Talk:King's Men (playing company)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Shakespeare High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare 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.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note[edit]

Wasn't the King's Men the London company of Lord Strange, also known as Ferdinando Stanley the 5th Earl of Derby?

I believe it was. BPK, 12/12/05.

Regarding the proposed merger, I would tend to disagree. The periods in which the company were the Lord Chamberlain's Men and the King's Men were two distinct phases in the group's history, and in light of the numerous mergers, breakups, changes in patrons and renamings of all the Elizabethan/Jacobean playing companies, retaining separate articles for each named group will help alleviate confusion. Besides, the Lord Chamberlain's Men is a less ambiguous name than the King's Men (there were a number of companies bearing the latter name over time), and hence potentially easier for a reader to find.

Any perceived duplication between the two articles should be alleviated as each is developed and its separate history and succession of members elucidated. BPK, 12/12/05.

I agree, for the reasons given above. The Singing Badger 17:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger in over two months, I'm assuming it's a dead issue and am removing the merger flag. BPK 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal was made again in July 2009, with the discussion taking place on the comment page of the Lord Chamberlaind's Men article. Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger (other than the original proposal itself), and no comment on the matter of any sort in four months (since September 2009), I am again assuming it is a dead issue, and am once again removing the merger flag. BPK (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New file[edit]

Since this entry is 33 kb long, I started a new entry, King's Men personnel, and transferred some data into it. I'll try to slim the entry further, if it can be done appropriately. Ugajin (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an experiment I've added a Main article section for Personnel with its contents transcluded from the lede of the King's Men personnel article. Since the guidelines for a Main article section and the lede of an article are pretty much the same (WP:SS) and both should summarise the sub-article, this would be an elegant way to have one's cake and eat it too without having to maintain the same text in sync between two pages. Opinions? --Xover (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't really work, does it? I can see that in principle it could, if the text were amended in such a way as to be appropriate as the lede of the one article and as a section of the other. AndyJones (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My theory here is that the text looks awkward in the section in King's Men because it doesn't follow the guidelines for the lede in the King's Men personnel article. I.e. the lede should be written such that it is also usable transcluded into a Main article section (and it then follows that if it isn't then we need to fix the lede). Of course, this may be one of those theory vs. practice things. My example here is the Pathology article where they've used this method extensively, and, IMO, to good effect. --Xover (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to put my money where my mouth is, I've attempted to expand the lede of King's Men personnel in more or less summary style (hopefully I didn't mess anything up). Take a look at how it works in the King's Men article now. Better? Can be made to work? Or should I stop bothering you fine people, revert my little experiment, and seek counselling for my technology fetish? :-) --Xover (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neat idea, don't give up on it. That's a definite improvement. How, though, are we going to deal with things that are supposed to be different between the two pages per MoS? For example, bolding the title of the subarticle in the first sentence of its lede, or wikilinking the first mention of the main article at its first appearance in the lede of the subarticle? AndyJones (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spinout/title and spinout/link templates are supposed to take care of the two issues you bring up. I'm trying to figure out why it's not working. --Xover (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It seems to have been a bug/limitation in the template related to the apostrophe in the article title. It looks like it's been fixed now (Thank you Geometry_guy!).

I've also noted that there's a section on personnel in Lord Chamberlain's Men that could profitably be incorporated into King's Men personnel (to provide more prose in addition to the list) and given the same transclusion treatment as on King's Men (after a suitable adaption of the lede). Do you think this looks like a worthwhile thing to attempt? Worth taking to the main WP:BARD Talk page for comment?

I don't think we ought to mess with William Shakespeare (being a FA and fairly stable and all), but I suspect we have a number of articles that could benefit from this setup if people agree that it's a useful way to do things and no showstopping problems crop up. --Xover (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Matter[edit]

This is a trivial arguement. As long as these articles are linked and clearly state that one group came from the other what difference does it make?

If it ain't broke, don't f*** it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.37.111 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performances and itinerary source?[edit]

Is there a source for all the recorded performances of the King's Men and their itinerary when they went on tour? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globe Theatre?[edit]

There's no introduction of the Globe Theatre into the article. The first Globe was built 1599 but then-Lord Chamberlains' Men didn't get their charter till 1603. Blackfriars was the group's second theatre. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the sequence to weave in a correct intro, but we need one here. Marquess, 25 Apr 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.14.87 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Fletcher / John Fletcher[edit]

There is something rather confusing about this article. At the beginning it mentions Lawrence Fletcher. Later in the article there are repeated mentions of "Fletcher" but these are actually references to John Fletcher (who is not actually linked to in the article except through the link to the collaboration Beaumont and Fletcher). I'm so far from an expert in this that I'm reluctant to rewrite, but someone more knowledgeable might want to. Parwig (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– There aren't many cases where I'd invoke the "long-term significance" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("substantially greater enduring notability and educational value"), but this is one of them. Shakespeare's troupe surely has more enduring notability than the other topics on the dab. None of the others really even come close. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All the king's horses and all the King's Men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again I should think that if there is a primary topic for "King's Men", it would be the men of the king (ie. the royal government). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no primary, and the current title (playing company) helpful, if a little archaic In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

King's Men[edit]

My reading of this article is that the King's Men were not revived after 1660? Is that a correct reading? In working on another article, a potential (secondary) source stated that they performed 43 plays in 1661. Thanks for any input.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the source (Helen Moore, on Guy Earl of Warwick play) distinguishes clearly between The King's Men and The King's Company in 1661, but I'm wondering now if there were actually two groups then.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

What does this mean? I cannot make sense of it:

The King's Men needed more men, and in 1604 the number of sharers was increased from eight or nine, ten, eleven and twelve.

Any idea what it should say? Perhaps it's been vandalised at some point? AndyJones (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First line of King’s Men article is objectively false.[edit]

As of today, the first sentence of this article is “The King’s Men was the acting company to which William Shakespeare (1564–1616) belonged for most of his career.” This is on its face false, as the King’s Men didn’t and could not have existed until James was coronated in 1603. That sentence would make more sense in the article for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain%27s_Men

As it is now, this doesn’t make any sense given we know many if not all of the plays were originally written during Elizabeth’s reign, when the King’s Men didn’t exist; and per Wikipedia’s Shakespeare biography article: “The 1616 edition of Ben Jonson’s Works names him on the cast lists for Every Man in His Humour (1598) and Sejanus His Fall (1603). The absence of his name from the 1605 cast list for Jonson’s Volpone is taken by some scholars as a sign that his acting career was nearing its end.”

Respectfully, this article (like all here on this site) should take a neutral point of view and not publish unsubstantiated claims, nevermind create them. 2600:4040:5AEF:B400:817C:3A9D:D7F7:795C (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]