Jump to content

Talk:Cole Porter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on infobox

[edit]
The discussion stalled months ago, and no consensus was reached. Dantus21 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should this article:

  • A – have an infobox
  • B – not have an infobox
  • C – have a collapsed infobox

Morgan695 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A as proposer. An infobox is a useful tool for delivering biographical information about a subject in a quick and concise manner, and are especially useful for a general audience who wish to glean verifiable facts without having to read the entire article. Previous RfCs and discussions on this subject (Stanley Kubrick, Frank Sinatra, Ian Fleming, etc.) have demonstrated a clear consensus for including infoboxes in biography articles. Morgan695 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "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". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. I am a great believer in info-boxes in appropriate articles (i.e. most of them) but arts biographies do not benefit from them and in fact they make Wikipedia look rather silly. What does one put in a composer's box? Notable works? Notable according to whom? Look at the nonsense this led to at Beethoven's article, where instead of doing what an info-box is meant to do - summarising key facts from the text of the article - it takes the poor reader to an entirely different page. There are those who, if they are honest enough to admit it, believe that info-boxes should be compulsory, but it is Wikipedia's policy that they are optional, and my view is that Porter's article would lose rather than gain from the addition of a box. Tim riley talk 20:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For reference here is what the article might look like with an infobox. (This was added recently by Morgan695 before being quickly reverted). Colin M (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This clarifies the uselessness of this misleading infobox. It combines redundancy with trivia and finally emphasized a misleading factoid. The subject's names and dates are contained in the first sentence of the article, so it is pointless to repeat them in the box. His place of death is trivial, and even his place of birth, spouse's name and alma maters are not of key importance in this important songwriter's biography. The Lead section introduces the most important information about Porter in a far clearer, more nuanced, and very compact way. Finally, and misleadingly, the box emphasizes Porter's Grammy Award for the soundtrack to the film Can-Can, a film that he had nothing to do with – in fact, the film soundtrack is basically a "best of" album, as it contains not only songs written by Porter 7 years earlier for the musical Can-Can, but other random Porter songs. The film was a Frank Sinatra vehicle that was only loosely based on Porter's musical. BTW, the box says it was a 1961 Grammy, but the official Grammy.com site says 1960. This is an example of how infoboxes tend to introduce minor errors and inconsistencies with the text of an article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ssilvers that the suggested content of an i-b, above, is as about as much use as a chocolate teapot, but if any editors can suggest content that could actually be useful to our readers we should all consider it. – Tim riley talk 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. I am not sure I see any value to add it, but I don't see any harm either. Tepkunset (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tepkunset: Your argument sounds like you meant to !vote A? Or are you just saying that you don't feel strongly about your !vote? Fieari (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fieari: I voted B. The information is redundant, but easier to to quickly find. Overall I voted B, but MOS:infobox does not specify when to use one only that it list key points. It would not be inappropriate to put one in. Tepkunset (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Generally in favour of infoboxes as I feel they offer the chance to quickly access info about a person at a glance. I see no reason why this case would be any different, other than the usual anti-infobox discourse. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - I believe an infobox is a useful quick-reference tool suitable for any biography, whether that biography is related to the arts, sports, politics, religion, or whatever. Of course an infobox repeats information found in the article or lead, that's the point-- to make the information easily and quickly findable in moments when all you are looking for is quick data. There should be no need to read the article just to get some quick details. If we are arguing aesthetics, I would counter that infoboxes look better on a page than the lack of one... this is of course purely subjective, so it's more of a vote than a !vote in that regard. But I'm arguing more than aesthetics-- I'm arguing use. If the argument is that an infobox could potentially be filled with useless cruft... then the solution to that is not to fill it with useless cruft. If we need to argue about what should go in the infobox, that's a different discussion (although at the very least birth year, death year, and something to indicate why he's notable should be uncontroversial)... but as for the existence of an infobox? They are simply helpful. Excluding them simply to force people to read our prose just to extract the data they want to know is silly. Fieari (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - My view is that an infobox would be unhelpful in this article. Uakari (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. I think infoboxes are broadly helpful in all biographical articles for basic information such as birth/death dates and places, spouses, and such. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, while I generally personally favour infoboxes in articles, I have taken note of the discussion from c2014 and the opposing points raised here, however I am unconvinced by the opposition. Disliking them isn't a reason not to have one, in the same way that those who do like them isn't a reason either to have one. Thus, I guess this may come down to how many editors with an opinion one way or another happen to express it here. I don't think there is any policy argument to be used in this case (happy to be advised otherwise). Comparing the two states with and without, I really don't see why it's a problem to have it and my own opinion, it looks a bit more "complete" with one. I'm not !voting this way with much conviction though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - Infoboxes are best used for politicians, sports figures & monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B There is not a hugely compelling reason to have one for this composer article, composers rarely benefit from having an infobox. Also per the compelling points by Tim riley.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 06:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Regardless of whether or not some people like them, many readers find them useful. Why wouldn't we want Wikipedia articles to be useful for readers? Not having an infobox is far more disruptive to readers than having one. Seems like a slam dunk, infoboxes are useful.--JOJ Hutton 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a B voter, I'd honestly love to add an info-box that readers would find useful, but for articles about composers nobody has yet found a way to make such a box useful. See the points set out above. Tim riley talk 19:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find them useful for many things, am I a nobody? Just because sone people have no need for an infobox, isnt a reason to deny the readers who would find an infobox useful, the advantage of having an infobox.JOJ Hutton 19:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, what could we usefully put in a box? So far, as regards composer life-and-times articles is concerned, we lack plausible suggestions for meeting Wikipedia's policy that info-boxes should summarise key points of the text. Have a look at the Beethoven article to see what I mean. In what way does that box summarise the main points about Beethoven? I don't think it can be done (though I'd love to be proved wrong) and this is, I imagine, why Wikipedia's stated policy is that info-boxes are optional, and used only when appropriate. Tim riley talk 19:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Readers may find them useful because "An infobox is a panel that summarizes key features of the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include an image, a map, or both". And they allow "readers to identify key facts at a glance". Again, Key facts at a glance. If we make Wikipedia article harder to use, why would people want to use Wikipedia?--JOJ Hutton 20:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have precisely put your finger on the problem: please list the key facts from the text, which I'm sure you've read, that you would put in an info-box. Believe me, the main editors have tried (see previous discussions, above) but we end up with the Beethoven problem. We'd be grateful for your suggestions about what could usefully be included in a box to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Tim riley talk 20:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox should have key facts presented at a glance. Whatever those key facts might be may be up to the collaberation of Wikipedia editors, not me alone. Usually those key facts are useful to readers. If an infobox with key facts is useful, then why wouldn't the article have one? Seems pretty clear cut.JOJ Hutton 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course nobody is asking you to be the sole arbiter, but as you express so strong a view it would be most helpful of you to suggest some key facts from this article that could usefully be included. Tim riley talk 21:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of six people who said that infoboxes are useful to readers, so I'm not sure why you chose to only challenge me on this thread. That is my view and I believe it. what goes into the infobox is up to the desire of the editors who edit the article. In my opinion, an infobox for this article could include some of the most relevant infobox, such as name, date of birth, date of date, resting place, and then maybe a short list of notable works that might go unnoticed by the casual reader who might miss it if it wasn't presented in an infobox at a glance. There could be more, but that's just my opinion. Anything I missed?
Back to the Beethoven problem: which "notable works" would you include? Of course we considered this, but who is to say what is a "notable work"? And without an arbitrary and challengable list of "notable works" what key points would you put in a box? A person's "date of birth, date of date, resting place" are not what he or she is famous for – we all have those, or will have – or what our readers come to his or her article for. Please suggest what useful information we could put in a box for Cole Porter. Tim riley talk 22:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, putting it all onto me. Wikipedia guidelines are that anyone can edit, so it's up to the editing process to figure it out. Editors were able to collaborate over six million articles on the English Wikipedia without needing to discuss every single detail on this thread. Let the editors figure it out through trial and error. Somewhere in the middle the editing process will figure it out, no need to finalize it here and now.--JOJ Hutton 22:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You can't suggest anything to put in an info-box other than dates of birth etc. And neither has anyone else. So why do you want one? Tim riley talk 22:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not falling for your trick. Wikipedia has a time honored way of editing pages and it works. I've said my peace and it's what I believe. Infoboxes are useful and we just let the editing process determine what goes into them. Trust me, it's worked on millions of articles with or without our input.--JOJ Hutton 22:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"My trick"? That's a horrible thing to say. I have been genuinely asking for constructive input. But if you and your conscience are happy with your own conduct here, good luck to you. Tim riley talk 22:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you've been trying to paint me into a corner so you can knock down every opinion I have. Wikipedia editing process will work out what goes in the infobox, not me.--JOJ Hutton 22:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine, if you want. Tim riley talk 23:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Noel Coward is a featured article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome Kern does pretty well, I'd say, without an i-box. Tim riley talk 08:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are they really better for it? Almost half of the fields in the Irving Berlin infobox are devoted to Berlin's military service, which appears to be a very marginal aspect of his life. It's not mentioned anywhere in the introduction, and only gets a few sentences in the body. Colin M (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning B. I don't think there's a "right" answer here. That is to say, I don't think either the presence or the absence of an infobox would prevent this article from being the best it can be, and reasonable arguments have been made on both sides. For a "housekeeping" matter like this, I'm inclined to break the tie by giving some extra weight to the editors who are most active in editing the article, since they're likely to have a bit more insight into the matter (and it falls on them to deal with the consequences). In this case, the top contributors to the article, Ssilvers and Tim riley, think an infobox is a bad idea. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should never trump policies and guidelines with strong community-wide support, but I think it's fine to rely on it for a judgement call like this where P&G don't favour one outcome over the other. Colin M (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a thoughtful and civilised response. Alas, it is an article of faith with some editors that every article must have an i-box, even though that is contrary to Wikipedia's policy, but I hope your measured and balanced approach will perhaps persuade some of the absolutists. Tim riley talk 17:59, 25 January 2022 (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.

Comnplete list of musicals

[edit]

There should be a complete list of his musicals on this page, including those not deemed notable enough for their own article.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Templated references

[edit]

I’ve just restored (rightly) templated references because there were an Italic date. 95.252.222.85 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce templated references without a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. I prefer the manual ciltations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the italic date 95.252.222.85 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cole_Porter&oldid=1261188691"