Talk:West End theatre

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

Longest running W.E. Musical still on stage[edit]

I searched this on Google and each of the top ten results said it was 'Les Miserables', however, having seen the article on 'The Mousetrap' it's obvious this was written first. However, is it certain that the mousetrap has been showing non-stop in London's West End for all those years? That would explain why many websites list Les Mis and Phantom as being longer running. Grunners 00:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Les Mis and Phantom are the longest running Musicals I believe. The longest continuously running play in the world is The Mousetrap. It opened at the Ambassador's Theatre on Nov 25th 1952 and transferred to the St. Martin's Theatre in 1974 - It's now in it's 53rd year! History Martin TB 18:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have updated the longest running shows on the West-end and added opening dates of the first showing - not the first showing of the current theatre it is in. Opening dates have been sourced so there is no ambiguity in the numbers years and it can be updated easily on a yearly basis. I have also added Cats in the list - which despite running for 20 years was not in it... BenyG 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicals to be added in the list but exact details/references not yet sourced[edit]

  • Oh! Calcutta! - ran for 5-6 years, started in 1969
  • The Rocky Horror Show (original 1973 production) ran for 6 years ish, reprised many times since.--BenyG 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avenue Q - Ran for 5 years over two stages. Started 2006.

List of current Musicals[edit]

Would it not be nice to put a list of current running west end productions in this article? Check out Broadway to see what i mean. Basreuwer 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shouldn't be too difficult to do, either. Russell Brown 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of current/coming West End productions can get quite long, see example on [UKTW], this could be made more meaningful by restricting it to shows running for, say, 1 month or more ... shouldn't just be musicals as implied by the title of this thread though Robertiles 08:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List in "Theatreland" paragraph[edit]

What's the common factor in the rather disparate list at the end of this paragraph, please? --Old Moonraker 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None at all as far as I can see. An anonymous editor put it in ages back,I've removed it. -Dhodges 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. WP:BOLD! --Old Moonraker 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big names[edit]

The West End has attracted "big names" for decades - so why are only the last few years of "big names" listed? Moreover, why are they listed at all - it makes the introduction to the article read like an advertisement. While it may be interesting to present a List of West End performers by year, I suggest that it is moved to such an article - it's out of place here. Waggers 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, in the meantime, it could be moved downpage to an appendix. The How to ... section is just a second attempt to add wikispam, this time embedded in text. I'd suggest remove it completely. Kbthompson 11:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for the first paragraph[edit]

Can I see references for the first paragraph? It's probably right, but it should be referenced with inline citations. Dr. Submillimeter 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Hello everyone

I would like to raise an issue that I have with the external links section of this article. I recently tried to post several links to Official sites for some of the West End's biggest shows. They were then taken down because of commercial reasons, but I don't feel this is fair. This is because this page is for West End Theare. And so external links should have the url's of the West End's shows. But also, these sites are about 95% content and 5% ticket sales, and so are more about giving information about the show than selling tickets. My other issue with this is that below the external links, there are live url's that click through to Ticket Tout sites, that are not giving any official information and are SELLING tickets.

I would like your views on this and if possible a way that this can be resolved. The shows that I am wanting to post are Wicked, Avenue Q, Lord Of The Rings, Theatre Royal Haymarket, etc. Please feel free to check them out.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMediaMatt (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL for policy on external links. Also external links to Wicked, etc are not appropriate because they have their own articles on wiki, therefore should be internally linked. A link to Wicked on West End theatre is not relevant, exactly the same link on Wicked is (depending on consensus at that article's talk page).
As to tout sites, if you see them, please feel free to remove them. ... and by the way, thanks for discussing your use of external links. Kbthompson (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link I removed. It has been inserted seven (E&OE) times, by two separate editors (DigitalMediaMatt assured me that there is no sockpuppetry going on) and removed by three separate editors—in my view a clear case of spamming. DigitalMediaMatt also complained to me that "there are several URL's that go through to ticket booking and yet they remain..." Perhaps these need a bit of a trim as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: previous discussion with DigitalMediaMatt referred to above is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your replies. I'm glad we can clear this up. All I really wanted to sort out was that the reference url's on this article are not the official sites, and so I would prefer, and I'm sure so would most users, the reference be from the official show site, where all text, video & music content is straight from the producers of the show. If you are going to remove those tout sites, then could we possibly have a compromise and have the official show url's in their place? They would then be relevant to the article, as they are the right place to get all the information, all the "tout" sites have done is copied and pasted their info from them anyways. Thanks.

Nice - I've been meaning to do that for a long time. I am, though, going to re-add the Society of London Theatre site - as the closest thing the West End has to a trade body, I think it's a valid link on this article. -- Dafyd (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair enuff ... Kbthompson (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with just one more... --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all great work guys! but in the notes section, those are not official sites for tickets either. they are links to pages selling tickets. I am informed that some are tout's. Is there any way we could lose these too? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMediaMatt (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed tag for Toronto[edit]

I've been wondering what would count as an acceptable citation for the controversial mention of Toronto in the lead alongside New York. There are plenty of sources that agree that Toronto is the third biggest theatre city, such as Britannica Online; there are also many other (non-academic) sites that mention London, New York, and Toronto in one breath, such as here. Nevertheless, it would be hard to find something that would conclusively prove that any city can "represent the highest level of commercial theatre in the English-speaking world". It is commonly accepted that this status is true for London and New York, but how can we prove (or disprove) whether it is true for another city like Toronto? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with Britannica Online. As the guilty editor who added the tag without starting a discussion, I will replace it accordingly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks to User: Arctic Gnome.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical Schools[edit]

Today, I restored a list of theatrical schools that are noted for training artists for West End Theatre.

This list had recently been cut down to include only those schools on the Conference of Drama Schools, however this is NOT representative of the vast range of skills present in the West End.

For example, musicals are amongst the West End's most profitable shows and a huge proportion of artists appearing in musicals actually do not come from drama schools, but are actualy trained in DANCE or specifically MUSICAL THEATRE where drama is often the secondary skill.

Also, the Royal Opera House is officially reognised as a West End theatre, however there are no drama schools that supply artists for the ROYAL BALLET. I very much doubt if the Royal Ballet School will be joining the CoDS any time in the near future, yet it is one of the 'big six' most famous ballet schools in the world and is somewhat more prestigious than say the Drama Studio London or Rose Bruford.

In short, I have restored the original list of THEATREICAL schools, which offers a FAIR representation of notable schools in all the key skills of dance, music and drama. If anyone would like to debate this, feel free, but you will not convince me that only drama schools are notable for inclusion in this article and if necessary I will refer the matter to a more experienced editor for their opinion.

Firstly, "theatrical school" is an extremely marginal, to say the least, phrase that has no place in an encyclopedia; I've amended the section to "Training". When I trimmed the list, as I have again, I did so on the basis of notability; I used membership of the Conference as a criterion of notability (as established for the drama school article). This remains an appropriate criterion for this article. Your suggestion that the English National Ballet School, Royal Academy of Music and Royal Ballet School also train performers who work in West End theatre is, of course, right. Your suggestion that in musical theatre a performer's abilities in drama are secondary, though, is both alarming and out of step with high-quality professional practice in the West End; when it's good, it's not secondary. Many of the drama schools listed also train performers in musical theatre. What is needed for the article is an objective criterion to determine notability for non-drama school training institutions. That those just mentioned are notable is indisputable (I assume). I've excluded the others on the list in lieu of a demonstration of their notability in the training of West End theatre performers. (you also need to sign your posts - four of these:~ in a row). DionysosProteus (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted the list. You may find my opinion that drama can be considered a secondary skill alarming, but the reality is that it is often the case. Drama is not the be all and end all of a West End artist. For example, a person playing a character in Cats or Chicago would first be selected based upon their dance ability and then vocal, or for a technically demanding vocal production such as Wicked, the vocal ability would take prescedence. And just as a reminder if you've ever been to a West End audition, some actually ask you to fill in a card putting your skills in order of what you think is your stength and some audition notices will actually state, "dancers who sing well" for example.

Also it is still only an opinion, however valid, that membership of the CoDS is an objective criterion for notability. Looking at the 'Drama Schools' article, there is actually no reference or source on there supporting the statement which says "The Conference of Drama Schools comprises Britain’s 22 leading Drama Schools", so that in its-self can easily be viewed as a biased opinion. I could easily suggest that there is an equally objective criterion for many of the others, such as Bird College, Laine Theatre Arts and the Royal Ballet School that they are all supported on the Government's Dance & Drama Awards Scheme, which is specifically targeted at offering funded places in 'the leading' institutions for theatrical training. Many of them are also accredited to the Council for Dance Education and Training.

Also, the content of a schools individual article can also be taken as notability. The fact that the article for the Royal Ballet School contains an extensive and correctly referenced list of students who have gone on to work with the Royal Ballet and indeed in West End musicals etc, is surely proof enough of its notability in training West End artists. The Bird College article also has a referenced list of ex-students who have gone on to West End careers, as does the article for Laine Theatre Arts and so on.

I might also point out that you are blatantly exercising a bias for drama schools considering that in your list, you have altered the name of ArtsEd to 'ArtsEd London School Of Acting', which is not its name. It is either known as ArtsEd or Arts Educational Schools, London, it is not called a 'school of acting', it is a theatre college that happens to have an acting course.

You might find my opinions on drama alarming, but your narrow minded attitude to schools whose notability is unquestionable is slightly more so. On a personal note and if you take offence to it I do not apologise, but I get the impression that you are a typical drama snob who probably sees singing and dancing as second rate tat and not serious high-brow entertainment. Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can certainly keep your fantasies about me to yourself. The names are those used in the drama school article, from which they were cut and pasted; the logic of your accusation of bias is flawed. The notability criterion was established through consensus discussion among editors at the time; membership of the Conference indicates the quality of their training; that's how it is, like any other professional body in its field. It appears disingenuous of you to argue about the Royal Ballet, since I addressed that one explicitly above; perhaps you didn't read it properly? As for the rest, until notability for training West End theatre performers is demonstrated, they'll be removed. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two schools recently added, and now undone Crazydancing's undoing of that. You need to establish that these institutions are notable for the training of West End theatre performers. Your edit history note claims that the articles do that, but on examination no such notability is there. No doubt you feel these schools are terribly important, just as everyone who has studied at any of the many, many other institutions in London at which one can learn to act or dance or sing or whatever... that doesn't make them notable. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To follow the guideline in WP:TOPIC, the article would "contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". A pretty narrow definition which, if strictly applied, would do away with the whole section altogether. Any support for this? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally included certain schools in the list based on the fact that they are on the Government's list of schools offering the dance and drama awards, which I think is a legitimate criteria for notability. You earlier claimed that the notability of the Conference of Drama Schools was established "through consensus discussion among editors", but if that is true, the fact still remains that it is only the point of view of that particular group of editors that lead to that conclusion. In vast comparison, the Dance & Drama Awards exist specifically to highlight the standards of those 20 odd dance and drama schools, based on their track record in producing professional artists and the standard of their training. In that respect, there is a criteria for notability that doesn't really need 'concensus discussion', because it is already established. So, in reply to your typically arrogant comment, the schools I have been adding to the list are not just any old institution in London at which one can learn to act or dance or sing, but they are the ones whos notability is recognised beyond the realms of just the students that train there and indeed, beyond the theatrical profession itself. Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem here is that there's no Theatre in the United Kingdom.Amo (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Old Moonraker on this, we can't agree and it's only very loosely relevant, so we might as well get rid. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone: thanks Crazy-dancing for this WP:BOLD edit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing current productions in this article[edit]

This discussion has been moved to this page from [1]

Hey, im a member of wiki project musical theatre. I was just looking at this article and it is plagued by an awful awful list of aparently "Notable" performers. The list is just far too long, and for me just doesn't achieve anything. Can anyone think of another way? I mean some people are on the list 3 and 4 times and some repeated each year for the same show. I'll make an attempt at it, lemme know what you think Mark E (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the list of West End theatres should not include the most recent production with its opening and closing dates. This information belongs in the articles about the specific theaters, not in a general article about the West End. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm i sort of disagree on that one. It matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article and I think its useful to have an overview of what is on in the west end at this moment in time. I've taken out the list of performers though, was just no way to justify it being there.Mark E (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it matches the Broadway theatre article doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. I would prefer to see this list include the theatre's opening date and capacity and leave the production data to the specific theatre articles themselves. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed, although maybe not the opening/closing date of the production. I've just been adding stuff to the already existing template. I think the idea of having the opening date of the theatre is a good one, but this is probably not the sort of information people looking at a general article will want, so the production information is more important.Mark E (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself well or you're not grasping or simply ignoring the point I'm trying to make. I see nothing wrong with listing a current production in an article about a specific theatre, but in a general article about West End theatre, I don't think this information is pertinent or appropriate. The emphasis of the article is not supposed to be on the individual theatres themselves, but rather the history of West End theatre. How and when did it become the center of theatrical productions in London? (Amazingly, this very important issue isn't addressed at all!) What playwrights and performers began their careers there? What noteworthy productions premiered there? A list of theatres considered to be West End venues makes sense, but additional information about them should be in their own articles, which is the purpose of a Wikilink . . . if people want to know more about the history of XYZ Theatre, they can click on its link. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all the history is important, I would put it in myself but I don't have enough knowledge on that subject but i still think the current productions is important, otherwise it would just be an endless list.Mark E (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have said, "I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed," but without explaining why, other than because it matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article, whereas I have offered several valid reasons to support my opinion. Clearly we never will agree on this issue. I wish other people involved in this project would comment, but this discussion page doesn't seem to draw the attention the one for the film project does. In any event, I have added some historical details to the article, since it had an overload of contemporary information and nothing about the past. It's not much, but it's a start. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Great! And I agree its a shame that the projects arn't more active. Theatre is such an important aspect of the entertainment industry that seems to be often forgotten. And for having the list at the moment I think it is useful to 1) Give an overview of the current shows that are on. I'll be the first to agree the history is important, but the present it also important, and if we are going to have a list of theatres in the West End why not provide this information. I don't think the opening/closing dates of the production are important at all but I wouldn't know how to change the table 2) General for people who want to decide what to see. I would often check to see what was playing before it became so out of date that it wasn't a viable source anymore. Im happy to keep updating the article when new shows open/close. Mark E (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. Please refer to [2], where it very specifically states, "Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera." Similary, an article about West End theatre should not list current productions. If people want to decide what to see, there are numerous websites where that information is available, but they shouldn't be looking for a list of current events in an encyclopedia. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarkE asked for my thoughts on this subject. On first reading, it appears that the guidelines that LiteraryMaven cited (Wikipedia is not a directory) govern here. Showing the production for the theater would seem to be prohibited under those guidelines. I think that this issue should be raised in several places to get some discussion going and to help reach a consensus. I suggest raisng this on the talk pages of the 2 articles involved--West End theatre and Broadway theatre. You might also want to drop a note at the Musical theatre project talk page. I want to note that I have no strong feeling about either keeping the list of shows, deleting them, or some variation. However, the guidelines --that I see so far-- are on the side of deleting. This is not a matter of what is "nice to have", or "it's convenient", it's what makes an article readable and informative within the guidelines. (As a final thought, everyone should read: WP:IGNORE just for fun!) JeanColumbia (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obvious contradiction in the argument presented by LiteraryMaven above: how is including the current production in a theatre an advertisement in this article but not in the individual theatres' articles? Neither inclusion constitutes an advertisement--it is clearly factual information, and as such, appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines indicates that such factual information is prohibited.
This article is an overview of theatre in the West End. As such, it is entirely appropriate that a casual browser would be able to see an overview of the range of productions being performed currently. I agree that giving individual performers for each entry is too much detail, but the production, genre, playwright and director for each gives an appropriate overview of the current state of theatrical production in the West End. Regardless of whether it is "nice" or "convenient", it is also factual information appropriate to the scope of the article, and as such ought to appear here. It is presumptuous to suggest that the only reason anyone would want such information here is in order to decide what show to see; there are perfectly valid and scholarly reasons to want that information from an encyclopedia - obtaining an assessment of the current range and quality of West End theatrical production, for example. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should have "...regard to long-term historical perspective": see WP:RECENTISM. An ever-changing directory of West End shows seems to defeat this objective. Read, however, in the context of the few instances, suggested lower down the page, when topical information is useful.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction in my maintaining that including the current production of a theatre in this article constitutes an advertisement, but it is appropriate to list it in the individual theatres' articles. In the individual theatres' articles, the current production usually is last in a list of notable productions the venue has housed, which is information one would expect to find there. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So kindly explain how that does not constitute, according to your logic as expressed above in previous posts, an advertisement. If that information constitutes an advertisement, then it does not belong in any article in Wikipedia. If that information does not constitute an advertisement on the article page of the individual theatres, then it cannot constitute one in this article. The context of a particular article in no way determines its nature as an advertisement or not. If it is appropriate information in the individual articles, then a summary of that information for each theatre is appropriate (in terms of the prohibition against advertising) here. You can't have it both ways (at least, and claim your argument is coherent, anyway). DionysosProteus (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand LiteraryMaven's rationale. If you list a theater's current production as part of a list of notable productions that were staged in that theater in an article about a specific theater, you're including it as part of the theater's history and not promoting it as the current production playing there. You're not saying "Daisies for Daphne is now playing here, it opened on June 30, 1972 and will be closing on December 10, 2025", you're just listing Daisies for Daphne after Marogolds for Myrtle, Tempest in the Teapot, and No Sex Please, We're Nuns under "Notable productions". I agree that the table in this article looks like an ad for "This Week in the West End". As LiteraryMaven pointed out, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not definitely discourages a list of current promotions and current schedules, which this table is. How can anyone say it isn't? LargoLarry (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't since it offers neither promotional material of any kind nor is it a "current schedule". The table offers factual information on the topic at hand, namely the theatre of the West End. What constitutes the theatre of the West End currently is an appropriate part of that subject. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say it's not a current schedule when the column heading says "Current show"? 63.3.15.129 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because West End theatre is not merely a group of buildings. West End theatre is the set of productions being performed at the moment. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could go on for ever. Is it wrong to list current movies because its promoting them? Is it wrong to list current attractions at theme parks because its promoting them? Is having an article on anything and everything promoting that thing? YES! But who cares?!?! Some people need to take a chill pill to be honest.Mark E (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone who thinks a table listing current productions is out of place in this article. A lot of time and effort has gone into creating Wikipedia guidelines. You're not supposed to ignore them just because you don't like them and then tell other editors to "take a chill pill" when they disagree with you, especially when their arguments make sense. This website is intended to be an encyclopedia and it should be treated like one. If you disagree with What Wikipedia is not and Recentism, then you should explain why you do on their discussion pages. But when more than one editor refers to them to explain why a table of current productions doesn't belong in this article, "who cares?!?!" isn't an intelligent or mature response.
The reason blue links exists is to direct readers to articles where they can find additional information that doesn't belong in the article they're reading. If someone is reading West End theatre and wants to know more about the Adelphi Theatre, he can click on the link for it. In that article, he'll learn that The Rat Pack: Live From Las Vegas opened there on September 24, 2009. It belongs in that article because it is part of the history of the theatre, and mentioning it is not an advertisement for the show. Likewise, if you want to know who wrote, directed, and starred in The Rat Pack, you go to that article, because those details don't belong anywhere else. MovieMadness (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MovieMadness, simply ignoring the arguments presented above isn't an appropriate response either. If a current production isn't advertising in the theatre's article, neither is it such here. West End theatre is the set of productions currently performed--that multiplicity is its essence, and as such, belongs here. It is entirely appropriate factual information for an encyclopedic entry. So much for the objections based on What Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, you cite Recentism without acknowledging that this in no way forms part of wikipedia's policy. Which aspect of Recentism is relevant to the discussion here, exactly? DionysosProteus (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest running shows section outdated?[edit]

After just reading through the list I was wondering why the show Avenue Q was not on this list, running for over five years in the west end (according to it's sourced wikipedia page), any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.120.176 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main image[edit]

Perhaps there should be a picture at the beginning, like the Broadway Wiki page has? Might make the page look a bit better s'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.240.224 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Theatre[edit]

Any evidence to the contrary that this isn't a West End Theatre. Its located within London's West End sourced as new theatre in London's West End and I am not finding evidence that it isn't.Blethering Scot 13:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the venue has been removed from the list of theatres for some time, to fairly answer the question, when their own "About us" page describes the St James as "the first stop for ambitious productions with designs on the West End", then it's clear even they acknowledge that they aren't actually a West End theatre as the term is understood, even if they are close to the traditional West End Theatreland, and on the site of a former West End theatre. oknazevad (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Theatre[edit]

So now that the Bridge Theatre has opened for business, I'm wondering if and where we should include it in this article. On one hand, it's a large commercial theatre, not a grant-supported one, so including it in the section "London's non-commercial theatres" seems inappropriate, being commercial. On the other hand, it's being programmed much like one (a year of shows in limited runs produced by the owners of the theatre), and like many of the non-commercial houses it's located well outside the traditional West End Theatreland. Should it go into the chart like the other commercial theatres? To do such would probably require fairly frequent updating as the limited runs come and go, but Cytkory's yeoman work on keeping that updated (as at the Broadway article) is as always much appreciated. What say you all? oknazevad (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question, but i'd go with because it's a "producing" house rather than a "receiving" house then it is not a West End theatre.Mark E (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that, but the same can be said for the Theatre Royal Haymarket. (And to a certain extent the same is true for any theatre that's owned by Lloyd Webber or Mackintosh that are home to productions where they're also producers, but that's somewhat different as they're open-ended runs, not a programmed seasons like Haymarket or the Bridge.) So I don't know if that's necessarily a deal breaker. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe a location thing. No West End theatres south of the river from what I can tell, I guess that would include the Old Vic and National if there were. Also where does that leave Charing Cross Theatre? Mark E (talk)
Well, the Old Vic and National are covered in the non-commercial section. And Charing Cross, like the Young Vic and Donmar Warehouse falls into the Off West End category despite the location (Donmar is also in Theatreland), indicating that location isn't defining even if it's the etymology of the name. The Bridge is definitely a different bird. It's a producing house outside Theatreland, but it's a large, for-profit commercial venture. None of those are unique factors, but it is a unique combination. I'm inclined to include it personally, because it's a large commercial theatre. oknazevad (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a West End theatre by location, nor a receiving theatre. For now I wouldn't include.Blethering Scot 22:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on West End theatre. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of West End theatre producer into West End theatre[edit]

West End theatre producer is perenial stub lacking appropriate sourcing. Closest analog in Broadway may be the redirect Broadway production. Ost (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heck, I don't think there is anything really salvageable from that article and would just as soon propose deletion. There is no reason for it to ever be linked to; someone who want to include a relevant link should just link here directly in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC) PS, Broadway production is just a redirect to Broadway theatre.[reply]

I decided to say "to heck with it" and boldly just redirected it. There is zero need for that article, and it contained nothing beyond a dictionary definition. If I knew it existed I would have redirected it years ago. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion and for addressing it! —Ost (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_End_theatre&oldid=1219416256"