Talk:Cole Porter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not comprehensive enough

I just don't think there is enough info about his time in Europe...the speed boat down the canals of Venice, etc. I don't think we need to go crazy with too many details but this entry doesn't really portray Porter very well Sarah511 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Sarah511Sarah511 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare

• (cur) (last) . . 07:07 Nov 2, 2002 . . Ortolan88 (bit more, dunno whyyou took shakespeare out, so i put him back in)

I took it out because 1) it's mentioned in the Kiss Me, Kate article, 1a) it's slightly irrelevant, and 2) I think it reads better without it; the two parenthesized things right after each other are awkward. It really doesn't make that much of a difference, since the article still needs a lot of work, so I'll just leave it there for now :) -- Merphant

Linda Lee Thomas

i dont know how to fix it, but someone should fix the link to Linda Lee Thomas as it now directs one to the tango page.

She now has a brief article instead of that bizarre "tango" link. Even beguine would have been more appropriate! - Nunh-huh 06:19, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion

There are somethings I've read recently (like the bio on coleporter.org [1] ) that claim that Cole never really was in the French Foreign Legion, but it was a story he maintained throughout his entire life. How does one one go about what seems like a popular but incorrect fact like this?

Comment on French Foreign Legion

The Wikipedia article listing famous members of the French Foreign Legion says, in a footnote, that the Legion affirms Cole Porter was indeed a legionnaire and that a portrait of him hangs in the Legion's museum. From what I know of the Legion (which isn't much), the pride the Legion takes in itself would seem to make the museum take care not to accept a myth. Maybe the Legion's own testimony is evidence that he WAS a legionnaire.

The website www.legionofthelost.com says: "Porter enlisted in the French Foreign Legion and served in North Africa. He was transferred in 1917 to the French Officers School at Fontainebleau and was assigned to teach gunnery to American soldiers. He set up a luxury apartment in Paris and alternated between his officer duties and leading a playboy lifestyle." Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Musicals

Do we not have a comprehensive list of musicals he wrote? There must be one floating around...will try to procure

• Actually, we do -- the 'well known songs' section is organized by musical, with the name of the musical coming first.
  • I think thats an odd way to organize it kindof, but whatever...perhaps each musical should be ear marked as a theatre piece as the films, etc. are for clarity Zephyrprince 21:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well-Known Songs - 1932

Gay Divorce Broadway theatre production premiered in 1932, with Cole Porter songs After You and Night and Day. Gay Divorcee film premiered in 1934, including some new songs, not listed in this article. I have corrected the entry for (1932) Gay Divorce, in this article, accordingly. -- LiniShu 04:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the early 90's series of benefit/tribute recordings (Red Hot + Blue, Red Hot + Rap, etc. deserve mention under this topic? 207.69.137.6 02:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)lasalle202

Anything Goes

The article states "A drastic last-minute rewrite was necessitated by a major shipping accident, which dominated the news and made Bolton and Wodehouse's book seem tasteless." This is a commonly told story, but recent information seems to indicate that Lindsay and Crouse were brought in to fix the script because Bolton and Wodehouse's wasn't good enough. The cover story was created because Bolton and Wodehouse were big names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.130.43 (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"bisexual flings"?

What does it mean to say (as the article currently does) that Porter had "bisexual flings"? Logically, wouldn't that require at least three people (or four, if it's going to be "bisexual" for all participants)? Shouldn't that be "homosexual flings"? Because none of the people with whom Porter is listed as having affairs are women.

I know next to nothing about Cole Porter, but if the man had extramarital relationships with both men and women (and not necessarily at the same time!), then a "bisexual" reference is correct. If he had relationships exclusively with men, then "homosexual" flings. Where did the "three" and "four" people come from? Wordreader (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Now clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be listed under bisexual musicians since he's been shown to be a Kinsey 4, which falls under the bi umbrella (if I'm not mistaken, 0-1 falls under straight, 2-4 falls under bi, and 5-6 falls under gay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.63.43 (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"end of a battle with emphysema" ???

The article reads:

"The operation followed the death of his beloved mother in 1952 and the end of his wife's battle with emphysema in 1954."

For the sake of those with neither ESP nor an M.D. nor, perhaps the article should rephrase this to clarify whether his wife recovered form emphysema or died from it.Daqu (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

yale songs

While we do sing Bulldog all the time, I have never sang nor heard anyone sing Bingo Eli Yale. I'm on the marching band, so I've heard more fight songs than the usual student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.54.121 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Brass-band voice?

I just reverted the edit which substituted the term brass-band voice for brassy voice. Unfortunately while writing out the edit summary I hit the "Save page" button by mistake, so it looks a bit weird. What's clear is that a reference is needed. --Technopat (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Leslie Hutchinson

The page about Leslie Hutchinson states that he was "a friend and lover of Cole Porter", but that is not mentioned here. Open4D (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Death and Fire

"Porter died of kidney failure on October 15, 1964, at the age of 73 in Santa Monica, California." What about the big fire? Didn't he die of kidney and lung failure after surviving a catastrophic fire a few days earlier? Or is this just one of those stories? Gingermint (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the fire appears to be a myth. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A few points of confusion to me...

Authors, a few things I find confusing ---

1. Paris and marriage section:

Paragraph 1. [In 1917, the year in which the U.S. entered World War I, Porter moved to Paris...], Porter moves to Paris then served in the French Foreign Legion following which the Legion dispays his portait in their museum (date of the honor undisclosed).

Paragraph 3. [Marriage did not diminish Porter's taste for extravagant luxury...], Porter goes to Venice in 1923.

Paragraph 4. [Unlike contemporaries such as George Gershwin and Irving Berlin,...], we are thrust again into reading that "he moved to Europe".

If this is an awkward way to say that Porter moved to Europe twice, editting is needed. If this isn't an awkward way to say the he moved to Europe twice, then the thoughts need to be reordered into a more cohesive linear flow.

2. Tributes and legacy section:

Paragraph 3. [The French Foreign Legion honors Porter with a portrait...], the mention of the French Foreign Legion museum portrait is reiterated. Redundancy is annoying.

3. Although Porter's marriage is covered, there's little about his imtimate relationships with men. Did he never have a deep extended male relationship or were male relationships superficial and fleeting? These types of details (factually presented, not luridly) round out our understanding of the man and providee clues for further research.

I don't mean to be be critical, but if I'm confused or find things awkward, others will, too. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordreader (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these points have now been clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Uniforms?

Someone added this to the article: "It is known that he loved to be seen strolling the boulevards in all manner of uniforms that had either been borrowed or privately made for him." Is there a WP:Reliable source for this statement? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like classic trollwork to me. The phrase "It is known" is a dead giveaway, and of course the fact that the edit was made from an anonymous IP address, 86.181.87.252. It will probably reappear soon, at which point the addition should be summarily reverted with the comment "unsourced".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanding sections

This article covers over 5 decades and could use some better defined section headings. Since the content is basically chronological as currently written, I'd recommend headings to follows that flow. For example:

• Split the "early years" section into two parts: "Youth and family" and "Education" since his youth was in Indiana and his education was later, primarily at schools on the east coast.

  I strongly disagree. This is a fairly short section with only three paragraphs, and it makes much more sense to present all of this information together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed, hold off on subsections until there is more content added in the ""early years" section. Rosalina523 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Paris and marriage" section content really covers his life during World War I and the 1920s, so I'd recommend splitting that section heading into two parts as well: "World War I" and "1920s."

  I do not feel quite as strongly about this one, but the biography section of this article already has 6 subsections. Creating more subsections makes it harder to use the Table of Contents at a glance. I do not see that anything is gained by splitting this section in two. This section contains four paragraphs, and looking at it onscreen, it seems to me to be very easy to find what one might be looking for. I would leave it as one subsection. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's the current heading and the content under the heading that caused the suggestion. The first two paragraphs deal with Paris and marriage; the last two are Venice and his work (music and ballet) after his marriage. Other suggestions for the single heading? Rosalina523 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• The section called "Broadway success" fits into the 1920s, so it could be included as part of a 1920s section. The section on "1940s and postwar" could also be split into two sections: "1940s" and "1950s and 1960s" to be consistent with the other sections. Rosalina523 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Again, I strongly disagree: Decades are an arbitrary time division that may or may not be strongly related to the actual notable incidents in Porter's life. The beginning of the 1920s did not mark a major change in Porter's life or career. Instead, this section, as is, calls attention to Porter's breakout success on Broadway and is an eminently sensible heading. As for "1940s and postwar", this is again a short section. No purpose is served by breaking it down into short, stubby sections. Rosalina, I think that if you review some of the highest-quality articles in Wikipedia, the WP:FA articles, you will see that they usually try to break sections into readable chunks that are not too much longer than a screen, but nearly always longer than only one or two paragraphs. See also this guideline.

  However, some of the internal editorial suggestions that were made may be helpful, and it seems that Tim is going through them to analyze what may be helpful per WP:Balance. I believe that he is trying to get back to us about this today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think you've nailed the concern here very accurately. I'm with you, I prefer themed headers, but the later sections are 1930s and 1940s and postwar - chronological instead of themed headings. My suggestions were based on the other existing headers. You're right, it is the mix of themed headings and chronological headings in the same article that is the concern. Do you think we need to leave the themed ones as they are and adjust the chronological ones? no need to add more subsections then. Rosalina523 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tributes and Legacy section

Content here really falls into three distinct subsections: musical tributes, film tributes and other tributes - I'd recommend organizing that section into the three subsections. Rosalina523 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As above, I do not think it would be better to create stubby little sections with only a paragraph or two of content. All of these tributes are tributes. It is unlikely that someone would want to read about Coward's "other tributes" but not his film or musical tributes. IMO, it makes far more sense to have them together exactly like this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem waiting for additional content. I"m working on citations of the content for that section; it may be just a matter of organizing into paragraphs of music, television/film, etc. Would that be agreeable? Rosalina523 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than adding subsections along with new content; I arranged the new and existing content so they went together, by topic. They're grouped, as close as I could, to: songs/albums, film/television/theater, 100th anniversary of his birth tributes, awards/portraits/similar recognition; symphonic tributes, festivals, and artifacts on display, etc. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking o' tribs...didnt Diane Keaton make a cameo in Allen's film Radio Days as a nightclub singer, performing "You'd Be So Nice To Come Home To"...?? or maybe Annie Hall?? she sang some tune there also. yea?? 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:431:3925:34B8:ADE4 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course individual Porter songs are sung in lots of films and recorded by lots of big stars, but it would not be practical to list all of these in this article (The IMDB lists 733 soundtrack credits and other composer credits). The Wikipedia articles on the particular songs mention some of the most important recordings, films, broadcasts and other uses that attracted attention to those songs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving sections

I have moved the previous two sections from the top of the page where they had been posted in error. Tim riley (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some serious points raised above. May I have 24 hours to ponder and then come back to you, Rosalina523? I think we can probably reach a version that satifies all interested editors. Tim riley (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all. I think it is a matter of revising a couple of headings, not moving the text (only a couple of paragraphs would be affected by a heading change so they'd fit in the right place). The life and career text, as written, already runs chronologically almost by decade. Also, since the tributes are numerous, and bound to grow in number over time, adding subsections for different types will help others know where to add the specific content there.38.123.0.194 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

On the question of layout I agree with the conclusions above. Let us all see what the existing sections look like when you have added further material. One word of caution about content: it is tempting to add everything one can lay one's hands one, but the temptation should be resisted. It is important to confine oneself to the essentials, and not distract the reader with peripheral information. I don't know to what extent this matters in the "tributes" section, which I doubt is much read, but in the biographical section it matters very much. One can always add footnotes about interesting but inessential material. But all interested editors can review this point when you have finished adding your intended new matter. Tim riley (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Afterthought: as an example, I have added a total of 683 words in 16 footnotes to an article I'm currently working on. The information in these notes is, I think, interesting and relevant but not central to the narrative. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive Biography

This book may or may not be a useful resource. Personally I would read it, just to see how many lies there were in the 2004 biopic:

COLE PORTER A Biography. By William McBrien. Illustrated. 459 pp. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

The reviewer at http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/29/reviews/981129.29chancet.html describes the book as aloof but painstakingly researched and detailed. Similarly, Publisher's Weekly opines that "Making illuminating use of previously unpublished material at Yale and at the Cole Porter Trust, McBrien weaves a complex and groundbreaking portrait of Porter." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.200.65 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the book to the article under the heading "Further reading". If anyone has it, by all means use it to improve the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

McBrien's book is excellent; I'll be adding citations/notes to the article using this source shortly.Rosalina523 (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

After adding content using this as reference, I moved the book to the "References" section instead of "Further Reading" - McBrien's book follows much of what Citron and Kimball have said, but I added references/citations in related sections.Rosalina523 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cole Porter's religious background

If you do an internet search on Yahoo! or Google using "Cole Porter Episcopalian" you will find several completely different articles stating that he came from a wealthy Episcopalian family. If you search on "Cole Porter Baptist" you will find just one article -- this Wikipedia article -- which has been copied to a variety of websites and webpages. I'm not sure where "Baptist" comes from, but I think it's misinformation. For 30 years, I've read that Cole Porter came from an Episcopalian family and now, suddenly, on Wikipedia, he's a Baptist. Where does this information come from? Not from the reference footnoted as [1] -- click on that reference and then read it -- it says nothing about "Baptist" or "Episcopalian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddabearsf (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

New material

The new material is great! I removed a sentence from the intro: "which were noted for their sophisticated, suggestive lyrics, clever rhymes and complex forms." This is not stated in the body of the article, and you can't have something in the WP:LEAD unless it is discussed in the body with references. If you made these statements further down with appropriate references, then we could put it back in the Lead. I also added blue links, eliminated some redundancy and streamlined some tangential material or material that is already presented in other articles. Does McBrien's book solve the religion issue discussed above? The article previously stated that he was a Baptist - Does McBrien give evidence of any religious affiliation? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Info-box

Seeing the edit summary for the recent change by Ssilvers I looked again at the page, and I'm in favour of losing the box, as it doesn't seem to add anything of value to the article. Tim riley (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. Seeing all the unnecessary items that an editor added to it recently brought to my attention that the infobox is simply taking up space at the top of the article with information that is discussed in better context within the article itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I suggest we leave it for a few days in case anyone wants to add an opposing view here, failing which I'll remove the box. Tim riley (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we've left proper time for any dissent, and unless anyone objects, I'll remove the non-info box tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Now done. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the infobox per all of the good reasons why Wikipedia encourages the use infoboxes as outlined at WP:INFOBOX; as such the infobox has now been restored. Dolovis (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus. Reverted, but thank you for your drive-by interest. Tim riley talk 22:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not encourage the use of infoboxes, and it is astonishing that you would think so. The applicable guideline is at WP:INFOBOXUSE, which states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." For this article, the consensus has been that no infobox would be helpful, and that it would contain only redundant information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ssilvers and welcome the deletion by Tim. This infobox simply doesn't work and is more of a hindrance than a help in my opinion. Cassianto^talk 09:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Ssilvers and welcome Tim's deletion of the infobox which only contains facts which can already be found elsewhere in the article. Jack1956 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dolovis is citing, somewhat duplicitously, the Wikipedia Infobox Project page, to which WP:INFOBOX redirects. Quite naturally, this project has an agenda, and the "good reasons" on that page are like a political campaign speech: they present only one side of a contentious issue. Ssilvers correctly cites the guideline, which maintains strict neutrality, leaving it up to local consensus to decide whether or not to use infoboxes. Clearly, consensus is against such use here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You all clearly are some sort of anti-infobox mafia, going from page to page, chosen on who knows what criteria, deleting infoboxes, licking each others asses on the talk page, and shooting down anybody who (very reasonably) raises objections to your behavior. Ssilvers, Cassianto, Tim riley, Jack1956, your reasons for this corruption on such a petty issue as infoboxes I cannot imagine, but there you go. It's clearly way better to have infoboxes since you can quickly check the main reason you visit a person's Wikipedia page, to see how old they were when they died, instead of having to do the math of subtracting their birthdate from their deathdate, but not much I can do against this organized crime syndicate unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.206.175 (talk)

I also oppose the infobox. I think that it merely repeats information that is stated better in the Lead section of the article. Somambulant1 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree the IB is unnecessary on this article. There has been long standing consensus against an IB but recently a number of IPs have re-instated it without coming to the talk page; I have just removed it again. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SagaciousPhil for removing the unnecessary, repetitive and distracting box.Smeat75 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus mentioned by Sagaciousphil is the main point here. As I said here three years ago, Wikipedia policy is neutral on the question of inboxes, so any attempt to add an inbox without first attempting to change that consensus by discussion on this talk page deserves to be reverted without further ado.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Stanley Kubrick, there is a clear global consensus that bio articles should have an infobox. Morgan695 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There cannot be a "global consensus" at one article regarding another article. Please do not add an infobox to this article without a new WP:CONSENSUS here to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been dead since 2017. There is no robust ongoing discussion; the only person who appears to oppose adding an infobox is you, whose position seems to be some some mix of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. Per the RfCs at Stanley Kubrick, Frank Sinatra, and Ian Fleming, there is a clear consensus among editors that bio articles should have an infobox. Don't drag your heels on a battle that's already been lost. Morgan695 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strange description of the true situation. Wikipedia policy is that I-b's are optional. I can point to a dozen featured articles on arts biographies where it there is no i-b, no need for one and no consensus for one. I don't recall seeing your name at FAC, where your personal views could be offered in each case as articles come up for FA consideration. Tim riley talk 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It is true that some biography articles do not have an infobox as a result of intervention (or maybe "obstruction" if I'm feeling less charitable) by a few determined editors, but it is accurate to characterize the current consensus around biography infoboxes as one where the overwhelming majority of editors believe that these articles should have infoboxes, and a few stubborn hold-outs do not. I have no interest in re-treading the points of a largely settled debate that has been going on for literal years, so the best course of action is to refer this matter to RfC. Morgan695 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

How gratifying it must be to have the omniscience (or maybe "arrogance" if, to coin a phrase, I'm feeling less charitable) to know with such assurance what the overwhelming majority of editors believe. Consulation after consultation has consistently resulted in the decision that whether to add an info-box is a matter for consensus at any article. Tantrums and throwing around accusations of WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT when your personal view has no consensus to back it up do not seem to me in the spirit of Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 18:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I have started an RfC here. You are welcome to post a rationale for why this article should or should not have an infobox. Morgan695 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

vague, undated fact

Under the Paris and marriage section, paragraph three, this fact is presented: "[. . .]for a party at Ca' Rezzonico, which he rented for $4,000 a month ($55,000 in current value)[. . .]". "Current value" means when, exactly: "55,000 in 1990 dollars", "55,000 in 2001 dollars", "55,000 in 2014 dollars", or some other year? Author, please qualify your fact with a date and add in your source. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That sentence really means current value, like right now. To get such a result, it uses the Template:Inflation calculator which turns past prices into modern prices. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead siblings

An IP recently added a statement that Kate Porter had two children who died in infancy before Cole was born. I have removed it, as it was uncited, but it looks (see, e.g., Find a Grave) as if it was correct, yet I cannot find a WP:RS online that confirms it, and am not at home with my books to hand. Can anyone find reference to the dead siblings in a usable source meanwhile? Tim riley talk 09:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Found it in McBrien, and will add - perhaps as a footnote? By the bye, the refs are rather a muddle at the moment with comments and citations all mixed together: is it OK if I separate the explanatory notes from the citations? Shouldn't take very long. @Ssilvers: - any views? Tim riley talk 12:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to separate the comments and citations. Good work on the siblings! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Good! Done. Do check if you have a moment. Tim riley talk 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

@Ssilvers: Dear Ssilvers,
Thank you for this edit in the present article on Cole Porter; it reminded me to complete the task of expanding, into a proper 'cite web' template, the basic url ref tag I added yesterday.  Done
The purpose of adding this link, in the first place, was to help readers differentiate the 1932 stage show (Gay Divorce) from the subsequent film based on it and released in 1934 (The Gay Divorcee). At least one reader has confused the two and questioned the spelling of the title; so, I thought it would be helpful to provide an external link to a page about the stage show.
Thank you also for this edit; it seemed self-evident to me that 'Porter's agent' would recommend 'him' (Porter)—and not anyone else—to write a score, but I don't have a problem with having it spelled out. It looked a bit strange to me, to have two occurrences of 'Porter' appearing so close to each other in the same sentence, especially since there really isn't anyone else the word 'him' could represent. Also: if Porter's agent had been considered as a condidate for writing the score, even then the word used would not have been 'him', but rather: 'himself' or some similar wording ('Porter's agent offered to write the score'). In any case, the wording with 2x 'Porter' is certainly making it very obvious.
Thank you once again for these edits, and for everything else you do in support of our encyclopedia.
With kind regards;
-- Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 10:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, thanks for the kind words, but I have conformed the ref style, per WP:CITEVAR, to the plain style of the rest of the refs in the article. Adding the cite web template does not add any information: it just adds useless formatting characters. The cite templates (other than cite book, which editors mostly agree on) are not necessary (or required by WP:CITE), although they may serve as a checklist for novice editors. In my opinion, and that of some other experienced editors here, the cite templates are not helpful -- they make it harder to read Wikipedia edit screens. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Dear Ssilvers,

Please accept my apologies for delay in acknowledging your reply, above. Also, please forgive me for the earlier edit, which altered the article's established ref style; I simply did not know that the WP:CITEVAR guideline existed and I am thankful to you for pointing it out to me so patiently. I enjoy learning and do it all the time (); to this end, you have helped me understand that I need to invest more learning time into the whole subject of citations. Hitherto, I had simply selected citation templates with the conviction that they had been provided for systematic use. I also thought that it didn't really matter what style I used since the output is almost always quite standard, and had simply tried to be as helpful as possible for the benefit of the reader. However, I have now also come across this discussion, which truly amazed me! So, it's back to Wiki-school for me, and very many thanks once again for your courteous assistance in adjusting the slope of my learning curve.

With kindest regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I like the manual citations because: 1) they use the fewest number of characters, and so they are most compact; 2) they are easier to read on the edit screen; and 3) newcomers and others do not need to have expertise in using the templates and coding. I *do* like the cite book template for use at the bottom of articles, as it is pretty straightforward and makes the punctuation and layout in the list of books look consistent. I think that nearly all of the editors who work on WP:Featured articles agree on that. I really dislike when editors use a citation system where each footnote is linked with code. This, IMO, discourages most editors from contributing by making Wikipedia into a private club of coders. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Thank you very much! Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 18:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Portal -- See also

Someone added a link to the Cole Porter Portal under "See also". Is that were it goes? I thought the link goes further down without a heading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved it further down, closer to where it should go. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Great American Songbook article

There is a discussion at Talk:Great American Songbook#The future of this article as to how to deal with the uncited lists of songwriters, songs, and singers in that article. Please join the discussion if it interests you. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Piano

We seem to have an entire paragraph of not very interesting stuff about what happened to Porter's piano after his death. I suggest we get rid of it. What do others think? Tim riley talk 09:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem was that a new editor over-wrote the information about the piano and separated it (and much of the other information in the article) into stubby paragraphs. Now the information is concise and restored to its proper context, and I think it belongs in the Tributes and legacy section of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)