Talk:The Grand Duke

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

May 2006 discussion

I have just edited this article to change the third paragraph, which didn't come close to a neutral point of view. The comments on its quality were stated as if they were facts rather than widely-held (in as much as any opinion on this somewhat obscure operetta is that) but far from universal opinions. It is also a matter of opinion what constitutes a principal-quality voice, and a production's cost is unique to that production, depending on its set, publicity, cast's salaries (if it is professional) etc.; no company is obliged to spend any particular amount on The Grand Duke or any other show. Ou tis 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, but I think you threw out the baby with the bath water. I think that by removing detail about what people like and don't like about the opera, and putting in general statements like "too long" or "inferior" to the earlier works, you have removed clarity. Take a look at what I just added, and see if you can work with it. G&S wrote 13 operas in a similar "topsy-turvy", gently satiric style (I am not including Thespis). It is not that easy, in a brief introduction, to each to give the unique flavor of each show, which I have tried to do. So just saying, "some people think this one is the best" or worst, or whatever, doesn't prove sufficiently descriptive. If you can add something clearer or more descriptive, so that a reader unfamiliar with the opera can understand the issue, that would be useful. --Ssilvers 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your present version is rather good. Frankly I realised mine was inadequate but I added it anyway, as the previous version wouldn't do, hoping someone would improve it. Thank you for doing so. Ou tis 23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These G&S-related pages are definitely a WIP, so it certainly helps to have fresh eyes and perspectives take a look. Ideally, each should have a brief intro that gives a little flavor of what is interesting, unique or particularly amusing about each. I hope that the reader can get a sense of the unique "personality" of each opera before deciding whether or not to read the whole plot synopsis. Best regards, --Ssilvers 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#28

Now, surely this is misallocated - after all, doesn't the Notary and Rudolph show up at the end of it to stop them leaving? Ah, well. I'm revising all the music lists eventually, but Grand Duke I know least, so... Still! if I mention this here, I won't forget it. Adam Cuerden 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "Chorus" with "Ensemble" Marc Shepherd 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment section

I took the following out of the main article, and am "parking" it here:

Many find that the libretto of The Grand Duke, like that of Utopia Limited, is unfocused, leaving too many plot discrepancies, and believe that its libretto needs pruning or even rewriting. It also requires a larger principal cast than most of the earlier G&S operas. Consequently, it is produced less often than most of the earlier G&S operas (and usually with cuts). Nevertheless, some consider this opera underrated and feel that the story contains characters and situations that are as funny, the settings as fanciful, and music as cheery and flavourful as in any of the earlier G&S works.

I think all of the G&S articles should have a critical assessment section backed up by citable sources. The parapgraph above as it stands now is probably a fair summary of the various things people have said about The Grand Duke, but in its current uncited state, it's all weasel words. Marc Shepherd 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I let the Times reviewer speak for us. If one follows the link provided, the review pretty much covers what is being said in the paragraph that you removed, don't you think? --Ssilvers 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a great solution. Marc Shepherd 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soubrette a mezzo?

Is this correct? If so, it seems to parallel the humour of having the only non-German speak with a German accent. — Sebastian 07:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean? Yes, Lisa fits the general description of a soubrette. She is a light mezzo, often portrayed by sopranos. However, even the low-sitting Jessie Bond mezzo roles in G&S are considered soubrettes. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! I was thinking of the fach, which defines soubrette as soprano. (See also http://www.ipasource.com/soprano.) But Richard Miller, in Training Soprano Voices, lists Despina (a mezzo) as a "perfect example" of the soubrette intrigante. Intriguing, indeed! — Sebastian 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Thanks for your contributions, but please do not add red links unless you are planning to write an article about the red-linked subject shortly. Also, please note that the G&S Project (WP:G&S and WP:MUS discourage naming amateur theatre groups in WP articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GrandDukeposter.jpg

Image:GrandDukeposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's public domain, not fair use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Section "Productions Now. (Please update)"

I have completely removed this inappropriate section. Wikipedia articles are not blogs or crystal balls. Note also that comments like "please update" and 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) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an events listing. See WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satire - to link or not to link??

Of course links to "common" words can well become burdensome. In this case the word concerned has a very specific meaning and a long article; many people have no clear idea what it actually means (perhaps equating it with humour) or fail to identify examples of it. I would also submit that the link is relevant enough in this position - in fact at the very least as relevant as the greater number of such links. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In nearly every G&S-related article (there are over 400) we use the word satire. I think it is distracting to link it. We don't want people clicking away from The Grand Duke to find out about satire. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel passionately on the matter, but one could make an equally good case for linking to quite a number of articles - borderline perhaps, like this one. The point about being taken away from the matter in hand is shrewd, I think. I'd leave satire unlinked here. Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the satire article is not a model of clarity or good referencing. Indeed, it is not an easy article to write. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't want people clicking away from The Grand Duke to find out about satire." Surely unless they are a little confused about what is meant they are most unlikely to do so. And if they ARE unsure about what satire is then it will benefit their understanding of THIS article a lot - or of almost any G&S article for that matter. "In nearly every G&S-related article (there are over 400) we use the word satire." - Of course we do! Surely that is precisely why an occasional "first mention" link to the subject is so important! - How can anyone begin to appreciate G&S without some background as to the nature of satire? "I would also note that the satire article is not a model of clarity or good referencing." Alas, all too true - and totally irrelevant. Improve the article rather than supressing perfectly reasonable references to it. "Indeed, it is not an easy article to write." - nor, one suspects, to understand - in fact "satire" is a frequently misunderstood term - many folk blithely rabbit on about G&S being "satirical" who have no idea about which bits are genuinely satirical and which are simply very funny, without any real satiric intent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting point about what is and what isn't satirical in G&S. Mike Leigh, director of Topsy-Turvy is eloquent on his contention that Gilbert was never satirical; others are of the contrary view. Soundofmusicals is right to say that it is an imperfectly understood word. I'm still not persuaded that a link from here is altogether desirable from the average user's point of view (possibly more of a distraction than a help), but I am happy to go with the consensus. — Tim riley (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the link to the article on 'satire' is unnecessary. Jack1956 (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

I cannot reconcile this edit to the above English Wikipedia policy. @Ssilvers: please enlighten me or revert your edit. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at the wrong rule. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Sourcing_and_quotations: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "wrong rule" is an actually a policy whereas you state a guideline. The guideline you state continues "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." In this instance it is possible thus giving assurance to the reader about the reliability of what he is reading. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of most fictional works "it is possible" to give secondary sources to reviews. If you look at Featured articles about musicals and operas, however, they do not give inline cites. See Carousel, The King and I, H.M.S. Pinafore, The Sorcerer and Thespis. It just is *not customary* in Wikipedia. Your Times cite, however, is used further down in the article. The plot summary is made directly from the libretto. WP:PRIMARY contemplates and permits such usage of primary materials for mere summaries of facts, and the libretto is linked at the bottom of the article. The summary is not based on any review or reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ssilvers above. It is not necessary to add in-line cites to plot summaries. Jack1956 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack1956 for your (non) contribution. I am happy that the libretto snuffs out the need for a further reference...It is just that I cannot at present find where it is in the article. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to The Times review? It is cited under the heading "Original production and reception". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I cant find the Libretto...I know it is marked Libretto on Talk but isn't marked Libretto in the article. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added a direct link to the libretto, although it was already indirectly linked through the G&S Archive link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodstuff, thanks Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Grand Duke. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]