Talk:His Majesty's Theatre, London/Archive 1

Disambiguation
Is there only one Her Majesty's Theatre in the world? Deb 19:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, there's another one in australia: http://www.hermaj.com/
 * Disambiguation should occur when necessary, not speculatively. Gillian Tipson 23:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

GA nominee
Please feel free to help improve the article. Kbthompson (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review 2

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Great work! Passing it now. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thank you for that, and a very thorough review. This helps no end in moving it forward to FA. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
I assessed the article as "high" importance for the Theatre project. Maybe it's top, but I'll leave it to the project folks if they wish to promote it more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Second theatre section
Congrats on the GA award. I thought maybe you could do with a fresh eye before the FA pace hots up. I've already corrected an obviously wrong date, and a couple of other things in this section also seem to me to need a look:
 * The raw version of part of the text currently says:
 *  until 1794 it was the home of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane company, while that company's home theatre was itself rebuilt and renamed the Haymarket Opera House. 
 * Three interlocking points here. First, the impression given to a new reader (me) is that it was Drury Lane that was renamed Haymarket Opera House;  second, whether or not that's true (and I bet it isn't), the piping of Haymarket to Drury Lane is truly bizarre; third, the Lloyd ref makes no mention of "Haymarket Opera House", so an extra source is needed. I hope I am making myself clear.


 * I'm also concerned that there seems to be a massive amount about ballet and not a lot about opera in this section. There were zillions of British premières of Rossini operas in the theatre and who knows what else.  I can add some stuff (from Opera Grove) reasonably easily.


 * I wonder if this section, and probably others, could perhaps be broken up with sub-headings, as the paras seem pretty long. Just a suggestion.


 * --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right - and thank you for a careful proof reading. Every time I found a brief mention of a notable composer it opened up a whole world of premières. The principle source for this article, the Survey of London mentions that the history of the the theatre is incomplete because it's never been properly researched. I don't want to go the way of OR, but if we can drawer together references from other sources, that would actually be academically useful, as well as improve the article.
 * Much of the ballet text was inherited, and we had to both rein back the floridness of the language - and find references for it. My impression, from reading those sources, is that it was an important venue in the development of ballet through the romantic period. This is not to underplay its importance to opera and the general music scene over the period - I've just not got the sources for Rossini.
 * I'll check that phrase against the original source. Please do feel free to improve the article and thank you for your comments. Kbthompson (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope the rephrasing clarifies that it was this theatre that was know as the Italian Opera House. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've put in a few Rossini premieres for now. Re the above, it's a great improvement, but there's still no reference for the alleged name of "Haymarket Opera House";  if such a ref can be provided, some further clarification is needed, as the phrase "after it became the home of the Theatre Royal Drury Lane, company" is ambiguous - does it mean "from 1791 when it became their home" (but the TRDL company wasn't an opera company) or "after the new TRDL opened and the company moved out, i.e. in 1794".  Sorry to keep worrying away at this, but it really doesn't read very well.


 * On theatre managers: According to Grove, Taylor was "a bank clerk by training" rather than a lawyer.  And there is also no mention of John Ebers, who ran the theatre from 1821-1827 and wrote a book about it to boot.  (Both of them deserve a WP entry, IMO.)  It was Ebers who sublet the theatre to Benelli for the Rossini season, which was in 1824 not 1823.  I'll sort this out tomorrow, with refs, unless you object (and I'll add in a few more UK Rossini and other premieres!). --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great additions, GT! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't but agree - the intention is to improve the article. Taylor is described as a 'lawyer' in the Survey, other sources may vary .... Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread what you said, the Guide to British Theatres 1750-1950 lists the name as the Italian Opera House, Haymarket. The Survey says Benelli took over the lease for two years at a cost of about £10k. There were a lot of managers of the theatre, we tried to include the most notable - I have no problem if you want to include Seven Years of the King's Theatre - John Ebers. Is there anything substantive in it? I'm being dumb, with this theatre, there probably is! Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Monthly Review'' Ralph Griffiths (May 1749-Apr 1825)pp 53-65 has a rather scathing review of Mr Ebbers involvement with the theatre, and his book. Kbthompson (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, you were also looking for the sobriquet Haymarket Opera House; that is the title of the Survey article ... HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's long past my bedtime (that's because the cricket is on the radio), but the Survey page that you point to says "This chapter [which is entitled 'The Haymarket Opera House', as you say] describes the theatre known at various dates as the Queen's, the King's, Her Majesty's, His Majesty's, or the Opera House." Note that that list doesn't actually include The Haymarket Opera House, so I'd interpret "The Haymarket Opera House" as a general term invented by the Survey to encompass all the names by which the Opera House was really known at various times. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * London's Lost Theatres of the Nineteenth Century Erroll Sherson pp 199 (1972, Ayer Publishing) (here and Victoriaweb refer to the house, admittedly in a colloquial sense as the Haymarket Opera House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging those up, but it really does look like a colloquial name rather than an official one. Opera Grove gives only Queen's Theatre, King's Theatre and Her/His Majesty's (and Royal Italian Opera was an annual subscription series based at various different theatres, not a theatre name). --GuillaumeTell (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)  P.S. I'm having computer problems and am camping out on a friend's laptop when he's not using it, but I hope to put in a bit more opera stuff when I can - this evening, with any luck.

Carlton Hotel
I'm not currently inclined to add this to the article, but the hotel itself is notable. It was opened in 1899, by the great chef Auguste Escoffier and hotelier César Ritz, as one of their first after leaving the Savoy. The à la Carte menu was invented here, and in 1913, Ho Chi Minh trained as a pastry chef under Escoffier (Blue plaque attached to NZ House). Ritz had a nervous breakdown in 1901, leaving Escoffier to run the Carlton until 1919. Kbthompson (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a short footnote to the article with some of this info, but it sure sounds like the Carlton is interesting enough for an article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Long Run references
I don't know what Guiness and Traubner say about long runs in the theatre, but apparently they do not cover the subject adequately. Certainly Traubner makes no attempt to be comprehensive. Salad Days surpassed the run of Chu Chin Chow in 1955. I don't know why the reviewers don't like the reference that was there. I have found it very reliable, and it is the only complete reference of its kind that I have seen. Too bad. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knows? You can read what I changed it too here, on page 217. I'm still trying to work out why a HQ repro of the poster on the outside of the theatre would be OK, but a reduced publicity version is not. Kbthompson (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FA
Thanks are due to everybody who had a hand in the FA. You think you're ready after the GA - but really it's just a poor gap analysis on your part ... It was truly a collaborative effort to improve the article. Kbthompson (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arising from peripheral discussions to the FA, a number of improvements were identified:
 * Lead photograph with better perspective, the current one suffers from fore-shortening
 * Second theatre section is quite long, and could do with sub-sectioning. One possible suggestion is to divide it by management, but we need to ensure that there are at least 2-3 paras in each section.
 * There is some material on the original theatre equipment (from Tree's theatre), the current Phantom stage equipment is interleaved with it. Probably worth a mention in the last section.
 * Please feel free to comment if on these, or if you have additional suggestions. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On #2, I can certainly provide more info to bulk out the reigns of the various managers into 2-3 paras each. This would be from Opera Grove, which has articles on all of them and on the theatre.  Also more on I masnadieri from various books on Verdi.


 * Sounds good. With a little more text, it will be easier to add in the manager subheadings.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On #3, I see that Pevsner's Westminster vol notes "Exceptionally complete wooden stage machinery" (and also comments on the basement bar and other interior features).


 * And contrary to my edit summaries in the article history, there is a bit more to say about opera in the third theatre - at least one world première, more British premières and the residency of Sir Thomas Beecham and his BNOC, up till about 1924.
 * --GuillaumeTell (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, and I've never been so glad it is now tomorrow ... (see WP:Main Page).
 * Should we test the changes at Her Majesty's Theatre/temp, in our own user space, or just go for it? Kbthompson (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to do my thing at Her Majesty's Theatre/temp - hopefully tomorrow, but who knows? - and let y'all know when it's ready to roll. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now copied the 2nd Theatre section into the /temp space as above and put in sub-sub-headings for the various managers (query - who was the manager between 1814 and 1821?). Any comments on the headings?  The Ebers and Lumley sections are the ones that need at least one more para, and I can do that (tomorrow). Incidentally, I could also fairly easily create WP stubs or articles for Taylor, Ebers and Laporte, and indeed for Giovanni Andrea Battista Gallini (aka Sir John Gallini), if that sounds like a good idea. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'd drop the 'manager and dates' from the header, it's clear from the text that they're manager and the dates are distracting. I think Taylor and Ebbers would naturally go in one section, as would Laporte and Lumley. I have moved Taylor down to the right place - note he didn't become manager of the second theatre until 1793, and the first two para's discuss the construction and background. That also deals with the need for a 'lead' for the section. I wouldn't just pad it to make it longer, succintness is also a virtue!
 * cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [addendum], it's probably only worth creating stubs if they did anything notable independent of this theatre. Taylor was a lawyer, took over this theatre, went bust (and probably ran away to France). Ebbers, Laporte and Mapleson all had other careers, I think. Kbthompson (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ebers, John (c.1785–1858), bookseller and opera manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through it today and think it is probably ready to go up - Guilliaume (if I may use your first name) - would you like to do the honours, since it's mostly your contributions? There is a way of doing it administratively to maintain the history, but the only time I saw that done - it lost everything - including the main article! Kbthompson (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've been busy on other things, but will have a glance through it tomorrow - there may be a little more that I can say in the Lumley section, but otherwise, I've finished with the second theatre.  I can paste this text back in without any undue disruption, but it will only credit me with the improvements, if you don't mind that.  Also, as I said above, I want to add a bit more operatic content to Phipps's theatre, but that's a separate exercise.
 * As for my first name, Kb (if I may call you by yours), it's actually Andrew :) --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers Andrew, I'm Kevin ... people did actually call me kb for years, I have less problem with you taking the credit than me being responsible for losing the lot! The only time I saw it done - by another admin, the lot was lost and I did somehow manage to recover the required version out of the resulting soup - but I remain unsure as to how I did that ... Kbthompson (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I've been sidetracked by this and that, but I've finally uploaded the 2nd theatre section from the /temp area, incorporating the additional singers added by Eebahgum but unlinking those who were already linked and knocking off the superfluous "and" per Ss. I think it looks OK.  I'll get round to adding the Thomas Beecham and Dame Ethel Smyth operatic stuff to the 3rd theatre section in due course. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work, GT! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn fine cherry pie. I dropped a note to User talk:Eebahgum, just to make sure s/he knew what was going on. It looks fine, good job Andrew. Kbthompson (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Images
According to WP:MoS, we're supposed to leave the images at the user default value. My default is set to 200px; these are somewhat larger and could leave the article looking deficient on a 640px screen, a laptop, or a mobile phone. That's why it's done that way, but I'll bow to superior wisdom ... Kbthompson (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add, I do have some images to add - when I get them out of the camera. Particularly the arcade ... I understand now why the theatre is so foreshortened - the photographer must have been lying on the pavement. There's no other shot - except with an architectural lens, I'll try to get one, but it might be difficult to borrow. Kbthompson (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yo, heads up Mr Ilvers - it's user defined! Kbthompson (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The images are now at the "thumb" default value. The "upright" signal is less than default. Most people's defalt is 180px. Before the images were showing on my screen at about 140px which is very narrow. I think they must now be showing on your screen at 200px. But I would not put in the "upright" signal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. The default value defines the width of the image. The upright tag is supposed to adjust the width of the image to acknowledge that it it is taller than it is wide. Kbthompson (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but the "upright" tag changes the aspect ratio to make the image artificially narrow - in fact, narrower than your usual default, because it changes the width, but not the length. Your default setting for "thumb" works correctly only if you do *not* use the "upright" tag. The "upright" tag distorts the image, makes the caption unnecessarily long and generally makes the image hard to see. I can hardly think of an instance in which I would not remove the "upright" tag. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting at you - much - and a few deviations aren't going to hurt. In fact will improve the page layout. Just ensuring we don't go on a non-MoS jag! Kbthompson (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are far to many images in this article - the layout is tasteless and cluttered. It looks like total CRAP. Mrlopez2681 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, a little more helpful to make suggestions on improvements, by way of constructive criticism. Kbthompson (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)