Talk:Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

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 Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily 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 ^Notify_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^talk 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)

• The {{refimprove}} template seems too vague and general for an article of this standard. Please use more specific templates such as {{cn}} to tag particular passages if they seem to need more support. Andrew (talk) 09:38, 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 10:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not trying to make allies or friends, as I don't see Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Featured article review? DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 13 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)

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)