Talk:Noël Coward

Needs an infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ain't nothing wrong with omitting an infobox for a Featured Article like this. But would addition of infobox help a lot? --George Ho (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been considered previously and rejected. Tim riley (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked in the talk archives and can't find a discussion. Considered where, by who, how much? -- GreenC 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the work on this article was done by Tim riley and me, and I agree with him that an infobox would not be helpful in this article. The WP:LEAD contains the information that would go in an infobox, and it gives that information in context and with more nuance than an infobox would give. See WP:DISINFOBOX for more information, but I would be happy to give a fuller description of why I think an infobox would be a bad idea here, if anyone wants to read more about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article would benefit from having an infobox. It would add value by making the vital facts about Coward's life accessible at a glance. I couldn't find the discussion mentioned in the archives either. --Albany NY (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need, to be honest. The key information is held in the lead, with the most important being in the first line or two. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat. On the whole info-boxes are unhelpful for biographies of musicians, which is why they have generally been eschewed for the relevant Featured Articles. I don't think it would be advantageous to disturb the status quo here. Tim riley talk 07:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, me neither. Adding a infobox would be a step in the wrong direction for this featured article. As illustrated above, Infoboxes work on some articles, but not on others. This, almost certainly, falls into the latter. Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The article had an infobox in 2011, with flaws, and the image could be larger, but looking useful to me to find out at a glance when and where this person did what. There is never a need, but we can be willing to serve readers, even readers who behave differently. - We seem to have an infobox summer-flu ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There wouldn't be, of course, if it wasn't for your insistence to irritate most infoboxless articles. Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain wrong, see below also. It must be irritating when I merely point out that an infobox was there but reverted, and that it is common practise that the main editors get the say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it is irritating. Cassianto^Talk 08:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes what's right is irritating. Is it correct that an infobox was there but reverted? Is it common practise that the main editors make the decision, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that its life started out without an IB. Where was the discussion to add one five years later when someone had added this utter joke. That's five, happy years of survival without an infobox, of sorts. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Not understanding why two old infobox discussions have been re-opened at two Featured Articles in the last two days. Yesterday it was Talk:Gustav Holst and today it's Noël Coward. Yesterday's discussion at Gustav Holst spilled over to my talk page. My opinion expressed there is the same: the addition or exclusion of an infobox is up to the main editor(s) of the article. Again-I don't see a group of editors going through WP removing infoboxes from article because of personal preference. They are added or removed by main editors when an article has undergone major changes. But I have seen infoboxes ADDED to articles despite prior consensus not to have one,and old infobox discussions suddenly being revived (here and at Gustav Holst to name a couple). It's not unusual to see that authors of Featured Articles have been put through the "infobox mill" more than once regarding the subject.

Tempers sometimes flare on both sides of the issue; the bottom line is that it's a giant waste of time and disruptive for both the pro and the anti infobox factions. Everyone is using time to discuss the issue which ought to be put to better use; no one can create content when in the midst of an infobox discussion-the time is spent on the infobox issue. If WP had no content, the subject of an infobox is moot--it would be simply a collection of little fact boxes. With almost 2 million stubs in need of expansion at WP, the time spent on "to infobox or not to infobox" would be better spent in expansion or creation of content. To me, everyone's a loser when one of these discussions breaks out-those on both sides of the question and the readers, who come here for content. We hope (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"the addition or exclusion of an infobox is up to the main editor(s) of the article" .. that is inaccurate. It is up to community consensus. Should someone decide to open a simple RfC "Should this article have an infox" consensus will decide the issue. You can't negate the opinion of other editors based on seniority ie. the "main editor", that is classic WP:OWN. -- GreenC 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you take your WP:OWN accusation and stick it where the the sun don't shine? Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think? That would be nice, but common practise is different: they come, improve and get rid of an infobox, even if it was there for years, - and seem to be surprised that we object. - Correcting We hope: no discussion was "revived" on Gustav Holst. During an active RfC there about the hidden notice, an editor claimed that a consensus not to have an infobox had been established. That was not yet established but will be ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And we can continue to argue, dither and otherwise waste the time of those on both sides of the question, so my opinion is to keep the article is it presently is-no infobox. We hope (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An RfC wouldn't be dithering. Enter a !vote and walk away and let the chips fall where they may. 30 days later the issue gets resolved. Very simple. The alternative is open-ended unresolved threads .. like this one started 2.5 years ago. -- GreenC 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In violation of the infobox arbitration case, Gerda goes around Wikipedia trying to add infoboxes to existing articles. The Infobox arbitration case did not conclude that every article needs to have an RfC about adding an infobox. It said that the editors who are interested in each article can form a consensus, if they wish, to change its IB status. The time and place to forge a consensus about an infobox for a Featured Article is at extensive FAC discussions. It is bad faith to go around trying to insert infoboxes into Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain wrong. There are millions of articles without infobox on Wikipedia (to which I don't go). I didn't come to this one to have an infobox, but was alerted by the header on my watchlist. I didn't insert one in the article (which I could have done, I am no longer restricted.) I didn't even suggest one on this talk. I only pointed out that there was one that was reverted. May I? -- Did you know that only one restriction of the arbitration case is still active: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason this issue keeps coming up is that to many Wikipedians, including myself, infoboxes clearly improve articles and not having one appears glaringly incorrect and inconsistent with most other biographical articles (in this case, see the peer articles Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Neil Simon, and Eugene O'Neill). I agree that an RfC would be a better way to deal with this because it has a clear resolution. --Albany NY (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, other editors feel the opposite way. We believe that you are degrading and dumbing down the encyclopedia. The difference is that *we* don't go around sneakily bullying people into letting us remove infoboxes from articles that we haven't even edited before, in violation of the arbitration case, while Gerda and others do. Perhaps you will succeed, and then the good editors will leave the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is an accurate summary. There are two groups of editors who express strong views pro- or con- info-boxes. The difference is that the hardcore pro set regularly turn up en bloc at articles to which they have not contributed any content and try to force a box in, whereas those against i-bs for such articles spend much (too much) of our time resisting such attempted take-overs; we, by contrast, do not suddenly appear en masse at articles where we are not contributors and demand the removal of boxes. A certain reciprocity would be welcome in this regard. Tim riley talk 07:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tim, please give us one example of what you describe as "regularly", just one. I think you may remember a past. - My view: we who like structured information at a glance are not even a group, but single people coming independently with the same view. My socalled flash mob is a myth but got a nice picture (the second) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Earth calling! See all the classical music FAs that have had a sudden swarm of box-pushers in the past few days. You may recognise some names. Amazing outbreak of interest in classical music, amounting to a miraculous mass conversion, in editors who have hitherto contributed nothing to these articles. Tim riley talk 10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Gustav Holst, with a discussion about the hidden notice, because someone whose name I never heard in this context removed it. Not a good example. This article is also no good example, I was alerted by the word infobox on my watchlist, have no idea what made those come who were here before me. - What, btw, is a "box-pusher"? - Found on B's talk page: "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ...". We could start today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, Gerda, do you want to get us both banned? Let us consider a purely hypothetical example: if I could produce numerous emails proving that you invited me to gang up with you on another (frightful) editor, ought I to do so? If such a hypothetical eventuality were the case in reality I should, of course, respect your confidentiality, but let us not pretend that regular off-Wiki plotting doesn't go on. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If I did off-Wiki plotting I would hopefully be a little more successful, but I don't. Ganging up: I won you to do a GA review, and you refused the next request, as far as I remember. - If I wanted to have all articles with an infobox I would add infoboxes day and night in fields with no objection. Instead, I invite you to a FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose info box for the reasons I have stated elsewhere, namely that they add nothing to an article and merely repeat the information contained in a well written lead. In addition, other reputable encyclopaedias such as Britannica and ODNB do not see a need for therm. Jack1956 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Britannica does use infoboxes. See the box on their Noel Coward page. --Albany NY (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Grove and the ODNB and all the dozens of Oxford reference works known to me do not. Tim riley talk 16:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus here either for or against an infobox. It has come to my attention that a similar dispute on the Frank Sinatra article was resolved by using a collapsed infobox. I think this would be a reasonable compromise solution in this case. --Albany NY (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't run away with the idea that it was a happy compromise, because it wasn't. It's just another, more secretive way for you and a bunch of other people to enforce POV onto an article that you have in no way improved and do not care about. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto is right. There being no consensus for a change, the status quo prevails. Tim riley talk 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent research "has shown that most readers focus their attention on the content of an article that appears “above the fold” — usually just the lede section and the top of the infobox." The infobox is integral to an article, it's where most readers focus their attention. Lack of an infobox is detrimental. -- GreenC 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If that were so, it would be Wikipedia's policy to make I-Bs compulsory, but it isn't – as we all know. Tim riley talk 18:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, maybe you could provide a reliable source with regards to your findings, as opposed to a blog on Wikipedia which, as we all know, is not a reliable source. Cassianto^Talk 18:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: Sources are linked there. Tim_riley: That's a logical fallacy. The existence of studies does not equate to Wikipedia policy, nor does the lack of policy negate the studies. -- GreenC 19:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you consider policy to be more important than what makes a great article, then get your lushers round this: "An infobox is neither required nor prohibited". There's some policy for you. Cassianto^Talk 19:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"then get your lushers round this" What is a "lushers"?? Do I have lushers? All the policy says is the topic is open for discussion, which we are having. -- GreenC 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lushers mean lips; any old fool knows that. Cassianto^Talk 16:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of it, and google search doesn't show anything. I think the American version is "wrap your lips around this" and most of the refs I can find deal with sexual innuendo mostly implying a penis, or figurative one. Is that what the phrase implies there in London too? -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Green Cardamom, yes, readers focus their attention at the top: that's old news, but that's the reason why we have a lead that summarises the article, showing the key and important information. At least the information that is shown is in the lead is shown in context and balanced, rather than dumbed-down and out of context factoids that don't actually aid understanding about the subject. – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

dumbed-down and out of context factoids That's certainly a valid opinion, and there are valid counter-opinions about infoboxes, most articles have them. The link I posted above is evidence, not opinion. That's the difference - it's called evidence based decision making. The evidence is that most readers are focusing their reading on infoboxes (and lead sections). IMO the article is weaker without an infobox, based on the evidence. -- GreenC 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the link is not evidence: it makes some statements about the research, but the conclusions people draw from that research are not hard fact, it is their opinion of what the facts may mean. Aside from that, we would have to know on what sort of articles the research was based (i.e., did it just look at articles with IB's or a mixture of some with and some without, which would, rather obviously, give entirely different conclusions). "evidence based decision making" is all well and good, but you have to question the evidence first, to see it is fit for purpose—and the blog does not do that terribly well). People may grasp individual factoids from an IB, but they don't gain knowledge or understanding of a subject, and a well-written lead provides that data in context, with the key facts (name, date of birth/death, reason for importance, etc) in the opening line or two. Interesting that the subject is, I'll leave it here, I think: I am both exhausted and bored by the recent spate of IB discussions that have miraculously appeared recently. – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If the "evidence" were correct, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Oxford suite of reference works, American National Biography Online, Deutsches Biographisches Archiv, World Who's Who, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography etc ect would have info-box-style additions, and they haven't. Wikipedia doesn't need to stand out like a sore thumb from the professional reference works that it seeks to rival. Tim riley talk 15:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You placed "evidence" in quotes - do you disbelieve the studies that found most people only read the lead section and infobox? -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"IMO the article is weaker without an infobox" -- you'd know, of course. Tell me, how many features articles have you authored? Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't "author" articles, we contribute to articles. You don't own any articles including the ones displayed on your userpage. It's one thing to display a sense of ownership pride of work, another entirely to use that against other editors to try and invalidate their opinions or work, that is classic WP:OWN. If you think being the author of multiple FA gives you special rights or privileges than we have a problem that goes beyond infoboxen. -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to have a constructive exchange is proving difficult. There's none so deaf as them as wants to be, as the Yorkshire saying has it. The point about taking articles through FA is by no means invalid (and accusing Cassianto of WP:OWN is way off the mark, as he has not been a major contributor to any of the articles currently under assault by the info-box army, though he has elsewhere staunchly stood up their coordinated bombardments at articles where he has been the lead editor). And the repeated assertions about research fail to answer my point that none of the professional reference sites mentioned above find info-boxes, or anything like, them desirable. As the professionals don't think them necessary, we amateurs ought to have the humility to take note. No doubt this is among the reasons why info-boxes have been ruled optional as a matter of poicy across en.WP. Tim riley talk 06:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying the evidence of the study is invalidate because something elsewhere doesn't exist? The study says what it says. It doesn't need other high bars to exist. I have been hesitant to start the RfC until we clear the air on some things and see who else might step in. Clearly there have been multiple opinions on both sides of this issue, with a few loud voices dominating and the less vocal users checking out. That's not healthy for a democratic and fair process, it's why we have RfCs, to give everyone an equal voice. Do you think everyone should have an equal voice on Wikipedia based on merit? What is really concerning is the OWN issues on display which transcend the content dispute. -- GreenC 01:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Aww, what's this? You want to be known for writing an FA just like the big kids? Tough. You are in no way responsible for this article getting to FA, or any other FA, in fact, than my kitchen cactus is. You can use liberal phrases like "we all contribute to articles" and "it's not yours to own" etc, but let me make this clear: I author my articles. I buy or rent the books, subscribe to the research sites, design the layout, pick the pictures, pick the reference styles, choose the headings, choose the categories, and judge the length. As my reward, I steward that article through the FA process, and take a beating or praising when my more intelligent and esteemed colleagues come to review it. That whole process takes months. I am therefore entitled to refer to it as my own and treat it like my own; that means I will protect it from people like you who come here to enforce something onto it that I don't agree with. If this makes me a policy breacher then good, I couldn't give a flying toss. My articles, not including this one, or, as Tim rightly points out above, any of those subjected to the infobox flash-mob scrum down that's been happening recently, mean more to me than being blocked, banned, or any of the other shite that I've been threatened with over the last few weeks. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole FA system was made with good intentions but can also be toxic to the community when it adversely impacts egos, like I am therefore entitled to refer to it as my own and treat it like my own. A more blatant case of WP:OWN I have yet to see. If you talk like this in front of admins you very well might get sanctioned. -- GreenC 00:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to OWN? I think we've established the fact that as the author, you should get to have more of a say so on an FA than anyone else? I think you'll find that that is a widely regarded concept. Glad to see you liked my picture, by the way! ;) Cassianto^Talk 06:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read OWN? Specifically Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements because your posts in this forum are a taxominy of techniques to suppress editorial opinions. Your picture was part of a pattern of uncivil (actually nasty) behavior, and it mocked other editors for not having as many FA as you. That is exactly what OWN behavior is, belittlement of other editors based on an attitude of possessiveness. -- GreenC 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So you haven't got your own way on forcing an IB onto the page, so you're going to re-hash the whole nonsense over an RfC? ~sigh~ There really are bigger and better things to do that constantly re-hash the formatting of repeated factoids on one small part of the page, not forgetting the fact that as it's fairly clear there is no clear consensus to add a box at present, an RfC could be seen as being disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A lack of consensus is why RfC's exist. We don't have RfCs when there is consensus. If your saying the RfC will close no consensus, maybe, who knows? All we have is a few loud minority voices - the point of an RfC is to give the community at large an opportunity to participate because few will want to participate in this monster thread, other than the usual suspects. -- GreenC 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• So forum shoping to get your own way? That's just disruptive, particularly as the ususal suspects from the flash mob will (miraculously) turn up once again - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• An RfC is not WP:FORUMSHOP: there has never been consensus established for this article, there are no discussions in other forums about this article. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Of course there has: this question has been answered several times, and just because you don't like it trying to force it through other areas (particularly at ANI where you made complaints without notifying the editors involved) smacks of an underhanded, toys-out-of-pram forum shop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You might want to wipe the dirt out of your eyes and take another look; I count the consensus on this page to be in favour of not having an infobox. But then that doesn't suit you does it; so because you don't like the answer, you want to open it up to a bunch of people who have no interest in the subject matter and who have probably never even heard of Coward, just because you know they are sheep and will want infobox consistency across the board, without looking at the wider picture. That's disruptive, in my view. Also, in regards to the ownership bollocks you keep droaning on about, in my mind, yes, I do consider myself to have more of a say on the articles I have spent time and money stewarding to FA. If that upsets you, then I suggest you go and deal with it somewhere else because frankly, Green Cardamom, I'm sick of this exchange. I haven't written anything on Coward, true, but I wouldn't dare force something onto it out of respect to those who spent time and effort writing and researching it, policy or not. Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Short pause while I rock with bitter mirth at the phrase "the usual suspects". That would, naturally not apply to the dozen hard-core IB warriors who mysteriously appeared en masse at half a dozen music FAs a few weeks ago, having exhibited not the slightest interest in any of them in the years before or since the articles went through the PR and FAC processes. "My last territorial claim in Europe"...then the Sudetenland, Poland etc. - the same tactics, albeit on an infinitely trivial scale. (And still no response to my question why only WP rather than the professional reference sites needs boxes.) Tim riley talk 14:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah warriors a concern on both sides. FWIW I've never been involved in a Infobox discussion before this. I imagine an RfC that required a disclaimer of prior 3 month IB consensus discussion activity (yes or no) might help the closing admin weigh decisions. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Guidance request at ANI. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving this to an Requests for Comment discussion to help form WP:CONSENSUS. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There was already a consensus, despite one editor not agreeing with it. Opening an RfC smacks of forum shopping just because a disruptive approach from someone who doesn't like it is just disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 16, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Sir Noël Coward (1899–1973) was an English playwright, composer, director, actor and singer. Coward published more than 50 plays, many of which have remained in the regular theatre repertoire. He composed hundreds of songs, well over a dozen musical theatre works, screenplays, poetry, several volumes of short stories, a novel, and a three-volume autobiography. Coward's stage and film acting and directing career spanned six decades, during which he starred in many of his own works and won an Academy Honorary Award in 1943. In the 1950s he achieved fresh success as a cabaret performer, performing his own songs. His plays and songs achieved new popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, and his work and style continue to influence popular culture.Photograph: Allan Warren; edit: Adam Cuerden

@Ssilvers: I think we and others have maintained the article to FA standards since FAC – six years ago, if you please! – what think you? Tim riley talk 16:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see if any refs have gone dead, but as far as I know, the content of the article continues to satisfy the FAC criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've checked and mended, replaced and in one case deleted where necessary. Tim riley talk 13:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What does being on the black book imply?

At the moment, the article has the claim "Had the Germans invaded Britain, Coward was scheduled to be arrested and killed, as he was in The Black Book along with..." I deleted the "and killed" bit, which was reverted by Tim riley with the comment "please read rest of para". Yes, of course, for this Rebecca West quote to be meaningful this claim is needed. However, that does not make it right. See The Black Book, where there is no claim whatsoever that the listed persons should be executed automatically, neither have I found any mention of this in a sample of articles on the listed persons. I mean, Neville Chamberlain is on the list, I really cannot imagine that he was scheduled to be executed. Seattle Jörg (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The source quoted says otherwise, and whatever any editor "imagines" is neither here nor there: the sources are key. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

West's quote says, "...the people we should have been seen dead with", reflecting her assumption that those in the book (or at least the bulk of them) would have been executed, had the Nazis invaded Britain. But, let's see what User:Tim riley has to say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm away from home and bookshelves until 30th inst, and will comment in detail as soon thereafter as I can. Meanwhile Seasonal Greetings to you all (though perhaps I should say Joyeux Noël.) Tim riley talk 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Back in London, and have checked the sources on my Coward shelf: they are clear. There's no suggestion that mere arrest was mooted. "In 1945, when the Nazi list of people marked down for immediate liquidation was unearthed and published…" (Coward (1954), p. 121), and this is Citron (p. 174):

What Noel did not learn until 1945 was that he and a great many other dissenters, intellectuals, patriots, spies, homosexuals and Jews were targeted for immediate execution … Noel was all of these except for being Jewish and would have stood no chance of survival. His name was high on Hitler's black list of those to be immediately 'exterminated'. At the end … came the name of Noel's friend Rebecca West. After VE Day, when the list was published, she wired 'MY DEAR THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN DEAD WITH!'

I think it would be right to stick with the present wording in the article. – Tim riley talk 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm. You have references that say that he was to be executed, I do not have references that say that he was not to be executed. But if you please could change the reasoning (...arrested and killed because in black book...): I stand by my claim that being on the black book in itself does not imply immediate execution. See for example the german entry on the Black Book: All the items on the list have some department back in Germany (sometimes specified to the detail of four levels down) the captured were to be transferred to, they were not to be shot on sight. See also what is said here: https://www.forces-war-records.co.uk/hitlers-black-book/

"There seems to be little written evidence that those 'wanted' would have any collective 'fate' as such, although some would obviously have more to fear than others based on what we knew after 1942 of the Holocaust and concentration camps (i.e. Jews, Communists and ex Nazi defectors), however no arrest or incarceration would have been pleasant." And:

"The list also gives a glimpse of the ‘type’ of persons who were to be arrested (if not specifically on the list)- Politicians, press barons, large international company directors, trade unionists, communists/political opponents & Jews, Gypsies, senior clergymen, scientists and everyone who had already escaped the Nazis from occupied Europe, in essence anyone either useful to the Nazi regime or a perceived opponent." -- Seattle Jörg (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with what the article sources actually say rather than speculate. Unless any other editor objects I propose we leave the text as drawn. Tim riley talk 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. Unless you can cite a WP:RS that more clearly shows that everyone understood that it was likely that they would *not* be executed, then I think the text, as written, is clear. Also, please try to format your Talk page contributions compactly. In fact, I try to make my Talk page contributions fit into one paragraph so that it is clear that my signature belongs to my comment. If you use multiple paragraphs in one Talk page comment, it is not always clear who is writing. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

His homosexuality was known to some

MIDDLE EAST DIARY — Noel Coward —Doubleday, Doran ($2).
Noel's Days. Suave, mauve Noel Coward also sang till his pipes cracked, but he found ample time to comment on life in the Mediterranean and Middle East.

• Something for the Boys, TIME Magazin, 6. November 1944

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, but he never discussed it publicly. As he is quoted in the article as saying, "There are still a few old ladies in Worthing who don't know." Tim riley talk 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather

An editor has added a link to Henry Gordon Veitch, who at first sight I thought might not actually be the man of that name who was Violet Coward's father – the dates look rather unlikely. But on checking the family tree in the Hoare biography I find that this is indeed the right man (b. 1814, d. 1863, the year of Violet's birth.) I've added this note in case anyone else is as doubtful as I was. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation format

Regarding this revert[1] .. Is there some reason for not using citation templates? (assuming all were changed). -- GreenC 18:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Either form is equally acceptable (though I personally find templates restricting - eg inability to bundle multiple cites) but we must be consistent. Your unexplained change made one citation read "retrieved" when all the others said "accessed". Not very clever in a featured article (or any other kind). Tim riley talk 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation templates are a crutch for people to use if they can't remember the elements of a bibliographic citation. It is much better, and easier for people to read on the edit screen, to give the bibliographic details as they are give here. It is too bad that so many editors here think that they have to jam all this ugly coding at our readers. As Tim riley notes, the tamplates are restrictive (although we do use the "Cite Book" template for sources at the bottom). It is much better for our readers to simply present the bibliographic information for non-book citations as follows: author's name (last then first), the title of the article or webpage, the name of the publisher/work, the date of publication, and the page number or url, as well as the access date, if the article is accessed a significant amount of time after it is published. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edith Nesbit

I removed a sentence that was added to the article today, referring to E. Nesbit. Coward was a fan of her writing and met her in 1922, keeping in touch with her until her death. Some sources say that she was possibly his favorite writer, and it is true that he re-read her books throughout his life, but I see no indication that he (or anyone) credited her as a significant influence on his own writing. That he was reading one of her books at the time of his death is not important, and I can't really see that his admiration for her writing is of encyclopedic interest, although others may wish to comment or disagree. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur. It is always tempting to add such pleasing incidental details when one runs across them, but the temptation is usually better resisted. In a biographical article of encyclopaedic length (5,900 words in this case) it is important to concentrate on the core essentials and avoid peripheral material. Tim riley talk 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page?

Question: Should an Infobox be added to the article? -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

!Votes and comments

• Yes, in general. Infoboxes are especially helpful for mobile users, who are now our largest userbase. That said, it depends on the details, of course. It is possible to create a terrible infobox full of trivia if someone obsessively tries to complete every possible field, or to fill out some of them in excess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes I come though my smartphone browser and the infobox is the first thing I see, and it answers 95% of the questions that made me look the person up. Forcing people to read the prose to answer the question they had is just silly paternalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, how silly of us to expect a reader to actually read. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Cassianto. This is an encyclopaedia. It cannot offer the "wealth of human knowledge" by presenting minor factoids in an ugly box. JAGUAR  22:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Infoboxes are a staple for these kind of articles in WP. The only reason not to have one is that the majority of the info that might go in the infobox is contentious and cannot be accurately summarized as a single phrase; that hardly seems the case here. We should at least start one and see if it's reasonable. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So because they are "staple" we should blanket use them accross the encyclopaedia, irrespective of the fact that they might not do the job they set out to do. How blinkered of you. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Infoboxes should be used occasionally and taken with a pinch a salt. For one, they degrade the presentation of the article by squashing the lead's text to the left while limiting the size of the image. Furthermore, the lead summarises the article so there is no need to repeat minor factoids in an infobox that not only interferes with presentation, but also brings no benefit to the readers. Do they quickly glance at the infobox and then leave the article without reading the main text (which was no doubt painstakingly crafted by those who worked hard to bring this to FA)? It's ugly, it discourages readers from reading the article, and contains nothing of value. JAGUAR  22:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• No -- Oppose an infobox for the following reasons:

1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
2. Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
4. Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes work on complicated articles, and this article most certainly does not fit into that category. I like infoboxes, generally, and think they work extremely well on royal, political, sports, geographical, and film articles; but my worry is that this article only has one simply because some people perceive it to be "normal practise" for all articles to have an infobox, irrespective of the fact that it might not actually do the job required of it. Cassianto^Talk 22:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What the infobox might look like

Sir Noël Coward
Coward in 1972, by Allan Warren
Born	Noël Peirce Coward (1899-12-16)16 December 1899 Teddington, Middlesex, England
Died	26 March 1973(1973-03-26) (aged 73) Blue Harbour, Port Maria, Jamaica
Occupation(s)	Actor, playwright, director, composer, singer
Years active	1911–1973
Partner	Graham Payn

It might be helpful to see what the infobox would look like.
I have here inserted how the infobox looked just before it was removed.
To make it easier to judge whether an infobox would be useful of not, please add any information thought necessary or useful, or change to a different infobox.
--Boson (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not helpful, and it's disruptive for you to distract away from an RfC that has only just begun. Cassianto^Talk 23:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)