Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Diaeresis

Wasn't the diaeresis in his given name an affectation of Noel Coward's later years? -- Someone else 23:35 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be standard. -- Zoe

They are there in theatre programmes even before 1920. I don't see why they should be called an "affectation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.248.162 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the diaeresis in light of the legendary story of Coward and Jean Harlow, who apparently mispronounced Coward's name as "No-EL" until Coward, exasperated, said "The 'e' in Noel is silent, as is the 't' in Harlow." (The bon mot has also been attributed to Margot Asquith.) Is the story apocryphal?Carlaclaws (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See Morley, Lesley, Hoare etc. - Tim riley (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Words and music

Noel Coward was rarely talented in being one of the very few people who wrote words and music, and performed his own songs. Can only think of a handful of others: Bob Dylan, Woodie Guthrie.

Well, the Singer-songwriter article has a longer list. And there's John Lennon and Paul McCartney, of course. John 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There are hundreds of singer-songwriters who've been commercially - or if not commercially, then at least critically - sucessful! Martyn Smith 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One can't ignore Cole Porter (1891-1964), either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.242.74 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Peirce

Peirce is the correct spelling. Hyacinth 08:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for information

A few years back, BBC2 (I think) were showing plays of NC's; about once a week on Sunday evenings IIRC.

I saw a few of these, but there's one I didn't get to see for any longer than the first few minutes. All I can recall is there was a scene which was something like a moribund old man in bed, talking with a younger man. Older man says something like 'He's a little shit is Reggie! Don't trust him!'

At that point my mother declared that she wasn't having such language on her telly and switched it off.

It's been bugging me for years as to which play that was. Any ideas?

• I've since consulted a Noel Coward expert and he doesn't recognise anything like this dialogue. Must be getting it mixed up with something else....Martyn Smith 14:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a Harold Pinter play by the sounds of it. The Homecoming, perhaps.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Noel vs Noël -- again

So why was the explanation concerning the ë wiped out from the article on 4 June 2006? Was it wrong? Two "Noël" spellings remain in the article, but right now there is no explanation whatsoever. THis is strange. Can someone help? <KF> 12:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Noel Coward Theatre?

In London there is a theatre called the Noel Coward Theatre, where the musical Avenue Q is currently situated. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article? Noel Coward Theatre Baberlp 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Including "Mad Dogs and Englishmen (song)"

Suggesting include Information about "Mad Dogs and Englishmen"

from Mad_Dogs_and_Englishmen:

Mad Dogs and Englishmen (song) is a 1932 song by Noel Coward, that originated the above phrase

Unfortunately the page Mad Dogs and Englishmen (song) doesn't yet exist.

I could only add the info from Mad_Dogs_and_Englishmen

---

Mad Dogs and Englishmen (song) is a 1932 song by Noel Coward

It's quoted in:

• Mad Dogs and Englishmen (album) is a 1970 live album by Joe Cocker and others
• Mad Dogs and Englishmen (1971 film) is a 1971 film from the same tour as the album
• Mad Dogs and Englishmen (1995 film) a 1995 Canadian/British film
• Mad Dogs and Englishmen (Doctor Who) is a 2002 Doctor Who novel.
• Mad Gods and Englishmen (story) is a 2006 comic strip by Simon Spurrier and Boo Cook, for the character Harry Kipling.

---

Also an excerpt should be added. --Dietmar Lettau 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"...the 'T' in Harlow."

Famously, Coward was once introduced to actress Jean Harlow, who gushed, "Oh, Noël Coward—I've heard so much about you!" He replied, "The e in Noel is silent, as is the t in Harlow."

I am more inclined to attribute this quote to Margot Asquith (in whose Wikipedia article it is also mentioned, although with a slight variation). Noël Coward preferred the distinct pronunciation of the 'e' of his first name (hence the use of the diaeresis); I remember reading somwhere, perhaps in Graham Payn's memoir, that he absolutely loathed when people would pronounce it 'Nool' instead of 'No-el'. So attributing the quote to him seems dubious, whereas if Jean Harlow pronounced Margot Asquith's first name incorrectly as 'Margott', it makes much more sense. Just a thought. Natedogg923 16:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of Margot Asquith's most famous and well-documented utterances. I'd never heard it attributed to Coward until now. It definitely sounds like something he might have said, so it's understandable someone assumed it must have been a Cowardism. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But it wasn't really his style to be bitchy or catty, especially not to someone who might have been a bit common (he was out of genteel poverty himself) but was sincerely a fan of his. 213.123.239.30 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Family album

The link from this entry in the list, takes you to Danielle Steele's novel, not Noël Coward's play Brian Pugh (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

This was moved by cut and paste (by another user); I attempted to restore the page history by restoring the original versions and using the move tab. This does not to appear to have worked! If someone knows how to sort it out so that the complete page history reappears, please do so. Actually, I think I know why ... I shall try again. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fixed it. Please don't move pages with cut and paste - it loses the associated history of the page. It is often better to actually discuss/or request moves if you're unsure what to do. In this case, I agree that this name is more correct. Kbthompson (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keir Dullea

Most sources say that "Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow" was a response to a journalist who asked him what it was like to work with Dullea in "Bunny Lake Is Missing", not some random party. I will look for a notable citation and update the article.Slithymatt (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then again, it might simply have been a mnemonic guide to the pronunciation of that actor's name. Honestly, why his agent didn't simply suggest standardising it as Qir DuLai, I'll never know. 213.123.239.30 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Jerk" and "I'll See You Again"

In "The Jerk" I believe the song "I'll See You Again" is sung during the scene where Navin's girlfriend leaves him. This could be put under the "Parodies and popular culture" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.149.194 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Musical training - lack thereof

We say nothing about the fact that he was never taught music, but just seemed to have a natural gift for melody (in his own way). It's definitely notable when a person who never had a lesson in his life suddenly starts writing musicals, and not half bad ones either. I read that the only key he could play the piano in was E flat, and all his songs were in that key. But this begs the question: he must have had collaborators in the writing and orchestration of his songs, so who were they? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

I've added and altered the article substantially. Any previous editor whose contributions I have mucked about with is cordially and humbly invited to do the necessary. I am hoping to get the article up to a state where it can be nominated for GA status, but that will need a fair bit more research, addition and referencing. Tim riley (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:BLITHESP-box hires dvd.jpeg

The image File:BLITHESP-box hires dvd.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As a dancer; as an actor

In the childhood roles, I don't believe that it is really accurate or necessary to say "as a dancer". He was a child appearing in the chorus of the show. AFAIK, he was not a highly-trained dancer at the time, and so I don't think it is helpful to try to characterise him as a "dancer", even though one source may have done so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It was purely a ballet that was performed separately from the rest of the show, and as NC's early training was as a dancer I thought the distinction between his early terpsichorean appearance and his rapid leap into the dramatic worth marking, but I shan't make a production number of it. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected and added back "dancer". Please check. Note that the article doesn't say that NC's early training was as a dancer. Can you add a sentence and ref? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. (But not a casus belli, I beg!)

Ready for GA review?

Due to User:Tim riley's Yeoman work, I think the article is about ready for the GA review. Tim, can you kindly de-link those play names that you think are unlikely to receive an article any time soon? Also, there are still too many redlinks elsewhere in the article - can you de-link the ones are unlikely to receive an article? Let me know if you have any other plans for the article before I nominate it for GA review. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So done. I'll create articles on the remaining red linked titles a.s.a.p. Tim riley (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I consolidated the song list into one paragraph and combined it with the musicals section, to avoid having another bulleted list. Can you please add dates and note if the song comes from a show/revue? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I think we're ready for GA review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What were his political views?

There's a section in the Oscar Wilde article on Mr Wilde's political inclinations so I think there should be in this one. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - under Personal life section. Tim riley (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of sculpture

Hello, Modernist. Why did you delete the image of the sculpture. The artist contributed it to the article, and it is certainly relevant. I see no rule that forbids our using it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough....it's a long story, but I will let it be..Modernist (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Very pleased that the sculpture is back. Excellent to have an image of the mature Coward. Tim riley (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

References

At present the references at the end are split into two sections - works by NC and works by anyone else. Is this a good thing? It makes it hard for the reader to follow up references to e.g. "Day, p. xyz" when Day's name is hidden away in the Coward section under the "Letters" entry. I'm minded to roll the lot together with editors' names taking precedence over the Master's where applicable. Any thoughts will be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it - is it good to include in the "references" books to which no reference has been made in the text? There are several books by NC listed at present to which nothing in the article refers. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Songs

I've rejigged wholesale to reflect the popularity of NC's songs as noted on the NC Society's website, using publishers' and PRS statistics. Only "World Weary" of those listed in the earlier draft has had to be removed. Tim riley (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent! Can you add the citation (and name of songs, if not already there) to the articles for the shows whose songs are listed? Ha! Take that, 13th Amendment! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Coward, having been hit on the head with a tin tray by Humphrey Bogart's young son, unblinkingly told Bogart that his next birthday present to the child would be a chocolate-covered hand grenade. I can't imagine why this has just come into my mind! Tim riley (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done for the top ten. I don't think it is all that notable to say that such-and-such is in the top 27, so have stopped at ten except where a show has songs in the top ten and also in the top 27. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New comments from Finetooth

[Copied from Peer review page] Here are a few more trifles:

Interwar success

• "He absorbed its smartness and pace into his own work, which brought him his first real success as a playwright with The Young Idea, which opened in London in 1923, after a provincial tour, with Coward in one of the leading roles." - This one might be too complex. I'd suggest breaking after "The Young Idea", and starting the next sentence with "The play opened... ".

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Post-war career"

• "The daring piece earned Coward new critical praise.[70][61] - The reference order here should be reversed so that [61] precedes [70].

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

• "In the 1950s, Coward left the UK for tax reasons, receiving harsh criticism in the press.[95][61]" - The reference order here should be reversed so that [61] precedes [95].

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

• The last ISBN seems to be missing one digit.

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider this article to be a strong candidate for FA. Please let me know when you nominate. Finetooth (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paddington Square - v - Worthing

The earlier quote was indeed pithier, but I have been uneasy about it ever since I began interfering in this article: I find it difficult to believe that as knowledgeable a Londoner as Coward would have spoken of "Paddington Square", when there is no such place. Worthing, per contra, unquestionably exists. See The Importance of Being Earnest, Act 1. But I digress. Tim riley (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But did he ever say the "still wants to marry me and I don't want to disappoint her" part? That's a great quote.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen such a quote ("Fitzroy Square" comes to mind) but I haven't yet tracked it down. Meanwhile I think we ought to settle for the verifiable Worthing variation. But I'll keep looking for the "wants to marry me" variant, which, as I say, I'm sure I've seen somewhere. Tim riley (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt sure of it! I felt sure of it! You are a Gentleman and a Scholar. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The earlier quote was pithier, and we should always take the pith. 203.129.49.238 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lolita

So sorry - I wasn't logged in. The Lolita addition was by me. Tim riley (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done, nice work..Modernist (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Religious views

I have removed the 'atheist' category because Coward was not an atheist but an agnostic: "Do I believe in God? Well yes, I suppose, in a sort of way. It's really terribly hard to say" (Coward: Not Yet the Dodo, Heinemann 1967, p. 53) Tim riley (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Documentation format

The format of the citations used in this article is inconsistent. Some of them (many) appear to be MLA style (but use discontinued "p." and "pp." throughout); others are APA style or so-called Harvard style (using dates after authors' names). It needs clean up and updating of its documentation format. --NYScholar (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and so did the reviewers at the recent FAC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at the inconsistencies more closely; I think that you just are not seeing them. One of the most recent editions of MLA style was actually put into practice (the Manual) in the MLA's own publications beg. in Jan. 2009 and the other (Handbook) was published after the FAC review date. --NYScholar (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[Just a point of information: Unlike the style of source citations in this article that are not listed only by last names (MLA style), MLA style puts first name first and last name (surname) last (normal order) in full citations in endnotes [otherwise last names suffice or initial and last name or a short title (and possibly a date if there is more than one ed. of same title) for clarification if more than one work is by same author); there is no need for giving the last name (surname) first if items are not being alphabetized (that is the principle followed). I have noticed that many articles in Wikipedia follow a version of APA style, which uses last names (surnames) first before first names in (end)notes. Harvard style as used in Wikipedia does as well. But MLA style does not. Most documentation styles (MLA, Chicago, APA, Harvard) have eliminated the need for "p." and "pp.", though many people do not know or follow that advance. (MLA style has not used "p." or "pp." for many years.) [Most of these documentation styles also now use/permit a mixture of parenthetical referencing and (end)notes.] --NYScholar (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

Gay scene

i find the sentence "had little in common with the gay scene of later generations" a little odd. It could be taken to suggest that the gay scene of later generations was 1) homogenous and 2) overly concerned with certain types of sexual activity. Is this sentence really necessary? 90.11.220.169 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This was an attempt to incorporate an earlier editor's contributions, and is of course open to improvement if you care to undertake it. Tim riley (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

incorrect link to "The Divine Comedy"

In the section "Critical reputation and legacy" there is a reference to the pop band "The Divine Comedy," a highly literary and successful British pop band. However, the link her does not go to the pop band, but to Dante's Divine Comedy. Sensibly the link should instead go to "Neil Hannon," the creative force behind the Divine Comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.173.180 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"No-el" or "Nol" ?

Is his first name with 1 or 2 syllables? --Green Cardamom (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Two - which it would be with or without the diaeresis. The second syllable is more a neutral vowel than a clear 'e'. Tim riley (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Noël Coward - Inspiration for Monty Python's Flying Circus?

Today I found this article with the letter of Monty Python's Terry Jones. This letter was, as the author of the article says, sent to the organizers of the event created to celebrate 40 years of the first Monty Python's episode. Celebration took place in Pancevo, Serbia.

In the letter, Terry Jones says that Monty Python's Flying Circus was created in Serbia "when six Oxford and Cambridge students gathered to raise a monument to Noël Coward. Endless debate on how should the sculpture look like and should it be raised in Vojvodina lasted until the morning, when the agreement was finally made to transform the debate into a TV sketch, but without mentioning writer's name..."

Magazine in which this article appeared is pretty serious one, but I couldn't find any other documents about this letter or the mention of roots of Monty Python. I should also note that in the letter, Terry says that students gathered "on a beautiful April day in the middle of June", which makes me wonder if this letter is joke or not.

Anyone has any data on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorglub76 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Eskimo Nell author?

In John Masters' historical novel "By the Green of the Spring", Noel Coward is portrayed as the author of the bawdy poem The Ballad of Eskimo Nell. I have added a note about this in the Eskimo Nell article, but I would like to ask if anyone has come across another reference to this? It seems likely to be true, but some confirmation would be interesting. Patche99z (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Masters was indulging in a spot of irony at the expense of his more credulous readers, I suspect. It would be difficult to imagine anyone less likely to have perpetrated such a crude work than Coward. You can rest assured that he did not write Eskimo Nell - there are at least five biographies/studies published which you can search: you will not find mention of that delicate ballad. (En passant, Masters's depiction of Coward in Paris in 1919 is historically impossible: Coward did not make his first journey outside the UK until 1920: see, e.g. Morley, p. 84 and Lesley p. 54) - Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - somehow I did not expect any clear references in the biogs etc, but it was worth asking. I guess that Masters was repeating a rumour current at some time between the wars, and got the location and/or date wrong. I do not find it impossible to imagine a first-class poet, with a strong sense of humour, writing a bawdy ballad, though, especially when he was young. Perhaps by "such a crude work" you mean poetically simple or naive? It would now be very difficult to disentangle the original from more recent additions, anyway, so it is impossible to know if it was up to Coward's standard. And I wonder if Masters ever met Coward. Patche99z (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Cecil quote

Someone added this: "Jonathan Cecil wrote of Coward in 2008: 'Noël Coward had at least three personae....'" The quote seems correctly referenced, but I don't see what it adds to the article. I would suggest deleting it. Any thoughts? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather approve of it: it makes a sound point by alluding to Coward's different personae, not addressed in quite those terms elsewhere in the article. But it's in the wrong place, I think. It doesn't naturally follow the para above it or segue into the one following it. Unless you feel strongly that it isn't notable I'll look for a better slot for it to sit in. Not sure it needs the block quote treatment, though. - Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On careful reconsideration I agree with Ssilvers that the quote doesn't add enough to the article to justify its inclusion, and have accordingly deleted it. Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

New materials

User:Goomoo added two passages:

• In October, 1963, just prior to their Broadway openings, Coward was feted on the NBC-TV morning program, The Today Show, which devoted its entire two hours in saluting Coward's life and career as well as interviewing "The Master" himself. Also featured on the show were Beatrice Lillie, Sally Ann Howes, and Skitch Henderson and the NBC Orchestra performing several of Coward's songs.
• That same year [1969?], Coward, along with his friends Alfred Lunt, Lynn Fontanne, Tammy Grimes, and Brian Bedford (the latter two then appearing in the highly successful Broadway revival of Private Lives) were the guests on Dick Cavett's ABC late-night talk show. During this period, Coward also made three appearances on The David Frost Show.

I have deleted these pending further discussion. First of all, neither passage has a reference. Goomoo, please see WP:V and WP:Reliable sources. Secondly, are appearances on talk shows notable? Celebrities promoting their shows appear on multiple talk shows quite frequently. I'd like to hear what User:Tim riley has to say about this, but I think the information probably doesn't belong in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The first might possibly be regarded as notable - I take it that devoting a whole 2-hour programme on the NBC channel to one subject was a rare honour? It would need a reference, of course, before being pasted back in (not to mention some copy-editing). The other two don't add much, if anything, to the article, I'd say. -- Tim riley (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't Cha?

I don't see a reference to 'Don't Cha;, it's on you tube stating it was on the Las vegas album... It makes the rather in my humble opinion, unpleasant song Pussycat Dolls - Don't Cha ft. Busta Rhymes almost a travesty of a cover. It must have been a music-producer-mashup ("Britney is having a difficult time, and we got desperate...". They say there is no account for taste... Exception perhaps makes the rule... even if it does feature Busta Rhymes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.10.122 (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have The Complete Lyrics of Noël Coward in front of me. There is no such song listed. The title is, in any case, most uncharacteristic of Coward. Cole Porter, perhaps. (Later: I have blown the dust off my copy of the Las Vegas Album, and it is not to be found there either.) – Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMPROVE

WP:FA does not trump WP:IMPROVE. Featured articles can and do change.

WP:FA? 2b asks for consistent citation style. "meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required." Other editors are not required to format their additions, but it is recommended so allow other editors to improve the formatting. This is not a WP:BOLD change and should not require even this much dicussion.

I would also note that not all the listed books have an ISBN. Some of the listings such as an obiturary is not a book (although it is still "Further reading") and might be better used elsewhere in the artilce, preferably as an inline citation. -- Horkana (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to operate by consensus, and have reverted until a consensus is arrived at. Tim riley (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Featured article guidelines are already a consensus. -- Horkana (talk)

Horkana, the changes you made in the citations, to add unnecessary " marks around the repeated ref names are worse, not better. They have no function and only serve to make the edit screen harder to read. None of the changes you made "improve" the article. If you want to improve the article, per WP:IMPROVE, that would be welcome, but you are merely imposing your own citation and spacing style on an article that already has a citation style that has been vetted and agreed on through peer reviews, a GA review and the FAC process. In addition, the WP:MOS says that when editors have adopted a style in an article, new editors should follow the established style in that article. Meanwhile, Tim can consider any specific comments that you raised above, and if he thinks that any of them do, in fact, improve the article, he will implement them. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote marks are about strict correct formatting of XHTML (search for) "quotes may be omitted" in HTML but it is better and stricter to include them. You can also argue punctuation is not necessary in English either but it is strictly better. It is probably not a detail yet addressed by Wikipedia policy, but it is something I expect would be recommended but not required.

The objection to quote marks would be easier to understand if your reason had not been to keep the edit window simpler and tidier, because you also removed the extra spaces from the Infobox, despite it being tidier and in line the example documentation for {{infobox actor}} (docuemntation which seems to have been merged into {{infobox person}} since I last looked). -- Horkana (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I recall the more practical reason for quotes is that element names are allowed to include spaces but if you do use spaces then you _must_ enclose the element name (or in this case reference name) in quotes, so for consistency strict XHTML always includes the quotes, when HTML for brevity leaves them out (which makes it a little more difficult to check for correctness). -- Horkana (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers's comments and will address the outstanding peripheral issues in the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers and Tim riley are talking a lot sense and are working according to the consensus- which is how things are done here. Please discuss all potential changes to this established and balanced article here first. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the substantive issues above:

• All the books that have ISBNs are duly given them in the list of references. Those without were published before ISBNs were introduced. One could add OCLC numbers if it were felt that they added anything of value. There was an ISBN missing in the "Further reading" list – now added.
• I hadn't spotted the addition of the Berstein obit to the list of references. It was added by an anonymous editor, User:138.145.242.612, last November. I agree that it shouldn't be there (nothing refers to it and I concur with User:Horkana that it is in the wrong place and format anyway. I have deleted it.
• I can't see why one would want to put quotation marks round ref names: I concur with Ssilvers that they clutter up the edit page to no good purpose; this should be resisted strongly.
• If anyone feels inclined to turn all the book refs into template renditions, I should have no objection to his or her doing so, though it strikes me as a lot of effort for no discernible advantage to our readers.

Comments invited on the above. Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Re: the last bullet point: the book refs are correct now. If someone converted them, we'd just have to proofread and correct them again. Purely a make-work project by one editor forcing others to use his preferred format. I will revert any such waste of our time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

More re: Improve

Wikipedia is full of guidelines that are recommended but that are not required. Wikipedia is all about making small improvements to gradually get to someplace better. Using templates gives an underlying semantic meaning to the information, in a way that plain text does not. Templates can also be styled consitently, in ways much less awkward than manually changing for exmaple what is marked with brackets and what is marked with italics. One of the funadmentals of HTML is seperating style and content, I'm just semantically marking the content, tagging items and giving them meaning, and making the styling and maintenance easier. This might seem pointless on a small scale but it is work like this that keeps Wikipedia as a whole looking vaguely consistent and is worthwhile in the long run, although a lot more of it could stand to be automated.
Of course this requires a lot of effort, this is why the guidelines recommend but do not require it. There are so many Wikipedia guidelines it is impossible for anyone to know them all and even harder to know the reasons behind them but I'm not forcing something I'm following the larger consensus. -- Horkana (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The HTML argument is of doubtful relevance. Try using HTML code when editing Wikipedia and see where it gets you. I must say that one would certainly have to check very carefully any alterations made to this carefully constructed article by anyone who perpetrates as many errors as User:Horkana does: even in the few words above we have "artilce," "consitently," "dicussion," "docuemntation," "exmaple," "funadmentals," "obiturary," "recommended so allow," and "seperating". We can all make mistakes, but an avalanche on this scale does not inspire confidence. – Tim riley (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted another undiscussed change by Horkana. We and the FA reviewers, and the GA reviewer, and the peer reviewers, all agreed on this format. I do not think this article needs the Refbegin/Refend codes, which make the list of references appear smaller. I am not strongly against it, but, again, I see no benefit to it in this article. Please do not make formatting changes to this article without discussion. I do not believe that Horkana is a very good judge of what is an improvement, given his/her many sloppy misspellings in his/her messages. Horkana, have you ever brought an article that you wrote through the FA process? That is a very good way to learn about what is important in creating high-quality content for the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, by all means, go ahead and explain why you think it is important to use the refbegin and refend codes in this article, and whether you think the current style is not standard format in FA-class articles or under the FA criteria. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles are important. Talk pages are not. I apply far more care to my article edits. No need to get personal about it. I'm amazed you view any of these changes as WP:BOLD and seek to force consensus on such relatively simple changes just becuase this is a featured article.

Using Refbegin and Refend help ensure greater consistency, the also automatically link the ISBN numbers. I'm surprised at being asked to justify the use of these templates rather than you explaining why this is an exception and why they should not be used in the way there are clearly inteneded to be used. I'll come back this later, don't have much time to edit at the moment. -- Horkana (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. I do not agree that the refbegin and refend tags are standard. The article is consistent now with MOS and FA-style. Adding the tags would not add greater consistency. I am afraid that you have not convinced me that you know what is the preferred style among the WP editors who edit the highest-quality articles (FA). Tim and I have been through the FA process many times, and I don't think you are right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note the guidelines WP:REFNAME. All the examples use quotes. The documentation explains: "The ref name need not be placed within quotes unless it contains a space". Since they only say "need not" then that is enough to keep the style the consensus of editors here have decided on but the guidelines further explain "(the wiki parser converts single word quoteless attribute values into validly quoted XHTML)" which is another way of explaining that you do not need to add the quotes becuase they will be added in automatically to the page when the Wiki text is converted into XHTML. I still reckon it is better to consistently use quotes on all named references rather than having quotes for some and not others but the guidelines leave the option with you, and I remain suprised that anyone objects to the extra puntuation but so be it, the guidelines do not require you to be strict. -- Horkana (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first four of your sentences. Please indent or outdent your comment on talk pages, so that it is easy to see that a different user has made the comment than the comment above it. We do consistently use NO quotes for all named references, or at least we intend to. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on citation format

Is there a consensus to automatically strip out use of any of the {{citation}} templates (such as {{cite news}}) and replace with non-templated footnotes? If so, could we have a proper definition of the local style to guide contributors? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has sought to overturn the existing agreed citation formatting passed at FA. I have reverted, as no pretext has been asserted for this imposition. Obliged if you would kindly revert your recent changes. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure if you are referring to me, if you are then you should be clear that I have made no moves to "impose" anything and in accordance with the normal practice of WP:BURDEN, I reverted your automatic mass re-styling of citation templates (templates which I do not believe I added to this article, though I have only checked recent page history) and I even went to the effort of politely explaining why I did so on your talk page and asking you if there was an existing local consensus. If you are unwilling civilly to point out where there is an established consensus for your changes (it does not appear on this talk page) then I see no clear rationale to un-revert. I would have checked talk page archives (had there been any), and I have no intention of reading through old closed peer review discussions and there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that forces new or established contributors to check for possible local consensus that might or might not be buried in non-obvious talk sub-pages. If such a consensus does exist it might be a good idea to add a talk page information notice saying so in order to encourage consistency from new contributors. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Fae, he was referring to Horkana, not you - please read the discussions above. The consensus on this article has always been to avoid the cite templates in the footnotes. Wikipedia's guideline on this issue, WP:CITEHOW, says: You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. The article was promoted to FA-class without the cite templates, and the citations were checked by numerous editors before promotion. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. The article also had an extensive peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Noël Coward/archive1. In addition, the GA reviewer is a very experienced reviewer who also approved the citation format. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim please stop asserting that an article reaching featured article status mean every further minor change requires consensus. Please at least come up with a better excuse.

If you do come up with a plausible excuse please at least make the effort to remove the junk from the Variety.com links and to replace the {{dead link}} with the updated link. -- Horkana (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers, thank you for the links to the previous peer review, FAC review and for the explanation though you might expect me to be familiar with the convention of consistency for citation formats and with how Featured Article candidates work. I have checked for mentions of citation formats in both reviews but can see nothing there that would indicate a local consensus to never use citation templates or to agree on a particular local style. The fact that an article was promoted to FA status does not imply that there is a consensus on styles, this should be an explicit local consensus. Could you either point me to where such a consensus is established or if it only exists as a de-facto state, perhaps now would be a good time to run a local proposal to turn the assumption into a defined consensus?

By the way, I can see you re-reverted, however you might not be aware that in doing so you were arbitrarily adding additional parameters to the urls, for example "r=1&em&ex=1208059200&en=0bfd56b56c6f4c5b&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin" was added to the NYTimes link. Obviously url parameters relating to a user's browsing session and unnecessary parameters are to be avoided. I made this point in the edit comment but it appears to have been overlooked. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

SSilvers removed many of the instances of {{cite news}} I carefully added to the article for newspapers. Once more I didn't not think this would be anything close to a WP:BOLD change when just about everywhere else in wikipedia uses citation templates. This article already used citation templates and still does so why were only my changes removed?

There was a complaint about consistency of styles but that (and I'll dig out a reference later*) refers to the consistency of the style presented to the the reader, and does not exclude the use of citation templates. I know Citation templates are not required by Featured Articles but that doesn't mean Featured Articles are not encouraged to use them. I did encounter a editor controlling a featured article who took the consistency of styles to mean that his article should only use {{citation}} and not allow any mix of {{cite book}} or {{cite news}} but admins made it clear that it was only the end result style that mattered.)

If all the instances {{cite news}} had been removed from the article that would have been less unfair but it the have only been selectively removed. If there had been a comment asking for me to adjust the citation template and make small changes so the resulting styles presented on page were more consistent that would have been entirely fair. I've never seen this level of lockdown and resistance to minor changes on Featured Article without it actually being locked, if that is really the consensus then perhaps you should lock the article and save the time of other editors like me making good faith edits to an article where change is apparently not wanted. -- Horkana (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are other parts of MOS: that apply to wiki-code consistency, not just what is visible to the reader (for example wiki-table code is always preferred over html code in WP:TABLE). Note this same discussion was held early on for today's featured article with a consensus to use the citation template, there are examples of FA going either way but they are always self-consistent. If you wish to gain a consensus here, I suggest you consider putting forward a simple neutral question about the local citation format for either a local request for comment or a community-wide one. Fæ (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good gracious me! What a storm! If there is indeed a consensus for change I shall happily go along with it, as I imagine will the other editors who have made major contributions to this article over the years. I was, and still am, unconvinced that a drive-by changing of all the settings is either courteous or helpful, but heigh-ho. It would make maintainance of the article more difficult to no benefit to the reader, but if there is a consensus to that effect, so be it. Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the applicable guideline is WP:CITEHOW, which says: You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. Any changes in violation of this guideline will be reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree and I am perfectly aware of this convention. Where is this style defined (i.e. what to put in italics, brackets)? At the moment a quick glance at the reference section shows inconsistent use of full stops and commas. Since my original revert, I have been asking for such a definition and so far nobody has been able to point it out. Fæ (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation format used

Like this: <ref>Last, First. [url "Name of article"], website/newspaper name, Publisher name: city, date, accessed date</ref> OR, if it's not a web source,
then: <ref>Last, First. "Name of article", newspaper/magazine name, p. X, Publisher name: city, date</ref>
If the publisher name is the same name as the newspaper/magazine/website, you don't need to repeat it. Of course, books are listed after the footnotes, and the footnotes referring to books only need Last name and page number (unless the same author has more than one book listed, in which case we usually add the year the book was published in the footnote). Let me know what you see that is inconsistent with this basic style, and I will gladly either fix it or explain why I believe that it is consistent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a definition, I'm assuming you just made that up to fit the article as again this does not appear to be from an existing documented consensus on local style for citations. Citation templates would of course easily ensure consistency for maintenance. Some issues from a second quick look (which only randomly samples the footnotes):

• The section called "References" does not comply with this format and sometimes puts a comma before the year sometimes puts a comma or full stop after the year and sometimes a semi-colon might be seen.
• In the "Notes" section, the first reference is a magazine with a special format that does not comply with your defined style.
• The book references are semi-MLA style which is non-standard for no particular reason (you may find {{harvnb}} a useful way of automatically cross-linking to the books referenced should the article ever convert to citation templates).
• Examples such as Coward (Present Indicative) are not covered by your definition which states that it would include a year to distinguish it rather than an italicised title in brackets.
• Newspaper articles do not comply with your definition.
• The example url of "Chronology The Noël Coward Society accessed 27 August 2008" puts the url on the publisher rather than the title in conflict with your format and uses no commas at all.

I think that's enough to show that although the article is at featured article status, the lack of a firm definition of citation style or any apparent documented consensus for it, is likely to cause the article to drift away from any informally assumed consistency. I recommend that either a full and lengthy local definition is proposed or external conventions (such as MLA) are accepted as the convention or (the simplest option in my view) that citation templates are allowed as optional but that non-templated footnotes comply with the formats explained in precise detail and with pre-existing consensus at {{citation}} and {{harvnb}}. I would much rather you propose a solution to enable a true consensus rather than explaining away inconsistencies with further personal definitions of local style or correcting what you think are errors in the current footnotes to fit your ideas without establishing a lasting consensus to enable the article to be easily maintained. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FAE:

• No, I did not make this up. This is the format I have used in all my FA and GA articles, 20 of them to date. It complies with WP:CITE.
• It's true that the References section has a slightly different style from the footnotes, as I described above, but I disagree that there are any significant inconsistencies. Again, if you point out any specific issues, I'll fix them. I don't mind if you put the "References" and "Further Reading" section (only!) in {{tl:cite book}} format, but the punctuation there is consistent enough to have survived a peer review, a GA review and an FA review.
• Notes section: I disagree. The first reference does indeed comply with the style I described. There is no author name, so it is omitted.
• Newspaper articles. Please be specific.
• Chronology: I added the comma, thanks, and, although it is redundant, added Noelcoward.net, which is already seen in the website address.
• No, the article will not drift away from consistency. Both Tim riley and I monitor it carefully and stand ready to assist anyone who has useful content to add or updates and corrections to make.

The editors who actually work on this article and have brought it to FA-class are happy with the style. We will be here over the long term. As I said, if you have specific complaints, I will gladly address them. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Close) I have expressed my opinion, demonstrated the article is inconsistent and asked to see the local consensus (which has not been produced) and proposed to create a true consensus for this article several times. As you and Tim prefer to police the article based on personal style standards you fail clearly to define rather than supporting a consensus process that might encourage new editors, I shall remove this page from my watch-list rather than continue making a fuss about it, flog a dead horse or cut across you by raising a RfC myself. I reject your implication that I have no "useful content to add or updates and corrections to make" as how would you know? My most recent single edit was quickly disputed and re-reverted on the basis that I was at fault by failing to find a consensus on citation format which turns out to not exist anyway. I preferred to discuss and resolve the issue before making any more changes which seemed the most civil course of action.

If you wish to discuss the matter further, please use my talk page instead. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re: Coward Image

The sentences:

"Why", asked Coward, "am I always expected to wear a dressing-gown, smoke cigarettes in a long holder and say 'Darling, how wonderful'?"[127] The answer lay in Coward's assiduous cultivation of a carefully crafted image

Read like an essay or magazine article and need to be changed. An FA article can be improve it isn't carved in stone. Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted to agreed version, but if Duggy1138's version is preferred by a consensus of editors one will of course withdraw one's objection. Tim riley (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an FA article can improve, but I don't see how Duggy's version would be an improvement - it seems to be just a drier way of saying the same thing. I disagree that the current (FAC-approved) version improperly "reads like an essay or magazine article"; it's just a slightly livelier formulation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My version probably isn't great, it could do with improvement. But we're not storytellers we're editing an encyclopedia. Livelier is not better. We're giving answers not asking questions for the reader and then answering them. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen Mother

An editor has added a reference to and anecdote about Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the section dealing with Coward's close women friends. None of the main biographical sources support the supposition that the Queen Mother was among Coward's close friends, and I think this addition is inappropriate. Grateful for the views of other interested editors. Tim riley (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are dubious about the Blaikie book, Tim riley, I would remove the anecdote until it can be verified by another independent source. It seems rather gossipy on its face.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much that I doubt the veracity of the story: it's that IMO the Queen Mother ought not to be listed as one of Coward's close friends. (Though now you mention it, one does wonder where the story came from if she "murmured" something to him: no third party witness and it's inconceivable that HM or Coward would retell the story.) Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Noël daeresis (dots); and WP:AT

• "Noel Coward" -Noël About 3,090,000 results
• "Noël Coward" -Noel About 460,000 results

The diacritic-free name is 10x more common in English sources. According to WP:DIACRITICS the article should be moved to "Noel Coward". In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is wrong. WP:DIACRITICS says to use the name given in "reliable sources". Reliable sources, such as those listed in the article, prefer the diacritic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The line says "follow the general usage in reliable sources" - which means that if a source is reliable for the life of "Noel Coward" then we should accept that source as an authority for the spelling of his name even if it dates from the 1960s before characters like ë could be represented in metal type. We are to reproduce metal type era errors if the book itself is reliable. The majority of reliable GBooks for Noël Coward do not have the ë, so we should follow the majority of sources even if we know them to be metal-type limited. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the list of "References" at the bottom of the article. They indicate that the "general usage in reliable sources" is to use the dieresis. They are the key sources for this article and nearly all use the diacritic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DIACRITICS doesn't say to use the refs at the bottom of the article. But sorry Ssilvers, I'm actually not disagreeing with you, I'm just testing the current (= it has been slowburn editwarred) wording of WP:DIACRITICS on a real en.wp example. The intention of the current wording may(?) have been against foreigners' names, but it impacts on British and American names with diacritics too. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So you posted an argument you don't agree with, to gather support for a guideline change you want. That's disruption to make a point, and I see you've done the same at Talk:Renée Zellweger, Talk:Charlotte Brontë, Talk:Emily Brontë, Talk:Beyoncé Knowles, Talk:Chloë Grace Moretz and Talk:Chloë Sevigny. Please stop. Kanguole 07:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole

That's a rather non AGF rephrase of what I just said above if you don't mind me saying so. Whether I agree with the argument or not is irrelevant, that is what the guideline says, that is how the guideline is applied. If the guideline exists it isn't immediately obvious why this article should be exempted from talking about it. And at this point I very much doubt there is any prospect of the guideline being changed. But it is there. And it applies to this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into this further. Of the dozens of major book-length biographies, letters and critical studies, only the Cole Lesley book omits the dots. The online sources that carry weight all use the diacritic: the ODNB, the website of the Noël Coward Estate, the Noël Coward Society, the Noël Coward Foundation, Grove Music Online, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford Popular Music in Performing Arts, Concise Oxford Companion to English Literature, Concise Oxford Companion to the Theatre in Performing Arts, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music in Performing Arts, Oxford Companion to American Theatre in Performing Arts, Oxford Companion to English Literature in Literature, Oxford Companion to Music, Oxford Companion to Theatre and Performance in Performing Arts, Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations in Quotations, Oxford Dictionary of Music, Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature in Literature, Oxford Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance in Performing Arts and Who's Who in the Twentieth Century in History. The Royal National Theatre also gives Coward his dieresis. The major British newspapers, including The Times, The Telegraph, The Financial Times and The Independent, include the dieresis. Also, is there no guideline that says to respect the way the subject spelled his own name? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ssilvers. Then that confirms the experience when dealing with foreign Noëls and so on. That a simple counting of majority sources may show one thing, but following WP:IRS and actually weighing of the quality sources shows another. That issue of weighting to quality would be important for a current film actress such as Renée Zellweger than someone like Noël Coward with a body of serious mentions in higher-brow sources. Not actually that I think it matters at all. Even if there was only 1 quality source which said "Noël" and 1000 popular sources with metal-type hangover attitude to accenting, the 1 source would still be the only "Noël" to be trusted according to WP:IRS.

No, I don't think there's a guideline that says to respect the way the subject spelled his own name, is there? If there is, it wouldn't appear to be one that's well known or visible. There should be such a guideline IMHO. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have been more polite of you to ask for my assistance rather than coming here with a provocative WP:point to make and make me scramble through hoops to disprove it. If what Kanguole says above is true, you really owe me an apology. BTW, I don't think you have succeeded in your goal, since the guideline already clearly says that one must look at "reliable sources", which you did not do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Ssilvers, but the post was made in good faith - this is exactly the reading/logic with which this guideline "general usage in reliable sources" is applied to non-British/Americans, repeatedly and has editors scrambling through hundreds of hoops incessantly to disprove - and if it is applied to non-British/Americans in this way it should also be so applied to bios such as Noël Coward. However in the specific case of Noël Coward it seems "reliable sources" (sources reliable for his life) happen to also be reliable for type. I'm not sure if this is an exception or the rule. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bessie Jones (Welsh singer)

Just created this stub as she seems notable enough for her recordings for HMV. The source claims that Peter Pan (Noël Coward song) was Coward's first lyric for the London stage. Is that notable enough for the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. Do you see any sources that discuss its notability? Also, why do you think "Forbidden Fruit" is notable? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Coward wrote over 300 songs, all of which I assume have coverage as significant as these 2 that's a reasonable question. On a technical basis almost anything Coward wrote would pass WP:NSONG better than most modern pop songs, but that still wouldn't make all 300 songs notable for the biography article. I would expect with any songwriter that (a) earliest song to be performed/recorded, (b) first song to performed/recorded, may be relevant to the songwriter's development as an artist or career. That appears to be the context where the two songs occur together in multiple sources both on musical theatre and on Coward himself. Of the 2 it is the second "Forbidden Fruit" which appears to be mentioned more frequently in "potted bios" of Coward. If there is a space constraint in the article, which with 300 songs there would be, it would be the one he regarded as his own first song and which he performed in the audition for Cortot (both in real life then as acted by his grandson Massey in the 1968 film).

Looking at "his first song" and "his earliest song" across articles, it seems some songwriters' bios mention them, some don't. If no one wants to mention his earliest song in the article I'm certainly not going to force it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You did a good job with "Forbidden Fruit", and I argued for Keeping it at the AfD. As for "Peter Pan", my question is, do the sources discuss the song in a way that supports a claim of notability, as they do for "Forbidden Fruit"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see, which is why I have redirected it to Bessie Jones which contains the content. Relative to her, it's in support of her notability, but relative to Coward is it as significant as his first song, no. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I too gladly weighed in to support "Forbidden Fruit" at AfD, but as to the present point I don't believe the link to Ms Jones is right. It's a matter of what is likely to be helpful to our readers. Someone clicking on a link to Peter Pan (Noël Coward song) would not expect to be taken to an article on a singer, particularly one not really associated with Coward. I think we need to lose the link completely. On the whole I'd say the song, being NC's first West End lyric, might qualify as notable (though it may be significant that he didn't include the song, or even mention it, in his 1960s collected lyrics volume) but the link would need to be to the putative article on the song, not the singer, I think. Tim riley (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An alternative would be to adjust the REDIRECT Peter Pan (Noël Coward song) to point to where it was already mentioned but the name was missing here. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

[left]I agree with Tim. Unless and until there is an article on the song, I would take down the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A third option is redirect to the revue Tails Up!. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, there should not be redirect pages for the songs in a show that redirect to that show. If a song does not have an article, there should not be a redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize this. Does this mean the dozens of redirects to albums at Category:Paul McCartney songs should be deleted, or does WikiProject Musical theatre have a different rule than WikiProject Songs? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be deleted, but it may not be worth the trouble to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So it isn't a guideline? I was a bit surprised when you said that because I've linked variant dishes into Category:Vietnamese cuisine where they are mentioned per Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Purposes_of_redirects Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.). I see Category:John Lennon songs, Category:Bob Dylan songs also contain many album songs, presumably so that Users can find them in A-Z using category. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

[left]I think you are missing the point. Creating these redirects misleads the reader into thinking that clicking on the link will bring them to some useful information about the song, when what you are doing brings them to a mere mention of the song that does not add to their understanding and merely pulls them away from the article that they wanted to read in the first place. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:REDLINK for related discussions. Even if creating the redirect is not *technically* incorrect, it is not helpful to the encyclopedia. That's all I have to say about this, so if you want to discuss it further, go to the WP:Redirect talk page or someplace else to discuss it with someone who may find the discussion interesting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"That's all I have to say about this" is fine. But I doubt most editors would agree that Peter Pan (Noël Coward song) "pulls the reader away from which the article that they wanted to read in the first place" -- because Peter Pan (Noël Coward song) has no other meaning than the song so is not pulling the reader away from anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ssilvers. Years ago, a more experienced editor pulled me up for an inappropriate link, and gave me the wise counsel for linking: "No Surprises". Clicking on a link that purports to point to a song but in fact points to a biography of someone who once sang it would, I think, be an unhelpful and unwelcome surprise. Tim riley (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Looking at the edit page pursuant to recent discussions I see that various methods of citation have crept in leaving the referencing internally inconsistent. Some refs (e.g. 112 and 131) lack page numbers; a few books are given their bibliographical details within the notes rather than under the "References" list; some refs (e.g. 23) lack citations of any kind; recordings could do with OCLC numbers; the citation style for the Noël Coward Society is inconsistent, and so on. Would anyone mind if I tidied up and generally rationalised the refs and notes? It's a long time since Ssilvers and I took the article to FAC (March 2009) and I think a little repair and maintenance wouldn't go amiss. – Tim riley (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

By all means! Thanks, Tim riley, for taking care of this important maintenance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please cast an eye over it when you have time, and check that I haven't missed anything or mucked anything up. Tim riley (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

First recording

"Between 1929 and 1936, Coward recorded many of his best-known songs for His Master's Voice (HMV), now reissued on CD"

Given the interest in recordings is it possible to pin down in the article the first recording by anyone of any of his songs and the first recording by Coward himself? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing this information when researching the article back in 2008 and 2009, but there would be no harm in adding it if it came to light. The young Coward would surely have felt these two small milestones to be advances in his career. I'll keep an eye open for the info when next browsing in my Coward books. Tim riley (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Honours and awards section?

A recent (and relevant) addition to the main biography section makes me think that to aid the smooth flow of the narrative we should perhaps collect all the honours and awards in a separate section as we do for many other biographical FAs. Views, please. I'll do the necessary, if nobody objects to the idea. Tim riley talk 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)