Talk:Lord Chamberlain's Men

Merger proposal

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.

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 22:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-propose the merger of these two articles. My argument is simply; Nearly all of the playing groups in this period went through namechanges, sometimes numerous. Splitting all of the articles in question up would actually make things much more confusing, making it seem as if there were much more playing groups then there actually were, spread around in numerous very small articles that are hard to oversee. I would also like to note that of all the playing group wiki articles i have visited(and i have visited alot of them) do not follow your proposal - instead they incorporate all of the names used for their corresponding groups into one single article. Lastly, it would be very simply just to make this page redirect to the King's men page, so that anyone looking for the Chamberlain's men will automatically get to the correct page.

In any case, this page does not add up with the other wikipages about playing groups. Such pages should have a common guideline on these matters. Thus, either split all of the Playing group pages, or get all of them together(which already seems to be the case in every instance except this one). Omegastar (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep.Naturally, I disagree with your reasoning, not necessarily for other companies, but certainly for these two, owing to their much greater prominence as Shakespeare's companies. For that matter, since most companies (though admittedly not these two) were formed, not by renaming or direct succession, but by consolidation of previous companies or new alliances between players of previous ones that had gone defunct, I'm not sure I agree with you in those instances, either. In any case, based on the past history of the merger proposal, only you and I appear to feel strongly one way or other other about the issue. Unless that changes, there would seem to be no need to alter the status quo.

Except in one instance. Looking over this article's more recent editing history I notice that it was progressively gutted of material at one stage by an anonymous editor, for no stated or discernible reason. Not sure why no one seems to have caught it. So as soon as I sign off here, I'm going to restore the missing material. BPK (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger in four months, I am again assuming it is a dead issue, and am once again removing the merger flag. BPK (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd word "saltypiratean" in article

"this arrangement freed the players from reliance on saltypiratean impresario/manager" I can't find this word anywhere else online or in my paper dictionaries, and googling the two component words separately comes up with, well, shall we say, nothing obviously relevant...

Bob. 138.104.73.100 10:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect a vandal by the name of saltypirate inserted her/his handle before the word "an". Dgcuff 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Examination of the history for this article shows that it has recently been the object of similarly juvenile scrawls, so I'll remove "saltypirate". Dgcuff 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"sex company" - that can't be right, surely?

The article contains the phrase "This situation changed when the sex company leased lands in Southwark", which seems a little bizarre to me. Is this right? I can't see where in the history it might have appeared (is there a Wikipedia equivalent of "svn blame"?)

TinyClanger (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. It was quite recent. I've fixed it. AndyJones (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

"Shakespeare's activities before 1594 have been a matter of considerable inquiry; he may have been with Pembroke's Men and Derby's Men in the early 1590s." The Lord Chamberlain was the Earl of Pembroke and the Lord Strange was the Earl of Derby. Could someone please clarify this?--Stephen C Wells (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Costumes and props

This section reports Philip Henslowe's props inventory. Wasn't Henslowe proprietor of the rival Admiral's Men? I'm thinking off deleting this.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, transferred it to Philip Henslowe's own page.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)