Talk:American Shakespeare Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I would like to create a talk page to correct certain omissions on this page. 67.168.27.245 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Zapata[reply]

Mostly Spam[edit]

This article is quite spammy. It's possible that, if true, the facts about the Blackfriars playhouse make the building itself notable, but there's no indication in any literature I've seen that the company itself it notable in any way. I think it ought to be deleted. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in the area when the place was planned and opened, the local media definitely covered it sufficiently to give it notability. A search for "Shenandoah Shakespeare" (the organization's old name), and "American Shakespeare Center" in the archives for The News Virginian and The News Leader (particularly the latter) ought to give us plenty of third-party sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if you can pull it off. I also lived in the area during that time and didn't see anything in the News Leader that wasn't mostly transparent local boosterism, but I'm happy to leave the spam tag off and give you a chance to make a case for notability. It seems that if the company is truly notable, some references to not-so-local sources that are actually concerned with American theater ought to be available. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this article a little more, I wonder how you might feel about a Cleanup-spam tag in the interim? Googling long specific phrases from almost every part of the article shows that much of it is copy/paste from promotional literature. Anyway, I won't touch anything until we talk more. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you define "area", but I live ~120 miles away in Arlington Virginia. American Shakespeare Theatre, Shenandoah Shakespeare, and Blackfriars playhouse show up several times a year in local newspapers, particularly the Washington Post. I will agree that the article is self promoting, but I would feel that the producing company is well enough respected in the theatre community to justify keeping it.
ed
Ecragg (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also fair enough. How would you feel about a cleanup-spam tag at least, until some real references are found? I have seen mentions of ASC in the Post, but I have the feeling (unverified at this point, I admit) they're mostly like fun stuff to do on a weekend pieces as opposed to articles discussing actual notability of the company. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but the massive duplication across the web of the exact phraseology in much of this article makes me think that if deletion isn't the answer, severe trimming of the unverifiable and nonencyclopedic content of the article needs to get done. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objections to deleting the "notable people" section - the board of trustees and advisory board are not particularly notable. However based on 30+ years of theatre going in the wider DC region, everything else is accurate. The citation needed seems to be enough for me. If I didn't have my hands full on other articles I would be tempted to work on it, but as a volunteer my time is limited. The most I might have time to do is putting in an Infobox Theatre Group.
ed
Ecragg (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the accuracy of the material, but that it seems to me to be mostly promotional and generated by copy/paste from ASC's website. Does the tone not seem spammy to you, regardless of accuracy? I have neither time nor inclination to clean it up either, but it seems to me to be worth marking it for what it is. On the other hand, I certainly don't care enough to argue much, so pending SchuminWeb's comments, I'm inclined to leave it alone for now. Oh, but I do agree with you on the removal of the notable people section. Perhaps we should wait for SchuminWeb to weigh in on that as well? Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/* Blackfriars Playhouse */ removed only since Sam Wanamaker Playhouse opened in 2014[edit]

With the opening of the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse Blackfriars is no longer "the only" recreation. I realize that lacking original plans both are guestimates as to what the original theater looked like. I am not particular as to wording, I just object to the "only"

ed

Ecragg (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ecragg. I was wondering if you have a citation to substantiate this claim? My understanding is that the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse is NOT a re-creation of the original Blackfriars as it is based on actual sketches for a Jacobean theatre that was never built and turned into an "archetype theatre" -- not a re-creation of any particular playhouse. Given this, the ASC still does have the world's only re-creation of the Blackfriars in the world. Additionally, the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse is quite a bit smaller than the Blackfriars would've been and, therefore, the seating is positioned quite differently. Please definitely provide citations, but as far as I understand it the Blackfriars Playhouse is still the only recreation in the world of the interior of the original playhouse. Thanks! BrillLyle (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good Evening BrillLyle
My main point is that neither theater is a true recreation - we don't have any definitive plans for the original Blackfriars - or for that matter I could ask "Which Blackfriars" - there were two (see both the Wikipedia article Blackfriars Theatre and the Mezner book (reference 20 on the Blackfriars article). Despite ASC's recreation claim I regard both theaters as representative. In one way the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse is more accurate - it uses candlelight.
ed
Ecragg (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, I understand your points but again, isn't it about the intention of the builders? The ASC clearly worked to specifically build a recreation of the Blackfriars Playhouse (the version is not the point). From this BBC article, it is clear that the intention of the builders of the Wanamaker was to build an archetype of an indoor space, NOT a specific recreation: "This second theatre [the Wanamaker] is designed to replicate the indoor playhouses of the early 17th Century. It's not a reconstruction of one particular theatre - it's an archetype of the kind of indoor spaces in which the late romances of Shakespeare, the dark revenge plays of John Webster and the satirical city comedies of Ben Jonson would have been performed." Sutton, Isabel (6 January 2014). "Sam Wanamaker Playhouse: A Jacobean theatre on Bankside". BBC 4 Radio. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
To speak to your criticism that the theater uses electric light versus candlelight, I again understand what you are saying but I don't think it's the point. The intention of the ASC to build a recreation of the Blackfrairs Theatre. It's the fact. Using candlelight does not challenge this.
I still am not seeing citations that support the Wanamaker being a Blackfrairs Theatre. It may incorporate elements of the idea of the theatre, but it was not created with the express purpose of being a replica, like the ASC theatre was. BrillLyle (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrillLyle
I will have to be offline for the next 48 hours - I will get back to you Sunday afternoon East Coast Time
ed
Ecragg (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American Shakespeare Center. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Shakespeare_Center&oldid=1218485624"