Talk:York Mystery Plays

Theatre High‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal York Mystery Plays is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The only manuscript?

Just to clarify the recent mild edit battle: the only known manuscript of the York plays is the Ashburnham one, now in the care of the British Museum and currently on display at York Art Gallery. This is the one studied by Lucy Toulmin Smith and Richard Beadle. All modern publications and performances go back to it. It is nearly complete. Of course there is always a theoretical possibility that another manuscript with part or all of the cycle will turn up. That would be very exciting, but there is no reason to expect it. A similar situation could arise with any other ancient document supposed unique. So it is reasonable to speak of "the" manuscript until or unless we are surprised by another. The present form of words will do, I think. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wholly agree, perfectly reasonable. Many thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know it is only "nearly complete", and what is missing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is well covered in the prefaces to the pubished editions, but in brief: there are several other surviving records of the identities of the plays according to the guilds responsible for performing them. Within particular plays there are occasional gaps where it is physically clear that a page or two is missing, or places where the manuscript is illegible (mostly it's very clear), and this will be apparent as a hiatus in the verse and the sense. Editors who have modernised the text have sometimes plugged such gaps with material from other cycles, such as Wakefield, or even from the Bible. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the clarification. Perhaps a note with some of this information might usefully be added to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilds

Any suggestions for suitable links to Pinners, Girdlers, Couchers or Water-leaders? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water into wire?

This was recently changed with the edit summary "39 - it's wiNe not wiRe". But all the sources I can find have "wire drawers". Is there a source for "winedrawers"? In fact, what are "winedrawers"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see your sources for wiRe! Here are some for wiNedrawers or wynedrawers: machias.edu, rochester.edu, http://reed.utoronto.ca, ^[dead link‍] ditto (second copy), yorkguides.co.uk and Google books. I assume winedrawers were tapsters or wine merchants. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll bother, thanks. The ones I have found now seem to be unreliable or mirror sources. But curious that Chester, London and Coventry all had "wiredrawers" as a guild alongside the "pinners". I wonder what would you consider as the definitive "original" source for the York Mystery Plays? Perhaps User:SamuelTheGhost could confirm (see above). I'm still a little sceptical that "wine-drawers" were a real guild. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toulmin Smith's version of the original source has "Wynedrawers". Purvis has "Wynedrawers". Beadle and King have "Winedrawers". Elsewhere the word is referred to here and here and here for example. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, SamuelTheGhost. So they were "Someone who worked at a vineyard or taphouse. They drew wine from barrels and were able to taste it and tell its quality, age, and origin." I guess not really accurate to link to vintner? What about viticulture? Or that last source gives: "one who conveyed wine from the riverside to vintners' houses" - so a specialist Drayman really? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability of references

This recent update is supported by a reference which fails to meet WP:V. It should be possible to verify sources, either because they are on-line, or in a book or journal that one can buy or find in a library. If the statement here is John Oxley's view, has he published it somewhere that we can examine and see further detail and the supporting evidence? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVDs

The 2010 season (wagon plays) has been recorded and put onto two DVDs.

Unfortunately the amazing 2012 play on stage in the ruins of St Mary's Abbey church was not recorded / is not available for purchase. It was incredibly beautiful as the sun set during the play and night fell. The ruins imparted an ancient atmosphere to the play. I've never seen any play like it and would pay a lot of money for a DVD of it. Lehasa (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you'd better make sure you see the 2016 production, in the Minster. Or there's still time for you to volunteer to take partt! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on York Mystery Plays. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]