Talk:Royal Court Theatre

message: There's a source in this article that says Marie Litton operated the theatre under the name of the Belgravia - this is wrong. See, for example, The Graphic (London, England), 22 April 1871; Issue 73 "Mr. Gilbert has followed up his successful fairy comedy at The Haymarket with a one-act piece of the same character at The Royal Court Theatre".   W. S. Gilbert, Original Plays, Fourth Series (1911), page 329: "Randall's Thumb, An Original Comedy in Three Acts - First performed at the operning of the Royal Court Theatre under the management of Miss M. Litton, 25th January, 1871."  It tended to be called "The Court" in most newspapers, but never the Belgravia - I believe that was a completely different theatre. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate source 

message: The article implies that the Rocky Horror show premiered in the main Theatre. It actually opened in the smaller 60 seat Theatre Upstairs. I know that because I was one of the rotating bass players in the original house band, but I do not have a valid reference for it. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. I was there, too. The article on The Rocky Horror Show itself is a good enough citation. I've changed it. --El Ingles (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A small error

message: The number of seats in the upstairs auditorium is quoted in the text as 63, but I couldn't find this in the reference. I'm inclined to remove it because it's a flexible space with flexible seating, including for example  a "bear pit" with the audience looking down on the action from on high, as in Faces in the crowd. If I can find a specific ref I'll fix this, unless someone else steps up. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded it and added a further reference. It may be a flexible seating area now (max 85) but I can assure you it was a fixed 63-seater at the time Rocky Horror opened - it contained rows of tatty red velvet seating bolted to the floor that had been rescued from a demolished cinema (complete with metal ashtrays on the seat backs). I was a voluntary unpaid ticket office vendor and usher there at the time, helping out my flatmate who was the original musical director for the show. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  63 seats upstairs 

message: ¾ of a mile from Knightsbridge, according to Google Maps, and nowhere in the Londoner's mental picture (Harrods, the Barracks, Scotch Corner) of the area. Why the recent addition of this category? Why not the district in which the building actually lies—Belgravia—if such classification is thought in some way useful? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections? Done, as :Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Knightsbridge 

message: Is the article space given to this one production disproportionate and undue? The work has its own article. For me adding "a controversial" or similar in the list of productions (where it's wikilinked so if anyone wants read about it they can click through) would be sufficient. It looks like a case of WP:RECENT that has managed to survive. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage duplicates almnost all of the material in the article on the piece. OM, I quite agree with the thrust of your points, but the controversy still deserves more than a link in the production list. Philip Cross (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions for wording to get the balance right, anyone? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I cut down the section but tried to keep a balanced approach.  Looks good?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Ssilvers but I don't think the length is the issue, but that there is a section on this one play.  After all, the theatre has put on hundreds of plays, many of them with their own controversies (I could list a few...).  The play itself is linked and anyone can go to that link to read about the controversy.  I agree with Old Moonraker and Philip Cross that it is disproportionate to have this section. RomQuant (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Seven Jewish Children'' 

message: I changed the date format according to the following two rules from the MOS, WP:BADDATEFORMAT
*Do not use separators other than hyphen
*Do not use dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy or yyyy-dd-mm formats, as they are ambiguous for some dates
I did it by copying the section into Microsoft Word and transposing with regular expressions. I also tried formatting in "March 28, 2008" format, which I expected to be easier to read, but it actually seemed harder to read, so I went with 2008-03-28 format. If anyone would like to see the list in "March 28, 2008" format, I still have the file so I could show that too. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format in Productions 2008 – May 2013 

message: It was built as the New Court Theatre in 1888. But when was it first re-named the Royal Court? Valetude (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly by the end of the century.  I just added a ref that shows a theatre programme from 1899 with the theatre being called "Royal Court Theatre".  But it could have been any time after the theatre re-opened in 1888.  If you can find a ref that nails down the date, please add it to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming