Talk:Proscenium

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.

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

Old[edit]

cenium can refer to the literal architectural arch, the literal form of staging (using a proscenium) or the form of staging (whether or not the arch is present). Both Proscenium and Proscenium arch have some good information but Proscenium is filled with advertising. Proscenium is the broader term and, I feel, should be the final resting place of the two articles. --omtay38 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the two discuss different things. Proscenium should perhaps be renamed 'Proscenium theater' as this is what it really discusses. Proscenium arch is still a piece of achitechture and Proscenium theater is a style of performance and staging. ~~Against~~ the merge. Also, i removed the advertising here as it was inapropriate. Hopefully it won't become a chronic problem. 48v 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term Proscenium Arch is only used to describe the arch within a proscenium theater. If the the arch was used in other architectural forms, then I would see your point, but, because it isn't, I don't. A theater called a Proscenium theater must have a proscenium arch. If the theater is set up in the same fashion as proscenium theater (audience on one side, stage on the other) but does not have a proscenium arch, it is then referred to with the term end-on (which is another article entirely). I respect your intentions but do not find validity in your points. Thanks for gettin' rid of the advertising though! --omtay38 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I think that a merge would be appropriate with a ridirect for whichever article is done away with. 48v 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --omtay38 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Does anyone else use Proscenium to describe a literary conjecture that characters in fiction do not exist beyond the tableau of the stage? I think I picked this up from a professor long ago. Hamlet is an allegory that is meant to enlighten the audience with events that happen precisely as they appear framed by the arch, and that the characters do not exist off stage. This is dramatized in Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead in which those characters have no past, no future, and no memories. So Proscenium fiction would describe such works where it is pointless to wonder about the back story of the characters because their only purpose is to exist in the play they are preforming. --Tbmorgan74 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre or theater[edit]

The article contains numerous examples of both spellings. It should be consistent throughout, but which version? It is going to be too controversial to boldly change them ++ Putney Bridge (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sceno.org is dead[edit]

The external link provided gets you to some kind of curio shop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.7.1 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article[edit]

Closing in response to WP:ANRFC posting. There is consensus to keep the origins section, and the improvements made by Johnbod seem to address some of the issues. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 09:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The second section of this article, titled "Origins", focuses on the "Teatro Olimpico" as a counterexample of what a proscenium is [is not]. Is the article well served by such a section, or should we consider eliminating it? KDS4444^Talk 07:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Or maybe we should still have an "origins" section which doesn't mention this theater. I've already removed two photos of it that seemed irrelevant, but would like some input before I consider removing the rest of this content. KDS4444^Talk 07:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I don't see why removing this section would improve the article. As with anything, the origins, if well documented and supported by reliable sources, are indispensable to understanding a notion such as this. The fact that the Teatro Olimpico appears to be the first one to apply the proscenium conceps seems to merit a mention. We can discuss the extent of this mention and whether the section could use a copy edit. But I don't think the section needs to be scrapped at all. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Summoned by bot. What is the main argument for removing the Origins section? It is supported by reliable sources and is directly related to the subject of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes - the old version missed key points, and was actually inaccurate in some places. The Teatro Olimpico is relevant, but not as central as the old version suggested, and I have moved most of that to a sub-section. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.