Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Musical Theatre (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Andrew Lloyd Webber is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Photo[edit]

It is not clear which guy in the photo is actually A.L.W. There should be a caption specifying this or it should specify it in the first paragraph of prose in the article. I'd do it, but I don't know which one is him. --58.28.152.52 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Shows[edit]

The section "Shows" is full of fair use pictures. I think all of them should be removed, and the section should contain only a list of his shows. Tomer T 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the pictures add a lot to the amf;dlAm:L,h>rticle and make for an easyily recognisable reference of his widely known body of work. If they are all fair use and not infringing then I believe they add more than they detract and should remain. --Brideshead 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think someone who knows about it should actually update the "Shows" section86.153.229.247 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular[edit]

"He was the most popular theatre composer of the late 20th century..." - Do we have any proof?

I think so, yes. To the best of my knowledge, no other theatre composer has equaled his success in terms of the number of record runs on Broadway and in the West End, or the worldwide success of his shows. The Phantom of the Opera is the highest grossing entertainment of all. However, the recent revision by the user with IP 66.61.115.28 makes a lot of sense to me, as it makes the opening seem tighter. It's probably also generally better to avoid making big statements such as "he was the most... this and that" even if they are true. I much prefer this opening, even though I had some input into the older version. 29/06/2007

That sounds like original research to me. References need to be added to that statement in the article. --58.28.152.52 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Evita film[edit]

Should the Madonna Evita film not be referenced on this page? It is particularly significant because the new 'You must love me' was the first Lylod Webber / Rice team up in years (at least I think that's right).

That statement teeters on Fandom - I would consider revising it.

Personal history[edit]

"As a child, he could not bear noises made by others. At the age of three, when brought to his first day of pre-school at a school where his mother worked, he covered his ears when other children produced sounds with musical instruments."

Thanks for this contribution. However, it doesn't seem to me to be a very significant biographical detail. Is it really worthy of inclusion here? 14/06/07

It needs to be sourced at the very least. TheScotch (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason for "ethnicity: White British" to be given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Broadway/West End[edit]

Not that it really matters, but I was just curious as to the reason for the switch. Lloyd Webber's shows are released in the West End before transferring to Broadway.

As a British composer the first productions of the Lloyd Webber musicals are mounted in the West End before they transfer to Broadway. Yip1982 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Title[edit]

I just changed a 'Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber' to 'Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber' but now I'm wondering if that is his correct title - should it be 'Lord Lloyd Webber' or 'Lord Webber'? I believe it tends to be down to personal preference on the part of the Lord himself so does anybody know what his correct title ought be? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.14.130 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article calls Lloyd Webber "Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber" "Baron Lloyd-Webber" and "Andrew Lloyd Webber" at various stages throughout.Should there not be some consistancey, and he be called "Lord Lloyd-Webber" throughout, save the first time his name is mentioned in the first paragraph, where it could be left as it is? Jamescourtenay (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
ALW was knighted in 1992, becoming Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber. He was created Baron Lloyd-Webber in 1997. Smithsonian magazine for October 2007 refers, on page 88, to his being "...given an honorary life peerage... as the Right Honorable Baron Lloyd-Webber of Sydmonton Court, his estate about 90 minutes west of London." And just a bit further on in the same article, "(A note about the hyphen: as a young man Lloyd Webber's father, William, added the 'Lloyd' to his name to distinguish himself from W. G. Webber, a rival organist at the Royal College of Music. And while the young Andrew occasionally hyphenated his name in correspondence, his baronial title is the only place it is hyphenated today, as British titular custom mandates a hyphen when there is a double surname.)" Dick Kimball (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I also just noticed that while the Honours section gives ALW's title as "Baron Lloyd-Webber of Sydmonton," the article in Smithsonian (above) styles him "Baron Lloyd-Webber of Sydmonton Court." His estate is Sydmonton Court, rather than just Sydmonton, see Sydmonton Festival, but there may be a geographic area thereabouts named Sydmonton for which the festival on his estate is named. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He's described here as "an honorary life peer". What does that mean? He's a life peer (and entitled to sit in the House of Lords) or he's not. The only parallel I can think of is a honorary knighthood, bestowed upon non-UK citizens (which entitles them to have "KBE" after their names, but not to use the prefix "Sir"). Since ALW is a UK citizen, I don't see why the peerage should be described as "honorary".AuntFlo (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Baron Lloyd-Webber not only can but does sit in the House of Lords (he's a Conservative) perhaps the "honorary" in the Smithsonian article I cited above is an error. Dick Kimball (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does KBE not appear after his name, such as in the cases of Lord Coe and Lord Sugar? Standingfish (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Because he's not a KBE. He's a Knight Bachelor, which takes no postnominal letters. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

I think this article needs to mention the several accusations from different artists of him plagiarising their work. Such as Roger Waters, the Puccini estate, and others i dont remember. 24.166.154.108 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is a problem, provided you can provide solid Reliable Sources to back them up. Without sources for verification, such information is utterly inappropriate in a biographical article. :EdJogg 11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the plagiarism section from the phantom of the opera page and added a 1 sentence intro. It could do with some stuff from elsewhere if there is any. I don't know enough about the subject to do any more. 80.176.230.126 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole section should be deleted on plaigarim because the site that is linked as a reference seems rather questionable. Aside from that it seems very libelous! -Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.99.234 (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from http://www.musicals101.com/who6b.htm: "With lyrics by the otherwise unknown Charles Hart, Phantom went on to gross over $2 billion worldwide by the century's end. (Claims of plagiarism by the Puccini estate were settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.)" It's of course quite obvious that the ostinato rhythm in "Everything's All Right" from Jesus Christ, Superstar derives directly from Paul Desmond's "Take Five", and that Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat quotes "Tom Dooley" (which is presumably public domain) brazenly and without acknowledgement. TheScotch (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

^ So you're just going to accept something you read online unquestioningly? Since when was Musicals101 an objective source?? I presume all the pieces LLoyd Webber is accused of plagiarising are themselves 100% original - if such a thing is possible (or desirable for that matter). All great artists are influenced by other artists. Having said that, I would think it highly unlikely that Lloyd Webber would look to Desmond and Dooley for inspiration. I can well accept that he might be influenced by Puccini - a genuine composer - although I actually think the style of these two is fundamentally different. I agree with the previous poster - the whole section should be removed as it is just an invitation for people who don't like the composer to attack him in the article (Pink Floyd fans and the like!). 15 February 2008 -Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.57.14 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "So you're just going to accept something you read online unquestioningly? Since when was Musicals101 an objective source??":
I didn't put it in the article, I merely noted it here. I'm curious to know what precise claims of plagiarism Puccini's estate made.
Re: "I presume all the pieces LLoyd Webber is accused of plagiarising are themselves 100% original - if such a thing is possible (or desirable for that matter). All great artists are influenced by other artists.":
This is an attempt at obfuscation. There really is such a thing as plagiarism.
Re: "I would think it highly unlikely that Lloyd Webber would look to Desmond and Dooley for inspiration.":
I've said nothing about "inspiration". I said Lloyd Webber obviously took the rhythmic ostinato directly from "Take Five" and obviously quoted "Tom Dooley". I stand by that. I noticed his apparent quotation of "Echoes", by the way, long before I'd heard that Rogers Waters noticed it. It's just possible that Lloyd Webber happened on it independently, but there are lots and lots of persons involved in a Broadway show, and you'd think one of them would've pointed out the resemblance and that Lloyd Webber would have felt obliged to change the tune accordingly. TheScotch (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to 193.60.57.14:

Re: "Indeed I would argue that the same pitches in another work would not in itself constitute plagiarism. It is the way in which the piece develops that is significant. This is not POV. it's simple fact.":

The point you're missing here is that you should not "argue" within an article at all. It's your arguing itself that clearly makes the passage POV. You are certainly welcome to add a sourced rebuttal if the source is significant (one from Lloyd Webber himself, for example, would be appropriate I should think).

Since this is a discussion page, not an article, however, I might be allowed to remark here that the wikipedia "Phantom of the Opera" article quotes Waters thus: "I couldn't believe it when I heard it. It's the same time signature - it's 12/8 - and it's the same structure and it's the same notes and it's the same everything." In other words, (if that article is accurate) Waters is maintaining there is more involved than pitch sequence. As for "the way in which the piece develops", my personal opinion is that there is very little development at all in either piece (Waters's or Lloyd Webber's). TheScotch (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will try to address your points:

"This is an attempt at obfuscation. There really is such a thing as plagiarism."

I never said there wasn't such a thing as plagiarism.

"The point you're missing here is that you should not "argue" within an article at all. It's your arguing itself that clearly makes the passage POV. You are certainly welcome to add a sourced rebuttal if the source is significant (one from Lloyd Webber himself, for example, would be appropriate I should think)."

I'm afraid you're missing the point here. I was responding to your comment in the history section. The statement in the article is a statement of fact. It is not an argument.

I don't see why Waters' opinion should be included in the article. Should we include every instance where an accusation is made against a composer? Also, since Repp claimed that Lloyd Webber "stole" the same extract from him, could we say that Waters stole from Repp, since Repp composed his song before Waters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.57.14 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I never said there wasn't such a thing as plagiarism.":
The point is that your remarks questioning the "original[ity]" of any work and attempting to justify appropriation of the works of others are not relevant.
Re: "I'm afraid you're missing the point here. I was responding to your comment in the history section.":
You were explaining your edit, an edit which reinstated an unattributed argument. TheScotch (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A neutral verifiable fact (complete with exact reference including page number from a respected expert publication (published by the San Francisco Opera)) regarding the "strong resemblance" of music from Puccini's "Girl of the Golden West" in Lloyd Webber's "Phantom of the Opera" was removed by 193.82.164.132 on 2010.0703. To my understanding this text (which I added on 2010.0703) meets the criteria for Biographies of Living Persons), so if it was removed by an official editor, why was it removed? Since the removal came from an unidentified user (just an IP address was recorded), I restored the deleted text. The reason that I originally added this text was that I personally saw a performance of "Girl of the Golden West" at the San Francisco Opera and was shocked (as were many of the audience) by hearing music that I thought was written by Lloyd Webber but actually was written by Puccini over 70 years earlier in 1910. Looking through the official program guide confirmed this. I then checked on Wikipedia and found that the article on "Girl of the Golden West" did mention this, but with a different reference; however, there was no reference to this on the Andrew Lloyd Webber page, so I added it. If this was not as per Wikipedia policy, then please explain why it is not. Thank you. Jphineas (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism discussion continued[edit]

Regarding reversion by Johnuniq of my edit on 25 September 2011 due to lack of reliable sources: If you go to YouTube and listen to "Love Never Dies" and the beginning of "Free Willy: Main Theme", the relationship is obvious. Additionally, you can listen to "Theme from The Apartment (1960)" for a possible common source. I have neither the time nor the inclination for an edit war and there is no need to respond to me directly. Still, I think all editors could benefit if an "expert" could explain how to cite public-domain musical snippets, in the absence of some comprehensive publication from a musicologist on the matter. I agree with Johnuniq that "Accusations of Plagiarism" may not be the best heading for some of thes similarities and would further suggest "Musical Influences" as an alternative with the Plagarism portion regarding the Puccini suit as a subheading. Thank you. 65.27.249.141 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been many occasions when similarities between the works of different composers have been noted, including a sensational BBC radio program regarding classical music (sorry, can't provide any links). Perhaps it's plagiarism, and perhaps it isn't (see convergent evolution for one field in which it is entirely possible to have thing A look like or behave like thing B, without either being a copy of the other). The only thing that is certain about the situation is that an article cannot assert "the works of A and B are sufficiently similar to suggest plagiarism"—what would be required is an attributed statement by a relevant scholarly authority. See WP:SYNTH and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be necessary, or a RS'd admission from ALW, for a bare heading of "Plagiarism"; but a RS of, for instance, Roger Waters's accusation is sufficient for the heading "Accusations of plagiarism". Straw Cat (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera 2[edit]

shouldnt something be said that he is currently working on phantom of the opera 2 which is set in america ~source graham norton show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.51.44 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The article currently says "On his website, Lloyd Webber announced that he was planning to write a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera, based on the novel, The Phantom of Manhattan, by Frederick Forsyth, who will collaborate. The sequel is to be set in New York, although no further details have been given." By all means, expand if you have any more information. -- Dafyd (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pattiluponeevita.jpg[edit]

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Webber[edit]

He is referred to variously throughout the article by many different names. This being an encylopedia, I believe we should pick one (e.g., Lloyd-Webber), and stick with that.--Ethelh (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting an article in the October 2007 Smithsonian magazine, "...while the young Andrew occasionally hyphenated his name in correspondence, his baronial title is the only place it is hyphenated today, as British titular custom mandates a hyphen when there is a double surname." Dick Kimball (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be keener to include the Lloyd as part of the surname because it just feels wrong to just refer to the surname as Webber. As I posted earlier, I know that Andrew's father William only added the Lloyd to his name later on, and this got passed down in the family. The Lloyd has become part of a family name. So I've had to do the laborious work of correcting all instances of plain Webber to Lloyd Webber. Yip1982 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

This article was for some time without a criticism section and read like a fan page; yet it is known that Lord L-W is not without some dissenting voices about his genius, including other musicians. Some have pointed out that passages from his work appear not to be original, which is an informed and specific criticism of Lord L-W's oeuvre and notable. Roger Waters is one such and as Pink Floyd has produced very notable music, it belongs in any article. An anonymous IP editor wants to remove just all Waters' comments on ALW, both in prose and in song, yet inconsistently leaves the Puccini estate in. Anyone with a musical ear listening to "Echoes" and "Phantom" will agree with Waters that the chromatic passages are identical except for a semitone difference in key; this is not to say that it proves ALW deliberately copied Pink Floyd. It does illustrate that at least one famous musician begs to demur about ALW's total wonderfulness.--Straw Cat (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Roger Waters invent the chromatic scale, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.131.166 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No he didn't any more than Wagner did, but he did invent the particular sequence using it, in 12/8, moving down and then up the scale, that occurs in Echoes and is recycled in Phantom.

--Straw Cat (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I only removed the Roger Waters section, not the enitre "criticism" section, so your sarcastic comments about "total wonderfulness..." etc. are a bit over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.131.166 (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True - and the sarcasm was not directed at you. But what have you got against Waters's criticisms, that you don't have against the others?--Straw Cat (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It's not much of a claim, then, is it. He’s basically decided where a chromatic sequence begins and ends. Big deal. The difference between the mindset of Roger Waters and a composer like Andrew Lloyd Webber is that the latter understands perfectly well that it’s not an original idea in the first place, whereas the former doesn’t. Lloyd Webber is purposefully using a hackneyed thematic device in the overture in order to invoke a hammer horror/silent movie suspense atmosphere (the significance of which only becomes apparent as the musical drama unfolds). It is the context and how the composer uses it which is all important here, not the actual phrase itself. I doubt very much whether Lloyd Webber would consider that particular phrase taken in isolation to be anything special, but then I guess we come back to the differences between the two musicians... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.44.181 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is NOT for us to decide on the validity of the claims. Wikipedia is not in the business of establishing the truth of any claim, merely whether or not the making of the claim was a notable event. Weakopedia (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mid-1970s[edit]

The text reads: "She won a Tony for the role, and after experienced growth of nodes on her vocal cords. ". What is this supposed to mean? Myrvin (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.237.62 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't saying anything according to the rules of English grammar. Corrected this now. Str1977 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Weekend at Bernie's?[edit]

The source leads to a reproduction of this article, and I don't think it's true, but I don't know. 71.164.185.211 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Family name[edit]

Above the article, a line states

"In this name, the family name consists of two words; the family name is Lloyd Webber, not Webber."

Is there any source for this? And I mean real documented sourcing, not just newspaper articles.

Sure, his father was already called William Lloyd Webber and his brother has a "Lloyd" too in his name, but William did not inherit it from his father, William Charles Henry Webber, but adopted it later in life to distinguish himself from another man called Webber.

Sure, it seems to have now become customary in the family to use that name but that doesn't make it a surname. Consider that every descendant of J.R.R. Tolkien has "Reuel" among their names. Still, the family name is only Tolkien.

Regardless of how ALW is referred to throughout the article, the statement on top is simply not based on sources and seems to state quite the opposite of the facts.

Str1977 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Typically, Brits will double-barrel if it's a surname. Added to that, per the above, it seems to be an adopted 'family name' instead of surname. Of course, there's nothing to stop him from changing his surname officially, but we have no proof that this has been done. In the absence of that proof, I would tend to support referring to him as 'Mr. Webber' as opposed to 'Mr. Lloyd Webber' or 'Mr. Lloyd-Webber' (which he certainly is not, nor has ever claimed to be) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I know people may disagree with me but it would make sense to include the "Lloyd" as part of ALW's surname. I know that his father William only added the Lloyd later on in his life, but the Lloyd has been passed down in the family name. So if the "Lloyd" is part of the family name, it should be OK to treat it as part of the surname. Yip1982 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Librarians are extremely particular about names, and every major national authority file has the family name as "Lloyd Webber". See the VIAF (Virtual International Authority File) record for Lloyd Webber, Andrew. 1948- Kgj2 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rt Hon etc[edit]

We're calling him "The Right Honourable Andrew Lloyd Webber". This is quite wrong. The "Rt Hon" comes from his peerage, and it can only be used in association with his peerage title, Baron Lloyd-Webber. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, would someone who understands the British peerage far better than I please explain how all of ALW's children are styled "Hon." I thought the main characteristic of a life peerage was that it was not heritable. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Answering my own question, the Wikipedia entry on Life_peerage indicates, "The legitimate children of a life peer take the privilege of children of hereditary peers, being entitled to style themselves with the prefix the Honourable." So there! Dick Kimball (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Webber was Knighted?[edit]

Hold on, if Andrew Lloyd Webber was Knighted, shouldn't his wikipedia article say Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.20.209 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he was later raised to the peerage, a higher honour. We'd still show his knighthood postnominal letters if he had any (he doesn't, because he was a Knight Bachelor), but Baron/Lord subsumes Sir. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
As to ALW's postnominal letters, please refer to:
Knight_Bachelor#Honorifics_and_post-nominals
which indicats that the postnominal "Kt" (only with a lower case t) may be added to the name of any peer who is also a Knight Bachelor. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Guardian article[edit]

New article on Lloyd Webber and his brother: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/08/lloyd-webber-ian-sansom -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wealth[edit]

One section of this article states: "The Sunday Times Rich List 2006 ranked him the 87th-richest man in Britain with an estimated fortune of £700 million. His wealth increased to £750 million in 2007, but the publication ranked him 101st in 2008." This sounds way off from what I had read last year. I could swear Lloyd Webber made the top 10 in Britain. Anyone have an update on this? ZincOrbie (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the Sunday Times Rich List for 2012 ALW's fortune is indicated to be £680 million (equivalent to about €837 million or US$1046 million when this was written) considerably outside the Top Ten (2012 cutoff: £5900 million), albeit also a considerable distance from penury. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal College of Music[edit]

"...he abandoned the course [at Oxford] in Winter 1965 to study at the Royal College of Music and pursue his interest in musical theatre."

Would someone please clarify whether ALW actually graduated from the Royal College of Music or not? If so, in what year did he graduate and, if not, how long did he study there and when did he leave? Dick Kimball (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is he still a billionaire?[edit]

I am sure that at one time he was included in the category "British billionaires". If he is still a billionaire, this should be one of the categories at the base of this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Title/style confusion[edit]

Discussion (copied from user talk space) follows edits/reverts and edit summaries of 22 October 2013.

No matter how esteemed, Debrett's is a secondary source; another highly-esteemed secondary source, Who's Who 2013 lists LLOYD-WEBBER, Baron (Andrew Lloyd Webber) ("Lloyd-Webber, Baron". Who's Who 2013. Who's Who (December 2012 online ed.). A & C Black an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc. Retrieved 22 October 2013. ). Read about territorial designations and read the primary source: The London Gazette: no. 54689. p. 2341. 25 February 1997. Retrieved 22 October 2013. DBD 21:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Even you noted Debrett's is an esteemed source. Did you check the link? It also clearly noted the distinction between title and style, however both are acceptable in the WP headline. Additionally, it appears that you ignored the longstanding heading in the infobox as well. As for Debrett's being a secondary source, it is supported by several primary sources, notably the official website for Parliament. I'll be happy to include that source on the BLP. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's change tack. Compare what you've done to Lloyd-Webber's article with any other life peer. Here are a few:
And a few more who acquired a hyphen into their title:
You should also thoroughly read WP:PEER for our guidelines on writing about peers (such as Lloyd-Webber.) DBD 21:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm also well aware of life peerages, both in practice and policy. Also I'm well aware of WP's policy regarding sources. I linked to reliable sources. Your issue doesn't appear to be with me, but with Debrett's and more notably with the UK's Parliament. As for style, you should note that Parliament's website also recognized Thatcher as Baroness Thatcher. However, she was obviously decorated far more than Lloyd Webber and not all life peers are created equal. She also belonged to the Orders of Garter and Merit and was a PC member. One of Lord Lloyd-Webber's own websites, I should note, also lists him as, "the Lord Lloyd-Webber (of Sydmonton)". So I really don't know what more you need. Parliament is wrong and he himself is wrong, in your estimation? Seems an incredibly implausible stretch to me. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Also here is just a partial list of reliable sources that used the title, "Lord Lloyd-Webber":
The list goes on and on. Not to mention the UK's Parliament - which one would think, would be a definitive source. How does one ignore so many reputable and reliable sources and just arbitrarily decide not to call The Lord Lloyd-Webber, "The Lord Lloyd-Webber?" 107.214.30.15 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan asked me to take a look at this. I think we all agree that "Baron Lloyd-Webber" is his title, "Lord Lloyd-Webber" his style, and "of Sydmonton, in the County of Hampshire" the territorial designation pertaining to his title. I would appreciate links to some of the articles that bear out the assertion that "however both [titles or styles] are acceptable in the WP headline." In my experience, the headline in articles about peers (life or hereditary) uniformly uses the title, while the style is used in running text, so that all subsequent references in the article would be to "Lord Lloyd-Webber". The one exception I can think of would be courtesy peers; but of course they have no substantive title, only a style, so this is the exception that proves the rule. This isn't a question of sourcing, since we agree (presumably) on the facts; it's simply a question of our conventions of style, which I believe to favor the use of the title in the first line and the style thereafter. Choess (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that your fellow editor solicited the review of several people to look at this. Which is fine. But we actually don't all agree that "Baron Lloyd-Webber" is his title. Debrett's doesn't say that, nor does the official website for Parliament. Debrett's says his title is: "Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire," while his style is: "The Lord Lloyd Webber." No reference to "Baron Lloyd-Webber" at all. Parliament says his full title is: "The Lord Lloyd-Webber", adopting his style as his title. Again, with no reference at all to "Baron Lloyd-Webber." One would expect these two websites to get it right, wouldn't one? But they both do agree on and both use: "The Lord Lloyd-Webber", while neither uses "Baron Lloyd-Webber." Not to mention how he references himself on his own various websites, including on his Foundation's website, which I linked above. Isn't it more likely than not then, that the heading as currently listed, is the most accurate. Because it covers all the bases. It calls him: "Andrew Lloyd Webber, The Lord Lloyd-Webber, Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire." How is that possibly not correct? Certainly he is a baron. Certainly his surname is Lloyd Webber. But one doesn't necessarily mash them together to create an official title. I have actually never found a self-reference, or even a reference of any substance, where he is called "Baron Lloyd-Webber." If you find one, feel free to post it so we can review and discuss it. I'd certainly be happy to do that, because I'd like to get this right. But without that, I don't find it reasonable that only on this project is that title predominant, without any strong sourcing and in the face of all the other opposing sources. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've also been asked to look at this, and you appear to be confused. Debrett's doesn't say his title is "Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire", it lists his titles as "Baron (Life Peer UK 1997), of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire; Sir". It doesn't repeat the title of the peerage, because that's already clear from the title of the entry. Compare it to, say, the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, whose entry is headed "The Rt Hon the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, DL" and whose title is given as "18 Earl of (S 1606 and 1677)". You seem to be suggesting that Debrett's is saying by that that his official title is therefore "18 Earl of". Quite apart from the fact that you don't seem to have understood the nature of peerages (everyone who is styled "The Lord Something" is actually "Baron Something"), the best source for this is the Gazette, which clearly states that "The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, dated 18th February 1997, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Knight, by the name, style and title of Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton, in the County of Hampshire." Proteus (Talk) 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm always pleased to learn new things and found your comments quite interesting. However, several additional issues need to be addressed as a result of your response. For clarification, since you didn't weigh in on the heading in its current form, I will simply assume that you're not recommending that we use the London Gazette's full Letters Patent in the heading? That would mean that we list him as: "Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Knight, (...) Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton, in the County of Hampshire?" While I'll assume we'd all agree that is the full correct title, it doesn't really conform with WP's style guide. (More on that in a moment.) But it also brings up another issue in your response that I believe you appear to be confused by. The example you gave, of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was for peers. But of course, Lloyd-Webber is a life peer, not a peer. Your example suggests they are treated the same. But that is not uniformly the case. Because, slim as it is, there is this: "Male life peers should be referred to as "the Lord Title" in full form, not "the Baron Title". So after all this, it seems we can boil down the question to this - should the heading read, as it currently does: "Andrew Lloyd Webber, The Lord Lloyd-Webber, Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire", acknowledging that the 1st and 2nd are the names by which he is commonly known. Or "Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Knight, Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton, in the County of Hampshire," which, while technically correct, also omits the name that he himself appears to go by, what appears suggested in WP:PEER and, as the newspaper links above indicate, how he is most recognized, which is: "The Lord Lloyd-Webber." Or is the consensus that we adopt some other hybrid? 107.214.30.15 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the strict application of WP rules the article should be "Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber", probably with the title here as a redirect. However, increasingly, as long an appropriate redirect exists (in this case Baron Lloyd-Webber), we have been allowing the rules not to be applied too strictly, particularly where a name other than the title is the one in common use. No change is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think anyone had called into question the name of the article. IP: Barons (whether hereditary or for life) have the title Baron but are always called (styled as) Lord. If you look at the example articles I listed, you'll see we use the name and title (less the territorial clause) in the introduction and the style elsewhere: e.g. George Alfred Brown, Baron George-Brown PC (in the lede), The Right Honourable The Lord George-Brown PC (in the infobox), George-Brown or Lord George-Brown (in the text, but only after his ennoblement). DBD 15:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Peterkingiron. Your response gets precisely to the heart of the matter. You said there is no need to change the name of the article, because as long as an appropriate redirect exists, we have not been inflexible in the past. I entirely agree. DB, that has always been the question. Of course, I am well aware that a baron is styled as lord, as, if you read my answers, you'll see is discussed. You also never addressed the many examples regarding specifically how Andrew Lloyd Webber is referenced, both in print and by his own organizations. So your examples of other people don't really seem to be the point. But again, since Peter reminds us of the very simple and practical redirect solution, and Dan thinks the name of the article is not in question, there's really nothing else to address. The consensus is that the name of the article, as currently written, remains, with a redirect from "Baron Lloyd-Webber". 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I need to check – what do you mean 'name of article'? What is usually meant is what follows /wiki/ in the URL and appears in huge bold letters at the top of an article. I thought we were discussing the strange things you did to the lede (which includes the bold standard sized words which kick off the article.) DBD 21:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You are still confused? I obviously can't divine what you thought - only what was said. But I defer to Peter's comments, which I found were non-confusing and indeed, I even agreed with. To wit: "No change is needed." Save for the redirect, which he then, so graciously supplied. So as to your characterization of "the strange things" (I) did to the lede?" Stay classy, Dan. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If we were talking about the article title, why have you reverted my corrections (for consistency) to the lede claiming consensus? Is there any third party who can explain what is happening here? Somehow I fear this IP and I are talking completely different languages. DBD 20:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's just review:

  • 1) We have just spent several days finally reaching a consensus that “no change is needed.”
  • 2) But because you didn't like that, you decided, despite the edit log record of your reverts, that you didn’t even know what edits we were talking about.
  • 3) Then you decided to ignore everyone's input and revert once more back to what you wanted, calling it making “corrections?"
  • 4) Then you asked for even more input, from a “third party” - because you “fear this IP and I are talking completely different languages.”

Just wanted to make sure the record is clear. And transparent.

Your issue is not with ""this IP" - but with WP guidelines and your clear belief that they are absolute and sacrosanct. They are neither. See WP:GUIDES. Still, these guidelines are useful:

1) Per WP:OPENPARA, under Wikipedia's Manual of Style:
The opening paragraph should have: 1. Name(s) and title(s), if any
2) Even per WP:NCPEER, which is under WP:NCROY:
"There are several exceptions to these rules."

Your repeated reference to WP:PEER ignores that it is simply a peer reviewed essay, and neither a policy nor a guideline. There is no policy or guideline that supports your contention that the current version is either “wrong” or in need of “correction.”

But so as not to prolong this any further, here’s a logical solution: The opening sentence currently reads:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber, The Lord Lloyd-Webber, Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire."

Your repeated reverts indicate you prefer:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber".

So a reasonable opening sentence compromise is:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber, styled Baron Lloyd-Webber, and known as The Lord Lloyd-Webber. His full title is Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire."

This solution is consistent with various other diverse style exceptions like:

Clearly there are notable exceptions to every rule, guideline and policy. If you agree with this solution, or some similar version of it, provide your example and we can review it and be done. Because WP is not cookie-cutter.107.214.30.15 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that in my last post I expressed a concern that you and I were fundamentally miscommunicating/misunderstanding one-another, how useful did you think you replying would be?
I don't understand how you can claim a consensus has formed when three users other than we two have weighed in: Choess did an admirable job of describing how WP is on this matter and why; Proteus explained some of the titling intricacies very well; and Peterkingiron wrote about article naming (not article content which we had until that point been discussing.) Not one indicated assent to your edits to the lead section. There is no consensus for your changes; kindly stop claiming to have such.
Each of the examples you have just given includes a lead section starting similar to: "Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber (born...)" (i.e. the established version) – they are all of the form "Full names, Title" and none include a territorial designation. Not one is like your suggested compromise.
Additionally, the established version began "Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber (born...)", used his style "The Lord Lloyd-Webber" in the infobox and his full title and territorial designation at the appropriate point later in the prose. (Because territorial designations are so seldom used that we generally only have the original Gazette to cite.)
Yours etc. DBD 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You have committed so many WP vios in action and attitude that it is difficult to know where to begin. You have repeatedly rejected the most basic principles of collaborative editing. As you don’t seem to grasp that you don’t get to determine who may or may not respond to comments on talk pages, you need to review WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Just as you don’t revert during ongoing discussions, under the guise of “corrections”, as you did. So you also need to review WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Further, if you had simply descended from your high horse, you might have noticed that I not only offered you compromises designed to resolve this, but invited you to submit your own. You petulantly rejected both. You also enlisted aid from your cohort, instead of unbiased 3rd opinions, violating WP:CANVASS. These actions are textbook violations of WP:OWN. So you should probably review that policy as well. This is not your article.
But you then not only mischaracterized comments posted here, but ignored my reference to the rules governing each. Choess did share useful opinions regarding the “conventions of style” – and also asked for other evidence of exceptions. I provided them, both at WP:OPENPARA and WP:NCPEER. You ignored both.
Proteus quoted the Gazette and discussed Lloyd Webber’s actual title. Peterkingiron was discussing the title page rules. But he also noted broadly that “we have been allowing the rules not to be applied too strictly, particularly where a name other than the title is the one in common use.” That gets to the heart of my point and is the basis for my claim of consensus. While that apparently offends you, it is nonetheless accurate.
Finally, as to your claim that none of my examples included a territorial designation, you are simply incorrect. In the first sentence of each of the articles:
So my suggestion is certainly consistent with elements of each of these – and is consistent with both WP:OPENPARA and WP:NCPEER. And again, you offered no alternative solution(s) despite being invited to do so. Which again begs the question of if you are even interested in engaging in any collaborative compromise. Because you've given no evidence of it. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not one of those is a territorial designation. Each is a title (and of The Shaws is half of one). The territorial designation is the bit after the comma, after the title: Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (← that's the title), of Cathcart in the City of Glasgow (← that's the territorial designation). (By the way, only Viscount(esse)s and Baron(esse)s have TDs, such as (title →) Viscount Boyd of Merton, (territorial designation →) of Merton-in-Penninghame in the County of Wigtown.) I first reverted in accordance with WP:BRD (according to which, by the way, my first revert at 10:26, 22 October 2013 should have remained as status quo until we successfully completed discussions...) and asked for outside input from experts – experienced editors with the requisite understanding of peerages; none are my 'friends' or my "cohort", they merely are fellow-editors I have edited with (and, I am sure, disagreed with) before. Please do invite more contributors to discuss – they need only read the peerage articles and sources I supplied you in order to sufficiently understand the debate. DBD 09:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
First, I refer you to WP:BRD-NOT. Second, I would note that, while not bolded, your example of Viscount Boyd of Merton, does include the territorial designation in the first paragraph. This actually seems to make my case for me! However, using your own definition, since it seems your primary concern is the territorial designation, it appears your issue is with "in the County of Hampshire?" If so, that can be easily addressed by putting it somewhere else in the body of the article, where/if appropriate. So this would appear to address your concern:
"Andrew Lloyd Webber, styled Baron Lloyd-Webber, and known as The Lord Lloyd-Webber. His life peerage includes the formal title, Baron of Sydmonton."
If this is still not acceptable to you, kindly explain why. Then provide an example of a version you could live with that covers all the same bases. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake in linking the peerage's article rather than a biography article of one of the peers (which do not contain the TD.) My issue is not with "in the County of Hampshire" (which is half of the TD), it is with "of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire" (which is the full TD.) Further, LW is not styled Baron Lloyd-Webber, he is titled that and styled The Lord Lloyd-Webber. Here's a version:
"Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber (born March 22, 1948) is a[...]" then, later in the prose (perhaps the best place is in the section Honours?) "[...]Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire. He is properly styled as The Lord Lloyd-Webber[...]"
How would that be? Name and title prominently in the lead section (as is generally the case with peers' biography articles) and then title + TD and style noted in the biography prose (as occurs in some peers' biography articles.) DBD 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Now you've given me something to work with. Thank you. Let's try this then, I'll take your suggestion, with a slight change. Let's try name, title and style in the lead section, with full title elsewhere in the BLP:
"Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber (born March 22, 1948). He is properly styled and widely known as, The Lord Lloyd-Webber. He is a..."
Then in an appropriate section, "Honours", "Honors", "Life Peerage" or similar, we can place the "Baron of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire." Yes? 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Close. How about:
"Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber (born March 22, 1948). He is properly styled and widely known as The Lord Lloyd-Webber. He is a..." (in the lead, as per your suggestion).
Then, in the existing "Honours" section, "[...]Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire." (Since he is not Baron of Sydmonton etc. but Baron LW, of Sydmonton etc. DBD 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed! I think it's fair that you should implement the changes. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And done. DBD 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks terrific! Thank you and congratulations. Cheers! 107.214.30.15 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Gosh DBS. You have the patience of a saint for wading through that edit craziness. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you, but I wouldn't call it patience, since I did lose my calm. Perhaps obstinacy is more accurate? :P DBD 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
And I think you're pretty precious too, GP. Seems like collaboration finally prevailed. That is what is supposed to happen, right? 107.214.30.15 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hardly you spent I don't know how many pages fighting to add completely the wrong title to the main header and rearrange this article in a manner that broke the consensus of several thousand other articles. A reading of the policy the the rest of the community generally manages would have saved much effort on everyone elses part. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
To the contrary, you obviously don't understand the word "consensus" since you misapplied it. People achieve consensus. Articles are inanimate things. Inanimate things do not achieve consensus. While your "several thousand other articles" hyperbole conveniently excludes the several notable exceptions that several policies themselves expressly reference. But since you have such pronounced opinions, perhaps you should have contributed them contemporaneously, as hindsight is always 20/20 and no one has much use for a backseat driver. Although your tenor here legitimately questions whether your input would have been productive towards resolution, or just more pointless argumentativeness. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Wiki has many policy/project/conventions precisely to minimise individual editors breaking the consistency of the whole. There are thousands of peerage articles following the exact 'Name, (Ordinal) Rank (of) Title' opening format that was broken here (the largest group barons) so there was no hyperbole. Just check the 'Category:Peerages of..' None of the exceptions, which deal principally with people not known by their title, cover changing Baron to Lord on the opening which was the change made. If you have question or disagreement that appears likely to break policy/consensus raising it at the relevant project page (Wikipedia:PEER) is likely to be more helpful. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────GP, have you ever heard the one about sleeping dogs? Lol. I don't have the wherewithal to reeducate the expired equine, but if you do, then by all means, bravo! (I do so love a mixed metaphor :P) DBD 23:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • DBD: "sleeping dogs" ≠ dead horses. Cute, but really less of a mixed metaphor, than a tortured one. But there is another useful metaphor you may have heard: don't poke the bear. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • GP: Despite your obviously determined desire to relitigate this debate - (and to what purpose beyond your own gratification has yet to be identified) - you continue to misrepresent several material facts:
1) I edited on one article regarding peerage, not "thousands." Yet you felt compelled and justified in writing: "There are thousands of peerage articles following the exact 'Name, (Ordinal) Rank (of) Title' opening format that was broken here." I mean, seriously? Your ongoing narrative: that my editing on this one article, negatively impacted some untold "thousands" more, is self-evidently inane. But quelle horreur! Who knew that my minor, suggested edits - to a single paragraph, in a single article - had the power to break Wikipedia?!! Clutch the pearls! If only you had been around to warn me, we could have saved lives!
2) Another component of the same illusory argument, is that I should have deferred to WP:PEER. You wrote: "If you have question or disagreement that appears likely to break policy/consensus raising it at the relevant project page (Wikipedia:PEER) is likely to be more helpful." While I don't want to disrespect the work of editors there, I must remind you that PEER is neither a policy, nor a guideline, but simply a WikiProject. And quoting directly from the page on WikiProjects:
"WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles."
So let's stick a fork in that argument. It's done. Moreover, it's also contradicted by WP:NCPEER - which at least, is a guideline - and one that simply states: "There are several exceptions to these rules." So we're done there as well.
3) And at the end of the day, let's not forget that despite several rocky spots, ultimately a good faith resolution was achieved. When I reminded you that is the objective here, your response was "Hardly." That flippant response is, thankfully dismissed by consensus through discussion - which you should note, actually is a policy. Now, I trust, we are truly done here. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)