Talk:King's Men (playing company)

Note

Wasn't the King's Men the London company of Lord Strange, also known as Ferdinando Stanley the 5th Earl of Derby?

I believe it was. BPK, 12/12/05.

Regarding the proposed merger, I would tend to disagree. The periods in which the company were the Lord Chamberlain's Men and the King's Men were two distinct phases in the group's history, and in light of the numerous mergers, breakups, changes in patrons and renamings of all the Elizabethan/Jacobean playing companies, retaining separate articles for each named group will help alleviate confusion. Besides, the Lord Chamberlain's Men is a less ambiguous name than the King's Men (there were a number of companies bearing the latter name over time), and hence potentially easier for a reader to find.

Any perceived duplication between the two articles should be alleviated as each is developed and its separate history and succession of members elucidated. BPK, 12/12/05.

I agree, for the reasons given above. The Singing Badger 17:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger in over two months, I'm assuming it's a dead issue and am removing the merger flag. BPK 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal was made again in July 2009, with the discussion taking place on the comment page of the Lord Chamberlaind's Men article. Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger (other than the original proposal itself), and no comment on the matter of any sort in four months (since September 2009), I am again assuming it is a dead issue, and am once again removing the merger flag. BPK (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New file

Since this entry is 33 kb long, I started a new entry, King's Men personnel, and transferred some data into it. I'll try to slim the entry further, if it can be done appropriately. Ugajin (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As an experiment I've added a Main article section for Personnel with its contents transcluded from the lede of the King's Men personnel article. Since the guidelines for a Main article section and the lede of an article are pretty much the same (WP:SS) and both should summarise the sub-article, this would be an elegant way to have one's cake and eat it too without having to maintain the same text in sync between two pages. Opinions? --Xover (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really work, does it? I can see that in principle it could, if the text were amended in such a way as to be appropriate as the lede of the one article and as a section of the other. AndyJones (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My theory here is that the text looks awkward in the section in King's Men because it doesn't follow the guidelines for the lede in the King's Men personnel article. I.e. the lede should be written such that it is also usable transcluded into a Main article section (and it then follows that if it isn't then we need to fix the lede). Of course, this may be one of those theory vs. practice things. My example here is the Pathology article where they've used this method extensively, and, IMO, to good effect. --Xover (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to put my money where my mouth is, I've attempted to expand the lede of King's Men personnel in more or less summary style (hopefully I didn't mess anything up). Take a look at how it works in the King's Men article now. Better? Can be made to work? Or should I stop bothering you fine people, revert my little experiment, and seek counselling for my technology fetish? :-) --Xover (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, don't give up on it. That's a definite improvement. How, though, are we going to deal with things that are supposed to be different between the two pages per MoS? For example, bolding the title of the subarticle in the first sentence of its lede, or wikilinking the first mention of the main article at its first appearance in the lede of the subarticle? AndyJones (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The spinout/title and spinout/link templates are supposed to take care of the two issues you bring up. I'm trying to figure out why it's not working. --Xover (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: It seems to have been a bug/limitation in the template related to the apostrophe in the article title. It looks like it's been fixed now (Thank you Geometry_guy!).

I've also noted that there's a section on personnel in Lord Chamberlain's Men that could profitably be incorporated into King's Men personnel (to provide more prose in addition to the list) and given the same transclusion treatment as on King's Men (after a suitable adaption of the lede). Do you think this looks like a worthwhile thing to attempt? Worth taking to the main WP:BARD Talk page for comment?

I don't think we ought to mess with William Shakespeare (being a FA and fairly stable and all), but I suspect we have a number of articles that could benefit from this setup if people agree that it's a useful way to do things and no showstopping problems crop up. --Xover (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Small Matter

This is a trivial arguement. As long as these articles are linked and clearly state that one group came from the other what difference does it make?

If it ain't broke, don't f*** it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.37.111 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Performances and itinerary source?

Is there a source for all the recorded performances of the King's Men and their itinerary when they went on tour? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Globe Theatre?

There's no introduction of the Globe Theatre into the article. The first Globe was built 1599 but then-Lord Chamberlains' Men didn't get their charter till 1603. Blackfriars was the group's second theatre. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the sequence to weave in a correct intro, but we need one here. Marquess, 25 Apr 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.14.87 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)