Talk:His Majesty's Theatre, London

message: I am currently working on a book on the Romantic Ballet of Cesare Pugni and the ballets of his time and after (I've written an article on Pugni here on wiki). 
The Ballet company known as the "Paris Opera Ballet" was known at that time as the "Ballet du Théâtre de l'Académie Royale de Musique"
The ballet "Stella" was never staged at Her Majesty's Theatre.
Edgecombe's article is not a good reference. Guest's "the Romantic Balet in England" is far better and doesnt contain errors.
I moved the paragraphs concerning the romantic ballet to the section on Benjamin Lumley - it was due to him that the Romantic ballet thrived at that time at Her Majesty's Theatre.
I replaced the image of Marie Taglioni in "Zéphire et Flore" with one of the ballerinas in "Pas de Quatre". The image from "Zéphire et Flore" is from a performance staged in Russia, so its out of place here. "Pas de Quatre" is the most famous ballet ever staged at Her Majesty's Theatre.
--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that - certainly not my area of expertise. Kbthompson (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit on 09-01 by MrLopez2681 

message: Would it be worth a sentence on the celebrated 'miracle' at a Haydn premiere when everyone rushed forward to applaud at the end and thus escaped being hit by the big chandelier that fell down on the stalls? Hence the name of the Miracle Symphony (No 96) though in fact it wasn't 96 that had just been played. I can dig out chapter and verse if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Celebrated?  That sounds like a synonym for "notable"... so, yes, by all means dig.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it was #102. But was it at HM's? --GuillaumeTell 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Miracle 

message: as it stands it takes the reader more than 8 senteces to ascertain the location of the subject as London, England.  Alternatively the reader is forced to refer to the box, which may not show on the first page for some screen resolutions.
Can we change the opening sentence to say "in the City of Westminster, England", or just simply "in Greater London area"?
58.246.141.67 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, it's on Earth. BTW Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is a fair point. Not everyone knows the City of Westminster is part of London. Plus I'm not sure how many people would say "in the Haymarket", as opposed to "on Haymarket".--Nickhh (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, the clue is in :West End theatre - like :Broadway theatre - it locates the subject unambiguously. We also generally go from the more specific to the general. 'Greater London' is about 660 sq mi, and often conflated with the eponymous City. I would suggest 'located on' is superfluous. The need is always to provide location without either over specifying it (expressions like 'a London Borough in London); explaining the peculiarly complicated organisation of London's local government in every article; or stating the obvious - as a 'world class' conurbation, London is possibly more familiar to readers than England. Following the links also removes any ambiguity as to locus. HTH  Kbthompson (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously it simply said "in the City of Westminster [full stop]", without any reference of any sort to London or England. And "West End theatre" again doesn't immediately identify it to those out of a certain loop. Anyway, I think the current version is fine in this respect. --Nickhh (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible to explain what westminster is in the first sentence? 

message: I'm a little concerned at the proliferation of red-links. A featured article should not contain red-links. I accept some may be aspirational for the development of articles, but this should be done when the article is complete, not as an interim measure. We'll need to unlink them if an article is not forthcoming quickly. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support unlinking any that you think are not particularly notable subjects per WP:REDLINK.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red-links 

message: The dates for rebuilding (top RH) of page show 1872. The main article refers to 1868. This earlier date is correct as Mapleson was lessee from October to November 1868 and as co-lessee with Frederick Gye from 1869 to 1871 Autumn season. 86.207.40.7 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I deleted the info from the infobox, as the rebuilding info doesn't need to be at the top of the article.  Better to streamline the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in infobox

message: I just read reference 23, and it doesn't say the Military Symphony premiered at the King's Theatre. According to Buildings for Music by Michael Forsyth, it premiered in January 1794 at the Hanover Square Rooms, before Salomon moved his concerts to the King's Theatre. Babygrand1 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After a hasty rummage in the archives I think Babygrand1 may well be right. I am about to be away for a week, with minimal internet access, but will look into this more thoroughly on my return, if no-one else gets in first. Certainly others of the London Symphonies were premiered at the King's Theatre, so any necessary revision of the present text can be fairly seamless. Tim riley (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an emergency fix.  Tim can refine it when he returns, unless someone else does.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Symphony 

message: sadly following the death of her majesty Queen Elizabeth ii, the name of this theatre is now his majesty's theatre 185.3.100.51 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 00:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  (No it is not.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: au contraire mon ami TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What you meant to say was "It has now been confirmed the name will change, which was not confirmed yet when this section was opened." Yeah, there is evidence now. Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

text: But it hasn't been changed yet. "The theatre name change will take place after the coronation." GrindtXX (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The theatre officially changes to His Majesty's Theatre tomorrow. The owner's website has been updated and the URL for the theatre it's self has changed. Please can someone amend the title of the page when possible. Thanks 5.148.10.170 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  change the name of article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Her Majesty's Theatre →  – As confirmed by Lloyd Webber himself and updated in official websites, theatre's name was officially changed today. Steven a91 (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Support - it is official and now that the King is crowned and has granted permission to rename the theatre, it's best that we give it a speedy move. 20chances (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 May 2023 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Her Majesty's Theatre (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: This 2008 FA uses unreliable sources, has image layout issues, and appears hardly updated or watched.  I've listed it at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  12:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the lead has major issues. It does not summarize the body well but instead spends much of the word count discussing name changes. Some of that is inevitable but most of the name history should be in a body section or footnote.  (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a thorough source check. I've just removed part of the article that was not supported by the source given there. DrKay (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FARGIVEN 

message: User:SandyGeorgia, I thought that image captions should not end in a period unless the caption is a complete sentence? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in that case, there are two bits ... there is that exception somewhere.  Perhaps recast the whole thing to be only one fragment without punc, or one complete sentence with punc? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I went for the recast here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes the caption a whole line longer in my screen view, so I changed the period to a semicolon. I think that keeping the caption as concise as possible is more important than the punctuation issue.  OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Image captions

message: Great work on saving this FA! A few notes from reading through:
1. Any reason not to use Template:Blockquote instead of Template:Block indent? The former is meant for quoted material.
::OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I don't understand you, but the Fisher review says that the theatre is the "starting point for this brand-new series...".  I think this is worth citing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Isn't the review referring there (and almost everywhere else) to Theatre Royal Haymarket? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my goodness.  It is not good to get old.  Now replaced with relevant cite. But I do think it is worth mentioning the series. And, happily, the New York Arts article does better than a passing mention.  If you keep scrolling, it has a paragraph lower down and a couple more mentions.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I like your copy edits. I'll leave items 2,3, and 4 for User:Tim riley -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bits for improvement 

message: In §Background, possible correction needed:  "...there were continual disagreements been the actors and their manager…."  Should this be "...'between' the actors and their manager…" instead of 'been'? 2601:900:4300:9A9:D259:506:1643:F2E1 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, yes you are right. I have corrected the spelling. DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible wrong word