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

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0 Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians GA‑class 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 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: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) New Jersey GA‑class Top‑importance 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 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 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.

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]

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]

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]

It is not the consensus. There is a clear divide and the previous discussion had more people in favour of having it not collapsed. Collapsing content is against Wikipedia policy on accessibility. M.Clay1 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy? MarnetteD|Talk 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, Wikipedia:When I can't get my own way, grind the bastards down until I do. It's a jolly good policy, much over used by some, vastly under used by most. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did I not use that policy again and again over the years Cass :-) Thanks for the grin. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: WP:COLLAPSE and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the infobox should be uncollapsed. Lev!vich 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The collapse style is a compromise, which I wouldn't object to seeing adopted by all bio articles. Trying to push 'open' infoboxes on bios, is a non-starter. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was a compromise, from a long time ago, and whether uncollapsing is a non-starter or not remains to be seen :-) I think that these days, unlike the infobox wars of years ago, people like having an infobox (default), or no infobox (on the rare articles where there just isn't anything useful to put into an infobox), but never a collapsed infobox (which is the worst of both worlds, not the best, IMO). Uncollapsed infoboxes are already the standard practice, on bios and every other article. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet an RFC would find consensus to uncollapse the infobox on this article. I'm not going to launch one, but I'd !vote to uncollapse. Lev!vich 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be consensus for an 'open' infobox on this article. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a wider discussion on an uncollapsed infobox. You see a lot of editors here asking why the infobox is collapsed, yet no one arrives here and asks "Why is there an infobox here?" A collapsed IB is simply a menace to accessibility. ~ HAL333 17:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra is neither a monarch, politician or an athlete. Therefore, I oppose having an infobox. The collapse infobox, is a compromise I'll accept. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley, Prince, Dean Martin, Michael Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Freddie Mercury, Whitney Houston, Sammy Davis Jr., John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Nat King Cole, Louis Armstrong, Billy Joel, Bob Marley, Ray Davies, Elton John, David Bowie, Ray Charles, Mariah Carey, and WP:PRECEDENT all want to have a chat with you. ~ HAL333 18:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of deleting the infoboxes from all those bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed infoboxes never made sense to me. So just go ahead and uncollapse. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is a consensus against such a move and no good arguments here based on policy or guidelines. (The ACCESS argument is a straw man: collapsed boxes are not against the guideline). - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arguments seem good to me. Plus uncollapsed looks better and makes better use of the white space. I could see the accessibility argument from the point of you do not need to click something on the page to access that rich and juicy information as well. PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they “look good to you”, but that doesn’t mean they are based on policy or guideline. “Makes the page look better” is a good example of that. Personally I think they make the page look worse, but neither opinion should carry any weight – de gustibus and all that. As to “juicy information”, we may as well call it “Unfocused factoids”, for all the unimportance most of the fields have in educating readers about the important areas of the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the policy or guideline based reasons exclusion or collapsed? PackMecEng (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons, and they can be found in the archives. It was one of the decisions of the first(?) ArbCom case that IBs should be decided on policy and guideline discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bother but I am not seeing them. I looked through this discussion and the past two but cannot find concrete examples of policy based reasons. PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? They’re there if you look for them. Anyway, given your aim here is to overturn the standing consensus, do you have any policies or guidelines that state we should uncollapse this particular box? - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my point is there are no policy or guidelines strictly for inclusion or exclusion of infoboxes, collapsed or otherwise, with the possible exception of accessibility and google issues. It comes down to editor preference. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one main guideline that has to be followed: MOS:INFOBOXUSE (“The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article”). That’s the one that has been reinforced by ArbCom on more than occasion; on more than one occasion they have also said that all discussions most be based on policies and guidelines, and the discussions should focus on the box as it pertains to the single page under discussion (ie not a general ‘I like/don’t like them’. ArbCom are the ones that have lain down the framework to be followed, not me. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have no apparent reasons, just opinions laced with expletives. ~ HAL333 20:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t lie, and, again, please don’t continue in attempts to stir dramah. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the above rfc, in the words of SchroCat: "[Wikipedia readers] will learn next to f*ck all looking at the idiot box." Quite eloquent. ~ HAL333 01:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the dramah stirring. Others are taking part in a discussion, making pertinent comments and not personalising matters. Please try to follow their lead. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: The accessibility policy argument is not a strawman. A direct quote from MOS:COLLAPSE: "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." It does say that collapsing is sometimes used to hide some content in infoboxes (not all) but still recommends against it. There are plenty of arguments against collapsing. On the other hand, I can't see any actual arguments for collapsing it in the numerous discussions other than I don't like it. Your own argument in the previous discussion was literally "kids should read more". This whole argument is ridiculous. The content is already in the infobox. Just show it to people. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people who can’t deal with a consensus against their own preferred position always go to the IDONTLIKEIT argument... and don’t dismiss my position in the previous thread, or to misrepresent what I have said. I’m not going to deal with what a BAITer has posted, and I suggest you deal with the question in this thread, not the misrepresentations of another. As to the matter here, there is a long-standing consensus on this point which was introduced to ensure an IB was present on the page and not removed (which would be a better outcome). A flexible guideline does not have to be unthinkingly followed just ‘because’. There are other factors outside one flexible guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comment that started this discussion, there does not appear to be consensus for that anymore. It's not a flexible guideline for you to just ignore because you don't like the look of a standard template. The whole point of the accessibility guidelines is to cater for a wider range of readers. You've yet to present any argument. You're just falling back on previous consensus. WP:Consensus can change. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still the consensus until it’s overturned. Just because you think there is no consensus doesn’t mean it no longer holds. As to the ‘flexible’ point, you misconstrue what I have have said: most WP guidelines are flexible, and it’s the consensus at each page as to whether they are used Or not. In this case the consensus is to keep the IB collapsed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change through a discussion. This is a discussion. You need to provide your side of the argument. There has not been a proper discussion about it in almost two years. Previous consensus is irrelevant. M.Clay1 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Previous consensus is irrelevant”. Wrong. That is the current consensus on this page, and yes, it’s been there two years, so it’s a long-standing consensus. If you wish to change it, you need to bring arguments to overturn it. So far you haven’t and the consensus remains that the box should be collapsed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the infobox collapsed? Because a tiny, but very vocal and toxic minority have exhausted and bullied the rest of us into submission, that's why. FFS it's a box. We are all spending our precious time on this earth arguing over a box. It's harmless. Consensus has shifted towards uncollapsing it, so just do it. Or at the very least we should stick to MOS:DONTHIDE which states if the information in an infobox is trivial enough to be hidden, it probably shouldn't be included at all. Sro23 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Way outside the ArbCom restrictions on what is acceptable in an IB discussion, but I am unsurprised that none of them (or any other admin) will lift a finger in response to the falsehoods and PAs. (And as an Admin, you have less excuse for such divisive and disruptive language, but I am still unsurprised). - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've seen enough. Many editors have now either expressed a desire to uncollapse or asked those in favor of collapsing to post their reasons here. So far, those in favor of collapsing have only said variations of "it's a compromise" and "this has already been discussed". I've seen maybe a dozen threads on this page and in the archives over a period of 5 years with numerous editors looking to uncollapse the infobox, and every time, it's shut down by the same small group of users (mostly SchroCat and Cassianto). I'll be starting an RFC proposing to uncollapse the infobox. Let's see if this compromise still has consensus. Lev!vich 15:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this ongoing discussion? Is there going to be an Rfc on this topic or not? If so, open one. If not, end the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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, 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]

N.B.: A discussion was archived from this position regarding dissent to the hidden infobox and a request for a Wikipedia-wide Request for Comments. I see no previous site-wide RfC, though there was a discussion four years ago that does not appear to be site-wide and a discussion two years ago that does not appear to be site-wide. The archived discussion is here. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People know this. There is an FAQ explaining the basics at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change over time. That is why it is important to leave records when and where people come by and make comments. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

staggeringly, that’s why we have archives, rather than deleting pointless stuff. Regardless, there is still an explanation in the FAQ, and a long-held consensus to have a collapsed IB. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikjbagl, really? How about we start up "consensus" changing discussions on all the talk pages that don't have a consensus to include infoboxes, but have them? Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is a good use of your time then you are welcome to go around proposing that, but I don't think it will get much traction because most users like the infoboxes. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Bishonen smells anything sus here...† Encyclopædius 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl: I've no problem with a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on which kinda of bio articles, infoboxes should & shouldn't be used. FWIW - The collapsible infobox, is a compromise I'd be acceptable to. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædius, don't be silly . Cassianto^Talk 04:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Current lede photo
• 
  Photo 1
• 
  Photo 2
• Photo 3 Nominated on Commons for deletion
  Photo 3 Nominated on Commons for deletion
• 
  Photo 4
• 
  Photo 5
• 
  Photo 6
• 
  Photo 7

Should one of these replace the current lede image? ~ HAL333 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The current lede image isn't ideal. It's of a pretty low resolution, 345 × 439 pixels; it's a screenshot of a 1957 trailer. The lighting and saturation also seem slightly off. The seven other photos all have inherent flaws, but not quite as significant as the current. ~ HAL333 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1 and 3 are better than the current, though neither are perfect. 3 is a really famous picture of him, and is a good choice for that reason, but it is a bit too close for a typical bio lead image. 1 is a poor colorization but better than the current poor colorization. I'm not crazy about B&W images when a color alternative is available, but if we went with B&W, definitely #7, which is also a famous picture of him. The guy is known as Old Blue Eyes, so it would be nice to get a picture that shows his eyes. This album cover is probably the most famous picture, and would be the best choice, but alas, copyright. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be my top 3 too. I did some digging and found better larger versions of Photo 3[1][2][3]. Would those be under the same license? ~ HAL333 04:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 3 is the best choice from those options. 1 isn't particularly recognizable and the current photo is undesirable for all the reasons described by the OP. I don't know the answer to Hal's question, but if we could use one of those larger versions of 3, I think that would be our best bet. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget 1, 3, and 7, and in fact all of 1-7; the new suggestions 8-15 below are far superior; my updated !vote below. ^Lev!v^ich 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• More disruption on this article Hal, I see. There is going to be a point when Admins start taking a firmer line with your actions.

As you've edit warred this repetition of a subject covered a couple of times before, both 1 and 3 have been rejected previously (easy to see why, if anyone has half an eye for images: 1 is over colourised and lurid; 3 is cut way too close; the alternatives of that image aren't great - it's too posed and the way his mouth is open makes him look very odd. The current image has won out over the alternatives a couple of times before and with good reason. - SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that either this discussion from December 2019 or this previous discussion from 2017 constitute a consensus so strong it can't be revisited. Same for the collapsed infobox issue. Scrolling through this page, it's easy to see that every year somebody or other asks about the infobox and every year the same few editors shut down discussion claiming it's already been discussed. After enough years, it's time to allow discussion of these issues. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. We're all volunteers. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the lede image was not discussed at great length in those two previous threads. In the 2017 discussion, an editor suggested replacing the current image with image 1 in the above lineup. I agree with the small consensus for that discussion that the current image is better. In the 2019 thread, an editor asked if the lede image was good enough and was told that it was fine. That barely constitutes a discussion and certainly can't be considered 'consensus'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I shouldn't think any administrator would want to bother. Most of them love this kind off disruption as it gives them a chance to flex their muscles towards constructive editors like you and me. The website is saturated with incompetent buffoons in high places. Cassianto^Talk 17:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I uploaded the largest version of Photo 3 to Commons. ~ HAL333 13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The Current Photo or Photo 3, either will do. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoodDay, I've nominated Photo 3 for deletion at Commons. It's likely a copyright violation - there is certainly nothing to indicate that it is in the PD. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, then it's best we stick with the current photo. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I noticed that this article uses the current lede image and another of Sinatra in front of yellow. Would it be possible to upload that to commons? ~ HAL333 15:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to do full checks to see if it is free of copyright. If you cannot prove it is in the public domain, you have to assume it is still protected. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the black and white images, 7 is definitely the best. It's much higher resolution than the current. I would also argue that Sinatra was in his prim in the 1960s. My mental image, and likely the popular opinion, is of him in the '60s. It would make sense if the image was from that decade. ~ HAL333 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Current image is the best image out of the lot, followed closely by 2. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Photo 3 then 1 - I think 3 is the best looking of the set followed by 1. The current is a little low on resolution and just does not do justice. PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PackMecEng, Photo 3 has been nominated at Commons for deletion as it's a copyright violation. (I know it's only down to opinion after that, but photo 1 has been over-colourised and too lurid as a result.) - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SchroCat: The current photo is too grainy/low resolution and washed out. Personally I would take to much color and better resolution. I do think none, including the current, are fantastic but we make due with the lesser of two evils at times. PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The current photo is the best of the lot IMO, followed by 1 and 3 (which, however, has issues discussed above). -sche (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To expand the discussion, I am pinging previously interested editors: Lemonreader and Encyclopædius. ~ HAL333 12:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't any of you just find another now-in-public domain picture of Sinatra on the Internet? I roll with the majority consensus, either way. Lemonreader (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Sinatra, 1959.jpg definitely not 1959, more like 1949. He just didn't look like that in 1959. THAT is how he looked in 1959, he changed quite a lot from his younger years. That is decent quality, but we have a reasonably decent colour photo of him with a hat and classic Sinatra style. It's the best one we have overall, why must we keep discussing trivial issues on this article when there's millions of others to write?† Encyclopædius 12:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not everyone has the same interests as you? Some like to improve existing articles while some might like to write new articles, both are valid. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Current - Summoned by bot. I prefer the current image over all the proposed alternatives. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Photo 7 Because he would want that photo, and I like that photo too. Mikola22 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prompted by a message from HAL333 and this discussion, I started researching vintage Frank Sinatra photos and have now uploaded several that I found to be in the public domain. I was originally looking into the provenance of the "Photo 3" file above, nominated for deletion at Commons; I agree that one is almost certainly still copyrighted and should be deleted. As a consolation prize of sorts, I did find a photo from the same session ("Photo 14" below) that I believe has entered the public domain, thought it is much smaller and not in color.

Among my newly uploaded batch of Sinatra photos, I believe a few would make decent candidates for the lede image. (To be clear: I'd say the current image is preferable to the alternates provided above, but imho it's not really great in and of itself; it's nice that it's in color and conveys his quintessential "look", but it's not very high-res and from a compositional standpoint it's only a so-so portrait.) These new photos are all in black-and-white, not color, but they are higher resolution (in a few cases considerably higher) than the current photo and they capture Sinatra in his 1950s prime with the iconic suit and hat. I'm especially partial to Photos 9, 10, and 11, which show Sinatra in recording sessions at Capitol Studios. I'm not especially partial to Photos 14 or 15, but I've included them anyway because they correspond to earlier photos in the discussion. Photo 13—a Pal Joey promo photo—would need to be cropped, but I include it because Sinatra biographer Lew Irwin described that exact photo as "the pose for which Sinatra is perhaps best remembered—the rakishly tilted head, the raincoat over his shoulder, the famous grin" (from Sinatra: A Life Remembered, p. 88).

• BLZ Uploads – potential lede images
• 
  Photo 8 (1954 publicity photo)
• 
  Photo 9 (c. 1954–55 studio photo)
• 
  Photo 10 (1956 studio photo, published in DownBeat)
• 
  Photo 11 (1957 studio photo, published in DownBeat)
• 
  Photo 12 (1957 studio photo)
• 
  Photo 13 (1957 Pal Joey publicity photo)
• 
  Photo 14 (c. 1958–59 publicity photo)
• 
  Photo 15 (1967 – same as Photo 7 above, but w/o cropping his hat)

Again, I selected Photos 8–15 because they either capture the most-iconic Sinatra look or relate back to other photos under discussion. I've uploaded numerous other image of Sinatra, some in much higher resolution and one that's even in color. However, the others don't quite capture the "quintessential" Sinatra—he's either too young, too old, hatless, etc.—and/or the composition of the photo leaves something to be desired. Still, I wanted to present these because they may be useful elsewhere in the article, or in other Sinatra-related articles (I've already added the first two to "The Frank Sinatra Show (radio program)").

• BLZ Uploads – miscellaneous
• 
  1942 CBS publicity photo
• 
  1944 CBS publicity photo
• 
  1945 color portrait by László Willinger for Modern Screen
• 
  1946 publicity photo
• 
  1951 publicity photo
• 
  1952 publicity photo
• 
  1953 publicity photo
• 
  1964 publicity photo for Reprise Records

All in all, this batch greatly expands the available options and I'm excited to hear feedback. —BLZ · talk 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it is worth, I vote for photo #9. Although Sinatra doesn't fill the frame, I think it is the best to show him in context and in his element. If you prefer a posed shot, then #11 seems good. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich, Lepricavark, SchroCat, Cassianto, GoodDay, Davey2010, PackMecEng, -sche, Lemonreader, Encyclopædius, Meatsgains, Mikola22 Sorry for the ping, but there are a few more options if you would like to reconsider. ~ HAL333 07:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For me the best picture is 7, there must be some gangster context because he lived in that time and that environment, and this picture presents it all. These other images are too "weak". Maybe I have a different view of him. Mikola22 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer we stick with the current photo. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think 11 is the best choice out of the new options and it would be an improvement over the current image. Going from a color image to a black-and-white image is not ideal, but the current image just looks unnatural. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• These are great, thanks for finding them BLZ. I think these are all better than the initial choices. Since there doesn't seem to be a decent color one (and the current image's color and lighting are awful), I'm ready to embrace a black and white image as the lead image. 11 or 15 would be my favorites. ^Lev!v^ich 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll have to roll with 11 or 15 as well. ~ HAL333 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I do really love the microphone and staging in images 9 and 10. ~ HAL333 17:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Current image is imho still the best out of them all, Personally I also generally prefer colour images over black & white but that's neither here or there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davey2010: That's a perfectly understandable preference. A high-quality free color photograph of Sinatra is my white whale at the moment. My personal ideal for a lede image would have all of these characteristics: (1) color, (2) high resolution, (3) good composition as a portrait, (4) Frank looks good (either at ease or "in the moment"), (5) taken circa 1954–1959, (6) set in a recording studio or some other environment where Sinatra is "in his element". Still haven't turned up anything that meets all those criteria, unfortunately, though I'm still in the process of looking. —BLZ · talk 22:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re: Photo 15 and Tony Rome – While I'm very happy with the quality and sharpness of that image, something to keep in mind is that it shows Sinatra in-character, playing Tony Rome, so the image doesn't necessarily capture a universal Sinatra as "himself" and only himself. He's acting in the persona of a Bogart-esque world-weary detective—Roger Ebert noted that Frank's emulation of Bogart was transparent and judged the performance only in terms of comparisons to Bogart. The outfit is somewhat close to Sinatra's own, though a bit looser and rougher, but the gruff facial expression and posture lack his easygoing magnetism. It's also a bit late in his career at 1967, a few years past his prime at the box office or the charts, and with little ahead of him but nostalgic concert tours. I'm not entirely against the idea of an "in-character" photo at the top of the page, I just think the Tony Rome character is too specific. After all, he's also putting on a persona in the current lede image, but at least in Pal Joey he was playing a singer with characteristics and style very similar to his own popular persona, and in 1957 he was arguably at the peak of his whole career in terms of commercial success and artistic accomplishment. —BLZ · talk 21:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Photo 7 or 15 is the same, so I am for both options. Mikola22 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox be uncollapsed?

RFC posted: 17:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The infobox shouldn't be collapsed for the accessibility reasons described in the guidelines at MOS:COLLAPSE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. Aside from accessibility reasons, it slows down the reader's access to the information (extra mouse click to unhide). It also hides the infobox content from search-on-page (CTRL+F) functionality, unless the reader makes an extra mouse click to uncollapse first. I think a collapsed infobox leaves too much whitespace at the top of the page, although admittedly that one is a purely aesthetic argument. Mostly, I support uncollapsing because accessibility guidelines suggest not collapsing, and I see a total absence of reason to not follow that guidance.
  Originally, the infobox was collapsed following a 2015 discussion where it was proposed as a temporary compromise using a collapsible info box and agreed-to by five other editors. Although the proposed compromise was for a collapsible infobox, the compromise that was instituted was a pre-collapsed infobox. Since then, the temporary compromise has been revisited in 2016, 2017, July 2018, September 2018 (restarted March 2020), 2019 (restarted Aug 2020), and June 2020 (June 2020 part 2). In those discussions I see no policy-based or otherwise compelling reasons to make an exception to MOS guidance and make the temporary compromise of a collapsed infobox permanent. Absent a compelling reason to do otherwise, we should follow the guidance of the MOS and uncollapse the infobox. Lev!vich 17:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A collapsed infobox is the compromise between editors who want an infobox in this article & those who do not. Therefore it should remain. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The inherent flexibility of the MOS does not mean it has to be slavishly followed, and this is a case in point. Despite the ongoing pushing by a relatively small number of editors to uncollapse, there is little more to this than IDONTLIKEIT. An alternate even would be to remove the nonsense altogether, which would be a much better line of thinking; I don’t think that would gain enough support, however, so the compromise of the collapsed version is better than an open box of otiose dross currently giving readers limited information of any worth. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The collapsing of the infobox was a compromise between editors who wanted an infobox & those who didn't, I personally see no valid reasons to uncollapse it. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support uncollapsing. It was meant to be a temporary compromise. The way it is right now is out of line with MOS:COLLAPSE, and that needs to change. Either we have an infobox or we don't. But let me explain why an IB is a useful and positive addition to this article. Maybe this makes me an idiot, or lazy, or whatever, but I can tell you this reader right here found the infobox very helpful, especially in a pinch (both on Frank Sinatra and many more biographies). Not just this reader, you can tell by the number of editors utterly baffled on this talk page and in the archives that the vast majority also find it helpful. If you don't like infoboxes or think it looks ugly, as it turns out you don't have to look at it! No one is forcing your eyes to read it. I can think of plenty of benefits and almost no cons to keep an IB. Sro23 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WikiProjects which cover musucians and actors like Sinatra strongly recommend the use of an infobox. One of the six goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is to "ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person." Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians' guidelines recommend the use of an infobox. Consequently, there is a strong precedent in usage; almost all other musicians of similiar notability have an infobox. Just go visit Elvis Presley, Prince, Dean Martin, Keith Richards, Michael Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Freddie Mercury, Whitney Houston, Sammy Davis Jr., John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Nat King Cole, Louis Armstrong, Billy Joel, Bob Marley, Ray Davies, Elton John, David Bowie, Ray Charles, Mariah Carey, etc. I could do this all day. There is nothing unique about Sinatra that merits the collapse of his infobox. I challenge those who oppose to list a single reason inherent to this article.

Ultimately, Wikipedia does not exist to fulfill the egos of us editors, but to make information easily available to the public. One only needs to look at the several IP and amatuer editors who question the absence of an infobox. Opposition to the addition of an infobox ultimately amounts to a "I don't like it" by editors who believe they own this article due to their past contributions. They base their reasoning on aesthetics, not accessibility, which a collapsed infobox hinders. Per MOS:COLLAPSE, collapsible features don't work well on some devices. I'm sure that many readers don't even realize that they can uncollapse it due to the rarity of a collapsed infobox. That is why I strongly support the addition of an infobox to Sinatra's article. ~ HAL333 19:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the collapsed infobox may be a compromise between editors, but this article wasn't written for us. Why create the information and then hide it from our readers? There's no compelling policy-based reason to collapse it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]