![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Otter.gracie.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
66.167.253.62 02:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC): I just abandoned an attempt to clean up this mess, due to an incomplete understanding of the topic. Let me instead highlight some problems with this article:
This has all taken rather longer than I expected, so I am saving whilst I still know the difference between save and quit :) Telsa 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I have gotten into this mess of a subject. I have tried to add some British and US and Canadian data (I have worked at reps in all three) and I do believe that the reader should have a wealth of "see also"'s to look at and check out. I've added "actor" to lead them to yet another list of subjects to do with acting. I am a professional actor/director/teacher now somewhat retired, and with more time on my hands. I try to put myself in the position of someone coming into the profession, and wanting to look at the array of subjects confronting them, the ideal Wikipedia target, it seems to me. And more useful than any one book you can name. JohnClarknew 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A long time has gone by, and more articles get creeped in. I think that this page should be merged with Repertoire and Stock company (acting), because the idea of resident companies as opposed to one-off static or touring commercial productions in large theatres can be expressed in one article. Festival theatre should remain separate. I think that these articles should be merged under this heading (Repertory) only because this concept and usage grandfathered the development into the kinds that have followed. JohnClarknew 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A belated thanks to User:JohnClarknew for this excellent section, which he added six months ago. I worked in weekly rep in the Isle of Wight in the 1962 season as a leading man — 16 weeks, 16 plays, under exactly the working conditions John describes.
I'd like to add, for entertainment rather than for scholarly enterprise, that the pay was ridiculous (but I'm sure everyone guessed that — the management ran off with nearly all the money). IN ADDITION, male actors were expected to own a dinner jacket, a business suit, and a reasonable selection of dress shirts and ties; the women were expected to own one formal evening dress and at least two respectable day outfits. The point being, of course, that, thus equipped, virtually the entire oeuvre of Noel Coward, Terence Rattigan, Agatha Christie and William Douglas-Home could be presented without spending a sou for costumes. Period pieces were never performed, for that very reason. Ronnie Barker's autobiography [1] — although perhaps a trifle over-concerned with his sexual conquests in this milieu — is a very, very funny take on weekly rep. El Ingles 00:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That section is not written with a neutral point of view and doesn't sound encylopedic at all. 75.73.164.111 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous unsigned comment... while it may be entertaining it does not belong in an encylopedia. Will be working on this in the near future! The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess ( talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's why El Ingles put it here on the talk page. (His "I'd like to add..." should not, I think, be taken literally.) I'd like to add that (ideally entertaining) first-person clarifications of confusing topics (especially when they come with suggestions of books on the topic to follow up with) are very welcome on talk pages. Cheakamus ( talk) 04:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to clean up this page, particularly the reheasal schedule. It's still not up to standards as far as I'm concerned, but at least it is a better representation of what Wikipedia should be. -- The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess ( talk) 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Blander or better? It is important to adhere to the guidelines in order to keep a page from being deleted. Personal opinions and observations do not have a place in an encyclopedia. -- The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess ( talk) 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Pacerier ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC): ❝
❞
I added a history section that I believe should be included and would be a helpful addition in making this page less like a "personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay." I would be in favor of completely removing or reworking the "Pros and Cons" section. It feels very argumentative. I was thinking it could be replaced by a section detailing the future of repertory theatre. Obviously, a lot of work needs to be done here. Otter.gracie ( talk) 03:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Otter.gracie.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
66.167.253.62 02:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC): I just abandoned an attempt to clean up this mess, due to an incomplete understanding of the topic. Let me instead highlight some problems with this article:
This has all taken rather longer than I expected, so I am saving whilst I still know the difference between save and quit :) Telsa 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I have gotten into this mess of a subject. I have tried to add some British and US and Canadian data (I have worked at reps in all three) and I do believe that the reader should have a wealth of "see also"'s to look at and check out. I've added "actor" to lead them to yet another list of subjects to do with acting. I am a professional actor/director/teacher now somewhat retired, and with more time on my hands. I try to put myself in the position of someone coming into the profession, and wanting to look at the array of subjects confronting them, the ideal Wikipedia target, it seems to me. And more useful than any one book you can name. JohnClarknew 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A long time has gone by, and more articles get creeped in. I think that this page should be merged with Repertoire and Stock company (acting), because the idea of resident companies as opposed to one-off static or touring commercial productions in large theatres can be expressed in one article. Festival theatre should remain separate. I think that these articles should be merged under this heading (Repertory) only because this concept and usage grandfathered the development into the kinds that have followed. JohnClarknew 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A belated thanks to User:JohnClarknew for this excellent section, which he added six months ago. I worked in weekly rep in the Isle of Wight in the 1962 season as a leading man — 16 weeks, 16 plays, under exactly the working conditions John describes.
I'd like to add, for entertainment rather than for scholarly enterprise, that the pay was ridiculous (but I'm sure everyone guessed that — the management ran off with nearly all the money). IN ADDITION, male actors were expected to own a dinner jacket, a business suit, and a reasonable selection of dress shirts and ties; the women were expected to own one formal evening dress and at least two respectable day outfits. The point being, of course, that, thus equipped, virtually the entire oeuvre of Noel Coward, Terence Rattigan, Agatha Christie and William Douglas-Home could be presented without spending a sou for costumes. Period pieces were never performed, for that very reason. Ronnie Barker's autobiography [1] — although perhaps a trifle over-concerned with his sexual conquests in this milieu — is a very, very funny take on weekly rep. El Ingles 00:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That section is not written with a neutral point of view and doesn't sound encylopedic at all. 75.73.164.111 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous unsigned comment... while it may be entertaining it does not belong in an encylopedia. Will be working on this in the near future! The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess ( talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's why El Ingles put it here on the talk page. (His "I'd like to add..." should not, I think, be taken literally.) I'd like to add that (ideally entertaining) first-person clarifications of confusing topics (especially when they come with suggestions of books on the topic to follow up with) are very welcome on talk pages. Cheakamus ( talk) 04:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to clean up this page, particularly the reheasal schedule. It's still not up to standards as far as I'm concerned, but at least it is a better representation of what Wikipedia should be. -- The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess ( talk) 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Blander or better? It is important to adhere to the guidelines in order to keep a page from being deleted. Personal opinions and observations do not have a place in an encyclopedia. -- The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess ( talk) 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Pacerier ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC): ❝
❞
I added a history section that I believe should be included and would be a helpful addition in making this page less like a "personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay." I would be in favor of completely removing or reworking the "Pros and Cons" section. It feels very argumentative. I was thinking it could be replaced by a section detailing the future of repertory theatre. Obviously, a lot of work needs to be done here. Otter.gracie ( talk) 03:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)