Hi everyone! I’m hoping to make some improvements to the article to help with clarity, structure, and completeness.
1. Reorganize the “Recent finalists and winners” section
The current section is a long bulleted list that mixes years and categories. I’d like to reorganize it into year-by-year tables with clearer columns. This would make the information much easier to navigate and compare.
2. Add missing finalists and winners
While reviewing the article, I noticed several years have incomplete listings. I have sourced finalists and winners from 2010–2024 using Offies.London and would like to add the missing entries using proper citations.
3. Improve and expand the History section
The current History section is very brief. Based on sourced information I’ve gathered, I’d like to add a more detailed overview covering:
the origins of OffWestEnd and the context of London’s fringe theatre scene,
the founding of the Offies and how the awards developed over time,
major structural changes (e.g., the introduction of new award categories and models).
All additions would be supported by reliable secondary sources.
4. Maintain verifiability
All edits will use existing citations or new reliable sources. I’m happy to discuss proposed wording here before making any changes.
Please let me know if this approach works for the article. I’m happy to adjust based on feedback! Cgreen7777 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Hi @Cgreen7777, allow me to clarify some additional reasons why your changes keep getting reverted now that the misunderstanding over paid editing has been resolved.
- 1. Your changes cite no sources, which fails our verifiability policy
- 2. I'm not seeing any reason why there needs to be 10 individual tables when we could simply do something like this:
| Year |
Recipient |
Role |
Production |
Result |
Ref |
| 2011 |
Will Young and Ben Monks |
Producers |
Supporting Wall |
Finalist |
[1] |
| 2012 |
Ultz |
Set Design |
Blue/Orange |
Nominated |
[2] |
|
etc. |
- The walls of uncited text where I had to guess the parameters above is far less helpful than what's currently there.
- Additionally, this message looks AI generated, which is supported by multiple AI checkers. LLM generated contributions are almot never helpful and LLM generated communication is rude and liable to be collapsed and disregarded in discussions. Please respect other editors time and energy by contributing yourself. LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 20:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, Thanks so much for the clarification. That really helps. I completely understand the concern about table size and the need to keep things readable. I did want to clarify one thing about the example structure you shared but because the Offies have a much larger volume of nominees each year, that structure ends up becoming overly large when applied directly. For the layout, we’re actually trying to match the same style used on the Obie Awards page, since the Offies are similar in structure and volume.
- I’ll also make sure every entry is properly cited so the verifiability issue is resolved. My plan is to go back through and add the references directly into the table rows so nothing appears unsourced.
- Thanks again for the guidance! Cgreen7777 (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
References
- ↑ example.com
- ↑ example2.com
