Talk:Theatrical constraints

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theatrical constraints article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Stagecraft (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stagecraft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StagecraftWikipedia:WikiProject StagecraftTemplate:WikiProject StagecraftStagecraft articles

Introduction[edit]

I have no problem with the first sentence of this article.

But the second sentence loses me completely, and the balance of the article seems to be concentrated on something which, even if accurate would be a footnote, rather than a keynote of the concept "theatrical constraint". Given the somewhat confusing structuring of the article (I am ready to accept the particular facts as accurate), I think it needs not just clarifying, but establishing context and a reasonable perspective as to the relative significanse of the various threads therein. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

The tenor seemed to be that French monopoly/censorship laws caused theatre to develop in unusual ways in France, in order to dodge the claims. This probably belongs under Comédie Française if and when that article gets written. It isn't wholly irrelevant to the topic; I did add a mention of the Dogme 95 group, which is voluntarily using similar constraints to try to make movies. An article like this may well be doomed to be a collection of rather different bits. -- IHCOYC 18:24, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removed two paragraphs[edit]

The two paragraphs about the alleged "declarations" of the Comédie Française were neither sourced nor encyclopaedic, so I removed them both wholesale. The second paragraph even ended with an exclamation mark which is an absolute no-no in any kind of reference text. Also, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the "declarations" made by a single theatre would have any effect on the performances of other theatres, unless they somehow had such declarations passed into law, which again, I find incredibly hard to believe. The anecdote about the proscription of dialogue leading to monologue-only performances is utterly ludicrous and sounds like the sort of superficial "fun fact" that YouTuber "historians" like to refer to without ever providing legitimate sources to corroborate them. The remaining paragraph about cue-cards is more credible, but the sentence about "crowds coming from all around" to see how the performers "avoided such rigid censorship" is asinine editiorialising that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and once again, it's not sourced [and I doubt you could ever find a source for such a statement]. This article needs serious work, it's really not clear why it even exists, or what exactly "theatrical constraints" are other than natural physical and mechanical limitations that effect virtually everything in existence... 1.157.95.133 (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed a few other sentences and words that struck me as incredibly unencyclopaedic, as well as redundant, as in the needless explanation of "native actors" which called them "strolling players going from fairground to fairground, market place to market place". Such repetitive constructions should always be avoided outside of prose, IMHO. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]