Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 3

906:

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?

733:, 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. 706:. 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 1220:, 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 31: 2372:

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.

1006:. 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 2271:

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.--

838:"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". New York City's mayor 942:

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. --

2770:

Good thinking, KJP1! But they'll be back sooner or later. There is a hard core who hate Knowledge (XXG)'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.

1090:

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

1064:

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

280:

2860:

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

2720:

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,

2465:(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. 2371:

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

1259:

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

1165:

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

941:

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

228:

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

501:

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

2989:

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

2517:

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

1899:

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 -

1792:

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.

1637:

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,

1059:

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

625:

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".

616:

275:

2649:

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

2270:

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.

628:

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. There were protests from the New York City Council,

332:

You had the "revert button pushed on 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

842:

publicly attacked Coward 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

402:

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.

1215:

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

1149:

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

905:

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

385:

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

142:

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

1254:

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

1196:

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

829:

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

2598:

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

1994:

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.

426:. I have no idea how that happened; it must've happened in an edit conflict as you "refactored 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. 184:

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

240:

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.

3004:

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

161:

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. --

1652:

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.

2410:

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

2294:

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:

1197:

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. -

2344:

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.

317:

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.

526:

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

683:

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

92:, 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 2392:?? Please do go ahead and improve all the articles I have created and greatly expanded on Knowledge (XXG). 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. -- 2809:

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").

490:

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

1170:. 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. 890:

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? --

229:

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."

2974:

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. -

123:, 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= 3023:

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?

2755:

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.

2145:

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. --

1721:

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,

2580:

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.

1638:

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. --

1042:

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

258:

87:

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

2309:

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

1281:

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. --

516:

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.) ‑

2200:

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.

932:

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

2654:'s plays? You can see as regards the last that the perpetrator of the I-box there has ignored Knowledge (XXG)'s rules, and instead of summarising key points in the article has directed the poor reader to 2298:"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". 617:

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.

2301:

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

2318:

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

2721:

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?'."

2023:

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,

211:

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.

1091:

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.

2617:(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 2658:, leaving him or her none the wiser about which of Shakespeare's works are "significant". This makes Knowledge (XXG) look incompetent and is wholly unhelpful to the reader. 1976:

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. --

1228:

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.

2485:

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

1521: 1517: 1503: 1401: 1397: 1383: 2990:

same tired copypastas about liberal arts, mixed with getting angry and offended that people are frequently exasperated with them and their tired copypasta arguments.

2070:

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

1211:

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

486:

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

1349: 2489:

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.

2875:

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. -

443:

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?

2052:. It is possible that all of his contributions regarding his employer will be removed from Knowledge (XXG). Should we alert someone to this problem? -- 1060:

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

276:

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

1359: 690:

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

792:

Adding material with misspellings is a bad idea. I do like the extra information though. Perhaps editor Tim Riley will share his alternative quote.

686:

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

629:

which passed a resolution condemning Coward for "the libel published by his reflecting upon the valour and courage of Brooklyn's fighting forces,"

544:

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.

350:

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

2291: 1758:

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. --

1731: 1489: 313:

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.

1479: 2255:

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?

1803: 1224:

facts wrong. That's the purest, most unadulterated form of OR I can imagine, and it completely undermines the purpose and value of a

1961: 1499:

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

1379:

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

1117: 1022: 2928:

Feel free to start an RfC because as you could probably tell this discussion stalled ages ago and the main parties are deadlocked.

2791:

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.

2706:"Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy; consequential, influential." The sense dates back to 1642. 1297:

Well, granted I'm not the editor who made the initial contribution, but that seems like a reasonable middle ground solution to me.

568: 232:

Actually I have not read the original sourcing re the January 1945 trip postponement and I wonder about it, as I have perused the

603: 481:

Am I correct in thinking that you lot are fighting like seven-year-olds squabbling over who gets the last biscuit over whether

1350:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140221152803/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386188010849

1727: 1212: 592: 2430:

first response to the OP was near as dammit trolling fellow editors, you cmplaining abut being gaslighted are a bit rich.

2297: 1737:– leaving the existing page as a pure biography. Thoughts welcome on this. If nobody demurs, I'll gladly have a pop at it. 1069:. I believe that it would be poor judgment to devote more ink to this discussion of something that Coward did *not* do. -- 285:. I believe that it would be poor judgment to devote more ink to this discussion of something that Coward did *not* do. -- 2431: 2172:"Even including an external link to an archive seems spammy to me" I have to say I disagree strongly with that semtiment. 1369: 1140:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

64: 59: 1564: 1444: 230: 1363: 1353: 1086:

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

304:

did actually weigh in on this issue. But the fact that the mayor and city council did is not currently in the article.

1360:

https://archive.is/20131205161150/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386189663593

1256: 969:

Current wording - it seems like unnecessary detail. Does it add anything that isn't covered by the current version?

2919: 1772:

Good. I'll leave this thread open for a couple of days, in case anyone else has views, before leaping into action.

38: 1810:, dear boy, can you be an angel and make my tables the same widths? And any other improvements that leap to mind. 294: 205: 2603:. As to my personal view, every FA I've worked on, except FARs where it wasn't there originally, has an infobox. 2260: 1047:. One of these paragraphs, containing four sentences, is devoted to this issue of *not making a trip*. We note 263:. One of these paragraphs, containing four sentences, is devoted to this issue of *not making a trip*. We note 2389: 1954:

Coward's maternal grandfather was Scottish(Henry Gordon Veitch) -- source: Coward's biographer PHILIP HOARE.

1520:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1400:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1225: 639:

The boldface words are additions. They are sourced to a biography that is currently utilized as a source. See

2027:.) I have again removed the section and returned the link to its proper place, in the External Links section. 2682:, where I think you will agree the i-box serves a useful purpose: an at-a-glance summary of the cited facts. 1691:

I hadn't spotted this till now. Speaking as one of the regular editors of this page, I'd like to thank you,

1555: 1471: 1435: 1341: 782: 2240: 1965: 1957: 2866: 2311: 2105: 1467: 1096: 881: 670: 647: 549: 535: 448: 391: 359: 323: 246: 201: 2915: 1539:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1527: 1419:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1407: 1166:

the primary topic of the reference being used is completely irrelevant, so long as the source is itself

1114: 1019: 665:

I thought this teeny-weeny change to this immense article would be uncontroversial, but apparently not.

193: 1490:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110610013510/http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/illleave-rev.htm

1470:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1340:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 97: 2388:

Well, I've just made that claim, so I must be an idiot. I have limited understanding, but isn't that

2100:"The Noel Coward Collection is available at the Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham" . 1480:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061215220640/http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/rattrap-rev.htm

937:

anything, such as the reactions of the local NYC politicians to a statement in Coward's 1944 book, is

3029: 2995: 2965: 2933: 2890:

You mean whom, and see the first contributions to this dismal litany and many, many similar whinges.

2835: 2796: 2746: 2711: 2678:

I have finally remembered what the article was that I created the other day, with an info-box: it is

2626: 2571: 2537: 2508: 2446: 2377: 2256: 2177: 970: 679:

Vaguely support, seeing as I'm here, although this isn't a topic about which I know much. Given that

89: 81: 2898: 2818: 2779: 2729: 2690: 2666: 2554: 2473: 2417: 2277: 2209: 2125: 2082: 2035: 2003: 1922: 1873: 1818: 1780: 1745: 1703: 1661: 1316: 1247: 1189: 925: 869: 741: 600: 434: 411: 376: 341: 219: 148: 47: 17: 1066: 711: 282: 3014: 2980: 2951: 2880: 2397: 2327: 2151: 2057: 1981: 1905: 1890: 1763: 1643: 1627: 1287: 1265: 1202: 1155: 1074: 947: 896: 839: 778: 763: 719: 290: 189: 167: 132: 105: 1524:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1404:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1061: 938: 707: 277: 1540: 1493: 1420: 2862: 2523: 2494: 2101: 1794: 1692: 1682: 1582:"In 1924, Coward achieved his first great critical and financial success as a playwright with 1483: 1092: 877: 666: 643: 545: 531: 444: 387: 355: 319: 242: 197: 2566:

I could say the same thing to you about every single article you’ve blocked an infobox from.

2306: 2830:

Who were you accusing then? And when will you allow people who disagree with you to say so?

1108: 1013: 797: 2049: 1597:

the initial success with one play on which a career of other plays and other work was built

1547: 1427: 681:

seeking to use his influence to persuade the American public and government to help Britain

93: 3025: 2991: 2961: 2929: 2831: 2792: 2742: 2707: 2622: 2600: 2567: 2533: 2504: 2442: 2406:

That's not anywhere close to what was said. You manipulated the language as an attempt to

2373: 2173: 1010:

bashed him about this, too, and so did the state Attorney General of Nebraska, and ...").

693: 517: 1217: 1167: 196:, and I think warrants a couple of sentences added, sourced to the Coward bio. Comments? 3033: 3018: 2999: 2984: 2969: 2955: 2937: 2923: 2905: 2893: 2884: 2870: 2839: 2825: 2813: 2800: 2786: 2774: 2765: 2761: 2750: 2736: 2724: 2715: 2697: 2685: 2673: 2661: 2630: 2612: 2608: 2575: 2561: 2549: 2541: 2527: 2512: 2498: 2480: 2468: 2450: 2436: 2427: 2421: 2412: 2401: 2381: 2354: 2350: 2331: 2281: 2272: 2264: 2216: 2204: 2181: 2155: 2132: 2120: 2109: 2089: 2077: 2061: 2042: 2030: 2010: 1998: 1985: 1969: 1929: 1917: 1909: 1894: 1880: 1868: 1840: 1833: 1825: 1813: 1797: 1787: 1775: 1767: 1752: 1740: 1710: 1698: 1685: 1668: 1656: 1647: 1631: 1569: 1506:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1463: 1449: 1386:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1370:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090430012835/http://www.tonightat830.com/Coward-Timeline/

1333: 1318: 1298: 1291: 1269: 1249: 1229: 1206: 1191: 1171: 1159: 1126: 1100: 1078: 1031: 998: 986: 977: 951: 927: 907: 900: 885: 871: 851: 819: 814: 801: 786: 767: 748: 736: 723: 696: 674: 651: 606: 597: 553: 539: 520: 452: 438: 429: 415: 406: 395: 380: 371: 363: 345: 336: 327: 250: 223: 214: 171: 152: 144: 136: 109: 2503:

I'm a reader but it seems my opinion doesn't count because you've decided it's wrong.

1614:"As a playwright, Coward achieved his first great critical and financial success with 1546:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1513: 1426:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1393: 3010: 2976: 2947: 2876: 2393: 2323: 2147: 2053: 1977: 1901: 1886: 1807: 1759: 1639: 1623: 1602:"Coward achieved his first great critical and financial success as a playwright with 1283: 1261: 1198: 1151: 1070: 943: 892: 759: 715: 286: 163: 128: 120: 101: 2960:

Just because you and Tim aren’t interested in one doesn’t mean everyone else isn’t.

2519: 2490: 1914:

Thank you very much for that. I'll be guided by you on the matter of table widths.

1364:

http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386189663593

1354:

http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386188010849

510: 2441:

Why are you complaining about an ancient comment in a dead section of the thread?

2651: 2407: 793: 635:

the Foreign Office urged Coward not to visit the United States in January 1945.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1593:

success with one specific play that was repeated at later revivals of that play

1373: 1616: 1604: 1584: 1512:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1392:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1105:

Agreed. The general objection appears to be the verbosity and detail level.

143:

preferred size. Well, my preference would make the image larger, so there. --

2911:

I think this article would be improved by the inclusion of a simple infobox.

2757: 2604: 2346: 2117:

It is already linked: see "External links". We don't need a duplicate link.

811: 300:

As I indicated, I have some doubts as to the accuracy as to whether indeed

2461:

The usual misrepresentation of editors like me who are all for info-boxes

2679: 1065:

the additional details about the NY politicians to be excess detail. See

281:

the additional details about the NY politicians to be excess detail. See

236:

and while there is plenty of condemnation in the coverage, there is none

2241:

https://calmview.bham.ac.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=XCOW

777:

because I've read Hoare and Morley bios, and this didn't stand out so.

2320:

discourage people from continuing on to read the text or even the Lead

612:

Should the "Second World War" section be changed so that this passage

2805:

Please refrain from flinging false accusations about. I don't accuse

2303:

emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance

188:. It was quite a controversy at the time, drawing condemnation from 2946:

start an RfC, given the lack of interest in one. Just a thought. -

710:

and would place too much emphasis on this detail. See particularly

2914:

I have come to this view after reading all the above discussion.

2096:

Could someone please add this link and text on my behalf please?:

1865:

Thank you, Cass. Any improvements you can make will be welcomed.

1802:

Right ho! I've made a start, but please wade in and improve it:

368:

Please stick to discussing the content and not the contributor.

100:, and instead make your arguments for further changes here. -- 25: 758:

for the reasons put so well by Ssilvers and Tim Riley above.

127:

where possible when altering the default image size. Cheers,

1494:

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/illleave-rev.htm

1150:

distracting rather than helpful. I suggest deleting it. --

1484:

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/rattrap-rev.htm

1474:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1344:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

506:

come to some agreement, I'm more than willing to stick a

2646: 2618: 1337: 640: 631:

as well as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

528: 423: 351: 186: 2942:

Or you could respect the long-standing consensus and

567:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

1516:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1396:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 577:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1260:work as an excellent source on Fleming). Cheers - 1216:initiative, to disregard sources that clearly are 2650:"significant"? Which of Verdi's operas? Which of 2741:But what to these dead men say about infoboxes? 2518:there is no reason to suppose it is thwe same. 1502:This message was posted before February 2018. 1382:This message was posted before February 2018. 580:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 1374:http://www.tonightat830.com/Coward-Timeline/ 96:, but he/she reverted again. Please do not 1955: 1462:I have just modified 2 external links on 1332:I have just modified 3 external links on 2546:Oh, for Heaven's sake get off it, Dunc! 352:your personal attack in the edit summary 179: 2233: 1591:is ambiguous, potentially referring to 2532:Vociferous regulars like you Johnbod? 837: 689: 685: 680: 485: 482: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1218:reliable under our project guidelines 7: 589:the inclusion of the proposed text. 502:you come to some agreement. (If you 1579:I think it's fairly obvious that 1255:certainly not OR to do this – see 24: 2861:what I was trying to figure out. 1466:. Please take a moment to review 1336:. Please take a moment to review 1599:. I propose substituting either 1136:The discussion above is closed. 29: 2418: 2413: 2278: 2273: 1804:Noël Coward on stage and screen 1055:that weighed in on the subject 876:Yes, that would be OK I think. 271:that weighed in on the subject 2906:14:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2840:12:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2826:12:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2801:12:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2787:12:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2766:11:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2751:11:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2737:11:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2716:11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2698:11:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2674:11:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2631:11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2613:11:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2576:18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2562:18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2542:18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2528:15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2513:14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2499:14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2481:10:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2422:07:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 2402:16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2382:10:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2355:05:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2332:00:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2282:23:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) 2265:23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC) 1450:20:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC) 1004:Support in theory, but trim it 110:15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 1: 3034:09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 3019:09:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 3000:09:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2985:09:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2970:09:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2956:08:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2938:08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2924:07:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2451:02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 2437:12:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 2011:08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 1986:03:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC) 1726:. the lists of roles etc for 1686:22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1106: 1011: 985:per Ssilvers and Tim Riley. – 172:00:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC) 153:00:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC) 137:23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC) 2619:someone decided to remove it 2217:22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 2182:22:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 2156:22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 2133:14:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 2110:08:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 2090:00:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 2062:22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 2043:13:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 1885:Will have a look shortly. - 1669:21:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 1648:21:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 1632:22:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1570:11:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 1049:the Foreign Office's request 265:the Foreign Office's request 1970:20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 1681:A simply stunning article! 585:There is a clear consensus 483:The passage set off a furor 180:'Brooklyn boys' controversy 3062: 2656:another article altogether 2305:, in competition with the 1788:18:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1768:17:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1753:11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1711:11:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1533:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1459:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1413:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1329:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1101:20:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 1079:02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 952:04:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) 928:03:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) 901:16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) 886:12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) 872:05:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC) 820:22:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) 802:01:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC) 787:01:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) 768:21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 749:21:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 724:19:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 697:18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 675:18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 652:18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 554:18:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 540:18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 521:18:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 453:18:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 439:18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 416:17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 396:17:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 381:17:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 364:13:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 346:13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 328:12:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 295:02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 251:21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) 224:21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC) 206:20:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC) 2885:10:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 2871:10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1930:10:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 1910:10:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 1895:22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 1881:20:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 1841:20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 1826:19:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 1798:00:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 1319:03:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC) 1292:16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC) 1270:12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC) 1250:22:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC) 1207:20:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) 1192:09:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC) 1160:19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC) 810:Can't decide against it. 607:18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 1138:Please do not modify it. 1127:07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1053:cite the national papers 1032:07:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 999:17:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC) 978:04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 843:States in January 1945." 574:Please do not modify it. 477:Am I reading this right? 269:cite the national papers 1695:, for your kind words. 1455:External links modified 1325:External links modified 633:Due to the controversy, 560:RfC on 1944 controversy 424:"refactor your comment" 2312:Google Knowledge Graph 637: 619: 2463:where they are useful 2314:, the box would be a 2048:Markwill has a clear 1145:Pomp and Circumstance 827:Suggested compromise: 623: 614: 194:New York City Council 42:of past discussions. 1514:regular verification 1394:regular verification 1213:WP:Original research 488:Brooklyn Daily Eagle 309:We're talking about 80:Article formatting; 2322:of the article. -- 1504:After February 2018 1384:After February 2018 1008:Clovis News Journal 569:request for comment 497:The Washington Post 2251:Lack of an Infobox 1558:InternetArchiveBot 1509:InternetArchiveBot 1438:InternetArchiveBot 1389:InternetArchiveBot 1057:but do not mention 840:Fiorello LaGuardia 493:The New York Times 302:The New York Times 273:but do not mention 190:Fiorello LaGuardia 2019:"Archive" section 1972: 1960:comment added by 1950:Scottish heritage 1830:Agree with this. 1717:List of plays etc 1534: 1414: 1257:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 817: 596: 593:non-admin closure 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3053: 2916:MatthewDalhousie 2903: 2901: 2896: 2823: 2821: 2816: 2784: 2782: 2777: 2734: 2732: 2727: 2695: 2693: 2688: 2671: 2669: 2664: 2559: 2557: 2552: 2478: 2476: 2471: 2434: 2419: 2415: 2279: 2275: 2243: 2238: 2214: 2212: 2207: 2130: 2128: 2123: 2087: 2085: 2080: 2040: 2038: 2033: 2008: 2006: 2001: 1927: 1925: 1920: 1878: 1876: 1871: 1838: 1836: 1823: 1821: 1816: 1785: 1783: 1778: 1750: 1748: 1743: 1708: 1706: 1701: 1666: 1664: 1659: 1568: 1559: 1532: 1531: 1510: 1448: 1439: 1412: 1411: 1390: 1312: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1125: 1030: 996: 991: 975: 921: 918: 915: 912: 865: 862: 859: 856: 815: 746: 744: 739: 590: 576: 515: 509: 436: 432: 413: 409: 378: 374: 343: 339: 221: 217: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Noël Coward 3061: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3052: 3051: 3050: 2899: 2894: 2892: 2819: 2814: 2812: 2780: 2775: 2773: 2730: 2725: 2723: 2691: 2686: 2684: 2667: 2662: 2660: 2645:Oh, please! Is 2555: 2550: 2548: 2474: 2469: 2467: 2432: 2292:Manual of Style 2257:TheCorrectPanda 2253: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2239: 2235: 2210: 2205: 2203: 2126: 2121: 2119: 2083: 2078: 2076: 2036: 2031: 2029: 2021: 2004: 1999: 1997: 1952: 1923: 1918: 1916: 1874: 1869: 1867: 1834: 1832: 1819: 1814: 1812: 1781: 1776: 1774: 1746: 1741: 1739: 1719: 1704: 1699: 1697: 1679: 1662: 1657: 1655: 1577: 1562: 1557: 1525: 1518:have permission 1508: 1472:this simple FaQ 1457: 1442: 1437: 1405: 1398:have permission 1388: 1342:this simple FaQ 1327: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1301: 1241: 1238: 1235: 1232: 1226:WP:Verification 1183: 1180: 1177: 1174: 1147: 1142: 1141: 1123: 1040: 1028: 992: 987: 973:Seraphim System 971: 919: 916: 913: 910: 863: 860: 857: 854: 816:(distant write) 742: 737: 735: 659: 621:is changed to 609: 572: 562: 513: 507: 479: 430: 428: 407: 405: 372: 370: 337: 335: 333:challenge you. 215: 213: 182: 117: 85: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3059: 3057: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 2940: 2912: 2888: 2887: 2873: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2700: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2615: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2483: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2424: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2285: 2284: 2252: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2232: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2065: 2064: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1989: 1988: 1951: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1897: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1718: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1595:, rather than 1576: 1573: 1552: 1551: 1544: 1497: 1496: 1488:Added archive 1486: 1478:Added archive 1456: 1453: 1432: 1431: 1424: 1377: 1376: 1368:Added archive 1366: 1358:Added archive 1356: 1348:Added archive 1326: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1146: 1143: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1121: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1026: 1001: 980: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 848: 847: 846: 845: 832: 831: 823: 822: 790: 789: 771: 770: 752: 751: 727: 726: 700: 699: 677: 658: 655: 610: 584: 583: 582: 563: 561: 558: 557: 556: 542: 478: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 306: 305: 256: 255: 254: 253: 234:New York Times 181: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 156: 155: 116: 113: 84: 78: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3058: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2902: 2897: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2859: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2824: 2822: 2817: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2785: 2783: 2778: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2733: 2728: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2699: 2696: 2694: 2689: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2672: 2670: 2665: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2644: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2597: 2584: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2553: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2472: 2464: 2460: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2435: 2429: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2280: 2276: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2250: 2242: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2218: 2215: 2213: 2208: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2124: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2081: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2039: 2034: 2026: 2018: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2002: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1949: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1921: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1872: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1817: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1786: 1784: 1779: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1749: 1744: 1736: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1707: 1702: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1676: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1660: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1619: 1618: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1606: 1600: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1587: 1586: 1580: 1575:First success 1574: 1572: 1571: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1549: 1545: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1529: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1505: 1500: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1454: 1452: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1409: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1324: 1320: 1317: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1169: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1144: 1139: 1128: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1045:Blythe Spirit 1037: 1033: 1024: 1021: 1018: 1016: 1009: 1005: 1002: 1000: 997: 995: 990: 984: 981: 979: 976: 974: 968: 965: 964: 953: 949: 945: 940: 936: 931: 930: 929: 926: 924: 923: 922: 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 889: 888: 887: 883: 879: 875: 874: 873: 870: 868: 867: 866: 850: 849: 844: 841: 836: 835: 834: 833: 828: 825: 824: 821: 818: 813: 809: 806: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 788: 784: 780: 779:William Avery 776: 773: 772: 769: 765: 761: 757: 754: 753: 750: 747: 745: 740: 732: 729: 728: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 702: 701: 698: 695: 691: 687: 682: 678: 676: 672: 668: 664: 661: 660: 656: 654: 653: 649: 645: 642: 636: 634: 630: 622: 618: 613: 608: 605: 602: 599: 594: 588: 581: 578: 575: 570: 565: 564: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 524: 523: 522: 519: 512: 505: 500: 498: 494: 489: 484: 476: 454: 450: 446: 442: 441: 440: 437: 435: 433: 425: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 414: 412: 410: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 384: 383: 382: 379: 377: 375: 367: 366: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 348: 347: 344: 342: 340: 331: 330: 329: 325: 321: 316: 315:Two sentences 312: 311:two sentences 308: 307: 303: 299: 298: 297: 296: 292: 288: 284: 279: 274: 270: 266: 262: 261:Blythe Spirit 252: 248: 244: 239: 235: 231: 227: 226: 225: 222: 220: 218: 210: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 173: 169: 165: 160: 159: 158: 157: 154: 150: 146: 141: 140: 139: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 114: 112: 111: 107: 103: 99: 95: 91: 83: 79: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3006: 2943: 2891: 2889: 2863:KernalForbin 2811: 2806: 2772: 2722: 2703: 2683: 2659: 2655: 2582: 2547: 2486: 2466: 2462: 2426:Considering 2319: 2315: 2302: 2296: 2254: 2236: 2228: 2202: 2118: 2102:Markwill1987 2099: 2075: 2071: 2028: 2024: 2022: 1996: 1956:— Preceding 1953: 1915: 1866: 1831: 1811: 1795:Jamesmcardle 1773: 1738: 1734: 1723: 1720: 1696: 1693:Jamesmcardle 1683:Jamesmcardle 1680: 1654: 1622: 1615: 1613: 1610: 1603: 1601: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1583: 1581: 1578: 1556: 1553: 1528:source check 1507: 1501: 1498: 1461: 1458: 1436: 1433: 1408:source check 1387: 1381: 1378: 1331: 1328: 1300: 1299: 1280: 1231: 1230: 1221: 1173: 1172: 1148: 1137: 1109: 1093:Coretheapple 1087: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1014: 1007: 1003: 993: 988: 982: 972: 966: 934: 909: 908: 878:Coretheapple 853: 852: 826: 807: 791: 774: 755: 734: 730: 703: 667:Coretheapple 662: 644:Coretheapple 638: 632: 627: 624: 620: 615: 611: 586: 579: 573: 566: 546:Coretheapple 532:Coretheapple 503: 496: 492: 487: 480: 445:Coretheapple 427: 404: 388:Coretheapple 369: 356:Coretheapple 334: 320:Coretheapple 314: 310: 301: 272: 268: 264: 260: 257: 243:Coretheapple 237: 233: 212: 198:Coretheapple 183: 124: 118: 86: 70: 43: 37: 2704:Significant 2652:Shakespeare 2072:ultra vires 1962:92.7.143.55 1611:or perhaps 1608:, in 1924" 1464:Noël Coward 1334:Noël Coward 1110:SMcCandlish 1015:SMcCandlish 98:WP:Edit war 36:This is an 3026:Dronebogus 2992:Dronebogus 2962:Dronebogus 2930:Dronebogus 2832:DuncanHill 2793:DuncanHill 2743:DuncanHill 2708:DuncanHill 2623:DuncanHill 2568:Dronebogus 2534:DuncanHill 2505:DuncanHill 2443:Dronebogus 2411:helpful.-- 2374:DuncanHill 2229:References 2174:DuncanHill 1617:The Vortex 1605:The Vortex 1585:The Vortex 1565:Report bug 1445:Report bug 1038:Discussion 694:Iridescent 518:Iridescent 115:Image size 90:WP:CITEVAR 82:WP:CITEVAR 2895:Tim riley 2815:Tim riley 2776:Tim riley 2726:Tim riley 2687:Tim riley 2663:Tim riley 2551:Tim riley 2470:Tim riley 2316:redundant 2206:Tim riley 2122:Tim riley 2079:Tim riley 2032:Tim riley 2000:Tim riley 1919:Tim riley 1870:Tim riley 1835:Cassianto 1815:Tim riley 1777:Tim riley 1742:Tim riley 1700:Tim riley 1677:Thank you 1658:Tim riley 1548:this tool 1541:this tool 1428:this tool 1421:this tool 1067:WP:BALASP 738:Tim riley 712:WP:BALASP 641:this diff 604:(contrib) 598:Eggishorn 431:Cassianto 422:I didn't 408:Cassianto 386:comment. 373:Cassianto 338:Cassianto 283:WP:BALASP 216:Cassianto 145:George Ho 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3011:SchroCat 3007:turns up 2977:SchroCat 2948:SchroCat 2877:SchroCat 2680:this one 2433:——Serial 2408:gaslight 2394:Ssilvers 2324:Ssilvers 2148:Ssilvers 2054:Ssilvers 2025:verb sap 1978:Ssilvers 1958:unsigned 1902:SchroCat 1887:SchroCat 1808:SchroCat 1760:Ssilvers 1640:Ssilvers 1624:Harfarhs 1554:Cheers.— 1434:Cheers.— 1284:Ssilvers 1262:SchroCat 1199:SchroCat 1152:Ssilvers 1071:Ssilvers 1062:WP:UNDUE 944:Ssilvers 939:WP:UNDUE 893:Ssilvers 760:Jack1956 716:Ssilvers 708:WP:UNDUE 663:Support. 287:Ssilvers 278:WP:UNDUE 192:and the 164:Ssilvers 129:Ian Rose 121:Ssilvers 102:Ssilvers 2520:Johnbod 2491:Johnbod 2487:editors 2390:UNCIVIL 2307:WP:LEAD 1732:Olivier 1728:Gielgud 1468:my edit 1338:my edit 808:Neutral 587:against 39:archive 2583:Et toi 2050:WP:COI 983:Oppose 967:Oppose 935:adding 830:here?: 794:desmay 775:Oppose 756:Oppose 731:Oppose 704:Oppose 657:Survey 601:(talk) 94:WP:BRD 2702:(ec) 1735:et al 1222:those 1168:WP:RS 989:Davey 714:. -- 504:can't 125:value 16:< 3030:talk 3015:talk 3009:. - 2996:talk 2981:talk 2966:talk 2952:talk 2934:talk 2920:talk 2900:talk 2881:talk 2867:talk 2836:talk 2820:talk 2797:talk 2781:talk 2762:talk 2758:KJP1 2747:talk 2731:talk 2712:talk 2692:talk 2668:talk 2647:this 2627:talk 2609:talk 2605:KJP1 2601:this 2572:talk 2556:talk 2538:talk 2524:talk 2509:talk 2495:talk 2475:talk 2447:talk 2428:your 2398:talk 2378:talk 2351:talk 2347:KJP1 2328:talk 2290:The 2261:talk 2211:talk 2178:talk 2152:talk 2127:talk 2106:talk 2084:talk 2058:talk 2037:talk 2005:talk 1982:talk 1966:talk 1924:talk 1906:talk 1891:talk 1875:talk 1820:talk 1782:talk 1764:talk 1747:talk 1705:talk 1663:talk 1644:talk 1628:talk 1288:talk 1266:talk 1203:talk 1156:talk 1097:talk 1075:talk 1051:and 994:2010 948:talk 897:talk 882:talk 812:L3X1 798:talk 783:talk 764:talk 743:talk 720:talk 692:. ‑ 671:talk 648:talk 550:talk 536:talk 495:and 449:talk 392:talk 360:talk 354:. 324:talk 291:talk 267:and 247:talk 202:talk 168:talk 149:talk 133:talk 106:talk 2944:not 2807:you 2414:JOJ 2274:JOJ 1522:RfC 1492:to 1482:to 1402:RfC 1372:to 1362:to 1352:to 1124:ⱷ≼ 1120:≽ⱷ҅ 1088:did 1029:ⱷ≼ 1025:≽ⱷ҅ 688:to 511:RFC 119:Hi 3032:) 3017:) 2998:) 2983:) 2968:) 2954:) 2936:) 2922:) 2883:) 2869:) 2838:) 2799:) 2764:) 2749:) 2714:) 2629:) 2621:. 2611:) 2574:) 2540:) 2526:) 2511:) 2497:) 2449:) 2400:) 2380:) 2353:) 2330:) 2263:) 2180:) 2154:) 2108:) 2074:. 2060:) 1984:) 1968:) 1908:) 1893:) 1806:. 1766:) 1730:, 1724:cf 1646:) 1630:) 1620:" 1588:" 1535:. 1530:}} 1526:{{ 1415:. 1410:}} 1406:{{ 1290:) 1268:) 1205:) 1158:) 1107:— 1099:) 1077:) 1012:— 950:) 899:) 884:) 800:) 785:) 766:) 722:) 673:) 650:) 571:. 552:) 538:) 530:. 514:}} 508:{{ 451:) 394:) 362:) 326:) 293:) 249:) 238:by 204:) 170:) 151:) 135:) 108:) 3028:( 3013:( 2994:( 2979:( 2964:( 2950:( 2932:( 2918:( 2879:( 2865:( 2834:( 2795:( 2760:( 2745:( 2710:( 2625:( 2607:( 2585:? 2570:( 2536:( 2522:( 2507:( 2493:( 2445:( 2396:( 2376:( 2349:( 2326:( 2259:( 2176:( 2150:( 2104:( 2056:( 1980:( 1964:( 1904:( 1889:( 1762:( 1642:( 1626:( 1567:) 1563:( 1550:. 1543:. 1447:) 1443:( 1430:. 1423:. 1311:w 1308:o 1305:n 1302:S 1286:( 1264:( 1242:w 1239:o 1236:n 1233:S 1201:( 1184:w 1181:o 1178:n 1175:S 1154:( 1122:ᴥ 1118:¢ 1115:☏ 1112:☺ 1095:( 1073:( 1027:ᴥ 1023:¢ 1020:☏ 1017:☺ 946:( 920:w 917:o 914:n 911:S 895:( 880:( 864:w 861:o 858:n 855:S 796:( 781:( 762:( 718:( 669:( 646:( 595:) 591:( 548:( 534:( 499:. 447:( 390:( 358:( 322:( 289:( 245:( 200:( 166:( 147:( 131:( 104:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index