Talk:Tonight at 8.30

Reputation

The unattributed asseveration that some of these plays are "generally" considered among the best short plays there are is unsustainable. The nearest I can find to such a claim is Rattigan's estimation of Hands Across the Sea, which I have added to the article. Happy to retract and grovel abjectly if a reliable citation can be found. Tim riley (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was certainly an assertion that would have needed citation. Maybe when you are finished with all the critical response sections you will be able to come back and give a summary of the critical reaction of all the works, or say something like, a, b, c, and d were held in the highest esteem by the critics, who were indifferent to m and n and found w, x, y and z lacking.[citations] However, later assessments of x and y have given them more credit...." or something like that.[citations] -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Do not merge into Tonight at 8:30. -- Bfx12a9 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for each of the individual 10 one-acts that make up Tonight at 8:30 contain duplicated information, mostly about the collection as whole rather than the individual one-acts. I propose that the content of these articles be merged into this article and that the pages for the individual one-acts become redirects to this page. Please discuss here if you have concerns or objections. The impacted articles are Family Album (play), Fumed Oak, Hands Across the Sea (play), Red Peppers, Star Chamber (play), Shadow Play (play), Still Life (play), The Astonished Heart, We Were Dancing, and Ways and Means (play). Bfx12a9 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Each of these plays is notable and should have its own separate page. The Background section of each play article is customized for that play and puts each play in context within the play cycle, discussing the particular play's subsequent productions, adaptations of it, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with what is suggested. It would be on a par with deleting the articles on Das Rheingold, Die Walküre, Siegfried, and Götterdämmerung and rolling their contents into Der Ring des Nibelungen, or insisting that the articles on Gianni Schicchi, Suor Angelica and Il tabarro be removed and the information in them lumped together in Il trittico. Many of the plays in Tonight at 8:30 are performed separately – indeed, it is rare for the whole set to be played together. When Coward published his collected plays he did not lump the Tonight at 8:30 plays together in one volume, but spread them between several volumes. Users wishing for information on, say, Red Peppers, do not need to know that it is part of a set: they will wish to go straight to the article on the play. – Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. Each play is notable in its own right and needs its own page as each play is discrete and separate to the others in the cycle. It's like suggesting that all the operas in Wagner's Ring Cycle be merged into one article! Jack1956 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, all. I will remove the merge tags and leave the pages as they are. Bfx12a9 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 25 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. So EdJohnston and Anthony Appleyard had an edit conflict while working the technical requests. Within seconds after Ed contested the request @16:01, Anthony moved it. Since I believe Ed is American and Anthony is British, I'll defer to Anthony on this one wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight at 8:30 → Tonight at 8.30 – Version with full stop is correct title; page with colon in title should redirect to article page with the full stop in the title. (I know I'll have to change 70 links, but heigh ho!) Tim riley talk 12:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: quick google search shows lot of pages with colon in the title, since it is a time, colon makes more sense to me. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In BrE a colon would not be used, and wasn't in this case. The correct title has the full stop. American sites tend to get it wrong. Tim riley talk 15:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.