copyeditors reading, please feel free to contribute. I am more than happy to remove the template, but the rationale thus far is insufficient. Thanks.--] (]) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
*Copying message from my talk page to keep all discussions in one place: {{tq|Hello, I mean no disrespect, but you acknowledged that your contribution to the discussion is "personal". So can we await further discussion? If you hold an authoritative position at Misplaced Pages that I am not aware of, then I apologize. Please let me know what your position is, so that I can further my learning. Thank you sir/madam.--] (]) 10:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}}
::Unfortunately, my comment appears to have been mis-interpreted; by using "personally" I meant it was my personal opinion. Obviously I hold no position of authority - quite the opposite in fact! ] - ] 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::
:::I have just added several references, and so have a couple of other editors. I understand that Cassianto is working to reference the remaining unreferenced info, so this discussion should become moot soon. In the meantime, the places where citations are still needed are clearly marked, and so no additional tags are needed. -- ] (]) 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


{{od}} {{reply to |Soulparadox}} I think that there may be some misunderstanding about the purpose of tags: they are definitely not to let ''readers'' know that the content is 'unverified' - in fact, only quotations and content that is challenged ''requires'' verification. The purpose of tags is actually to attract more ''editors'' to fix problems that have become apparent. Looked at from that perspective, half-a-dozen editors have been working on the article for the last few days, and - I assure you of this - any more will not make improvements go any faster. What my colleagues are trying to tell you is that they're on the case and the tags just aren't needed right now. If you're interested in improving the article, by all means do some research and look for fresh sources; join in either on the article or on talk to suggest new content or good references that may be added. But please, don't add any tags while editors are actively working on the article: it just doesn't add value. Cheers --] (]) 21:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Noo, Druly Lane didn't close in 1676. Both ''The Man of Mode'' and ''The Plain Dealer'' premièred in that annus mirabilis. They had difficulties, though. Supersource ''The London Stage'' says of the 76—77 season:
:I concur 100% with RexxS. Soulparadox, this is ''everything'' that I have been trying to say to you but have failed in my communication. It's probably my fault, so I apologise for that. ]] 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::''Disagreement between Thomas Killigrew and his son Charles prompted the Lord Chamberlain, on 9 Sept. 1676, to appoint Charles Hart, Michael Mohun, Edward Kynaston ]'' guy, Ganymead], and William Cartright to function as managers. This decree was modified on 22 Feb. 1676/77 to allow Hart to have full authority. By 30 July 1677, however, dissatisfaction was so widespread within the company that the players sought and secured a degree of autonomy, by which they might govern themselves, with the provision that Killigrew's rights and profits be protected.'' (LS, p. 247.)
::Thank you kindly ], as your comment has allowed me to comprehend the situation clearly! I typically try to use these interactions to learn as much as I can, and you have added to my Misplaced Pages knowledge. Thank you and, as this page is on my Watchlist, I will do my best to contribute to its development, along with the other pages that I work on. Regards,--] (]) 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::There was only a little-documented very short period of closure sometime in 1678 or 79 (LS p. 271); not worth mentioning. They hobbled on until the 1682 merger , with much evidence of serious problems. The agreement as to who should run day-to-day affairs and on what conditions was changed from time to time. An order from the L. C. in April 1678 forbade the actors from removing costumes from the theatre, some of the actors were accused of embezzlement... there was a "steady deterioration of morale". Compare the mutual trust and loyalty under Thomas Betterton's inofficial leadership at Dorset Garden, and you see in a nutshell why the Duke's prospered and the King's faltered. (Well, mutual trust and loyalty among the actors, united against Davenant's crooked sons.) And still it was the King's that put on the good plays!
::::This is the reference for the Restoration volume of the LS:
:::::Van Lennep, William (ed.) (1965). ''The London Stage 1660—1800: A Calendar of Plays, Entertainments and Afterpieces Together with Casts, Box-Receipts and Contemporary Comment Compiled from the Playbills, Newspapers and Theatrical Diaries of the Period, Part 1: 1660&ndash;1700''. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. ] | ] 12:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC).


Has work come to a standstill? There are still some unresolved tags on the article. Should it now be taken to ]? ] (]) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
== Weeping and Gnashing of teeth ==
:Things are slow, but progress is in motion. Hold off for FAR at the moment. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


==]==
Hmmm hmm hm... Latham and Matthew's 2001 Diary of Samuel Pepys Companion volume says on page 436 () that "It used to be thought that a description of the circular shape of the theatre visited by Cosimo III of Tuscany referred to the Theatre Royal, but in fact it referred to the Duke's Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields." (With an endnote indicator the other side of which I haven't tracked down.) &mdash;] (]) 04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed mention of this child actress from the Lead, because she is not mentioned at all in the body of the article. Her own article makes only one mention of Drury Lane. Is she important enough in the history of the theatre to be discussed below? I doubt it, but if so, someone needs to find appropriate refs. -- ] (]) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:No, I agree. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


==WW II and later productions==
==FYI==
Since WWII, the theatre has hosted a series of very long-running Musicals, beginning with ''Oklahoma!'', which had the longest run of any production at the theatre up to that time. I have found references for these for the body of the article and also mentioned the ones with historic long runs in the Lead. ''My Fair Lady'', when it closed, had the 2nd-longest run in West End history, and ''Miss Saigon'' had the longest run ever at the theatre. -- ] (]) 01:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I just created an article for ], please add anything if you see fit. Cheers! ] | ] 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


== Ghosts ==
== Aphra Behn and ''The Rover'' ==


Does this warrant its own section? There's a lot of editorial and vague language in there and it's a subjective topic anyway. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, where are you getting that ''The Rover'' played at Drury Lane in 1677? All the sources I've seen (for instance The Cambridge Companion to Aphra Behn) say it was at Dorset Garden. In fact, Behn's association with Drury Lane seems minimal, at least as far as premiers go - if it can be believed lists ''The Lucky Chance'' in 1686 and a posthumous 1689 production of ''The Widow Ranter''. &mdash;] (]) 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, no, ruining my beautiful theory about Drury Lane carrying the flag of quality with even ''more'' facts! I was already somewhat devastated to have discovered that Etherege was a Duke's writer. As for where I got it, well, from carelessly reading the ''London Stage'''s notation "DG" as "DL". Simple. ] | ] 00:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC).
::I'll have to rephrase the whole thing a bit. To....mor...zzzzz.....row. ] | ] 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC).
:::All right. G'night. I'll just ungently yank out the bit about Behn for now to keep it factual. &mdash;] (]) 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


:It most definitely does in my opinion, and I'm pleased to see it here. ] ] 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
== Meaning of ] in theatre terminology ==


::How do we get around ]? I'll bet my last pound someone mentions it at FAR. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I just delinked the word ''shutter'' that is used in this article. If there is a specific meaning for the word 'shutter' in theatre terminology, could you please link to that and add a definition at the disambiguation page for ]. Otherwise just leaving it without a link may be best (there is already a link to ]). Thanks. ] 00:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:Leaving it without a link seems fine to me. You might want to try out the same change in ], which is where that sentence actually originated. Thanks! &mdash;] (]) 02:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
:::What has alleged got to do with it? I often include ghost sections in castles or stately homes, as in ], and nobody ever complains at FAC. It's just a matter of how it's written. As I read somewhere recently, the question of whether or not ghosts exist is a pointless one, as people clearly report seeing something. The only question is, what is it that they see? ] ] 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
::I'd be very surprised if that's the only link inserted in ] by somebody "helping" Misplaced Pages by typing square brackets round all the nouns in sight (and never checking where, or whether those links lead). It's a ''disease'' in this place. Grumble ... grumble... linkomania ... grumble ... soon as I turn my back ... grumble ...:-( ] | ] 03:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

:::Not ''every'' noun, but it would be helpful to have a link to an article explaining what a shutter is in this context, no? -- ] ] 10:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
::::It's just my opinion but I think it's too much of a subjective topic. But we agree to disagree on that one as my view is also subjective; It's lasted all this time, so let's keep it and see how it goes. My ping to WP:ALLEGED was in reference to the use of vague words such as "said to", "supposed", "allegedly" etc. My question upon reading words such as these would be ''who'' said this, ''who'' supposed this, ''who'' alleged this? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Certainly. My point was that it's not helpful when that article doesn't exist. ] | ] 11:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

:::::Everything is subjective, that's the world we live in. But not to mention the "alleged" ghosts would be to compromise the comprehensiveness of this article. ] ] 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I recently had trouble at the FAC with the "ghosts" section of Bramshill House. Sometimes I wonder if we should really cover it in detail, but I suppose legends are part of the coverage of a place and are worth a summary to make it comprehensive. I do think there's a balance needed though. Two paragraphs I think is reasonable.♦ ] 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
*I rather like the 'Hauntings' section ... perhaps once we manage to sort out the rest this could even be expanded a little bit? ] - ] 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
:*{{u|Eric Corbett|Eric}}: I have now got a copy of ]'s 1945 book "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane"; he has a few pages about the ghost. ] - ] 09:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:*:Excellent! ] ] 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

* Yes, I recently listened to a guide telling a crowd in Macklin Street the story of ] and he mentioned that they have a special tour of theatrical ghosts for this and other local theatres. ] (]) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

== Second theatre 1674 ==
I feel the main problem area in this article is the section 'Second theatre: 1674', especially the first five paragraphs, many of which are unreferenced. My suggestion would be to delete those paragraphs then add a shorter paragraph (or two) stating it was generally assumed the Theatre was built to the Wren design but in the 20th-21st-century academics have challenged that. What do others feel about it? The sentence "according to Robert D. Hume (2007, the most highly regarded scholar of theatres and play performance during the long eighteenth-century)" definitely has to go anyway ... ] - ] 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

:I am travelling until Thursday and can't do it now, but can someone look back to when the article passed FAC and see what has happened to those paragraphs since then? Were they originally referenced? -- ] (]) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

::I'll leave it to others to re-check as it's evidently felt necessary but as far as I could see all of the paragraphs I referred to were added a long time after the article passed FAC - but fine, I get your message so will undo the edits I made - I was simply trying to help and/or address the problems I saw. My apologies for intruding. ] - ] 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I see that a lot of work was done while I was away, but that there is still some material that is uncited. Phil, do you still find that any of the material is dubious, or is it merely a question of finding the refs to support it? -- ] (]) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::If you wish it to remain as it is, which I strongly disagree with as I feel it is not neutral and gives undue emphasis, the reference you would need to use is this , by Mark Howell, (who I believe is a non-academic) published in 2013. In of the article I tried to give a brief neutral piece about the "Wren drawing"; I also tweaked the caption under the sketch in an attempt to show both sides of the debate. At present in my opinion, Misplaced Pages is categorically stating the sketch is wrong based on the edits of editors who made the additions by Markhowellmeri; by Markhowell1688; scroll down to the bottom of by an IP on 10 Feb 2012; and by Markhowell4000. An editor, DavidThomas104, appears to have attempted to tone down the POV . Also have a look at his on 1 Feb 2013. Please read fully through what is presently ref #25, which is what I believe he was trying to remove. Markhowell1688 also added an unsigned notice to the image description on .<p>One of the books I have acquired is Richard Leacroft's 1973 "The Development of the English Playhouse". In it he states: {{tq|A longitudinal section through a playhouse designed by Wren has a measured length of approximately 113 feet, which is sufficiently close to the known length of the site of the first theatre. Whether it is the design finally adopted is not known, and it has been argued that as the drawing had twice been torn across it had been discarded, but at least some of the features shown appear in later authenticated drawings of this theatre, and it may by now be safely assumed that, even if the precise details are not as built, in the main this section can be taken to indicate the general appearance of Wren's Drury Lane as finally constructed in 1674.}} on page 89. While some academics have questioned the sketch, they have couched it in a very reserved manner. I have a copy of Langhans 1966 article "Pictorial Material on the Bridges Street and Drury Lane Theatres"; Tim Keenan's article is and Robert Hume's article can be read on page 23 . by an academic in 2012 may also be worth a read - he states there is a: {{tq|convincing argument that it represents the Theatre Royal Drury Lane of 1674}}.<p>Of course, everyone else may read all this completely differently! ] - ] 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've cut it down a bit. Personally, I would also cut the names of the academics and just have "scholars" keeping the detail in the footnote, but otherwise it is relevant to the article topic and so should not be cut totally. I do think it can be shorn down more though, the dimensions for example are repeated in two separate paragraphs. Apart from comments above on verifiability, which are addressable since the sources are available, the prose needs examining. Some of the later material has been inserted without much thought as to how it fits in to the flow of the text. ] (]) 20:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*Re: the paragraph starting "The King's Company never recovered ... ..." with the citation needed tag. It's always difficult to find refs when you're trying to interpret the words of others but MacQueen Pope has: "Things were going from bad to worse at Old Drury. At the beginning of the year 1681, the brothers Killigrew could not meet their debts and for a time the theatre closed down." (p. 64); " at once set about raising money to rebuild Drury Lane. He was not in too good shape in that direction. ... ... Indeed early in 1663, before his first playhouse opened, he had already assigned his shares elsewhere. He borrowed £950 on them in 1673 and negotiated another loan in the same year for £1,600. This did not make for financial stability when the new house was finally opened." (p. 57); and "Killigrew, of course, held the all-powerful Charter or Patent, but he had mortgaged it for the building fund. The cost of the building was about £4,000, which sum probably included the scene room". (p. 59). The details of the MacQueen Pope book are already in the Bibliography. The , I'm assuming others have access to it but if not, I can always copy the relevant section here, also touches on the selling of shares and the "King's Company was fading fast". Perhaps that helps a little bit? (ping {{u|DrKay}}). ] - ] 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is 'way too much information about the Theatre Royal Bristol. Is all of it supported by the sources given, or is any of it ]? -- ] (]) 19:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
:I suspect a lot of it is OR. I've been trying to check the sources: , ref#33, supports the quote but doesn't mention Bristol; the , ref#32, also doesn't mention Bristol. I've been trying to access ''The Georgian Playhouse'' (1948). Stone, pp. 80–81 (ref#30, 31 & 34) without success - does anyone else have access to it? I do have a copy of the Stone & Kahrl 1979 Garrick biography that I'll have a flick through to see if it might offer anything on it but it's not an easy read. ] - ] 16:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks, for working on that, Phil. If it is all OR, and you don't see any easily accessible sources that support the assertion, we should remove all the Bristol comparisons. -- ] (]) 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

== Citation ==
The first 'citation needed' tag at the end of the fourth paragraph of the 'First theatre: Theatre Royal, Bridges Street (1663)' section is covered in Walter Macqueen-Pope's 1945 book ", publisher Allen, page 33. If you wish me to type the wording here so you can verify, please let me know. Thanks. ] - ] 11:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:Thanks! I added the book to the list of sources at the bottom and put the short cite in the text at the end of the paragraph you mentioned. Please check that I put it in the place you meant. I did not include the url since the google book text is not available. You don't need to type it out, as the factoid is not very controversial. -- ] (]) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

==] vs. ]==
Please explain why these changes were suggested. -- ] (]) 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rtheatre/Front.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

== Old Playbills ==

Maybe these links are interesting for anybody. They show an old advertisement from 1776 ( http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/framed-advertisement-for-the-theatre-royal-in-dru-235-c-9db4ccd92b?campaign=rr ) and an old playbill advertising ]s Diorama from 1830: http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/stanfield-s-diorama-a-double-playbill-for-the-th-705-c-44b4e99b14?campaign=rr<br />
Maybe it would make sense to add Stanfield in the article, as he worked in the theater for severeal years.<br />
Cheers! --] (]) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080312185654/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/murray/Restoration/Theatres/Recon.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080419052257/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/murray/Restoration/Theatres/Theatres.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080419052257/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/murray/Restoration/Theatres/Theatres.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stgite.org.uk/media/judges.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111101604/http://louisjullien.site.voila.fr/ to http://louisjullien.site.voila.fr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225224/http://www.fownc.org/newsletters/no45.shtml to http://www.fownc.org/newsletters/no45.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

== Image ==

Instead of author unknown, this could be so someone with interest and knowledge in this FA could use this information to update the article. ] (]) 23:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

== ] ==

As part of the continuing ], I checked through this article, promoted in 2006, to see if it still meets criteria. Overall it's in remarkable shape, but I had some thoughts on a once-over:
*As someone who isn’t a theater buff in general or of London theater history in particular, there were passages where the text lost me. E.g. {{xt|The King's Company was forced to commission the technically advanced and expensive Theatre Royal playhouse by the success of the rival Duke's Company,}}—this new playhouse comes out of nowhere, there's no date for when this was, and I'm left confused what exactly this means. At first I thought this was the second theater on the site, which was clearly incorrect. So was this another stage in the building? A revamp?
*There are places throughout where the tone of the article doesn't entirely feel encyclopedic—whether it's calling the sons "crooks", or asking questions of the reader in {{xt|The motivation behind building on such a large scale?}}
**It's really weird to me that we spend two paragraphs detailing first, a drawing that is argued is not actually the playhouse, and then the supposed design of the playhouse, before we actually explain the context for the second playhouse being constructed. Some rejiggering of this section I think would help it flow better.
**{{xt|The King's Company never recovered financially from the loss of the old Theatre Royal Bridges Street. The cost of constructing the new theatre, replacing their costumes and scenery lost in the fire and competitive pressure from the rival Duke's Company contributed to its decline. Eventually, in 1682, the King's Company merged with the Duke's.}} This doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph, which continues the earlier discussion of the design, and feels out of place. We don't discuss history in the 1680s until much later in the section, where we get repetition of the merger information.
**{{xt|...when the patent in question}} there's no patent in question; patents haven't been mentioned aside from the name of the company in paragraphs. I assume this is the monopolistic patent mentioned early on in the formation, but it's unclear.
**{{xt|(see Robert Lowe in his edition of Cibber's Apology)}} No idea what this aside is about; if it's supposed to be a reference, it shouldn't be parenthetical.
**{{xt|The "very popular notion that our theatres ought to be very small" proved hard to overcome.}} Who said this?
**It seems odd we get very little about the design of the modern building aside from the seating capacity.
**Information about the theater is extremely detailed until the 1930s and then it drops off a cliff. It seems unlikely all the notable history of the theater in the last near 100 years is covered in three paragraphs.
**I don't quite get the structure of the "Major productions" section; which ones get mentioned in prose versus just (or additionally listed out) doesn't make much sense to me.
**There's some passages that seem unsourced.
--] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:22, 15 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
Featured articleTheatre Royal, Drury Lane is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 3, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 24, 2012, February 24, 2015, February 24, 2018, February 24, 2022, and February 24, 2023.
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconLondon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEngland Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArchitecture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTheatre Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

SeatPlan ref

The new SeatPlan ref seems to be commercial spam. I suggest deleting the new additions: If something hasn't changed, you don't need to say so. Moreover, all theatres offer seats at various prices throughout the house, so it's a trivial statement that does not add anything. I do not watch this page, but I watch other London theatres, and this IP has been adding lots of commercial spam links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

First fire sprinkler system in the world?

Fire_sprinkler_system#History claims (though a citation is missing) that Theatre Royal, Drury Lane was the first place where a (non-automatic) fire sprinkler system was ever installed, in 1812. If this is indeed true, it is notable for the article here as well, and the two articles should cross-reference each other. Searching the Theatre Royal article for the word "fire" reveals that the structure burned down at least twice (in 1672 and in 1809), significant landmarks in the history of the building. The fact that the third version of the Theatre is still standing may be a vindication of the fire suppression system(s) installed there. Was the original sprinkler system ever activated? Was it ever replaced or supplemented, and are there any original elements from the sprinkler remaining? Could somebody better equipped to research this either verify or disprove the historic claim, and modify the article(s) accordingly? -- Reify-tech (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/the-producers-drury-lane.html
    Triggered by \bstay*\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II Online 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary

Hi folks, I don't feel as if we need the "Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary" section. At most, this could be included in the text, but I'm not eager on that idea either. I would like to see this footnoted as it certainly isn't important enough to qualify for its own section, thoughts? Cassianto 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Refimprove template added

Hi everyone: I have added a Refimprove template, as significant portions of content remain unverified. The following is an example:

The picture-frame-like separation between audience and performance was a new phenomenon in English theatre, though it had been found on the Continent earlier. However, theatre design in London remained ambivalent about the merits of the "picture-box" stage, and for many decades to come, London theatres including Drury Lane had large forestages protruding beyond the arch, often including the thrust stages found in the Elizabethan theatres. The players could still step forward and bridge the distance between performer and audience, and in addition, it was not unusual for audience members to mount the stage themselves.

I am not just being "lazy," as a copyeditor has stated—this can be verified by viewing my editing history—but please let me know if you think this template is unwarranted. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Andrew.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I did that, but they were removed, so what next?--Soulparadox (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I will add the tags while I await further guidance, but yes, they were removed—the rationale was that it is a feature article. So feature articles do not need ot be verified? Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your tag pinning was, IMO, lazy and a simple note on the talk page would have been sufficient enough to generate someone into sourcing the information that you yourself couldn't be bothered to find. I think you'll also find that you won't make any allies by going around tagging featured content; if you have a problem with a featured article, or in fact any article come to that, either approach the primary author if it has one, make an enquiry on the talk page, or research the information yourself. I think you'll find people's "tone" a bit more light and fluffy if you adopted either of those alternatives. Cassianto 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with the template removal as well; several editors are now in the process of working on this as shown in the recent article history. Personally I believe a modicum of respect should be given to the extensive work done by the previous editors who initially brought this to FA standard. If we are unable to bring it back up to standard, rest assured we will take it to FAR for a proper re-assessment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I am unsure of what was disrespectful? Wouldn't it be more disrespectful to allow unverified content to remain? My intention was not to be disrespectful, as you will see from my editing history. I am merely trying to make Misplaced Pages encyclopedic. Please do not misinterpret my actions. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone who has contributed. If anyone else can offer guidance, it will be most welcomed. I do not wish to cast aspersions or be disrespectful—I just want to make this article encyclopedic. I am struggling with Cassianto's tone—I understand that this may be due to subjective issues—so the contributions of other copyeditors will help. Again, this is not a personal matter to me, as I am just trying to contribute to an encyclopedic online resource. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Soulparadox, by simply adding tags you are allowing unverified content to remain. You have doing nothing to try and fix the problem, only to make it someone else's. Cassianto 10:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, I am not trying to make allies or friends, as I don't see Misplaced Pages as a social network or game—again, I just want to contribute to the development of an encyclopedic resource. Can we hear from other copyeditors? Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But two other copyeditors in this discussion requested the addition of tags?--Soulparadox (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed to this article, and I am happy to do more, but I added the tags so that others can also help.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the large banner template again and one {{cn}} tag - even FA doesn't require refs after commas unless it's for a quotation. Soulparadox, is it really worth edit warring over a template? Our time would be better spent looking for the refs and attempting to sort the article out, surely? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not wish to war either, but the rationale is insufficient. The template is warranted simply because there are significant sections of content that are not verified. As I said, I am happy to undertake the research, but readers need to know in the meantime that this article is not yet completely verified. I think it is unethical to publish data in an encyclopedic resource that is not verified. People use Misplaced Pages for media articles, research, etc., so I think it is important to maintain the integrity of the resource. I am not trying to attack anyone at all! Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:BRD Soulparadox, do not keep reverting. Cassianto 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I am merely trying to await further discussion, which you are most welcome to contribute to. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If there are any admin or other copyeditors reading, please feel free to contribute. I am more than happy to remove the template, but the rationale thus far is insufficient. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Copying message from my talk page to keep all discussions in one place: Hello, I mean no disrespect, but you acknowledged that your contribution to the discussion is "personal". So can we await further discussion? If you hold an authoritative position at Misplaced Pages that I am not aware of, then I apologize. Please let me know what your position is, so that I can further my learning. Thank you sir/madam.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my comment appears to have been mis-interpreted; by using "personally" I meant it was my personal opinion. Obviously I hold no position of authority - quite the opposite in fact! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just added several references, and so have a couple of other editors. I understand that Cassianto is working to reference the remaining unreferenced info, so this discussion should become moot soon. In the meantime, the places where citations are still needed are clearly marked, and so no additional tags are needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Soulparadox: I think that there may be some misunderstanding about the purpose of tags: they are definitely not to let readers know that the content is 'unverified' - in fact, only quotations and content that is challenged requires verification. The purpose of tags is actually to attract more editors to fix problems that have become apparent. Looked at from that perspective, half-a-dozen editors have been working on the article for the last few days, and - I assure you of this - any more will not make improvements go any faster. What my colleagues are trying to tell you is that they're on the case and the tags just aren't needed right now. If you're interested in improving the article, by all means do some research and look for fresh sources; join in either on the article or on talk to suggest new content or good references that may be added. But please, don't add any tags while editors are actively working on the article: it just doesn't add value. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur 100% with RexxS. Soulparadox, this is everything that I have been trying to say to you but have failed in my communication. It's probably my fault, so I apologise for that. Cassianto 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly RexxS, as your comment has allowed me to comprehend the situation clearly! I typically try to use these interactions to learn as much as I can, and you have added to my Misplaced Pages knowledge. Thank you and, as this page is on my Watchlist, I will do my best to contribute to its development, along with the other pages that I work on. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Has work come to a standstill? There are still some unresolved tags on the article. Should it now be taken to Misplaced Pages:Featured article review? DrKay (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Things are slow, but progress is in motion. Hold off for FAR at the moment. Cassianto 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Clara Fisher

I removed mention of this child actress from the Lead, because she is not mentioned at all in the body of the article. Her own article makes only one mention of Drury Lane. Is she important enough in the history of the theatre to be discussed below? I doubt it, but if so, someone needs to find appropriate refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree. Cassianto 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WW II and later productions

Since WWII, the theatre has hosted a series of very long-running Musicals, beginning with Oklahoma!, which had the longest run of any production at the theatre up to that time. I have found references for these for the body of the article and also mentioned the ones with historic long runs in the Lead. My Fair Lady, when it closed, had the 2nd-longest run in West End history, and Miss Saigon had the longest run ever at the theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghosts

Does this warrant its own section? There's a lot of editorial and vague language in there and it's a subjective topic anyway. Cassianto 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It most definitely does in my opinion, and I'm pleased to see it here. Eric Corbett 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
How do we get around WP:ALLEGED? I'll bet my last pound someone mentions it at FAR. -- Cassianto 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
What has alleged got to do with it? I often include ghost sections in castles or stately homes, as in Little Moreton Hall, and nobody ever complains at FAC. It's just a matter of how it's written. As I read somewhere recently, the question of whether or not ghosts exist is a pointless one, as people clearly report seeing something. The only question is, what is it that they see? Eric Corbett 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's just my opinion but I think it's too much of a subjective topic. But we agree to disagree on that one as my view is also subjective; It's lasted all this time, so let's keep it and see how it goes. My ping to WP:ALLEGED was in reference to the use of vague words such as "said to", "supposed", "allegedly" etc. My question upon reading words such as these would be who said this, who supposed this, who alleged this? Cassianto 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Everything is subjective, that's the world we live in. But not to mention the "alleged" ghosts would be to compromise the comprehensiveness of this article. Eric Corbett 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I recently had trouble at the FAC with the "ghosts" section of Bramshill House. Sometimes I wonder if we should really cover it in detail, but I suppose legends are part of the coverage of a place and are worth a summary to make it comprehensive. I do think there's a balance needed though. Two paragraphs I think is reasonable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Second theatre 1674

I feel the main problem area in this article is the section 'Second theatre: 1674', especially the first five paragraphs, many of which are unreferenced. My suggestion would be to delete those paragraphs then add a shorter paragraph (or two) stating it was generally assumed the Theatre was built to the Wren design but in the 20th-21st-century academics have challenged that. What do others feel about it? The sentence "according to Robert D. Hume (2007, the most highly regarded scholar of theatres and play performance during the long eighteenth-century)" definitely has to go anyway ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am travelling until Thursday and can't do it now, but can someone look back to when the article passed FAC and see what has happened to those paragraphs since then? Were they originally referenced? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to re-check as it's evidently felt necessary but as far as I could see all of the paragraphs I referred to were added a long time after the article passed FAC - but fine, I get your message so will undo the edits I made - I was simply trying to help and/or address the problems I saw. My apologies for intruding. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that a lot of work was done while I was away, but that there is still some material that is uncited. Phil, do you still find that any of the material is dubious, or is it merely a question of finding the refs to support it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If you wish it to remain as it is, which I strongly disagree with as I feel it is not neutral and gives undue emphasis, the reference you would need to use is this self published book, by Mark Howell, (who I believe is a non-academic) published in 2013. In this version of the article I tried to give a brief neutral piece about the "Wren drawing"; I also tweaked the caption under the sketch in an attempt to show both sides of the debate. At present in my opinion, Misplaced Pages is categorically stating the sketch is wrong based on the edits of editors who made the additions 7 Jan 2011 by Markhowellmeri; 17 Nov 2011 by Markhowell1688; scroll down to the bottom of this edit by an IP on 10 Feb 2012; and 10 Feb 2012 by Markhowell4000. An editor, DavidThomas104, appears to have attempted to tone down the POV 1 Feb 2013 here. Also have a look at his edit summary here on 1 Feb 2013. Please read fully through what is presently ref #25, which is what I believe he was trying to remove. Markhowell1688 also added an unsigned notice to the image description on 12 Dec 2011.

One of the books I have acquired is Richard Leacroft's 1973 "The Development of the English Playhouse". In it he states: A longitudinal section through a playhouse designed by Wren has a measured length of approximately 113 feet, which is sufficiently close to the known length of the site of the first theatre. Whether it is the design finally adopted is not known, and it has been argued that as the drawing had twice been torn across it had been discarded, but at least some of the features shown appear in later authenticated drawings of this theatre, and it may by now be safely assumed that, even if the precise details are not as built, in the main this section can be taken to indicate the general appearance of Wren's Drury Lane as finally constructed in 1674. on page 89. While some academics have questioned the sketch, they have couched it in a very reserved manner. I have a copy of Langhans 1966 article "Pictorial Material on the Bridges Street and Drury Lane Theatres"; Tim Keenan's article is available via Questia and Robert Hume's article can be read on page 23 here. This by an academic in 2012 may also be worth a read - he states there is a: convincing argument that it represents the Theatre Royal Drury Lane of 1674.

Of course, everyone else may read all this completely differently! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've cut it down a bit. Personally, I would also cut the names of the academics and just have "scholars" keeping the detail in the footnote, but otherwise it is relevant to the article topic and so should not be cut totally. I do think it can be shorn down more though, the dimensions for example are repeated in two separate paragraphs. Apart from comments above on verifiability, which are addressable since the sources are available, the prose needs examining. Some of the later material has been inserted without much thought as to how it fits in to the flow of the text. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: the paragraph starting "The King's Company never recovered ... ..." with the citation needed tag. It's always difficult to find refs when you're trying to interpret the words of others but MacQueen Pope has: "Things were going from bad to worse at Old Drury. At the beginning of the year 1681, the brothers Killigrew could not meet their debts and for a time the theatre closed down." (p. 64); " at once set about raising money to rebuild Drury Lane. He was not in too good shape in that direction. ... ... Indeed early in 1663, before his first playhouse opened, he had already assigned his shares elsewhere. He borrowed £950 on them in 1673 and negotiated another loan in the same year for £1,600. This did not make for financial stability when the new house was finally opened." (p. 57); and "Killigrew, of course, held the all-powerful Charter or Patent, but he had mortgaged it for the building fund. The cost of the building was about £4,000, which sum probably included the scene room". (p. 59). The details of the MacQueen Pope book are already in the Bibliography. The ODNB entry for Charles Hart, I'm assuming others have access to it but if not, I can always copy the relevant section here, also touches on the selling of shares and the "King's Company was fading fast". Perhaps that helps a little bit? (ping DrKay). SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is 'way too much information about the Theatre Royal Bristol. Is all of it supported by the sources given, or is any of it WP:OR? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of it is OR. I've been trying to check the sources: Nagler, p.208, ref#33, supports the quote but doesn't mention Bristol; the Survey of London, ref#32, also doesn't mention Bristol. I've been trying to access The Georgian Playhouse (1948). Stone, pp. 80–81 (ref#30, 31 & 34) without success - does anyone else have access to it? I do have a copy of the Stone & Kahrl 1979 Garrick biography that I'll have a flick through to see if it might offer anything on it but it's not an easy read. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, for working on that, Phil. If it is all OR, and you don't see any easily accessible sources that support the assertion, we should remove all the Bristol comparisons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation

The first 'citation needed' tag at the end of the fourth paragraph of the 'First theatre: Theatre Royal, Bridges Street (1663)' section is covered in Walter Macqueen-Pope's 1945 book "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, publisher Allen, page 33. If you wish me to type the wording here so you can verify, please let me know. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the book to the list of sources at the bottom and put the short cite in the text at the end of the paragraph you mentioned. Please check that I put it in the place you meant. I did not include the url since the google book text is not available. You don't need to type it out, as the factoid is not very controversial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage vs. Historic England

Please explain why these changes were suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Old Playbills

Maybe these links are interesting for anybody. They show an old advertisement from 1776 ( http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/framed-advertisement-for-the-theatre-royal-in-dru-235-c-9db4ccd92b?campaign=rr ) and an old playbill advertising Clarkson Stanfields Diorama from 1830: http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/stanfield-s-diorama-a-double-playbill-for-the-th-705-c-44b4e99b14?campaign=rr
Maybe it would make sense to add Stanfield in the article, as he worked in the theater for severeal years.
Cheers! --74albia (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Image

Instead of author unknown, this could be here so someone with interest and knowledge in this FA could use this information to update the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

As part of the continuing sweeps of old FAs, I checked through this article, promoted in 2006, to see if it still meets criteria. Overall it's in remarkable shape, but I had some thoughts on a once-over:

  • As someone who isn’t a theater buff in general or of London theater history in particular, there were passages where the text lost me. E.g. The King's Company was forced to commission the technically advanced and expensive Theatre Royal playhouse by the success of the rival Duke's Company,—this new playhouse comes out of nowhere, there's no date for when this was, and I'm left confused what exactly this means. At first I thought this was the second theater on the site, which was clearly incorrect. So was this another stage in the building? A revamp?
  • There are places throughout where the tone of the article doesn't entirely feel encyclopedic—whether it's calling the sons "crooks", or asking questions of the reader in The motivation behind building on such a large scale?
    • It's really weird to me that we spend two paragraphs detailing first, a drawing that is argued is not actually the playhouse, and then the supposed design of the playhouse, before we actually explain the context for the second playhouse being constructed. Some rejiggering of this section I think would help it flow better.
    • The King's Company never recovered financially from the loss of the old Theatre Royal Bridges Street. The cost of constructing the new theatre, replacing their costumes and scenery lost in the fire and competitive pressure from the rival Duke's Company contributed to its decline. Eventually, in 1682, the King's Company merged with the Duke's. This doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph, which continues the earlier discussion of the design, and feels out of place. We don't discuss history in the 1680s until much later in the section, where we get repetition of the merger information.
    • ...when the patent in question there's no patent in question; patents haven't been mentioned aside from the name of the company in paragraphs. I assume this is the monopolistic patent mentioned early on in the formation, but it's unclear.
    • (see Robert Lowe in his edition of Cibber's Apology) No idea what this aside is about; if it's supposed to be a reference, it shouldn't be parenthetical.
    • The "very popular notion that our theatres ought to be very small" proved hard to overcome. Who said this?
    • It seems odd we get very little about the design of the modern building aside from the seating capacity.
    • Information about the theater is extremely detailed until the 1930s and then it drops off a cliff. It seems unlikely all the notable history of the theater in the last near 100 years is covered in three paragraphs.
    • I don't quite get the structure of the "Major productions" section; which ones get mentioned in prose versus just (or additionally listed out) doesn't make much sense to me.
    • There's some passages that seem unsourced.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: