Talk:Cole Porter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on infobox

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

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
    @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)
    @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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • B - My view is that an infobox would be unhelpful in this article. Uakari (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • B - Infoboxes are best used for politicians, sports figures & monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
OK, that's fine, if you want. Tim riley talk 23:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that Noel Coward is a featured article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Jerome Kern does pretty well, I'd say, without an i-box. Tim riley talk 08:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • B per Ssilvers and Tim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A, if this is still going on. We can have a "skinny" one if there's disagreement about which notable works to feature, but the reverted version from Morgan695 looks perfectly fine to me. The age at death is one thing I often look for on a biographical infobox that otherwise asks the reader to do some math, and I'm sure our colleagues at Wikidata support having more structured data in place. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • A per Markbassett and BDD above ↑. –RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 01:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
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.

Complete list of musicals

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)

Yes. I see two ways to get there: either add a new section, or extend the notable songs section to include all shows (and films) whether or not they include notable songs.
If almost every show or film had at least one notable song, the latter approach would be more economical. Looking at the current notable songs section, I see many songs that are not obviously notable. So maybe it would be better to prune the notable songs section and add new sections listing all shows and films.
So, what constitutes a notable song, for the purposes of this article? I think a notable song has either its own article or a citation documenting that it was a hit or was notable for some other reason. My hand is moving towards my machete. Anyone want to suggest other criteria for notability (again, for the purposes of this article)? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
On second thought, List of songs written by Cole Porter is (or should be) a complete list of his musicals and films. I don't think it needs to be in this article, only referred to. I do think the existing notable songs section needs clarification, which could be its own discussion. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I think that it could be part of a [List of Cole Porter works] and should be a separate article. -- 23:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of this and think it would not actually focus the readers on the most important parts of Porter's career, but if you want to look for a WP:CONSENSUS, I'd suggest starting a new section at the bottom of this page instead of responding to this old section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing the list in Kimball's lyrics book I don't think a complete list would be helpful here. There are at least a couple dozen works which aren't noteworthy: college shows, shows which were never produced, shows to which Porter made only minority contributions, etc., all with no noteworthy songs. I expanded the list in this article slightly to include noteworthy works without noteworthy songs, as I described in Talk:Cole_Porter#Notable shows and songs. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Templated references

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

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)
I fixed the italic date 95.252.222.85 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Rehashed

I don't understand the problem with having an infobox. Cole Porter is a historical figure, important enough to warrant a wikipedia page at all, so why not have an infobox like almost everyone else on wikipedia? His page is just as useful as anyone else's, if we're not going to set one up for him, with facts from his own page, why does anyone have an infobox?

I went through the trouble of setting one up and the information was correct. Surely leaving correct information on a page of a person is easier than deleting it after the fact. Jellybean213 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not compulsory on pages and nor are they ubiquitous: in fact less than half our articles have them. It’s a good question to ask ‘why does anyone have an infobox’, as a great number are applied without thinking about ‘why’. Other arguments about why not to have one can be found in the above RfC, where there was no consensus to include one. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, while sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, they are particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article and tend to misleadingly oversimplify the topic for the reade. The box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. In addition, as the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose info-box. They are useful – helpful to readers – in articles where career statistics (posts held, teams played for, etc) are key, but the one that had a mercifully brief appearance on Porter's page told the reader precisely nothing about why Porter is famous or even what he did ("occupation=composer"? – who wrote the lyrics then?) Such unhelpful clutter should be avoided. Some editors think that info-boxes should be mandatory for all articles, and such editors are at liberty to argue their case in the appropriate forum. Tim riley talk 07:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Opportunities for improvement

I intend to address these myself as time permits, but others are more than welcome to beat me to any of them. I'll start any necessary discussions in fresh topics so this one doesn't become unmanageable; others please do the same.

  • Add a section that discusses Porter as a songwriter: his influences, his artistic method, the characteristics of his music and how he influenced songwriting and musical theatre.
OK, but the last part should go in the legacy section, which could be broken off from the tributes section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Provide something towards Scottandrewhutchins' suggestion above of a complete list of works, though perhaps only notable works, not all. Perhaps a small refocus and expansion of "Notable songs" would suffice.
Again, I think that such a list should go in a separate article, not the main article, which already discusses (or should discuss) his most important works narratively. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Define notabilitynoteworthiness of songs and maybe (per previous item) works. Add citations that demonstrate that notabilitynoteworthiness for those songs/works.
I agree, but note that the standard is "noteworthiness", not "notability", which applies only to whether articles as a whole should be included in Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Move most of the discussion of recordings in the first two paragraphsparagraph of "Tributes and legacy" into a "Selected discography" section. Drop the not-notable references to Porter songs in recent pop. Address the WP:UGC citations.
If there are enough recordings, they could get their own section, otherwise, yes, put them all together in the legacy section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Correct the section level of "Notes, references, sources and further reading" vs. "Further reading"
  • Define what qualifies a reference for "Further reading", and possibly add and remove references.
Further reading should include major sources about Porter that are not specifically cited in the article; usually just book sources, unless there is a major, scholarly article about him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Migrate references to Kimball 1984 to refer to the 1992 version of that book, which is available on line. That would mean remembering which is Kimball 1992a and which is 1992b (the article refers to a different Kimball 1992), but the convenience of being able to read the cited material on line seems worth the trouble.
  • Review links (I've noticed several dead ones already), attempt to revive dead ones with archive.org, and update http to https where possible.
  • Fix the inconsistency in web reference style: some "Retrieved" statements end with periods and some don't.
I would prefer no periods, as less unnecessary punctuation is better. BTW, what do you mean in the item below? Can you point me to one that is problematic? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the webarchive template documentation says it's not intended for citations. Resolve somehow. (moved to separate topic)

Dave Schweisguth (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Citation style: end with a period?

Some citations in this article end with a period and some don't. Consistency is good. I would end them all with a period, as in CS1 (though I'm not, in this topic, suggesting following CS1 in its entirety). Anyone feel differently, or think it needs an RfC? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said just above, I prefer no periods, as less punctuation is more. But if you feel they are helpful in some way, ok. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I thought of a lazier path to consistency: Full citations usually have several period-terminated clauses, and most of them already ended in periods; I added a terminal period to those that did not. Short (author-date-page) citations always have one clause with no internal periods, and most of them did not end in periods; I removed the terminal period from those that did. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Citations and archived links

I'm describing how I addressed a user issue in this article's citations, and commenting on a possible issue with this article's use of Template:Webarchive, in case it helps other editors, or in case others have better suggestions. I don't have any further intentions in this area unless an issue is raised; I'm just keeping notes.

This article cited many links which were dead (or which had been freely accessible in the past but now require a subscription). Many of those dead links were followed by a link to an archived copy rendered with Template:Webarchive. (I don't know whether the archive links were added before or after the links died.) That preserved access to the source, but still had the problem that a reader would click on the dead link first. I fixed those citations manually, in a manner similar to what Template:Cite_web does when |url-status=dead or usurped and there is an archive link: it links to the archive and adds an "Archived from the original" clause which links to the original. I otherwise maintained this page's citation style. Doing that for each dead link was tedious, but I don't know of a better solution short of migrating to Template:Cite_web and I don't feel like going there right now.

A related minor issue: the Template:Webarchive documentation says "This template is intended for external links. It is not designed for use as a citation template." I don't know why it would be a problem to use that template for a preemptive archive link. I asked, but haven't gotten an answer yet. Because the link-fixing I described above eliminated most uses of that template, this is at most a very minor issue for this page, if it's an issue at all. Only one use remains right now, for the J.X. Bell biography.

Another side note: I don't see much value in retrieved dates for archived pages, but that's not consensus and they're easy to update, so I just updated them when I swapped in archived links. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work. I prefer manual cites, because anyone can use them without understanding the code needed to use templated cites. As for the template documentation about ELs vs cites, my experience is that template documentation and instructions are often out of date, no longer in accordance with common usage and/or just plain erroneous. It does not have the force of a guideline, let alone a policy, and I would regard it as advisory only. I also don't see much value in retrieval/access dates when the actual publication date is known, but as you say, they are commonly given, so I don't mind them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Further reading

What qualifies a reference for the Further reading section? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Further reading should include major sources about Porter that are not specifically cited in the article; usually just book sources, unless there is a major, scholarly article about him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [Copy of Ssilvers' reply to a similar entry in #Opportunities for improvement]
Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree. None of the scholarly articles appear obviously major to me. There must be countless scholarly articles on Porter. No indication is given why these particular articles are referenced. I'll remove all of them, leaving the books. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Selected discography

Comments in the selected discography I just added explain some of the criteria (and exceptions). I'll add a little more here for other editors.

I cited CD releases where possible, since they're easier to find, often better-engineered and sometimes have worthwhile extra material.

  • Shows and films: One recording per work, plus the Can-Can soundtrack, because it won a Grammy, and the De-Lovely soundtrack, because it features rock and pop performers.
  • Vocal & instrumental: Each album is by a major artist (likely known to a non-Porterphile), provides breadth in style (contemporary to Porter, jazz, cabaret, rock and recent pop, classical/opera) and/or covers songs not covered elsewhere. I omitted some albums with articles in Category:Cole Porter tribute albums which cited mediocre reviews.
  • Compilations: Each entry explains itself.

I wrote citations manually; since they're all in one section, they should be easy to keep consistent. I did follow Template:Cite AV media style. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This section had a couple of problems. 1. It was far too long, unbalancing the article. I solved this problem by moving the material to the subarticle Cole Porter Discography. Feel free to expand that article. 2. The selection criteria are dicey. While I think they are more or less sensible, I am not sure that they can be justified. You may want to compare what you did to some of the Discographies that have been rated Featured Lists
All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I concur that it is right to hive the discography off into a separate article. The main CP article is fairly good, in my view, and adding on a big list of arbitrarily chosen recordings is not, to my my mind, balanced or indeed encyclopaedic. Nb that in the new spun-off article there are four red Cite error warnings that need attention. Tim riley talk 17:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Tim -- I've attended to the red error warnings. As I noted above, now that the Discography is a separate article, feel free to fill it out in a more standard WP format. In addition to the Featured List discographies, maybe look at Discography of West Side Story, Aretha Franklin discography, The Beatles albums discography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the Discography section left in the main Cole Porter article should be expanded to have a brief overview of the most important recordings, but the references need to state that they are considered the most important, most frequently recorded numbers, Grammy-winning, or some other objective measure of encyclopedic importance. I saw this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: any entries must have a citation to a WP:RS. Tim riley talk 17:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Notable shows and songs

I changed "Notable songs" to "Notable shows and songs" and added Porter's few shows that are notable or noteworthy despite not containing any notable or noteworthy songs. That did not expand the list significantly, and it might reassure readers that the list is a good guide to Porter's shows as well as to his songs.

Though the list mostly predates me, I think criteria are pretty simple:

Songs

Meets at least one of the following criteria

  • has a standalone article
  • meets any of the characteristics in WP:NSONG indicating that it might be notable: was a hit, won a major award, or was recorded by several notable performers, OR
  • is noteworthy in the context of the article for some other reason stated in the list entry (e.g. "Bingo Eli Yale" and "Bull Dog")

Shows

Meets at least one of the following criteria

  • Was entirely or mostly Porter's work, and additionally meets at least one of the following additional criteria
    • has a standalone article
    • might be notable analogously to the WP:NSONG criteria for songs: was a hit, won a major award, or has been repeatedly produced by notable theater companies (don't know that we'd ever need those last two)
    • is noteworthy in the context of the article for some other reason stated in the list entry
  • was the first show in which a noteworthy song appeared (e.g. Adios Argentina)

Some weeks ago I removed a few songs that would clearly never qualify (and blanked-and-redirected their stillborn stubs), but I haven't attempted to cite that any songs without articles meet the WP:NSONG criteria. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll review the section shortly and cite or prune songs. I think it suffices to check these references for evidence of notability:
- Whitburn's Pop Memories 1890-1954
- Elrod's Your Hit Parade and American Top Ten Hits, 1935-1994
- AllMusic: a song's "Appears On" section (e.g. for "Night and Day") and a recording's "Also Performed By" section (e.g. for Sinatra's "Night and Day") can provide evidence that a song has been widely recorded. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Elrod turned out not to be necessary. Of course anyone might later add a song show to be noteworthy by some other source; I just listed the ones I checked. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sheet music?

The note in the "Notable shows and songs" section refers to Hutchins' bibliography of sheet music collections. That seems uncharacteristic; it's the first such reference I've come across in articles on songwriters. I expect it's unhelpful to most readers, who don't read music. Should it be in the article at all? If so, should it be in Further reading?

Also, Hutchins' bibliography is missing at least one more recent comprehensive collection, to say nothing of MusicNotes and other sources of sheet music. If the article really wanted to be helpful about finding sheet music, it would need its own listing. But I don't think it belongs at all. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about either of your questions. My instinct is that Hutchins is helpful. Not sure if we should add other sources of sheet music. @User:Tim riley and @User:Rosalina523, who between them wrote most of the text of this article, may be able to offer some useful insights. What do you think, Tim and Rosalina? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I took another look at this, since neither Tim nor Rosalina has expressed an opinion. If you removed Hutchins' bibliography, how would you source the section? Add a source to each item? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Funny, I never thought of the Hutchins page as a source, more as further reading for readers of sheet music.
I think a single blanket citation of Kimball's lyrics book would cover song titles, works and dates. Songs in the list for special reasons need their own citations (which they have). But songs without articles ought to have citations justifying their presence in the list, Your Hit Parade or some reliable database of recordings or some such, which the Hutchins page doesn't provide. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
As long as you provide a good source for the list that indicates why the items selected are of importance to Porter's career (per WP:DUE and WP:BALASP), I don't mind removing Hutchins. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI