Talk:Major Barbara

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Holiness movement (assessed as Low-importance).

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening heading

In my opinion i believe that Wikipedia gives a really easy understanding of what the book of Major Barbara is about better than reading the book.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No foundling sucession in Krupps.

The article states that "Undershaft's unscrupulous sale of weapons to any and all bidders, as well as his government influence and more pertinently his company's method of succession (to a foundling rather than a son), tie him especially to Krupp."

The is nothing in the Krupps article to suggest that a foundling rather than a son succeeded to the head of the firm.

Major Barbara (play) → Major Barbara — As this is already the primary meaning the qualifier "play" is unnecessary. PatGallacher (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably the primary meaning, and I consider the proposed move uncontroversial. Wareh (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the primary topic. Deor (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit to lead paragraph - Jan 2015

This article has been tagged for a year with a note that the opening lead needs to be expanded. I have edited the paragraph and removed the tag as of today. Feel free to comment or improve upon my efforts. Cheers, Mdukas (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in Production History

There appear to be at least 2 errors in this section (which I do not have information to correct as yet)

One would expect the BBC radio play entries to be listed chronologically, but the first two are not. The first is dated 1998, but the BBC Light Programme was only in existence from 1945 to 1967 - so this must be a typo for a different, earlier year (a correction which I suspect would also correctly place it chronologically as the first entry). One of the actors listed for the production died in 1966 so this also points to the error. I haven't found any details of a correct date for this production unfortunately.

The second entry is 1962 and the third 1961 - so either the second entry needs to be swapped with the third or it is also a wrong date. Or possibly the date of the third entry is also wrong. Again, I have not been able to find any data to correct these.

Tedmarynicz (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]