Talk:I Loves You, Porgy

Untitled
An infobox was requested for the Nina Simone recording of "I Loves You Porgy" at WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocuousPseudonym (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Title spelling
In line with the bolded introduction, which uses a comma, shouldn't this article be titled I Loves You, Porgy (currently a REDIRECT)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

credits (Maupray?)
I'm sorry - please see Talk:Pirate Jenny, I put the question and answer there. -- 217.224.220.157 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding More
Hi, EddieHugh and Michael Bednarek I am currently a student at the University of Sydney learning about Wikipedia and have chosen this Stub as part of my assignment. I saw that you deleted a lot of what I added and I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted that material? I looked at the history and note that you said some sources were off and that I had misinterpreted material, which I agree with. However, there was a lot more there. I would love the feedback so that I can contribute to this article in line with Wikipedia's regulations and to your satisfaction, as I can see that you have worked hard on this article. If you have any advice/or direction you think I should go in that would be great. Furthermore, I saw EddieHugh suggested there was not enough to warrant sections, can you please expand on this as I believe I have found enough sources and material to warrant sections. Thanks, --Allenthetalon (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my edit summary, I removed material that was only relevant to the opera as a whole and not about this duet. I also marked unattributed quotes as such. I thought that EddieHugh's further deletions were a bit harsh because the requested citation could probably be found. But, in line with WP:BURDEN, those removals were technically justified – although their edit summary smelled of WP:OWN. // I would have hoped that a scholarly assignment would result in a deeper discussion of the music, which of course must be based on published sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The bigger picture: some people dump all sorts of opinion and trivia on articles about well-known songs. This stuff can accumulate for years. This article was only a minor instance of this (here's the article previously: a citation tag at the top dating back to 2013!). In these instances I take the strict line of removing everything that doesn't have a citation. This is to discourage people from dumping all sorts of ... I hope you get the idea... It's the same thing with sections. I generally prefer them, but something such as "performances" with just two entries encourages people to dump all sorts of... Something like "performances that charted" would be better, but then there'd be only one entry, so that wouldn't be worth having a separate section for.
 * The smaller picture: it's also based on policy. (Almost) anything can be challenged if it has no source, and the burden for providing a source falls on the editor who wants the material to be included.
 * I hope that we haven't deterred you from further editing. Please improve what you can. The main advice is: provide a source and citation for everything that you add. (And thanks for engaging on the talk page; most people don't.) EddieHugh (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Michael Bednarek and EddieHugh. You've been extremely helpful. I am going to go more in depth with the music and lyric analysis. I've noted that the summertime page is successful in this and hope to mimic that for this article. --Allenthetalon (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Too much opera
I think a string of edits by User:Allenthetalon added too much material that is not directly related to this duet but to the opera generally. I suggest to omit those passages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, see if those parts can be included in Porgy and Bess – it would be better than discarding them. EddieHugh (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would indeed be better, but it's not a straightforward thing to do because that article already contains a fair bit of analysis. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek Do you mind clarifying which passages? It would be helpful to know. --Allenthetalon (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I marked the passages I think are not directly relevant for this duet in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)