Talk:The Scarlet Pimpernel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parodies and media references[edit]

Some work has been put into this section over the past months. I suspect that it could be weeded down a bit, but lets discuss here what items, if any, ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, going by WP:ENC, almost all of it. A source proving that something existed doesn't prove that it's worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, and the stuff without sources has no excuse. On top of that, the version that's on there includes just about every trivia mention any person off the street could think up but specifically does not mention a successful book adaption, which is one of the few notable things there. Hell, even some of the stuff I left technically isn't notable, but I was compromising. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as far as your claim that there was no consensus, talk page comments above were very clear. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree that the section could do with a bit of editing I do not think that the above discussion from one or two editors merits that the entire section should be deleted. Whittle it down a bit and make it more encyclopedic and keep it. If not, open it up for discussion among the wider community. Jack1956 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the view of Jack1956. No need for peremptory edits without a properly broad consensus. Manners maketh man. Tim riley (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now pruned some of the less notable references and have organized the section as follows: Films, TV, stage, literature and games. If you think any of it should be deleted, please explain, with respect to each item, why you think it is not encyclopedic, and we'll see if we can reach a consensus. But these all seem to be substantial references in notable works, not just passing mentions. All of it is either referenced or blue-linked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Court Jester[edit]

The well-known and highly-regarded 1955 musical comedy The Court Jester with Danny Kaye seems to have several elements which parody the Scarlet Pimpernel. To wit: one of the characters named The Black Fox (played by Edward Ashley), a Robin Hood-type character who leads a band of rebels in the forest in support of the true infant-king. The identity of the infant-king is recognized by the "purple pimpernel" birthmark on his derriere.
Perhaps this is too tangential to be mentioned in the article, but, not knowing what a pimpernel is, I always found this reference to be strange and confusing. Perhaps it could also be mentioned in the Court Jester article. —Ziusudra (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio Series[edit]

The article doesn't mention the 1950-53 Scarlet Pimpernel radio series. See[1] --Dfrankchat (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Spanglej (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article could do with a section on Reception or Reviews by critics[edit]

Article is interesting. Many opinions are expressed about it (most think . . . ) without citation. It is usual to have a section titled Reviews or Literary Significance, with reviews of the novel, the first one at original publication, and later reviews if such books have been written. Reviews would focus on the first novel, which is the main subject of the article. Has anyone searched for reviews from initial publication? Or a source to back up the statement that the Scarlet Pimpernel inspired Batman's character? That seems a stretch to me. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started the Literary significance section. The sentence from the lead is moved into that section, and then I found a book by Sally Dugan that is all about The Scarlet Pimpernel and the enduring popularity, for one quote from a critical reviewer. I hope others can find more reviews with citations. The Characters section should list those in this first novel. I would put a case for taking the sections about the series of book and making a new article about the series. This is common for novels in series (examples, Brother Cadfael -- Cadfael Chronicles, the several novel series by Bernard Cornwell, the Aubrey-Maturin series. Like this series, there is an article for each novel as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Scarlet Pimpernel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-spoiler lead[edit]

This is an encyclopedia. Our synopses should be explicit, not vague generalities in the name of avoiding spoilers. Awien (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Play or novel? Contradictory date information![edit]

Is this article about the novel or the play? The disambiguation page Scarlet Pimpernel (disambiguation) indicates that this article is about both. But the first sentence of this article is clearly about the novel, mentioning the play as a related item. The entire lede focuses on the novel: thus the second paragraph says "The novel is set during the Reign of Terror." Was the play also set in the Reign of Terror? We are never told the answer to that. The lede summarizes the plot of the novel, but says nothing about the plot of the play. Then the lede mentions that the play was very successful in London, but says nothing about whether the novel sold well.

When did the play premiere? The first paragraph says 1903. The third paragraph seems to imply 1905. The disambiguation page says 1903. Having read the body of the article, I think I have figured out the answer: The play opened in Nottingham in 1903 and failed, then opened in London in January 1905 and succeeded, and went on for a long run, and then the novel was written. Is this true? The lede claims that Orczy wrote the novel "was written after her stage play of the same title enjoyed a long run in London"? Did Orczy really wait until the London run was over before she began to write the novel? Is there a source for that?

The lede can summarize information and leave out things that the body of the article explains. But the lede shouldn't be misleading (no pun intended). As it stands, paragraph 2 describes the novel, and then paragraph 3 says that the play opened in London in 1905 -- even though (apparently) the latter happened before the novel was written. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]