Talk:His Majesty (opera)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The music was superb?[edit]

I want to argue about this. According to the reviews of the production, the music was considered too high a class for the Savoy. Imagine the sound of comic opera, then imagine the sound of oratorio. Now combine them for the sound of "comic oratorio"; the result can be imagined. Not like PDQ Bach, but too much in the Baroque style and not at all appropriate for the Savoy tradition. I think we ought to say something about this. I can't recall a single critic saying that it was "superb". This all appears in the SASS booklet on the opera. Slfarrell (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{fact}} tag to that statement. It is dubious, to say the least. There have been very few works in history (indeed, have there been any?) that were rated "superb by all accounts." Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a more exact quote from the cite that was right there, which praises the music and says that the book sucked. Read it yourselves. The Archive says "the London Times". Does it mean The Times? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the prior version called it "superb by all accounts." In fact, it was praised by only one account, and even there it was not actually called "superb". Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite any reviews with a different POV, please add them! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love that, but I haven't got a single one. Cliff has the book and that's how I know about it. But he left the project over a trifle with the Mirette page. Slfarrell (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff didn't accept the fact that people can (and should) edit your work on Wikipedia. BTW, what book? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I told him. It was the centenary booklet published by the SASS. It also contained info on Mirette. All the reviews of the productions are contained in this book. Sadly, there are no more copies available. Slfarrell (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction expansion[edit]

I have, at length, acquired the centenary booklet of the opera. Should I just put in the statements about the music, or should I go into great detail? Considering how often this'll get looked up, I think the former would be better, since it's low on the importance scale. Slfarrell (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I wouldn't put in lots of hugh long quotes, but maybe one good quote that is typical of the reactions and then short quotes or summaries from others of interest. Thanks!! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll put in greater details and we can edit from there. Slfarrell (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Feel free to pull this about if you think it's too negative. Slfarrell (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did some copy edits. Please check - I don't think it's necessarily too negative, but in a couple of places, I wasn't sure exactly what you are saying. So make sure I interpreted it correctly, and if not, try to clarify (remember, most readers will not know much about this). Also, do the reviews you cite have page numbers? Check the last sentence of each paragraph to make sure that it is properly cited in each case. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks fine. The reviews I cited do not include page numbers, but I think that's a really minor point. Is it *really* needed? Wearing's book may have them, but I do not. This article, I think, is more accurate now. Slfarrell (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on His Majesty (comic opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901175437/https://www.gsarchive.net/other_savoy/his_majesty/his_majesty_home.html to https://www.gsarchive.net/other_savoy/his_majesty/his_majesty_home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New image[edit]

User:Adam Cuerden, why did you substitute this image? It looks to me like the old image has better color and is plenty sharp. Can you explain? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Look at the signature in the lower right of the old image. Something's been done to it that ruined its reproduction, and the whole thing's kind of blurry. It's also cropped a bit weird. While you can argue about their appearance at thumbnail, I think it's better to treat image usage as a way to link things for use beyond the article itself. People like to come to Wikipedia to find images, and I think there's benefit to trying to provide them with the best quality copies we can instead of only thinking about the thumbnail.

As for colour, the one I replaced is brighter in colour, but I'm not sure that's actually accurate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 05:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]