Talk:Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

message: 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)
thread_title: SeatPlan ref

message: 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)
thread_title: First fire sprinkler system in the world?

message: 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 Wikipedia.
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[\w-]*\.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 NotifyOnline 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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? Cassiantotalk 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, I agree. CassiantoTalk 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Clara Fisher]]

message: 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)
thread_title: WW II and later productions

message: Does this warrant its own section?  There's a lot of editorial and vague language in there and it's a subjective topic anyway. CassiantoTalk 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely does in my opinion, and I'm pleased to see it here.  Eric Corbett 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we get around WP:ALLEGED? I'll bet my last pound someone mentions it at FAR. -- CassiantoTalk 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? CassiantoTalk 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *: I have now got a copy of W. J. MacQueen-Pope's 1945 book "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane"; he has a few pages about the ghost. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

text: *:Excellent!  Eric Corbett 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghosts 

message: 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 [several?] 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, Wikipedia 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:  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: .Of course, everyone else may read all this completely differently! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second theatre 1674 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Please explain why these changes were suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[English Heritage]] vs. [[Historic England]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old Playbills 

message: 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:
*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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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. —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 
**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.
** 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.
** 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.
** No idea what this aside is about; if it's supposed to be a reference, it shouldn't be parenthetical.
** 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 talk 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]]