THC Science

Frank Sinatra has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 26, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 25, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 12, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after gaining a job as a singing waiter in 1938, Frank Sinatra (pictured) boasted that he would "become so big that no one could ever touch him"?
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).

Pop music GA‑class High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Frank Sinatra GA‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frank Sinatra, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Frank SinatraWikipedia:WikiProject Frank SinatraTemplate:WikiProject Frank SinatraFrank Sinatra articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Radio GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

New Jersey GA‑class Top‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nevada GA‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Jazz GA‑class Top‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States GA‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Starting the discussion about Sinatra infobox

Please refer to the discussion that ended just 6 days ago. Starting this so soon is purely disruptive. Cassianto^Talk 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about I thought about starting a discussion about the Sinatra box (now collapsed since 2015), but I'm unsure when. Because the Kubrick infobox talk is occurring at Talk:Stanley Kubrick, maybe I shall hold off the idea until the discussion is closed. Shall I do the RFC now, or shall I wait until when? --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know those using screen readers do not like hidden stuff. I would rather the infobox not be hidden either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was planning to discuss whether to retain or omit the box (regardless of collapsing it or not), though it might be too soon. When shall I do the discussion? George Ho (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came here tonight with my kids looking for info on Frank Sinatra. First time ever on this article. Was disappointed there is no infobox, as we couldn't quickly get the information we needed. Not interested in reading the entire article when looking for simple stuff like birthday, age, years active, etc. Why in the world would you remove the infobox from someone's page? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reason (coming from someone that usually finds more than one reason to justify something) to keep the infobox hidden. I think it's stupid and the people who did it have to explain themselves. I haven't got time or patience to read this entire Talk page, so if anyone can explain me why I should keep the infobox hidden, please tell me here. My opinion is that it's stupid and very misleading to people doing research here to keep it hidden. I won't change it yet, because it says not to (and because then it would be reverted by some guy who doesn't want to justify himself and just keeps reverting other user's edits for no apparent reason). JUSTIFY WHY IT SHOULD BE HIDDEN AND GIVE A DECENT REASON!! User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 08:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been gone over several times before, and you should read the threads in the archive to get a grasp of why. Your opinion may be that it is stupid, but demeaning the opinions of other editors is not likely to lead to a constructive discussion. Demanding something in SHOUTY caps as a new reader is also not the way to persuade and influence the mood of the tp watchers. - 213.205.194.168 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given a reason. I've seen some of the other threads about this and no one can give a decent reason to keep it like that. User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 10:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for or against, so I do not have to give a reason for anything. There I see an explanation in the archives, but whether it sways your opinion or not is not down to me. If you want to change the status quo, you are the one who has to put forward arguments to change the consensus, not demand something from other editors that they have already discussed to death. - 213.205.194.168 (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I'll go edit some stuff. Thanks for you time. User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 12:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

die date

someone shoud chek tghe date

May 14, 1998 or March 16, 2016 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.159.73 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date is checked and 1998 is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why infobox is hidden

I came to this page recently as a longtime Wikipedian and Sinatra fan of much longer-standing and was surprised to find no infobox. Could someone please summarize why the infobox should be hidden on this article? I know that there has been back-&-forth on this in past, but I've found it difficult to discern the explanation for why this article's infobox should be hidden, despite it's being (in my view) highly accurate and parsimonious. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear: If you're looking for the history here, I've found it at this discussion and its conclusion. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, that history looks really...horrible, and unconvincing. Seems like a tiny I-don't-like-it mob exhausting other editors into submission. The sort of thing that explains why editors abandon WP. If I had more energy, I'd propose uncollapsing it. But I do not. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”a tiny I-don't-like-it mob exhausting other editors into submission”? Please see WP:AGF and focus on the content not the contributors. - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)::::[reply]

I see your own response to the "Hidden infobox" section further down, proving my point. "focus on the content", indeed--" I want to _see_ the content. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for stupid comments...

Internet makes us all crappy people. Two times I almost lost a good friendship because of Facebook. Thank God no friend of mine is here. I just wanted to apologize if I offended anyone today. I just wanted to understand why the hidden infobox and got a sanction notice, whatever that means (I read the link, but it looked like a court case and I never understand those...). I still think it's wrong, but I give up. Let the will of the people govern it.

BTW, I created an article that has the title stuck with the "Draft" thing in it (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Search_(band)). No one has noticed that article so I don't get any answer on how to get it out. SOme help? Comment on the Talk page of that article, please. Thanks in advance. User:Sinclair_98_luis 12:54 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on you draft (link not working but found it anyway), if you make proper citations (not only "bare urls") with title, website and accessdate (minimum, you can use {{cite web}}), and if you strike your comment about Cassianto in this thread, - I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! User:Sinclair_98_luis 15:36, 19 July 2018

Hidden infobox

This has been going on since 2018 and there is still no consensus to uncollapse the box. This seems to be a happy medium. With millions of other articles in dire need of attention, let's move on and improve them instead. Cassianto^Talk 07:05, 11 March 2020 (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.

Why is the infobox hidden? I think it should be removed as it does no good to the article. This is the only page I have seen that hides the infobox. It is point less. Bowling is life (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however I !vote to un-collapse it, not remove it. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This type of thing affects very few articles. It definitely is not the norm or accessibility friendly but it's the result of many long talks.--Moxy (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra wrote it in his will, it was one of the last things he wanted, it meant the world to him. We must respect Sinatra's will!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ....we should tell Google they should drop there box? Last thing we want is to gain and retain readers.--Moxy (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this needs to be re-opened again and hopefully the community will conform to having the infobox un-collapsed. I don't really think we should have, for example, the Bing Crosby infobox un-collapsed and this one collapsed. We should maintain the consistency and just leave this with an uncollapsed infobox. There's too much dithering on those archives to actually find the core reason to keep it collapsed and I believe a consensus from 2 years ago should really not apply anymore. For the sake of style and consistency, we should try and remove it. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 20:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep collapsed as per the consensus 2 years ago, IMHO nothing's changed since then. –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support unhidden infobox. More uninvolved readers have came here in the last several months asking why the infobox is hidden. No doubt many more wondered the same thing. The infobox is a staple of WP. I myself check them all the time. Casual readers are not going to know they can uncollapse the one here, and WP is supposed to work easily for casual readers. That principle should take precedence. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's over 4 million crappy articles on here badly needing basic editing. Why are people fussing about something so trivial on an article which has already been fully researched and written? So pointless. The collapsed box was what was agreed. Half the infobox is a list of his wives and children anyway. It's been fine for the last two years and it will remain so if people focus on something more important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support...Gothicfilm writing another article at some point and worrying about the infobox on that. ——SerialNumber54129 13:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this is relevant to my main point above: WP is supposed to be for readers, many of whom are casual. As an editor in good standing, I don't appreciate whatever this is, in response to my posting on a Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep collapsed. Good compromise, the article provides all the info and the box exists for the machines hoovering up our content and for those who like tabular formats, but doesn't overwhelm the lede with lists of his personal alliances. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your concerns @Dr Blofeld:, but for the sake of consistency with other articles and for the enjoyment of readers who necessarily do not want to read a lead section to get the basic information on a subject of the article, an infobox should be implemented. I know plenty of people in my school that dislike reading lead sections, it's lazy, yes, but the infobox is handy for getting information quickly. I know these debates are very trivial and I may sound like a hypocrite saying that, but I think a decent infobox on most articles is fine. The inbox on this article I have found is better than a lot of other infoboxes and I don't believe it is bloated. Yes, we should focus on improving the actual content of the article but why should we collapse the infobox when it works perfectly uncollapsed? If it was an infobox on an article about a politician who served in 30 different offices during their career, sure, collapse it where needed but this is a very short infobox. Thank you to whoever did uncollapse the infobox and I apologise again for bringing this debate up but I really think we should just settle on an infobox uncollapsed as it doesn't damage the article, it adds to it to be quite honest.

CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 22:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep collapsed. If school readers are interested in finding something out about a subject then they actually need to read something. They will learn next to fuck all looking at the idiot box. That will tell you he was a singer born in xxxx, signed to a stack of labels and had x wives. How on God’s green earth does that inform anyone of anything? Read the lead and learn information; don’t bother with the pointless factoids of the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unhidden infobox: Apart from how ridiculous it is to keep it hidden considering how little it affects those who don't want to read it and how ubiquitous infoboxes are on Wikipedia, having it hidden goes against the accessibility guidelines. See here and here. It should not be collapsible by default. Unless someone can provide a very good reason why we should ignore these rules, this needs to be changed. "That's what was agreed previously" is not a reason. Consensus can change. We need to establish consensus in this thread, regardless of what has been said before. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unbidden infobox Collapsible infoboxes are simply not as functional as the standard noncollapsible infoboxes. To be honest, I would rather prefer no infobox than a collapsible one like this. ~ HAL 333 02:44, 11 March 2020 (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.

Why this article is not protected vandalism?

Many people vandalized this article. I think this article needs to be protected. Yonezuu (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infoxbox

Having read the discussion above about the reasons for the collapsed infobox, I'm still highly confused. This is literally the only Wikipedia article about a famous person that has a collapsed infobox that I have seen. There is no need for this whatsoever. For consistency across the site and for general practicality purposes, why not just make it normal? What's so special about Frank Sinatra that he needs to be the only person on the site with a collapsed infobox? Could someone please enlighten me as to why it's such a big deal. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only one "literally" or not (although they are limited). Not everyone wants IBs on every page as they are of extremely limited use for those in the liberal arts field. The collapsing was a compromise that was reached a few years ago, and, as you can see from the discussions above, the consensus is still to keep it collapsed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myocardial infarction vs. Heart attack

Recently, I have been in something of an edit war with @MarnetteD: over whether to add the category "deaths by myocardial infarction" to the article. To me, it seems like an easy yes, since this page cites [New York Times article] explicitly stating he died of a heart attack, and "heart attack" is the common term for myocardial infarction. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor detail, who really cares? Cassianto^Talk 15:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...I take it this means you're okay with me adding the category? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not a defining characteristic by any means. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take it that I'm not okay with you adding it? An assumption works either way, and not necessarily in your favour. Why not invest your time giving the article a light copy edit rather than fussing about such an irrelevant detail? Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I kinda interpreted it as "if you want to do it, I don't care." Sorry if I misunderstood. Still, I'd like to ask you something. Is that OK? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, how can I help? Cassianto^Talk 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do differently from @MarnetteD: that meant I was the only one called into this conversation? Or were they called in too and I just didn't know? I ask because I want to know if I crossed a line that they didn't. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain something to you: If you make a Bold edit, and it is Reverted, then the onus on you is to Discuss the matter on the talk page before adding it again. That talk page discussion should then seek to find a consensus to either add it or not. This can all be found here. The category, in my opinion, is such a minute detail to Sinatra's life that it is hardly worth blowing a lot of steam over. The other reason why I don't think it should be added is that we have already established that it's easy to confuse the cause of death, so what makes your diagnosis any more reliable than what is currently there (which is evidenced by a reliable source).Cassianto^Talk 10:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the first part I understand. Thank you for explaining. But I'm afraid I can't say the same for the second part. As I mentioned above, The New York Times - the reliable source for Sinatra's death - explicitly states that he died of a heart attack. It's not my diagnosis, it's what the source gave as the diagnosis. You can see for yourself. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a non-issue. Why must we clutter up the category space at the bottom of the page? Cassianto^Talk 15:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead Myocardial infarction categories, you need add Deaths from heart-related cause at categories, that was good thing to do. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Is the lead image enough for now? Or is there any improvement needed? Roif456 (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the lede image is fine. Cassianto^Talk 12:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Would in the future be possible to find a good quality image of SInatra? Just asking, as the image has a natural look, yet low-quality. Roif456 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're restricted with what is available, it's fine anyway, though I can see the argument of one with more light showing on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murumokirby360 and edit warring

Murumokirby360, You are strongly advised to DISCUSS what you are trying to do, as you are on the verge of being blocked. Please do not revert again, but DISCUSS here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murumokirby360, This is slightly moot now, given you have been blocked (and you really can't claim you weren't warned), but when your block lifts in 31 hours, please do not try reverting again, or the block will be even longer. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 {{u|Murumokirby360}}, You are strongly advised to DISCUSS what you are trying to do, as you are on the verge of being blocked. Please do not revert again, but DISCUSS here. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 :{{u|Murumokirby360}}, This is slightly moot now, given you have been blocked (and you really can't claim you weren't warned), but when your block lifts in 31 hours, please do not try reverting again, or the block will be even longer. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
-== Why is the infobox hidden? ==
-Having the infobox hidden is still a bad idea. Perhaps people keep bringing it up for a reason. I have never seen another article with the infobox hidden, and in my opinion it only detracts from the article visually and obscures pertinent information to have it hidden by default. Most Wikipedia pages I have seen about persons have infoboxes shown by default because the infoboxes are an easy way to quickly present basic biographical information in an easily digestible format. Is the argument on the other side just that it looks better hidden? If so, I think a new vote should be taken. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-:See the thread above, [[#Hidden infobox]] for an explanation. Please note we don't have "votes" on such matters, we have discussions based on guidelines and policies, not what people like or don't like. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-::Ah that old chestnut again...† [[User:Encyclopædius|<span style="font-variant:;color:#838996">'''''Encyclopædius'''''</span>]] 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-::A total of 7 people contributed to that discussion over a span of two years. For something brought up this often, why not do an RfC to get more opinions? It's not surprising that a consensus was not reached if the question was not visibly posed to the community. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-:::{{u|Ikjbagl}}, with over 6 million articles on Wikipedia, I'm suspicious of the fact you seem to be so obsessive over this one and on such a contentious subject. I think you should be slapped with a DS alert. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 19:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-::::{{reply|Cassianto}} That's absolutely ridiculous. I've commented here two times and you say I'm "obsessive"? I have had this account for two years now and have contributed in many different areas, so if you're implying that I have some sort of point-of-view issue over two comments on a talk page then I wonder which of us is really obsessing. I see your username all over this page since 2017. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-::::CONTEXT: {{npa}}. See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Preliminary_statements|Preliminary statements]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Cassianto|ArbCom Finding of Fact]], and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Cassianto_and_infoboxes_(II)|ArbCom Remedy against Cassianto]]. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 20:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
-:::::There was an RfC (in the archives, should you want to look for it), in which a lot of people commented, and the thread again was just a reaffirmation of that agreement. IBs can be a touchy subject where people do poke unnecessarily and don’t seem to accept a standing consensus because they don’t like it. It’s a always a wonder why people feel the need to press the point. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 20:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)