Talk:Players' Theatre

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

I am researching the performance history of the play 'Oscar Wilde' by Leslie & Sewell Stokes, starring Robert Morley, which was produced by Norman Marshall at the the Gate Theatre Studio, 16A Villiers Street, London WC2, 29 September – 8 November, 1936. Is it possible that the New Players Theatre, 4 The Arches, Villiers Street, and the Gate Theatre Studio are one and the same? Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Dnfenner

As far as I understand, this was not the Gate Theatre. There were a number of arches. This theatre originated as the Charing Cross Music Hall. That one, I believe began as a cinema. Kbthompson (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Gate Theatre Studio, it appears to refer to 16a. The dates are wrong though as this building was used as a cinema. Kbthompson (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

The text that appears in the main body of the Wikipedia page 'The Players' Theatre' was originally written around the time, or soon after, that The Players' closed in 2002. Subsequent to that closure a new company was set up with the remaining director and others and they went to court and bought all the intellectual rights and a large amount of material that had been seized.This was sold to them by The High Sheriff of London. The text that now appears on the www.playerstheatre.co.uk (who are the legal sucessors, as esplained earlier)was taken from Wikipedia. So this is exactly the opposite of what has now been claimed. In other words the Wikipedia text was used for the website and not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.7.30 (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I assume you are replying to the "Investigation of potential copyright issue" notice. If the text was copied from Wikipedia, rather than having been copied to Wikipedia, then the page at http://www.playerstheatre.co.uk/about-the-players-theatre/history-of-the-players/ should acknowledge Wikipedia as the source. See Wikipedia Copyright – Re-use of text for further details. If this be arranged promptly then I don't think there should be a problem. If it doesn't happen quickly there's a risk that the Wikipedia article will be deleted, but it can easily be restored if appropriate. Either way, a possible side-effect of Wikipedia being the source is that the article will appear to have no references to reliable sources and there won't be any reason for readers to believe that any of it is true. At the very least this will result in a prominent notice being slapped at the top of the article, and in the "worst" case any good-faith editor might prune the article back quite substantially. If anyone reading this has any books, reviews or newspaper articles that might be reliable sources for the article, it would be good to hear. - Pointillist (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have forwarded this to those who maintain the Players' website and it is now down to them to act.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.133.126 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright listing closure[edit]

(Copied from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 June 1) There is an unsubstantiated claim on the talk page that this is a backwards copyio, and I started out assuming that this was likely to be correct. However, the first changes of substance to the text of the article took place in July 2005 ([1]), and these are not reflected in that external source. Neither are the two names added in August of that year ([2]). In September of that year, somebody noticed that the word "be" was duplicated and removed it ([3]) - the word is still duplicated in that external source. Clearly, that website did not copy from us as claimed on the talk page. They could both have been taken from another source, but that does nothing to help us establish that we have the right to publish it. I would ordinarily recreate something like this as a stub, but there is not a single secondary source cited in that article and no real indication of notability, as colorful and interesting as the story is. I'll leave it for somebody else to do the necessary research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:SchroCat for doing so...and doing so like lightning. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]