Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 3

Article formatting; WP:CITEVAR
A new editor has come to this FA to change much of the formatting, image sizes, add lots of useless white space that impedes use of the edit screen. I accepted many of his/her edits, and I corrected some references per WP:CITEVAR, with updated links. However, I rejected the added white space and a few other changes that I believe are either bad formatting choices or, in the case of the hidden comment at the top, a mischaracterization. I asked him/her to come to the Talk page per WP:BRD, but he/she reverted again. Please do not WP:Edit war, and instead make your arguments for further changes here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Image size
Hi Ssilvers, I believe forcing image sizes (e.g. 125px) is generally frowned upon, whereas if you use the upright parameter then you're just working proportionally with the user's preferences and that's cool -- I would always use the upright=value where possible when altering the default image size. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here. I did the scaling for individual preferences, especially for registered editors who have different tastes. Currently, I set my preference to 400px. What scale shall we set for individual images? I thought the lead image needs a big scale and should be 25~35% larger than an editor's preferred size. Well, my preference would make the image larger, so there. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Then I have no objection to using the upright parameter, but the lead image was too big.  In my experience very few people think 400px is a reasonable size even for lead images.  In this case, with an image that is taller than it is wide, I'd keep the default size. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

'Brooklyn boys' controversy
A controversy arose over comments that Coward made in a 1944 book, which were such that he was cautioned not to come to the U.S. on a previously planned January 1945 trip. The episode is in the article but given short shrift, I think. I'd like to expand by a couple of sentences. See. It was quite a controversy at the time, drawing condemnation from Fiorello LaGuardia and the New York City Council, and I think warrants a couple of sentences added, sourced to the Coward bio. Comments? Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see this this as of little importance to both Coward the person and Coward the performer. He went to Las Vegas in the 1950s so it was not like he never went to the U.S again.   Cassianto Talk   21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the sources don't show him banned from the U.S. for his life; they show that he was asked by the Foreign Office to skip one trip in early 1945, which indicates that it was a significant event---more significant than is indicated in the current version I think. It even cropped up at the beginning of a February 1945 New York Times magazine article (three months after this episode) about an episode in combat involving a soldier from Brooklyn, pointing out that he was the kind of Brooklyn soldier "Noel Coward apparently never met." Actually I have not read the original sourcing re the January 1945 trip postponement and I wonder about it, as I have perused the New York Times and while there is plenty of condemnation in the coverage, there is none by the Times itself that I can find. I've just checked the Times online archive and not checked ProQuest or Newspapers.com for further sourcing. I do think that the passage of a resolution by the New York City Council should not be ignored, and that doing so presents an NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article contains 5 paragraphs concerning Coward's activities during World War II, when he worked hard on behalf of Britain and to entertain British troops. He made a film and wrote war-themed songs, in addition to Blythe Spirit. One of these paragraphs, containing four sentences, is devoted to this issue of *not making a trip*. We note the Foreign Office's request and cite the national papers that weighed in on the subject but do not mention the mayor and NY City Council's reaction. As Cassianto wrote above, Coward's *not* doing something is nevertheless of interest because of the national notice it got, but compared with his actual *activities*, it is of comparatively limited importance to his life and career. I think the amount of detail currently given to the episode in the article is right, and that the additional details sought to be added by Coretheapple would be excessive per WP:UNDUE and would place too much emphasis on this detail. We already said that people were offended and mentioned the most important national papers that treated the issue; the local politicians are of less interest to our readers both in the US and around the world. I live in New York City, and even I find the additional details about the NY politicians to be excess detail. See WP:BALASP. I believe that it would be poor judgment to devote more ink to this discussion of something that Coward did *not* do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As I indicated, I have some doubts as to the accuracy as to whether indeed The New York Times did actually weigh in on this issue. But the fact that the mayor and city council did is not currently in the article.


 * We're talking about two sentences for heaven's sake. Not talking about adding a subsection or adding to the lead or any shift whatsoever in the tone or POV of the article. Two sentences to cover pertinent omitted details, using a source currently utilized in the article, and I get the revert button pushed on me twice, the above lecture on NPOV about adding brief and pertinent info to a lengthy article, and personally attacked in an edit summary. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You had the "revert button pushed on [you] twice" because you didn't follow the BRD cycle. Might I remind you that this is a Featured Article so it has many watchers, some of whom might disagree with you; it's not some tin-pot, badly written stub that you can add what you like to and expect nobody to challenge you.  Cassianto Talk   13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't expecting that any insubstantial change would be treated like vandalism. And, being unaware of your block record, I was surprised by your personal attack in the edit summary.  Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stick to discussing the content and not the contributor.  Cassianto Talk   17:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same thought crossed my mind when I saw your abusive edit summary. Anyway, if you have anything further to say on the matter at hand (by which I mean the two sentences of text that you hate so much) beyond your extremely brief comment above, do say so, or otherwise perhaps others can comment. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the correlation between your use of OWN and BRD, sorry. Oh and by the way, this is a talk page, so anyone is welcome. However much it might upset you, you have no umpiring rights here.  Save that for your own talk page.  Now, please discuss your points or go and do something else.   Cassianto Talk   17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't "refactor your comment". I have no idea how that happened; it must've happened in an edit conflict as you "refactored [your own] comment" several times in between my two edits. Anyway, you really must assume good faith.  Now, for the last time, discuss this like an adult or bugger off and go and do something else.   Cassianto Talk   18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll make a last attempt. Apart from "bugger off" do you have any comments of substance to make on the two sentences that you edit-warred over? Coretheapple (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I reading this right?
Am I correct in thinking that you lot are fighting like seven-year-olds squabbling over who gets the last biscuit over whether The passage set off a furor [sic] in the United States when the book was published in November 1944. New York City's mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and other New York officials attacked Coward, and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle commenced a campaign against him. There were protests from the New York City Council, which passed a resolution condemning Coward for "the libel published by his reflecting upon the valour and courage of Brooklyn's fighting forces," as well as The New York Times and The Washington Post. should be included? There are some causes that are worth fighting for, but the inclusion of 498 characters, on a topic of tangential interest at best but not actively inappropriate, buried in the body text of a 6900-word article is not one of them. I'm sorely tempted to fully protect the page until you come to some agreement. (If you can't come to some agreement, I'm more than willing to stick a RFC template here and summon The Wisdom Of Crowds in the form of all the assorted busybodies with nothing better to do than follow RFCs, to come to a consensus that probably neither of you will be happy with.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I was actually about to start an RfC but was hoping for more opinions. Are you for or against the two sentences at issue? What's at issue is not whether that passage should be included but whether the two sentences that I wished to include should be there. See . Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And as far as protection is concerned, I could care less. I've made a grant total of one change to this article before running into a brick wall. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on 1944 controversy
Should the "Second World War" section be changed so that this passage

"In his Middle East Diary Coward made several statements that offended many Americans. In particular, he commented that he was 'less impressed by some of the mournful little Brooklyn boys lying there in tears amid the alien corn with nothing worse than a bullet wound in the leg or a fractured arm'.[75][76] After protests from both The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Foreign Office urged Coward not to visit the United States in January 1945. He did not return to America again during the war."

is changed to

"In his Middle East Diary Coward made several statements that offended many Americans. In particular, he commented that he was 'less impressed by some of the mournful little Brooklyn boys lying there in tears amid the alien corn with nothing worse than a bullet wound in the leg or a fractured arm'.[75][76] The passage set off a furor in the United States when the book was published in November 1944. New York City's mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and other New York officials attacked Coward, and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle commenced a campaign against him.[77] There were protests from the New York City Council, which passed a resolution condemning Coward for 'the libel published by his reflecting upon the valour and courage of Brooklyn's fighting forces,'[78] as well as The New York Times and The Washington Post. Due to the controversy, the Foreign Office urged Coward not to visit the United States in January 1945."

The boldface words are additions. They are sourced to a biography that is currently utilized as a source. See this diff Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. I thought this teeny-weeny change to this immense article would be uncontroversial, but apparently not. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Vaguely support, seeing as I'm here, although this isn't a topic about which I know much. Given that seeking to use his influence to persuade the American public and government to help Britain is considered important enough to go in the lead, it seems to me that it's worthy of mention that he (at least temporarily) fell from favour in the US during the war. It doesn't warrant more than one, or at most two, sentences, though; probably just changing After protests from both The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Foreign Office urged Coward not to visit the United States in January 1945 to After protests from US newspapers and the mayor and Council of New York, the Foreign Office urged Coward not to visit the United States in January 1945. &#8209; Iridescent 18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We already note the Foreign Office's request, note that people were offended, and cite the national newspapers that weighed in on the subject. Coward's *not* doing something is of comparatively limited importance to the actual activities of his life and career. Noting the reactions of the local politicians is of less interest to our readers both in the US and around the world. I think the amount of detail currently given to the episode in the article is right, and that the additional details sought to be added by Coretheapple would be excessive per WP:UNDUE and would place too much emphasis on this detail. See particularly WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, looking in briefly from WP retirement. I think the proposed addition is otiose (it is also misspelled and in questionable grammar, though of course that could be amended if the wording were judged worthy of retention). It is a frequent error by drive-by editors to suppose that their particular concerns are proportionate in the context of an entire article. I have to hand a much more interesting quotation about this brouhaha than that proposed here, and I actually used it in my original draft of the pre-FA revision, but I concluded that two sentences on the matter were ample and that more would be disproportionate. Iridescent's suggestion seems sensible to me. Regards to all.  Tim riley  talk    21:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons put so well by Ssilvers and Tim Riley above. Jack1956 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose because I've read Hoare and Morley bios, and this didn't stand out so. William Avery (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding material with misspellings is a bad idea. I do like the extra information though. Perhaps editor Tim Riley will share his alternative quote. desmay (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral Can't decide against it. L3X1 (distant write)  22:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggested compromise: I feel we can retain most of the extra context provided by the addition while cutting away some of the extraneous details, streamlining the prose and reducing redundancy with the current version with more efficient wording.  Would this suit as a reasonable compromise between the positions here?:


 * "Coward set of a furor in America with the November 1944 publication of his Middle East Diary, in which he commented that he was "less impressed by some of the mournful little Brooklyn boys lying there in tears amid the alien corn with nothing worse than a bullet wound in the leg or a fractured arm".[75][76] New York City's mayor Fiorello LaGuardia publicly attacked Coward [77] and the New York City Council passed a resolution condemning him. Local and national newspapers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, carried editorials critical of Coward. Due to the controversy, the Foreign Office urged Coward not to visit the United States in January 1945."


 *  S n o w  let's rap 05:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be OK I think. Coretheapple (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is possibly worse. It was not a furore (British spellings in this article), it was merely a short-lived reaction.  Who cares what the mayor and local politicians thought?  What about what the Brooklyn county registrar thought? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I must admit, your response is fairly confusing to me; how is it that you view the proposed compromise as "worse", when it is basically a stripping away of elements of Core's proposal that you explicitly oppose? Surely that should at least be a step in the right direction for you, even if it represents a proposal you still can't see yourself supporting? Does your objection arise solely because of the inclusion of the word furor(e)? Because I don't think anyone would argue that this word is an essential element.  You might characterize the event as a minor affair of any sort and I don't think it would substantially change the reading.  In fact, I should care not at all if not a single phrase of my proposal was employed. I just think there must be a reasonable compromise between the two stances I (as a neutral RfC respondent) see being advocated here and hoped some discussion might bridge the gap.  Can I ask (as a matter of genuine inquiry, not snarkiness), is it your position that the paragraph cannot be improved upon at all and should be left exactly as it is, in perpetuum?   S n o w  let's rap 03:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course anything can theoretically be improved, but all the proposals so far are longer, and therefore worse, than what is there now. The description of the event is currently adequate and balanced, and adding anything, such as the reactions of the local NYC politicians to a statement in Coward's 1944 book, is WP:UNDUE and mischaracterizes the importance of the non-event described.  All that happened is that Coward cancelled a public relations trip that, in 1945, would not have been very important anyhow. In any case, it is not that important with respect to *Coward's* life and career and already has plenty of ink in the article.  Please see my comment in the Discussion below. I wouldn't mind changing "NYT and WaPo" to "US newspapers". Also, IMO, an RfC is a terrible way to second-guess something that has been carefully considered at peer review and FAC by numerous reviewers who actually know a lot about Noel Coward. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Current wording - it seems like unnecessary detail. Does it add anything that isn't covered by the current version? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ssilvers and Tim Riley. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in theory, but trim it. Iridescent's and Snow Rise's edits should be considered (other than the BrEng "furore" creeping in). Some of the additional detail is useful to readers, and provides greater context. It's also more precise. But we don't need quite this much detail here. For one thing, it would be apt to lead people to keep adding to it ("The Clovis News Journal bashed him about this, too, and so did the state Attorney General of Nebraska, and ...").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
This article contains 5 paragraphs concerning Coward's activities during World War II, when he worked hard on behalf of Britain and to entertain British troops. He made a film and wrote war-themed songs, in addition to Blythe Spirit. One of these paragraphs, containing four sentences, is devoted to this issue of *not making a trip*. We note the Foreign Office's request and cite the national papers that weighed in on the subject but do not mention the mayor and NY City Council's reaction. As Cassianto wrote above, Coward's *not* doing something is nevertheless of interest because of the national notice it got, but compared with his actual *activities*, it is of comparatively limited importance to his life and career. I think the amount of detail currently given to the episode in the article is right, and that the additional details sought to be added by Coretheapple would be excessive per WP:UNDUE and would place too much emphasis on this detail. We already said that people were offended and mentioned the most important national papers that treated the issue; the local politicians are of less interest to our readers both in the US and around the world. I live in New York City, and even I find the additional details about the NY politicians to be excess detail. See WP:BALASP. I believe that it would be poor judgment to devote more ink to this discussion of something that Coward did *not* do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All we're discussing here is a tad more detail not on what he "didn't do" (that's not accurate at all) but on what he did do, which was to give offense. Since his role in US-British relations during World War II was consequential enough to be mentioned in the lead, this handful of words is necessary to understand why the trip was cancelled. It wasn't just a couple of newspaper editorials. It was the mayor and council of the city of New York, with the latter passing an exceedingly angry resolution. I fail to understand how adding this necessary context throws this whole article out of balance. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The general objection appears to be the verbosity and detail level.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Pomp and Circumstance
Someone added "modelled on Jamaica where Coward had a home" to the description of Pomp and circumstance. We had already described the setting as a tropical British colony. Does this add anything? Adding it in the middle of the sentence, and citing it there to a book about James Bond, seems distracting rather than helpful. I suggest deleting it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If that citation is correct and the locale really was the template for the setting of the story, it feels like an entirely acceptable detail to add. The placement of the clause within the sentence is grammatical (and not in any way jarring to my eye as a reader) and the fact that the musical is not the primary topic of the reference being used is completely irrelevant, so long as the source is itself WP:RS.  I don't know that it's the most critical piece of content to the article, but it seems encyclopedically appropriate and given that there is all of one sentence devoted to this work, an additional clause of 8 words doesn't feel excessive.  S n o w  let's rap 09:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not the best of writing (a second sub clause crowbarred into a sentence normally makes things lumpy, and this is no exception). I'm not overly impressed by the source as a source for Coward (I have the book for use in the Bond articles, and while the author is strong there, it does not automatically follow that he's actually researched Coward or his life). If the same information doesn't appear in more Coward-centric works, I'd be inclined to take it out as being a writers impression (or OR), rather than something written from a position of research. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Schro, I know you to be an experienced editor, so forgive me if this sounds patronizing, but you do realize that you've completely reversed the actual meaning of WP:Original research there? Of course our sources conduct their own research....that's what we rely on them to do?  It's us, as the editors of this project who are not allowed to conduct original research as the basis of our editorial decisions, and that is exactly what we would be doing if we decided, under own initiative, to disregard sources that clearly are reliable under our project guidelines, because of our own speculation (and what you suggest is nothing more than pure speculation) about their internal professional processes or knowledge of the matter.  Editors are not allowed to add a source to an article, deem it reliable for the facts that they support and then cherry-pick other occasions where it is suddenly not reliable, because it seems unlikely to us (based on own personal deductions/perceived expert knowledge of the topic) that the source got those facts wrong.  That's the purest, most unadulterated form of OR I can imagine, and it completely undermines the purpose and value of a WP:Verification process that has been meticulously crafted by this project specifically for the purpose of removing our editors from the equation of deciding what the facts "really" are.   S n o w  let's rap 22:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do know what it looks like, but Parker's book is good as a source on Fleming and Bond, but he's not a good source on Coward. That's why I've suggested looking at Coward-centric works, to see if they (the ones whose research focuses on Coward and his canon of work) make the same claim. It's certainly not OR to do this – see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for the weighing of sources to judge their reliability on non-core areas. (A trite example would be that if the Parker book also stated that the earth is flat, we would not report it as a verbatim fact: we'd refer to subject-specific sources to get the better context, but it still would diminish the work as an excellent source on Fleming). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

[left] Compromise: I moved the detail into a footnote that gives more useful information about Coward's use of Samolo, while improving the prose in the main text, and substituted the Parker ref for a better ref. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, granted I'm not the editor who made the initial contribution, but that seems like a reasonable middle ground solution to me.  S n o w  let's rap 03:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Noël Coward. 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/20140221152803/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386188010849 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386188010849
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131205161150/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386189663593 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386189663593
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430012835/http://www.tonightat830.com/Coward-Timeline/ to http://www.tonightat830.com/Coward-Timeline/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Noël Coward. 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/20061215220640/http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/rattrap-rev.htm to http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/rattrap-rev.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610013510/http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/illleave-rev.htm to http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/illleave-rev.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

First success
I think it's fairly obvious that

"In 1924, Coward achieved his first great critical and financial success as a playwright with The Vortex"

is ambiguous, potentially referring to success with one specific play that was repeated at later revivals of that play, rather than the initial success with one play on which a career of other plays and other work was built. I propose substituting either

"Coward achieved his first great critical and financial success as a playwright with The Vortex, in 1924"

or perhaps

"As a playwright, Coward achieved his first great critical and financial success with The Vortex"

Harfarhs (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the current sentence, and I disagree that that you have identified a meaningful ambiguity. No English speaker will be confused by this.  Giving the year for context at the beginning of the sentence is helpful to the reader.  I don't think your suggested change is helpful, and in fact the comma that you throw in near the end is wrong. However, if you have a specific reason for making any of the other changes that were reverted, please expound here so that other editors can consider them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With the greatest possible respect to Harfarhs, I think you'd need a tin ear for language to think the suggested changes an improvement. We have had the benefit of these limited drafting skills elsewhere and once again I don't think they have much to benefit the reader here.  Tim riley  talk   21:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
A simply stunning article! Jamesmcardle(talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I hadn't spotted this till now. Speaking as one of the regular editors of this page, I'd like to thank you,, for your kind words.  Tim riley  talk   11:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

List of plays etc
The existing list of plays has a few minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and needs revising. I am wondering if it might be as well to move that list and the other smaller ones from this page to their own dedicated page, cf. the lists of roles etc for Gielgud, Olivier et al – leaving the existing page as a pure biography. Thoughts welcome on this. If nobody demurs, I'll gladly have a pop at it.  Tim riley  talk   11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a good idea. This article would be cleaner if the list of Works and stage/film/tv appearances were moved to a list article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll leave this thread open for a couple of days, in case anyone else has views, before leaping into action.  Tim riley  talk   18:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great idea. The article stands as a very thorough, enjoyably readable biography—better than some of the many books on Coward, because it draws them all together. Those seeking details on the plays, which now almost all have their own articles, will be able to access that detail from the list page. Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right ho! I've made a start, but please wade in and improve it: Noël Coward on stage and screen., dear boy, can you be an angel and make my tables the same widths? And any other improvements that leap to mind.  Tim riley  talk   19:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this.  Cassianto Talk  20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Cass. Any improvements you can make will be welcomed.  Tim riley  talk   20:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Will have a look shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked a couple of the links, but you'd best check I've not messed anything too much. Do the tables need to be the same width? Forcing my the width doesn't work well on mobile devices/iPads, etc, and you're probably best leaving the software to end the columns where is most logical to them - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that. I'll be guided by you on the matter of table widths.  Tim riley  talk   10:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Scottish heritage
Coward's maternal grandfather was Scottish(Henry Gordon Veitch) --  source: Coward's biographer PHILIP HOARE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.143.55 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You can't just throw in a category. The article needs to state the fact, with an appropriate citation.  What page in Hoare's book?  The Wikisource link does not say so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you read Hoare's book again, more carefully, you will find that Henry Gordon Veitch had no connection with Scotland. Veitch's father, Coward's great-grandfather, was born in Selkirk, which is in Scotland, but for obvious reasons we do not mention this obscure fact in the article.  Tim riley  talk   08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Archive" section
A new editor keeps adding an "Archive" section referring exclusively to one set of Coward archives and ignoring the others. (The editor is an employee of the archive in question, verb sap.) I have again removed the section and returned the link to its proper place, in the External Links section.  Tim riley  talk   13:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Markwill has a clear WP:COI. It is possible that all of his contributions regarding his employer will be removed from Wikipedia.  Should we alert someone to this problem?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say adding links in External Links sections is reasonably OK, COI notwithstanding, but a paid editor adding new sections on his/her employer is plainly acting ultra vires .  Tim riley  talk   00:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could someone please add this link and text on my behalf please?:

"The Noel Coward Collection is available at the Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham". Markwill1987 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is already linked: see "External links". We don't need a duplicate link.  Tim riley  talk   14:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Tim riley. Even including an external link to an archive seems spammy to me, but we most certainly do not want to add text to the article talking about archives that have a collection of Coward's papers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Even including an external link to an archive seems spammy to me" I have to say I disagree strongly with that semtiment. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I'd agree, Duncan, but there is always an extra factor to consider when a paid editor adds a link. This one seems OK to me, but there is no justification for a duplicate mention in the main text.  Tim riley  talk   22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of an Infobox
Could someone explain why this article doesn’t have an infobox? If it isn’t intentional for it to not have an infobox, could I add one? TheCorrectPanda (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a secret to everyone. Only a few select members know why there isn't an infobox, and I'm not one of them. My best guess is that there were a few active editors on several pages about ten years ago who decided that infoboxes were not necessary to these articles. This is one of those articles. Everytime someone would try and add one, they would revert it. I have always been in favor of adding reasonable infoboxes in these biographical articles and I'd support one here and now as well. The growing consensus seems to be that they are useful in biographies, but not every discussion has ended with adding an infobox.--JOJ  Hutton   23:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". It is difficult to have a specific discussion so far, as no one has proposed a specific infobox, but I disagree with including an infobox in this article, for starters, because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts and sets them forth in a better order. (2) Since the information that would be in the box is already discussed in the article and is also seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts, many of which (for example, place of death) are not really "key facts". (3) The IB's overly bold format and appearance at the top of the article would discourage people from continuing on to read the text or even the Lead of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Archive 2 of this Talkpage. You’ll see a long discussion on this issue, where the views for and against an IB are clearly set out. I think you will find there are other, more profitable, uses of your time on here than to re-litigate this point. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the claim that infoboxes discourage people from reading on is idiotic at best, and downright patronising at worst. It's that horrible "we are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and you will only be allowed access in the way we want you to" attitude, or "you must read all of the article or none of it". Infoboxes are, in my opinion, a handy quick crib for basic details like vital dates, birthplace, and a selection of significant works. They also improve the look of an article on screen. But a very vocal and persistent few have taken against them, to the extent even of trying to shut down any renewed debate. It's a shame, but there we are. DuncanHill (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just made that claim, so I must be an idiot. I have limited understanding, but isn't that UNCIVIL??  Please do go ahead and improve all the articles I have created and greatly expanded on Wikipedia.  You must have lots of intelligent things to add and plenty of time to replace my research and writing with non-idiotic research and writing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not anywhere close to what was said. You manipulated the language as an attempt to gaslight the conversation. You just need to come to terms with the fact that there is a massive majority out there that does not adhere to your view. It's not a conspiracy or an attack on you. People just want infoboxes in these types of articles. The majority find them useful and helpful.--JOJ  Hutton   07:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering your first response to the OP was near as dammit trolling fellow editors, you cmplaining abut being gaslighted are a bit rich.  ——Serial  12:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you complaining about an ancient comment in a dead section of the thread? Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The usual misrepresentation of editors like me who are all for info-boxes where they are useful (which, please note, is WP's policy). I have recently created at least one new article with an info-box and added info-boxes to two other articles I was expanding. If the main authors (and other contributors) thought an info-box would be helpful to the reader here they would have added one long ago.  Tim riley  talk   10:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no evidence of any "massive majority" among our readers, who are the people we should be thinking about. It is certainly true that we have a large number of editors who like adding infoboxes, along with multiple images, geolocations, navboxes, in fact anything except the good text that our readers actually come to WP for. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a reader but it seems my opinion doesn't count because you've decided it's wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Phooey! Your opinion counts as the opinion of ONE person. This page has had over 400,000 views this year. Far, far, too much weight is given to the opinions of vociferous Wikipedian regulars on talk pages, when we actually have very little idea what the vast mass of our readers actually want, and there is no reason to suppose it is thwe same. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Vociferous regulars like you Johnbod? DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, for Heaven's sake get off it, Dunc!  Tim riley  talk   18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I could say the same thing to you about every single article you’ve blocked an infobox from. Dronebogus (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No doubt you could, but on the whole I restrict my comments on i-boxes to articles on which I have worked, and I hope know something about. I do not barge in at articles I know nothing about and have never contributed to. Et toi?
 * Assuming the "trying to shut down any renewed debate" comment is directed at me, I think it's a bit of a mischaracterisation. But I do think that re-litigating the issue on a page where it has already been debated at length, including with a formal RfC, is about as big a waste of time as this. As to my personal view, every FA I've worked on, except FARs where it wasn't there originally, has an infobox. KJP1 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) It had an infobox when it was promoted to GA, and FA, and TFA. So the "it would have one if the authors though t it would be useful" claim is false. It did have one, but someone decided to remove it. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! Is this the sort of info-box you mean? You unwittingly put your finger on why it would be unencyclopaedic to add one here with your proposed "significant works". Significant (by which I imagine you mean "important" rather than "signifying something") according to whom? Which of Beethoven's symphonies are "significant"? Which of Verdi's operas? Which of Shakespeare's plays? You can see as regards the last that the perpetrator of the I-box there has ignored Wikipedia's rules, and instead of summarising key points in the article has directed the poor reader to another article altogether, leaving him or her none the wiser about which of Shakespeare's works are "significant". This makes Wikipedia look incompetent and is wholly unhelpful to the reader.  Tim riley  talk   11:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have finally remembered what the article was that I created the other day, with an info-box: it is this one, where I think you will agree the i-box serves a useful purpose: an at-a-glance summary of the cited facts.  Tim riley  talk   11:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Significant "Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy; consequential, influential." The sense dates back to 1642. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fowler: "The dictionaries give important as one of the definitions of significant, but to use it merely as a synonym for that word is to waste it". Gowers: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'."  Tim riley  talk   11:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But what to these dead men say about infoboxes? DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Was I wrong to fear that this would descend into another uncollegiate, unfruitful discussion? Can we not simply accept that there are differing views on this issue, and leave it at that. There's a great deal else to do on here. KJP1 (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, KJP1! But they'll be back sooner or later. There is a hard core who hate Wikipedia's policy and believe devoutly (though usually denying it) that all articles must have an i-box. Oh, yes, they'll be back. Meanwhile we strive to have I-Bs where useful and to eschew them where not.  Tim riley  talk   12:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want one if I didn't think it was useful, and I don't think all articles must have one, whatever Tim may falsely claim. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from flinging false accusations about. I don't accuse you of anything, other than failing to address the substantive points raised above. But KJP1 is right. Let's have an end – however temporary – to this kerfuffle (or, Duncan, from your shelves of dictionaries, "carfuffle", "kafuffle" or "kufuffle").  Tim riley  talk   12:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Who were you accusing then? And when will you allow people who disagree with you to say so? DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just contrarianism on the part of some editors. They did this on the Mozart article for years until the forces of good finally won, but unfortunately it seems like this article is also infected. Very annoying if you're trying to quickly find out details about him, such as where he died which is what I was trying to figure out. KernalForbin (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What an unpleasant comment. People hold different opinions on the point and there is no need for such unthinking incivility just because of the difference. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean whom, and see the first contributions to this dismal litany and many, many similar whinges.  Tim riley  talk   14:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this article would be improved by the inclusion of a simple infobox.
 * I have come to this view after reading all the above discussion. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start an RfC because as you could probably tell this discussion stalled ages ago and the main parties are deadlocked. Dronebogus (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or you could respect the long-standing consensus and not start an RfC, given the lack of interest in one. Just a thought. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because you and Tim aren’t interested in one doesn’t mean everyone else isn’t. Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't personalise debates. It's fairly clear it's not just two people opposing here: several people have weighed in on both sides. Stirring up dramah on IBs, particularly be trying to personalise matters, isn't a constructive step. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * KJP1 is the only non-regular who has weighed in on the… let’s say “infobox skeptic” side, and the only one who actually seemed like they were trying to help the other side understand the counterpoints or at least cool the situation. What I always see from the regular, more hardline skeptics is the same tired copypastas about liberal arts, mixed with getting angry and offended that people are frequently exasperated with them and their tired copypasta arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am equally bored by the combative, disruptive nature of IB warriors endlessly pushing their agenda. You can't have one without the other, so drop the negative and disruptive crap and stop trying to needle people. I'm done until someone turns up who isn't misguidedly blinkered turns up . - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to try and argue with that, I understand it’s pointless, but I will say the last sentence is confusing me. What is”until someone turns up who isn't misguidedly blinkered turns up” supposed to mean? Is that a typo? Dronebogus (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)