Talk:Globe Theatre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

Would these images be good on this page? http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/HUA/TT/Globe/slide27.html http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/HUA/TT/Globe/slide28.html

They're a bit grainy. It might be possible to find better quality reproductions. Otherwise yes, I think so. The Singing Badger 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they would both be quite useful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the black & white ones are not much cop, but the bird's eye view ones of the theatre and surroundings that can be seen by scrolling through the images are great! Olliron 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that these links are broken now.Jim Stinson (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Worded Wrong

"Like all the other theatres, it was closed down by the Puritans in 1642, and was destroyed in 1644 to make room for tenements."

That leads me to believe that all the theatres in the world were closed down in 1642, and demolished in 1644 fir tenements...

Could we re-word it better? Billvoltage

Oh yes! Will do... The Singing Badger 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ref added --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Globe illustrations

The drawing referenced as http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/HUA/TT/Globe/slide27.html is probably the only authentic on-site drawing of the second Globe (there is none of the original Globe). Wenceslaus Hollar drew it, probably from the tower of Southwark Cathedral (called St. Mary Overie). It appears in more finished form in his panorama of London published in 1647. (In the engraved panorama, the names of the Globe and the nearby bear baiting ring are reversed. The strange shape of the bear ring's roof has led to speculation that it was cantilevered so that the house could be used for plays too, with a "heavens" suspended without posts, above a removable stage.) The second sketch is about worthless -- think of it as a map symbol/icon for a theater rather than a representation of it.Jim Stinson 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd added the following, but I'm new to Wiki and may have muffed it:

The illustration in the article is from the engraved and published version of the Hollar panorama, but "corrected" to "The Globe."Jim Stinson 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Globe replicas

There are quite a few replicas of the Globe around the world - there are 3 in Germany for a start - which could usefully be covered on this page --Pfold 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and it could be extended slightly

Strictly speaking, there are no replicas, since we don't know exactly what the Globe looked like (See Nagler on this critical point). For example, the Ashland OR theater, which I attend frequently, and which is cited in the article, is a large, fan-shaped amphitheater with vaguely Elizabethan decor and very roughly analogous acting areas, which can be re-shaped as needed for each play. Jim Stinson 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What Shows Were Like

Should there be a section detailing what shows were like?

Yes. The Singing Badger 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a heavily qualified maybe. We really don't have any first-hand descriptions of performances. We can infer from some evidence: archeologists found nut shells, so, OK, spectators ate nuts. Some people paid higher prices to sit on the stage. The pit was open, so the groundlings got wet (we read of no rain-checks in Henslowe's account records). Were they noisy and difficult, like some 18th century audiences? Did the actors posture and rant, as Hamlet describes them doing? Nobody can say for sure. What a pity that Shakespeare in Love has just enough mild sex to keep it out of many classrooms. The film is far and away the most plausible depiction we have of a playhouse performance. Jim Stinson 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Sides?

the part were it says there may be twenty sides links to an artical on 12 sided polygons 70.20.221.192 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Egan 2004 (cited below) points out that the 20 sides (or maybe 18) were calculated by measuring the angle between sides discovered in the partly uncovered foundation -- 20 sides if the angle was 162 degrees or 18 sides if the angle was 160. However, as he states and the official archaeological drawings show, the "angle" is no more than the intersection of two blobs and could be guesstimated at anywhere from 150 to 170 degrees. The latter would yield 36 sides! Jim Stinson 03:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The twenty sides is contentious; I was an archaeologist on the project and we uncovered around 6M of rammed chalk foundations plus the brick base of a stair tower. I have heard a number of estimates of size in discussions and will attempt to dig out our original reports. Note also that the dates are wrong. excavations took place in 1989 or 1990, after we finsihed the rose theatre project. Finally, the interpretation of the hazel nuts is also controverisla; a number of interpretations has been made, they were chiefly found on the rose site as we found no evidence on the globe site as we didn't get a look at the interior (it's under anchor terrace on southwark bridge road). —Preceding unsigned comment added by S ellinson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Checked cited sources: the excavation dates in the article were wrong (?typos) and have been changed. Thanks S ellinson for noticing this. The "hazelnuts" factoid is of little consequence and could be deleted. The other material is in the sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Globe Theater Photographs

These are on a University Website and may be free for use. But I am not certain of their licence. Hit CTRL+F and type globe in to the search box. You will see the globe photographs.

• http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~cash.36/London/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.206.69 (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

If you are not sure about their copyright/license status, we can't use them on Wikipedia. I suggest writing to the people who run the website at Ohio State. Maybe they can direct you to the right people. Cbdorsett 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This link is broken as of 25 July, 2015.Jim Stinson (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Replicas and References

I spent some time today cleaning up the list in the Replicas section. It could still use some attention with regard to the two theatres in Africa.

I strongly suggest locking this page for editing for a while - it seems to be a favorite vandlaism target for a middle-school class somewhere. Cbdorsett 05:52, 29 December 1998 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's my school! A lot of schools in UK/ Northern Ireland are doing a project on it at the moment. Don't worry, the project's over in a few weeks, but some people are so immature... User:Germs

Lighting

Someone posed an inappropriate question on the article page; but it was an interesting one "How was the theatre lighted?". In general, performances were done in the afternoon, so daylight was used. However, often people are stage directed to run in with torches, and the pace of the performance would be modified to the time of day - so, the more sombre/intimate moments of a play often occurred as twilight fell. Kbthompson 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's important to identify plays originally written for indoor venues, such as the first and second Blackfriars theaters, where artificial lighting was used.Jim Stinson 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

Regarding this edit, I believe it should be re-instated as a "cultural references" or "in popular culture" section. See Madame de Pompadour and Koh-i-Noor for other examples of where Doctor Who episodes have been included in articles. -- Chuq 10:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. Someone should compile a couple more references, though, because I think having a "Doctor Who" section is a little silly. Watchsmart 06:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have re-added it, and worded it so that the relevance of the theatre itself is indicated. More references would be good, however! -- Chuq (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shape

Isn't it actually a rotunda (it is in the octagon shaped buildings category)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little research it appears the original globe may have been octagonal per the image on this page, but the new globe looks very much circular. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Globe_Theatre#Layout_of_the_Globe. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a contemporary image. Possibly, from the style, nineteenth century, before the recent archaeology. The towers definitely look wrong, as though the whole thing were just a flight of artist's fantasy for a victorian-era children's book. It's in the same class as the image of King Arthur's court, on the same page! --Old Moonraker 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The "octagonal" image cited is no older than 19th century. The octagonal globe theories were based on the London panorama of Cornelius Visscher. But since he left several flying buttresses off St. Paul's cathedral in the same print, his Globe is unreliable.Jim Stinson 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for my "hexagon" comment, but i thought it was. I have now found much evidence to the contrary. Thankyou for pointing that out to me. andrew rickert 08:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Visscher's "unreliable" representation now included in the article. It isn't actually of the Globe at all and I'm about to delete it. See: Shapiro, I. A. (1948). "The Bankside Theatres: early engravings". Shakespeare Survey. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 31. …Visscher misnames it [sc. The Rose] the Globe and omits the latter altogether.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Further reproductions (from german wikipedia)

One of the first attempts to copy a Elizabethans theatre was Edward Lutgers' reproduction of the Globe for the exhibition “Shakespeare's England” in Earl's Court, London, in the year 1912. The building was delighted and therefore not large on a scale 1:2 for enough for performances. More or less exact copies of the Globe of theatre, whose accuracy depended on the theatre-scientific level of knowledge of the respective time as well as on the use intended in each case, became in 20. Century always again builds. For example 1936 for “Texas Centennial exposition” developed in Dallas, Texas, a “old Globe Theatre”, which had however only little together with the original Globe. To Globe theatres in Swabian resound To Globe theatres in Swabian resound A modified reproduction - a multi-storey construction from wood and steel - of the Globe Theatres (realizes 1988 in Rheda Wiedenbrück to the North-Rhine/Westphalian national horticultural show), standing in the theatre tradition, stands since 1991 in Neuss and offers more to than 500 spectators place. Here each summer a Shakespeare festival is organized, with which troops renowned internationally and national arise and which present Shakespeare inheritance in new form again and again. Further reproductions in Germany are in Swabian resound (by the free light plays Swabian resound used among other things, builds 2000) and in the European park in Rust (2000). Note: Operated from 1909 to 1995 that 1906 under the name Hicks Theatre open theatres in the Londoner west end as Globe Theatre. It does not have however except the name anything in common with the Elizabethan Globe Theatre. 1995 were renamed it in Gielgud Theatre.

Layout of the Globe

The figure 43 feet is a myth, generated by John Cranford Adams in his reconstruction of the Globe. Not only was his deduction based on the Fortune theater, which was square (rather than round or nearly so) but the arithmetic through which he arrived at 43 feet is faulty. Adams' reconstruction has been more influential than it should have been, since replicas at Hofstra College and the Library of Congress were based on it; but, in addition to publishing outright mistakes, his work specifies features in far greater detail than can be supported by evidence.Jim Stinson 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with citations please?

Today, I edited the Globe Layout section for two reasons: first, it presented far too many conjectures as facts, and second, it did not include the results of some recent studies. Since I'm new to this and not too tech-savvy, I don't know how to cite my sources.

The latest survey of Globe reconstructions is, Egan, Gabriel, "Reconstructions of the Globe: A Retrospective," Shakespeare Survey 52: Shakespeare and the Globe Cambridge University Press, 1999. Online at [[1]]

The most recent and comprehensive discussion of the Globe's dimensions is, Egan, Gabriel, "The 1599 Globe and its modern replica: Virtual Reality modelling of the archeological and pictorial evidence" (title capitalization follows the original) Early Modern Literary Studies, Special Issue 13, April, 2004. Online at [[2]]

I notice also that citations remain in the article for items I revised or cut. I don't know how to handle them.

BTW: To cite just one non-fact, there is no evidence whatever that Hamlet Senior's ghost appeared and disappeared via the stage trap door. Egan 1999 offers useful caution about the tendency of Globe reconstructors to present speculation as fact.

Apologies for making extra work. Jim Stinson 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replicas?

Strictly speaking, there are no replicas of the Globe(s) because there are no existing plans. Need to stress that "replicas" try to reproduce the acting areas, decor, and relationship between audience and stage. Ashland, OR, for instance, is successful in presenting the feeling of an Elizabethan playhouse, though its architecture is not even close. Jim Stinson 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wooden-O

With regard to the recent edit war over Henry V (play)'s 'Wooden-O', this was first applied to the The Theatre, so while apposite, it did not actually relate to this theatre. Kbthompson 14:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider edit-warring with User:Wrad—there has been only one edit each! --Old Moonraker 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My deletion of Shakespeare also nicknamed the theatre 'Wooden-O' has been reverted by a very knowledgeable editor. To me it reads too literally, e.g. WS: "I'm just popping over to the Wooden-O to check the receipts". It just doesn't read right. Could anybody supply a citation demonstrating the contemporary use of the phrase (beyond Henry v of course)? With that it could perhaps be re-phrased into the actual usage of the time. If not, I would still advocate deletion.

--Old Moonraker 14:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The current footnote cites Schoenbaum, but in A Compact Documentary Life (page 134) he suggests that the Henry v chorus was in fact referring to The Curtain. --Old Moonraker 14:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That would better fit the timeline of the play; they'd moved from the Theatre to the Curtain by then, but weren't yet in the Globe. (Apologies for applying the epithet edit war, it was just a skirmish, then ... 8^). I wouldn't have thought the term would have been used beyond the limits of the prologue to the play - but I like the idea. Kbthompson 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• To sum up then: it appears only in the prologue to Henry v and wasn't in use as a nickname. There, it was being applied to The Curtain (or possibly The Theatre) and not The Globe. I'm inclined to get on with deleting the passage once more.

-- Old Moonraker 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.

--Old Moonraker 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My Riverside Shakespeare footnote says that it could either be The Curtain or The Globe. I'm not sure we can remove the Globe entirely. The play was first performed in 1599, and in that year they performed both in The Curtain (early in the year) and in The Globe (later in the year). Wrad 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From Shapiro, it seems that construction of The Globe started very early in 1599, so User:Wrad could be right, although "could be right" doesn't get it into the encyclopedia, of course. My main objection is that that we have found just the one usage, in Henry v, and I don't believe this makes it common enough for a nickname. --Old Moonraker 07:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, "could be right" is about as far as you ever get with Shakespeare. I don't know about calling it a "nickname", though, either. It sounds colloquial and juvenile. Wrad 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightly expanded in the text, following the publication of a new book. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear Baiting House vs Globe

Looks like the caption photo (referring to Holler's sketch of the second Globe) got the two mixed up. Yosofun 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the original Hollar panorama, the labels of "The Globe" and "The Beere Bayting h" were swapped by the Amsterdam (or Antwerp?) engravers. It has long been the consensus that the double-gabled superstructure marks the Globe. The strange shape of the other roof has led to speculation that it was cantilevered and without supporting posts, so that the building could be quickly converted from theatre to bear pit and back. --Jim Stinson (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now back in the image caption, with explanation and reference. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Substituted another image from Commons, where the engraving image has been doctored (very neatly!) with the correct caption. The reference (from the National Portrait Gallery, London) remains as justification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Pit" or "yard"

An inline comment has asked that the contemporary usage be clarified. There is a footnote for both in the article: for "yard" it dates from a playwright of the time; for "pit" to the modern Britannica Student. The authoritative OED can cite "yard" to 1609, but "pit" only to 1649, although it is generally accepted that usages would have been common long before an identified written source. It seems likely that both terms are accurate, but if there is continued confusion "yard" should remain. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

The article deals with two very different topics - one is the Early Modern theatre called The Globe in its two lives, the other is Sam Wanamaker's 'Shakespeare's Globe'. They are of course linked but, nevertheless not the same thing at all - as we all know, they are not even on the same site. If there were two articles it would avoid havingto continually switch from one to the other.

--John Price (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - I've gone and done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pricejb (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't a lot of support (i.e. none) when you first mooted this, but now it's done I see that you are right. There's still a little to do to finish off: the lede here still seems to say (to this reader) that the article covers both topics; one of the redirects is a frustrating circular link. Nothing difficult, and I will give it some attention later today unless someone forestalls me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Both problems now dealt with. User:John Price has made a big improvement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlinks

Could you please hyperlink the Romeo and Juliet? Thanks. CS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.228.72 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) there was also a porn theater there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake2321249j (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hazelnuts and oranges

"Groundlings would eat hazelnuts during performances — during the excavation of the Globe, nutshells were found preserved in the dirt — or oranges" This is a rather clumsy and ungrammatical sentence which suddenly introduces oranges from nowhere. I would change it to something like "During the excavation of the Globe, nutshells were found preserved in the soil and it is thought that these were from hazelnuts eating by groundlings during performances. However, why is it thought to be only the groundlings ate these and also, what is the evidence for them eating oranges? Richerman (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Could go altogether: there's a suggestion above that the shells were found at the nearby Rose site anyhow. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference for shells forming the floor of "The Globe" now added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Anchor Terrace

Another point of confusion: this article says the original Globe is now occupied by the carpark of Anchor Terrace, whereas the click through to Anchor Terrace itself says that the building itself is on the site. Apparently, the reason that the original Globe can't be excavated is because Anchor Terrace is itself a historical building. This makes more sense, as I couldn't figure out why the authorities would even hesitate to blow up a parking garage and excavate the bejesus out of the site. Amirite? Can anyone dispositively clarify this?

PS: I zoomed in on the coordinates and couldn't tell the outline of the original Globe being mirrored by this carpark. Can anyone pin down the location better by referencing maybe the street intersection to which it's closest?

Terrific article, and thanks. IvyGold (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points, both. I can't really answer the first one, but perhaps the old building foundations were so close to the current building that excavation wasn't possible. That theory blows away my placing of the coordinates in the car park: it was supposed to be close to the red-painted curve just discernible, but, as suggested, there wouldn't be a problem with any excavation there. I've shifted the co-ordinates to the building. According to Mulryne, the "estate", as she puts it, underlies modern Southwark Bridge Road just to the south of Park Street and extends eastwards as far as Porter Street. That would put the theatre building slap in the middle of Anchor Terrace. Perhaps I should add this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Added: Thanks for the suggestion! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: the building has areas, which makes the "too dangerous to dig" theory fly a little higher. Picture here, right middle distance. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is, most of the remains are under Anchor Terrace; I have added some text which explains this. Also, if you have a look at this Google image of the corner of Southwark Bridge road and Park St (link) and observe the slighly curved line in the centre - that is the excavated area of the Globe's perimeter wall. --John Price (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looked again, using a picture with better resolution. The grey curve at the top of the image is definitely more convincing than the red one at the south end of the car park I was looking at: thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look at the McCudden refererence I added to the article, this provides a useful diagram. Next time I am in Southwark, I will take a photo of the car park and add this to the article. Perhaps there can be a subsection on the site as it is today? --John Price (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Very useful reference. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

outdent] Access-controlled car park, but the railings have gaps to peer through. The tiles marking the old outline spell out the name and there's a bronze plaque on the wall. Worth a look if you're in the area but not, as the Guide Michelin used to say, worth a detour. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John Price, for making the detour and bringing back the picture. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEMI

I've just checked the page history. in the last 250 edits there were just two of any use: one interwiki (fi:Wikipedia) and one portal. Time to request page protection, perhaps. Neither of the above would have been hampered. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Renewed 12 months—thanks User:Tedder. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not enough information

The wikipedia site does not have as much information on the site that is needed, take the globe theatre for example it only has when it was built and who was associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.124.7 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bribo312, 14 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the HISTORY section, the quotation marks around "wooden O" should be around "Crammed within this wooden O". This is the complete line from Henry V.

Bribo312 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Very close, but in fact the first bit, before the quotation marks, is a slight paraphrase to fit Bate's point to the WP article; wooden O is the only direct lift. The full quote would be "Or may we cram/ within this wooden O, the very casques/ that did affright the air at Agincourt?" --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 8

I've altered the 125 Park Street address in the footnote to Southwark, rather than the erroneous Camberwell, but the image that comes up, while correctly showing the location of the Globe, has a caption that still identifies it as in Camberwell. I also think that a street map showing Anchor Terrace and Park Street would be better than the current image, which is more or less identical to the one in the article. Perhaps someone who knows more about maps than I do could fix this, please. --GuillaumeTell 17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Open Street Map covers this area. I'll work one up from that in a day or so, unless anyone beats me to it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not enough detail in the above, but I've found an out-of-copyright plan of the Anchor Brewery (1:1056) to use as the outline base and a MOLAS survey for the information. Watch this space, in a few days or so. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, tried one. Suggestions, comments or layout tweaks? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good to me, and I've removed the now redundant footnote. One question: the new plan shows the C13 boundary ditches - what are they the boundaries of? The plot on which the theatre was built or .....? --GuillaumeTell 16:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right: the 1599 plot boundaries were matched with the existing, much older, drainage ditches. Maiden Lane ("wala puellarum") was originally a flood embankment with ditches either side. I originally had "1599", rather than "C13", but thought that it could mislead. I think I'll change it to "Course of 13th century ditch, used as 1599 plot boundary", or similar. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed—thanks for the suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Software bug [3]. I'm waiting for the "real soon now" fix, but meanwhile a workaround: To display the current version of the image, with the ditches tweaked, click through and view at 500px. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Switched to the deprecated Portable Network Graphics format, which actually works, while bracing myself for the inevitable telling-off from someone who's recently read Use SVG over PNG. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Page protection again

Six vandal attacks this morning (I'm on UTC) and, in a very crude test, zero productive edits from forty-eight, using Twinkle's "since mine" facility. There have been no productive IP edits in memory. I'm about to ask for page protection again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Approved. Thanks, User:Materialscientist. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Quincy Adams map

This clearly shows Maiden Lane, but was drawn before the exact site was positively identified. His location of The Globe is on the wrong side of the road. His Rose, on Rose Alley (a bit of a clue there), is spot on. After my last deletion I'm waiting for a second opinion before acting. Views, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Caption tweak, pro tem.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Map fixed, with reference. Caption de-tweaked. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Motto

Doesn't the the motto mean something closer to "Everyone acts/plays a part"? My Latin is poor, but this seems closer to both the actual words, as well as the likely meaning. — Aldaron • T/C 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion, used as a reference in the article, offers the literal translation: "the whole world moves the actor" and describes our (and Shakespeare's) common usage of "all the world's a stage" as a "mistranslation". However, Wikitionary allows both move (transitive) and act, giving us All the world acts the actor. The first sentence seems to be Any help?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

this article says that Shakespeare and friends stole the theatre in 1601 and rebuilt it as the Globe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3349063/Shakespeare-armed-robbers-stole-theatre-rebuilt-Globe-document-reveals.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F53:4F30:45B2:8640:A9B9:9F3A (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So does this Wikipedia article..--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Season of repertory theatre in New Zealand

Does this edit represent an example of WP:SOAP and unsuitable for inclusion in this article about seventeenth century history? The venue survived a WP:SPEEDY consideration but, if I had an account, I'd still be considering a deletion here. Views from registered editors?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. It feels slightly out of place in the History section, but in a hypothetical expanded version of the article it would be natural to include mention of modern reconstructions somewhere; much like an article on one of the plays would mention modern adaptations. So long as the language is neutral and the content can be cited, I don't really see a problem. But that being said, a big thanks to you, 217, for flagging the issue (and following up on it)! There are far too few eyeballs watching this and related articles, and they are a juicy target for people wanting to promote something. Much appreciated! (oh, and you do know they give out accounts here to anyone and for free, right? ;D) --Xover (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered reply. I think I've heard of a WP "now children, don't stick beans up your nose" policy, but at a risk of contravening it: this pop-up venue has "its return in 2017 at a new site with four in-house productions" but nobody has listed here (so far) the Globe's rather lack-lustre 2017 presentations. It was this I was putting forward as WP:SPAM. As a new, temporary venue it's obviously not a proper Globe reconstruction. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly worried about it (again, so long as it's neutrally worded and cited), but I also don't think we really need info on their plans for 2017. If this eventually turns out to have sufficient notability (and relevance to the historical Globe), we can recast the first part of the para to reflect that. Based on this I've removed that last sentence. Does that address your concerns? --Xover (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an improvement – thanks.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. And please do feel free to {{ping}} me if you think I can be of some assistance (IP editors can send pings to registered users, they just can't receive them). No guarantees, of course, that I'll be able to help, and my response time is unpredictable, but I really don't mind the notifications (too many pages on my watchlist so I can't keep up with them all "manually"). --Xover (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2016

Section "Layout" At the start of the second paragraph insert:

The stage was set in the south-east corner of the building, so as to be in shade during afternoon performances in Summer.

Thanks 217.155.32.221 (talk)) 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your help (and for introducing me to {{reflisttalk}}!--217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I notice this talk page has threads back to 2005 and it's starting to get kinda long. Would anyone mind if I requested one of the bots to start auto archiving it? (Please {{ping}} me in replies so I don't miss it). --Xover (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

148.253.164.193 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed correction

Locations. At present you have: "However, the precise location of the building remained unknown until a small part of the foundations, including one original pier base, was discovered in 1989". This is is wrong. The precise location (as confirmed by the 1989 excavation) appears on the 1896 Ordnance Survey 1:1,056 map of London, sheet VII.75, as "Site of The Globe Theatre".

Thus:

Delete "However, the precise location of the building remained unknown until a small part of the foundations, including one original pier base, was discovered in 1989"

Substitute: "The site of the Globe, beneath Anchor Terrace, was identified on the 1896 "Five Foot to the Mile" Ordnance Survey map of London as Site of The Globe Theatre. This was confirmed when a small part of the foundations, including one original pier base, was discovered during excavations in 1989.

As you can see the map is online and the URL works at the time of posting.

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The map is a primary source, so supporting this claim with it would be original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Could you perhaps provide a modern high-quality secondary source (a journal article, say) that could be cited for verification? --Xover (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. The point at issue is "the precise location…remained unknown…". It wasn't unknown; it was correctly identified in a prominent nineteenth-century publication.

I've followed the link to primary source you provided and I don't agree that the OS is one such. The map-makers have no connection to the original construction; they are not providing an "insider's view". They are professionals, examining evidence two centuries after the event.

WP:ANALYSIS provides that secondary sources should offer analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Henry James, the nineteenth century head of the OS, had a particular interest in antiquity and "channelled large amounts of energy and resources into historical projects" and he instructed his men to incorporate historical research into their work. I think that qualifies.

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Fails verification. The Ordnance Survey map only confirms what is already written in the article, that the property location was east of Southwark Bridge Road and south of Park Street. This general location was not lost. Other general locations, such as the site of the Rose Theater and two bear-baiting pits, are similarly given. The "precise location of the building" means where the foundation and structure actually were. The OS map makes no attempt to precisely indicate these former structures by means of building outlines, etc. At most, this is merely supplementary to references 7 and 8 in the previous sentence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks to you both. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm glad this was able to help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018

Section "Locations" After "a small part of the foundations, including one original pier base, was discovered in 1989" insert:

by the Department of Greater London Archaeology (now MOLA), and link through to Museum of London Archaeology Eiwilkes (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and supported by the existing source in the article.  Done. Please note that you're now autoconfirmed so you don't need to use {{edit semi-protected}} to request edits to protected articles. However, if you have a conflict of interest with the article it's a good idea to use {{request edit}} on the talk page instead of editing the article yourself. Thanks, and happy editing! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Tweak a couple of refs

Two trivial additions for consideration:

May a current weblink be replaced by a journal ref? The URL still works, but this would guard against possible future linkrot. Thus, in ==Location== the current refname "McCudden" becomes:

McCudden, Simon (Spring 1990). Hinton, Peter (ed.). "The discovery of the Globe Theatre" (PDF). London Archaeologist. 6 (6): 143–4.

In the book reference from The Site of the Globe Playhouse (Braines) (ref [8] at the time of posting) the page numbers are missing. May

pages=17–45

please be added to the ref?

Thanks --217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting us know! --Xover (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

And thanks to you, for sorting my References request into the Notes.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

math

where you add one and one together to make 11 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.142.135 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1