Talk:Haddon Hall

[Untitled]

Why are all the illustrations stacked down the side like a travel magazine? (I meant folding brochure.) --Wetman 23:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried them in about 20 different configurations (using preview) after the recent addition, and this was the only way of getting readable text flow. I've suggested elsewhere that the solution might be an image gallery at the end of the article, but do try out any arrangement that appeals! Espresso Addict 00:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Espresso Addict's arrangement is better than the one I had. Really, we need more text to embed the pictures into. Persoanlly, I'm not that keen on galleries, as they are an open invitation for hopeless picures to be added willy-nilly.--MichaelMaggs 07:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How's that now? I eliminated the spurious "crest", no more than a marketing logo. Houses don't have "crests" or coats-of-arms. Ever. The remaining images are all of value. More text would surelyhelp with the formatting--Wetman 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement. Agree more text would assist with formatting; I've added another sentence from Images of England info, which might be a useful link to add, but I've never been there so I can't really help much! Espresso Addict 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Allan Cunningham

Why won't this link work in the footnote? Can anyone help? -- Ssilvers 12:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Long Gallery Image

An editor substituted the current image for a grainy 1912 photo of the hall, taken from the opposite end seen here: File:Illustration facing page 288 of The Elizabethan People.png (note that in one light enters from windows off of the left foreground, and in the other, light enters from the right at rear). I reverted the change, and I think I prefer the 1890s image, but I am happy to discuss why you think the 1912 image is better than the 1890s image. In any event, if you give your reasons, we can discuss it and try to reach a consensus with other editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do what you like, but it not a grainy photo; its 1.5 MB of PNG of a reasonable illustration, with good contrast, and, as I said, works well as a thumb and provides a much larger image. The sepia image is 32 KB, some like that look, but that is as big as it will ever be. I could adjust the white point a little, probably needs it. I've linked them both. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I do think the sepia image looks better. Most readers will only see the thumb, but if you click on the sepia image, you go to the file page, which links the 1912 image, so you get to see both images. So I think it's the best of both worlds. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The role of Haddon Hall in "Christmas Revels" productions in the US

Please forgive any errors in how I am presenting this idea; other than once correcting a typo, this is my first suggestion on an article!

I would like to suggest that a section be added to the Haddon Hall article describing the use of a fictionalized Haddon Hall, based on the real Derbyshire estate, as the setting for many "Christmas Revels" productions by Revels, Inc. in Watertown, MA and its affiliates in nine other U.S. cities. Revels blend traditional music, dance and storytelling to bring the world’s cultural traditions to life in theatrical celebrations that incorporate professional and amateur performers as well as audience participation. (See Wikipedia's article: Revels). The concept of the revels was created by recording artist and music educator John Langstaff for a New York City production in 1957 incorporated into Hallmark Hall of Fame programs in 1964-5, revived in 1971 as a stage production, and continued ever since, at Christmas/solstice time and other festivities throughout the year. Early productions were based around English medieval song, dance, mime and a mummers play. Through the years the concept has expanded to feature various settings and cultural traditions, but Haddon Hall in Derbyshire is the one setting that has been reprised numerous times. For example, in its founding city the Christmas Revels have been set at Haddon Hall in 1978, 1984 , 2005 (35th anniversary show) and most recently in 2010.

The Washington D.C. Revels have also featured Haddon Hall more than once, first in 1984 and most recently in 2012. A program that aired on WAMU 88.5 Radio that year had this to say about the 2012 production, entitled "Ghosts of Haddon Hall":

"This year the Washington Revels revisit their 1984 theme: Haddon Hall, one of England's oldest and most romantic manor houses.

The year is 1929, and on a dark and snowy solstice eve, the 9th Duke of Rutland brings his wife and children to his long-abandoned family home, with plans of selling it to make way for a new road.

But what they soon learn is Haddon Hall isn't abandoned at all: each winter solstice, spirits of Haddon Hall's former residents appear, to make merry on this shortest day of the year. The Duke first chastises them for trespassing on his property, but after dancing and singing with these cheery ghosts all night, our Scrooge-like Duke ditches the bah-humbug, and decides to save Haddon Hall....

"The story that was portrayed is true [says executive director Greg Lewis] --the 9th Duke of Rutland was going to take it down, and there was going to be a motorway. And we're not exactly sure that it was Revels ghosts that persuaded him otherwise, but we think it makes a nicer story!"

References: <http://www.revels.org/about-revels/history/brief-history/> <http://www.revels.org/files/3513/9326/7170/Christmas_Revels_By_Year_and_Theme_1971-2013.pdf> and <http://wamu.org/programs/metro_connection/12/12/14/dc_revels_celebrate_thirty_years_of_song_and_dance> LilyRobin11 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LilyRobin. Yes, a brief mention can be made in this article (subject to my last sentence below), that the Hall several productions of the Revels were set at the Hall, giving this article as a reference, and any other independent published sources (not articles from Revels website) that state that the Hall was used as the setting for Revels. The mention should be very brief, as this is an article about the Hall, not the revels; only a very brief description of the Revels is needed here, as the blue link to Revels allows readers to click there if they are interested. I looked at Revels article, and I noted that it does not mention Haddon Hall at all. That indicates that the Hall is not important in the history of the Revels -- so, I strongly suggest that you amend the Revels article to clarify this before you revise this article. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ssilvers. You make very good points. I'm not sure how soon I'll have a chance to edit either page, but I will follow your advice and submit a recommended edit for the Revels page first (mentioning Haddon Hall) if/when I do so. A couple of questions - (1) should info from an organization's own website never be used in a Wikipedia article? I understand that it should not be listed as a reference because it is not a published, independent source. Does that also mean that even in the Revels article, I should not state which or how many years featured Haddon Hall as a setting, even if that is the only place that the information can be found? (2) What does the WP:RS designation you used stand for and mean? Thanks for your time, your thoughts, and your assistance. -- LilyRobin11 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! To answer your questions: (1) An organization's (or person's) website can be used sparingly as a source of information about themselves if the information presented is not controversial or too self-serving, but the bulk of the information, should come from independent sources, like newspaper reviews and feature articles. In the Revels article you can cite the WAMU article and supplement it with a reference to the website. But it would be better if you can find published reviews of the productions (other than the ones mentioned in the WAMU article) that mention the setting for the productions that you list. (2) I'm not exactly sure what this question is asking. You can find out about our relevant guidelines by clicking on these links: WP:RS and WP:SPS and, more generally, WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haddon Hall. 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/20070816000912/http://www.mspong.org/picturesque/haddon_hall.html to http://www.mspong.org/picturesque/haddon_hall.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816000912/http://www.mspong.org/picturesque/haddon_hall.html to http://www.mspong.org/picturesque/haddon_hall.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) 13:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Long gallery image(s)

@EPEAviator: Could you explain your justification for including two very similar thumbnmails of the Long Gallery (albeit one historic and one recent)? The differences are only evident if you expand the pictures. I'm not sure this duplication achieves much. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Old photos where newer, higher quality ones exist feel a bit pointless, but I have seen that there was a previous discussion about which photo (between 2 separate old photos), so didn’t want to remove it. Another reason was that why Haddon is so important is that little has ostensibly changed, even throughout the restoration. I was considering doing a montage in the main image at the top, Haddon’s size and importance considered, but decided against it because the rooms (although different) on small scales can look unvaried in colour and so same-y. EPEAviator (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)