Talk:Princess Ida

message: That does not look right to me.  I think it should be "Whom thou has chained."  Are you sure?  --Ssilvers 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what it says in the VS (well, "chain'd", but that's because I have the god-awful crap fest of the 1970's re-setting with its ridiculously stupid font choice.) and is the correct old-fashioned declecion of "have"  (I have, thou hast, he hath). Adam Cuerden 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked a range of scores and librettos, and "hast" it is. Marc Shepherd 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whom thou hast chained?

message: I changed this to Bass-baritone, and it was changed back to baritone.  Anyone who has ever sung Hildebrand can tell you that it sits very low, like Pirate King and Don A.  Yes, Hildebrand has to shout a high F, but the tessitura of the role is definitely bassy.  But suit yourself.  --Ssilvers 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocal range of Hildebrand

message: I would not categorize copy editing and adding sections which already existed as major edits. Perhaps there were in my edits changes to the nuance of the text, which were not my intention; I feel the text isn't altogether clear in places, and is slightly verbose in others. Here are my proposed edits to the copy along with my reasons.
*I feel the statement regarding 8/14 could easily be elided to the previous sentence to improve its flow.
**Wikipedia prefers short sentences (see WP:MOS).  I really think it's clearer in two sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bearing with my gaffes, as they occur. I'm going through a bout of wikipedia editing, and simultaneously preparing the score of Ida for an upcoming production, so I thought I'd combine the two. I won't claim much scholarly knowledge, which is part part of the reason for my being here--- --Blehfu (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing 

message: I have completely removed this inappropriate section. Wikipedia articles are not blogs or crystal balls. Note also that instructions like "please update" and the other instructional comments are completely inappropriate in an article. When a production takes place, and if it is notable, it can be added to the performance history. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Section "Productions Now. (Please update)"

message: The plot and musical numbers sections need to be moved up and to stand as section 1 & section 2, replacing the details of the personal lives of Gilbert which should be moved down as far less on-point to the topic.  As it is, the lead is buried.  One comes to this article to learn about Princess Ida, and would go to a different article if one wanted to learn all about Gilbert or Sullivan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organize 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that five illustrations from this article will be appearing as picture of the day on March 30, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurbs at Template:POTD/2014-03-30 (check for the subpages). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustrations

message: These all go to http://www.xo.com/cloud-it-services/, which I assume is a mistake. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I updated the links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 46, 48-51 

message: I changed 
 woman will treat man better than he has treated her
to
 woman will treat man better than she was treated by him 
merely because the former was a slightly awkward direct quote from the libretto; but I care not.
With the second, I adamantly hold that one cannot resent an individual per se. One may be resentful of an act, or an individual's behaviour, but not themselves. Blanche is not resentful of Ida's existence, but her attitude; the original use is a crude mistake, lamentably favoured in the US. And this is a British work of art. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but "resents" is a much better construction than "is resentful of".  Clarity and brevity beats pedantry on Wikipedia and in good writing generally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright I guess we're not writing poetry - more's the pity. Some day Wikipedia will be writ in black verse, I trow. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Blank verse?  That's funny, but I sincerely hope not!  Render unto poets the things that are poetic; and unto Wikipedians, free content in clear, concise prose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'm not serious; but I think the literary articles should at least be well written. Do you think the shades of the poets never come back and laugh at them? Or don't you believe they have WiFi in Elysium? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: The following question was posted at the Helpdesk by an IP editor on 13 July.
"The second paragraph in the Genesis section of the article on Gilbert & Sullivan's opera Princess Ida contains errors. Some of the incorrect information is actually available correctly in other Wikipedia articles. 
1. Queen's College was not the first 'higher education' institution for women in the UK. It provided teaching, but not at that level.
2. Westfield College was not the first women's college in the University of London.
In both cases the correct college is Bedford College, founded 1849, and now part of Royal Holloway and Bedford New College.
Articles on Queen's, Westfield and Bedford are all correct on this, it's just the Princess Ida article."
:My answer at the time was
:I have corrected the references to Westfield College. The question of first 'higher education' institution for women in the UK is debatable. Queen's College, London, founded 1847 and Bedford College, London, founded 1849, both offered a mixture of school and higher education when they opened. TSventon (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ssilvers I have replaced "then a constituent college of the University of London" with "the first college to open with the aim of educating women for University of London degrees" as the college was not a constituent college of the University of London at the beginning.  It was only accepted as a School of the University of London (in the Faculty of Arts) in 1902. I believe this is accurate, if a bit clunky. I have made a similar edit to the college article. TSventon (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in the article