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]

@Sro23: I'm not toxic & I haven't bullied anybody. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were. Most here aren't. It's really only a very small handful of people ruining it for the rest of us. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 22 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]

This has been discussed in the past ad nauseum and a compromise was reached that was acceptable to all involved. No need to change things now that I can see. Jack1956 (talk) 21:08, 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]

• Post-close comment: I'm not looking to re-open this discussion, but I wanted to comment on the close, which I disagree with procedurally, because it was made by the same editor who opened the discussion. I also disagree, sort of, with the closing statement that there is no consensus here. Of course there won't be consensus for any one image, given that there are 16 choices presented. However, there may be consensus for an image other than the lead image, because a slight majority of editors participating here !voted for an image other than the current image. The correct move isn't to close this as "no consensus", it's to cull down the 16 options to the current image and one or two or three alternatives, and have another round of voting on "finalists", to see if consensus gels around any one of them (this is how it was done to select the lead images of Man and Woman last year). I'm not going to open a "finalist round" proposal now since I've already started an RFC on this page that is still pending, but it's what I think should be done now or in the future. Lev!vich 17:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad - I wasn't aware that the OP can't close an rfc. Well, now I know. I just figured that there wouldn't be any big developments after it had expired. Also on my part, it was a poorly organized rfc from the start. I included photos that I really shouldn't have, like that ridiculous photo of Sinatra in a top-hat. I also should have asked BLZ about other options before opening this. I agree that we need a second-round rfc with fewer candidates. I'll open a proper cut-and-dry rfc in a bit, once things have cooled down around here. ~ HAL333 00:05, 30 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]

Genuine question: Why would anyone re-open old wounds and undo the compromise that was made ?, Surely the "best of both worlds" is better than the whole "1 community against the other", I cannot understand why you'd do undo that compromise and re-open old wounds ?. Having this uncollapsed or removed entirely would create a whole lot more dramah .... is that something we really want to do ?... I'd hope not. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Davey2010! An intelligent and sympathetic comment. Let absolutist Must-Have-Info-boxers or (if there are any) anti-info-boxers take note. Tim riley talk 20:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise was meant to be temporary. While I appreciate the value of some compromises, to me this one seems more like a 'worst of both worlds' approach. If the information is useful enough to include, how does it benefit our readers to hide it? Is this compromise being made for the sake of our readers or for the sake of a few of our editors? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the ongoing discussion since it's collapse, the wound never closed - it just festered. As a counterexample, the article for Dean Martin has an uncollapsed infobox, and there is no holy war being waged on his talk page. In fact, there is not a single discussion entailing the infobox. For all the complaining about "dramah", the only variable that turns biographical talk-pages into cockfights is the absence of an uncollapsed infobox. ~ HAL333 21:27, 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 musicians 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 uncollapsed 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 collapsion of the infobox. Opposition to the uncollapse of an infobox ultimately amounts to a "I don't like it" attitude 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 uncollapsed infobox to Sinatra's article. ~ HAL333 19:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deleting or collapsing the infoboxes on all those bios you've linked to. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your consistency - that would be one heck of a bold move. Gives me a headache just thinking about 30 more RFCs. ~ HAL333 21:39, 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]
• Oppose yawn. Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a reason or...? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Care to explain your point? "Yawn" does not contribute to the discussion at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – No clear reason to overturn existing consensus. Leave as is. Tim riley talk 20:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But what is the clear reason, if there even is, to maintain the consensus? That is the real question, because we all know that consensus can change. ~ HAL333 21:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are a newcomer to Wikpedia, Hal, but the presumption here is that the onus is on anyone wanting to change a consensus to convince his/her fellow editors that a change is wanted. Tim riley talk 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal by the OP contains several reasons for changing the previous consensus. Evidently those reasons are unconvincing to the oppose voters here, but unfortunately most of those voters have not actually engaged with the OP's reasons at all. In that sense, I think HAL's question is a fair one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Leave collapsed for all the reasons discussed in the previous infobox discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What are those reasons? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per previous discussions. Would suggest at least a 6 month (and a year would be preferable) moratorium on any new RFC's about this. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous discussion was almost two years ago, so it's not like this is happening every six months or less. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The most recent discussion was two months ago. That is far less than two years and even less than six months. BTW all of the information in the infobox is also in the article so the info is accessible for all readers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  MarnetteD, I'm pretty sure MClay1 was referring to RFCs, which you proposed a moratorium on. ~ HAL333 17:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW all of the information in the infobox is also in the article so the info is accessible for all readers. I am sure you can come up with a better argument than "anyone looking for any information on Sinatra should spend the time to read 15781 words, i.e. 92k chars, of readable prose". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A) Mclay1 uses the word discussion not RFC. B) There was no RFC in 2018. C) If a reader can't be bothered to read an article than this might not be the right website for them. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  OTOH This is available. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I now notice that a discussion in the archives is from only a few months ago, and SchroCat manually archived it out of order immediately after commenting on it. SchroCat and Cassianto, in particular, have been trying to stifle discussion, which is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. Cassianto has been harassing me on my talk page. This attempt at bullying people into submission is really inappropriate, especially over something as minor as this. Let's all just have a civil discussion. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as unproductive. Nothing has changed since the last discussion and no new information or argument has been produced. The continual drip-drip pushing from those with nothing better to do should not be rewarded because Wikipedia needs collaboration more than uniformity. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Encyclopædius, Ikjbagl, George Ho, Doc James, S charette, Sinclair 98 luis, Hobbes Goodyear, Noah Kastin, Bowling is life, FlightTime, Moxy, Eolais, Gothicfilm, Serial Number 54129, Yngvadottir, Mclay1, TheMysteriousEditor, PackMecEng. Calvin999, Sagaciousphil, We hope, Katastasi, Jaguar, GuzzyG, HighInBC, 78.26, AllOriginalBubs, Montanabw, Rationalobserver, Light show, Caden, Knowledgekid87 - Pinging previously interested editors to broaden the discussion with new perspectives. ~ HAL333 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to keep posting on each of these "discussions", please have mercy and do something about your obnoxious signature. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The infobox shouldn't be collapsed mainly because it goes against the guidelines at MOS:COLLAPSE. The information in the infobox shouldn't be hidden and it should be accessible. How many articles use collapsed infobox? Not that many that I'm aware of. I edit on mobile and desktop. The collapsed infobox is not a big deal on mobile because on mobile the infobox isn't collapsed for some reason. At least that is how it is for me. It could be different depending on the device. Even then, for the sake of desktop users, the infobox shouldn't be hidden. What good does hiding information do for the article? I really don't see the point of collapsing the infobox. I agree with what @HAL333: said earlier, most musicians Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. It's the norm on Wikipedia. Bowling is life (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose once more. The consistency argument has been deprecated by ArbCom, which requires us to discuss infoboxes on the merits at individual articles. Wikiprojects are for the most part moribund; most editors do not choose to be active at them so they are not representative; and in any case ArbCom's ruling overrides any argument that infoboxes should be decided on at that level for the sake of uniformity. I also reject the argument that "one more click to get information" is an imposition on the reader. The important information about a person should be summarized in the introduction to their article. If what the reader seeks is trivia such as how many romantic liaisons and children the person had, we have a Personal life section for that, and I'm sure any search engine will supply the information in response to a focussed query. Or if they really like lists, they can open the infobox. It's trivializing the person to pretend such a list is the best summary of someone's life and career, unless they were in a field like sports or politics, where it may be (but the personal life stuff still risks overbalancing an infobox). In short, I don't detect any new perspective: a collapsed infobox is still a good compromise. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the specific rational to collapse Sinatra's infobox? Why not do it to all infoboxes? What's special about him that merits the collapsion of his IB? ~ HAL333 01:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the personal life information in the infobox, why not remove that and keep the other information? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The infobox isn't collapsed in mobile view so why should it only apply to other mediums? You can not collapse the infobox on some devices which makes this argument moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support per accessibility guidelines at WP:COLLAPSE and WP:ACCESSIBILITY and because collapsing it is completely pointless. Many templates used to contain functionality for collapsing but have now had this function removed or disabled by default because of the accessibility guidelines. Collapsing the infobox achieves nothing other than inconveniencing people who want to read it. Most of those wanting it collapsed actually want it removed entirely and say that having it collapsed is a compromise – it's a compromise that no one really wants. Those who oppose the existence of the infobox have given no reasons why beyond I don't like it and deferring to previous discussions where they made the same comments. Almost all biographies (as well as many other pages) contain infoboxes, and while we don't need to do what every other page is doing, no reasons to ignore the standard practice have been given. Many responses to arguments against collapsing it are merely attacks on those making the arguments or glib dismissals of the arguments without providing any substance. I ask anyone weighing up the comments in this discussion to take that into consideration. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment, it's worth noting that some of the regular editors on this page have expressed annoyance at other editors constantly leaving messages on the talk page asking why there's no infobox. The reason for that is because, to most editors, the decision to hide the infobox is baffling. If it were reversed, there would never be any comments from passing editors asking why there is a normal infobox. Visible infoboxes is the wider consensus on Wikipedia, and the decision to hide this one is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. M.Clay1 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite content, to see the infobox deleted. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support not collapsing the infobox (ie expanding it) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The reopening of old wounds in this RfC section exactly solidifies the eternal and banal conflict of infoboxes in featured articles like Sinatra's. I reluctantly supported collapsing the infobox five years ago because I believed it was a good compromise for those who prefer darting to factoids and for those who don't like long tabular formats. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article and the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose. This infobox, regardless of its collapsed state, does not serve its purpose. Expanding it will only confound things by cluttering it with unnecessary content. It's a shame the collapsed version could not be removed entirely as this well-written article could be an exemplar for other prominent biographies to follow. JAGUAR 11:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: this is not a featured article. I also want to repeat what I brought up above that some devices do not allow you to collapse the infobox. More people are using smartphones and tablets now than they are for personal computers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support odd technical choice that results in only 40 percent of our readers seeing this collapsed. How the modern majority see the article.--Moxy 🍁 12:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removing the collapse feature because it seems pointless collapsing an infobox for this page when the majority of person-pages on Wikipedia have inboxes that are uncollapsable. Also a majority sees it uncollapsed anyway on mobile. Accessibility just seems mitigated by a collapsed infobox. Either every article has one, or none of them do. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Having gone down an unfathomably deep rabbit hole of years of discussions over a matter so unbelievably trivial, I very suddenly feel a considerable urge to leave this project behind forever and never again make another edit on it. How odd! But surely, I must be the only one who feels this way. AngryHarpy (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone - I feel exactly the same way. I originally got involved on Wikipedia due to an IB discussion and wager that I'll leave this platform after one too. ~ HAL333 18:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously going to leave over an infobox issue? Over the years I have been on here I have come to realize that editors need to be flexible. Wikipedia is changing all the time.... if it was not this thing then its another. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OP asks a fair question. Opposers here have failed to give reasons, most going along the lines of "because this is the least controversial option / past compromise to placate editors / will annoy good editors", which are illogical & awful reasons to keep the poor status quo, and should be safely disregarded. Even a poor point would be better than that. It will unfortunately annoy profilic contributors to this article, but this is about the readers (& per Moxy on this point). Either uncollapse it, or remove it altogether. I see no good reason for having this specific article's infobox collapsed, and reading the archives it seems like a sad case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS because a wider consensus on the issue (in favour of hiding infoboxes) cannot be obtained, with a drop of WP:OWNERSHIP. The implicit consensus is to usually have infoboxes on biographical articles of this size. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoints against infoboxes in general, but those come from a writer's POV, not from a reader's POV. On well-written articles, with a good lead (like this one) that can work pretty well, but most articles aren't that, so it doesn't work on a large scale. On a large and local scale, there are some readers who just want a glance of biographical information, and don't want to spend time reading paragraphs for the same info (indeed, the lead here doesn't have all the info the infobox does, e.g. it doesn't include info on parents). Thus, the 'well-written lead making an infobox redundant' argument doesn't really hold water here, since the infobox has further summary information. Hence, uncollapsing the infobox is likely the better decision for our readers, and takes into account the diversity of reasons why someone views a Wikipedia article, and it's consistent with our other practices on the matter. I'd also note that having a collapsed infobox is even more rare than having no infobox at all, on a developed article, so this is clearly not standard, which makes me wonder: why are we doing it? If it's appropriate, someone should explain why. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This, a thousand times this! Appeasing a handful of editors is not a very good reason to oppose, especially when said editors' orignal argument against keeping an IB essentially boiled down to I Don't Like It. Reader preference should come first. The truth of the matter is the majority of readers at the very least don't have a problem with infoboxes, in fact many find them quite helpful considering a bunch of biographical details are not in the lead. And there's nothing wrong with that! We have no right to judge how readers use Wikipedia, and if you prefer to scan an infobox, more power to you. Also half of the readers are going to be on their phones and seeing the IB uncollapsed anyway. What kind of compromise is that, and why has nobody opposing addressed this yet? Sro23 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"handful of obstinate and owny editors", is an unfair description. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Sro23, any chance you could recalibrate the focus of that portion of your comment towards policy rather than personality? Cheers, ——Serial 16:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was wrong. I changed my comment. Sro23 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - From what I can tell this is the only option. It has the backing of MOS and from a technical standpoint is more proper given the mobile situation. I have yet to see a very compelling argument from the other side either unfortunately. So at this time I feel the correct course of action is to uncollapse the infobox. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support infobox, any way it works, collapsed or uncollapsed but keep it. If MOS favors uncollapsing, I do not oppose doing so. I say all this with the caveat for all who are assessing consensus that, a) I did get a ping to come over here, b) I actually was one of the people who originally supported the collapsed infobox—as an attempted compromise between the pro and anti-infobox factions, and c) I am so sick and tired of this issue that I have zero interest in making this a hill to die on. I generally favor infoboxes, for most the reasons the pro-infobox side outlines, but I also am sad that Cass, Schro and the gang have made it their symbolic hill to die on because they are otherwise good contributors and dedicated to quality articles. I wish there was a middle ground of some sort to be had here. But if there isn't, then I must weigh in on the side of using infoboxes and making them better. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - in response to the Rfc question. Do you think the infobox should remain collapsed or not? We ain't discussing whether it should be deleted entirely. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Why are you voting for an infobox on a page that already has one? 2A02:C7F:BE17:2D00:1C3D:1FC6:6853:AD7 (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I favor uncollapsing it, but not so much that a knock-down drag out would result in its removal altogether. My preference is 1) Normal infobox, 2) collapsed infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Infoboxes add value. End of. Not every reader will use them, but some will. The Opposers don't seem to understand how this website works. In mobile view, the infobox is shown by default. Yet none of the opposers are suggesting this should be addressed. Finally, Britannica's article for Sinatra (which is way better than this Wikipedia effort) has an infobox. BlueJackfruit (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Uninvolved readers have came here asking why the infobox is hidden. No doubt many more wondered the same thing without posting on the Talk page. The infobox is a staple of WP. I myself check them all the time because they're more efficient than scanning the prose when searching for certain data. Casual readers are not going to know they can uncollapse the infobox here, and WP is supposed to work easily for casual readers. That principle should take precedence. And if the editors at Britannica saw an infobox as a useful inclusion for their Sinatra article, it is hard to understand why a stubborn few anti-infoboxers at WP continue to argue against them. For whose benefit? There is no reason to believe there are any non-editing WP readers who object to infoboxes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It is an oddity, a mere relic of an older Wiki that some pages don't have infoboxes by default. We should let the past lie in the past and accept that Wiki now has a wide consensus on a preference for infoboxes. There is no reason this infobox should be hidden other than that it used to be hidden. See WP:DISCUSSED ("There is a longstanding consensus about how to treat this issue" is not a good argument.) Ikjbagl (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd like to say something about the notion of a "compromise." Wikipedia is not a place to have factions or teams. A compromise inherently implies an concession-type agreement between adverse parties. Why on earth are we talking about "compromises" in a place that IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ADVERSE PARTIES in the first place? This is a consensus-building activity, not a WP:Battleground. I'm baffled by the language of "opening old wounds" and people being "sensitive about infoboxes." With all due respect, get over yourself. If you cannot have a discussion about a stupid box at the top of the page without "opening wounds," you should not involve yourself in discussions about infoboxes. Editors need to stay cool to remain neutral and maintain a neutral point of view (which includes accepting things like consensus changing over time). If you cannot engage a subject without getting angry or emotional, you should not engage that subject; there are many other articles to edit and other discussions to engage yourself in. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Ikjbagl:, this article once DID have a standard infobox, which was removed during the big article improvement drive that brought it to its present quality. I wish your dream of a world of wiki without factions or teams was true, but remember the adage, “freedom is to faction like air is to fire.” And some of us still have a bit of Wiki-PTSD from the “infobox wars.” The battle over the removal of a pre-existing (if old-fashioned) infobox in this article is what resulted in the compromise of the collapsed version. So, uncollapsing it would actually restore the status quo that lasted for about 10 years. (For what it’s worth, the same group of people worked on several other movie classic bios, removing infoboxes from most—the rest of us just got too worn out to keep fighting about it particularly after the ArbCom case penalized the pro-infobox parties harsher than the anti-infobox parties. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It seems strange to collapse an infobox when more than half of Wikipedia users see it uncollapsed. Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk·✉) 22:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminder of what I said in 2015 (look for my name in Talk:Frank Sinatra/Archive 2, only three times, you'll manage). To my observation, this talk was rather calm for the ten years the article had an uncollapsed infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per the proposer Levivich. I'm just in favor of infoboxes in general, and this one would be more useful to browsing readers if it were uncollapsed. If there's no consensus to uncollapse the infobox, I should also state that I am still in favor of having an infobox. The best option is an uncollapsed infobox, but a collapsed infobox is the next best choice.Eliteplus (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Per nom. I am baffled as to why an infobox has caused so much vitriol and harm to the community. When I browse Wikipedia, I am often looking for biographical data about the person. Things such as their birthdate, death date, marriages, etc. Just about every article on a person has one of these infoboxes for this reason. Not this one. For some reason, people have decided that it is "pointless", and some even going as far as to wanting it removed. Why? Why would you remove legitimate, necessary information from the encyclopedia? There is no point to collapse it. It sticks out from other Wikipedia articles like a sore thumb. It requires a completely unnecessary click. Collapsing is for large tables that would take up an unwieldy amount of space. Some editors are more caught up with defending a useless point than making the reader's experience better. Please remember this before you comment. I-82-I | TALK 06:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very little in the way of argument apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been produced since the last discussion. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the MOS issues and mobile view problems? Or were you referring to the arguments on why it should be collapsed in which case I think you have your vote backwards. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no interest in whether it conforms to the MOS at all, my long experience here informs me that it is rarely a force for good, and sticking blindly to the MOS (which after all, can often be changed by small groups of editors working in unison) can actually end up damaging articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So is that an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument? PackMecEng (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • More like a WP:OHLORDGIVEMESTRENGTHNOTTHEMOSAGAIN one, but I suppose you could say that :) Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ha! Fair enough! PackMecEng (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I guess The colapse seemed to be a lose-lose proposition to stop an argument. It defeats the purpose of an info-box while at the same time gives the lede picture and ugly box on page load. I'd feel a lot stronger in my support if the info box didn't have such unecessary information. Years acitive seems like OR and is just trivia. Deceased people do not have websites, their estates do and this is not an article about the estate. Cull the genres or just remove it if you can't decide on one or two.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right on it being full of rubbish - years active is nearly always nonsense (and OR), the list of wives is fairly pointless, the list of record labels is mind-numbing, "Instrument = vocals" is a bit 'duh', given we say he was a singer, etc, etc... Still, just try removing any of them, and see how quickly you're reverted by someone claiming it's a crucial piece of vital information for a pub quiz trivia cheat box... - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • AlmostFrancis I agree as well. I just removed them. ~ HAL333 17:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And added back in record time. It turns out SchroCat can see the future.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I just remember previous similar cases. This is a good example of why those people who have been around for a while talk about a compromising agreement on this article, rather than demanding they get their own way regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you undo any long-standing status quo, you're likely to get reverted. That's just what Wikipedia is. If I removed an infobox, or added one for that matter, I know the likely outcome. We can discuss what the infobox should include once this rfc is over. ~ HAL333 00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the MOS (The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article) and the arbitration committee (advising not [to] turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general, something which is very much at the fore here); saying as little as possible regarding the WP:LIKEIT section of the oppose stalls. ——Serial 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Serial Number 54129 We aren't discussing whether or not there should be an infobox in use - this page already has an infobox. The issue at hand is whether we should uncollapse it. ~ HAL333 17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I know. Please desist from bludgeoning the discussion; I will not bother to link to that page, as you have consistently bludgeoned the discussion so much that you have been told many times. You should also not debate the merits of infoboxes generally: your !vote and comments doing merely that will likely be discounted by the closer. Please do not ping me again; I am clearly watching this page. Cheers! ——Serial 17:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  He's right though; your !vote (and a few others' !votes) are about whether the article should or shouldn't have an infobox, which is not the question asked by this RFC. You say "per the MOS", but as noted in my OP, the MOS says don't collapse. My support !vote is "per the MOS". Lev!vich 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And I expressly noted that a number of support !votes merely advocate infoboxes in general, rather than for this page specifically, demonstrating either poor reasoning or a misunderstanding of the original question. ——Serial 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Here is how I see it. On the one hand, we have people who like the full infobox in this article, who hope it will contain information the casual reader is looking for such as birth and death dates, and appreciate the consistent formatting across articles. On the other hand, we have people who don't like the infobox in this article, who don't believe the casual reader will be looking for information such as birth and death dates, but instead would want to find out some career information that can't easily be distilled into a box, and appreciate the need to treat the presentation of each article on its own merits. Both arguments are valid. I kind of agree with AlmostFrancis' comment that it is a "lose-lose proposition to stop an argument", but that means favouring one side (full infobox) over the other (no infobox) cannot be done and we must compromise for the sake of everyone's sanity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Compromising" for the sake of "sanity" is complete nonsense, perpetuated in an effort to appease a group of editors rather than serve readers. If an editor's "sanity" is compromised by discussions about infoboxes, they should not engage in discussions about infoboxes. I don't know why we would even entertain the idea of making decisions about a page based on the delicate sensibilities of a group of editors who are so "sensitive about infoboxes" they apparently can't handle discussion on the subject without "opening wounds" and "compromising their sanity". Who does that serve? Why would we cater to that? The answer is that we shouldn't. The page should be built on what is best for the reader, not what we think we have to do to soothe a group of Wikipedians. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then remove the damned box, and watch the apoplexy of the IB warriors in response. Readers are better served without the misleading and pointless factoids that say sweet Fanny Adams about Sinatra, aside from meaningless dross like his list of record labels... And please don’t slur the thoughts of other editors by referring to “the delicate sensibilities” of people of either opinion who have been around this place for a lot longer than you and who have done an awful lot more than you. – SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder that this discussion is about whether the box ought to appear collapsed by default on the desktop version of the site, not whether it ought to be deleted. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EC.:::::No Ikjbagl. The question asked in this RfC is "should the infobox be uncollapsed?" It was not "whether the box ought to appear collapsed." A yes answer to either question seeks a totally opposite outcome. Maybe some support/opposes are not what the poster intended because they misinterpreted the Rfc quesion, as have you. Moriori (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the discussion is not about deleting the box. Nobody is confused about the fact that "support" means "uncollapse the box." Ikjbagl (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then don’t post flawed rationales that struggle to deal with things you can’t understand - and don’t badger other editors while casting slurs. - SchroCat (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I did not use any slurs. I said some people are being overly sensitive, which they are. You, yourself, told me it is a "touchy subject", so you must agree. (2) "struggle to deal with things you can't understand" - Lol we're talking about a silly box at the top of the page - dramatic much? Ikjbagl (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did. Yet again you personalised the argument to be about other editors rather than about focusing on your own points to make (and for the record, if something a "touchy subject", it does not mean "people are being overly sensitive" – that's a false equivalence.) This personalisation goes against the ArbCom restrictions of which you have been made aware. I'm afraid the second point was too grammatically flawed to make much sense out of, which may be for the best. Either way, it's clear this particular string of comments have too little to do with the overall point of the RfC, so I'll step away and let you have The Last Word. – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, "Yet again you personalised the argument to be about other editors" ... um, you're the editor who's been going around calling other editors "IB warriors". A bit of hypocrisy, no? Lev!vich 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. And don’t ping me again please. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: If you are going to keep making unfounded accusations that I am making "slur"s against people, I am going to keep responding in order to deny those unfounded accusations. I clearly said nothing offensive or even negative beyond the fact that people are acting in a sensitive manner. I don't know what dictionary or thesaurus you are using, but every single dictionary or thesaurus I can find gives "sensitive", "oversensitive", or "hypersensitive" as a definition for "touchy", the word that YOU used. Stop slinging mud and focus on the discussion; you are the one who started this whole excursion by responding to my policy-based comment with a comment based on "apoplexy of the IB warriors" and discussion of particular facts within the infobox, which have nothing to do with whether the infobox ought to be uncollapsed. Since then, I have only tried to steer the discussion back on track and deny the accusations you are making against me. YOU are the one making this about other editors and "IB warriors". And you're also insulting me by saying that I can't understand a simple discussion, seemingly because I disagree with you. You're literally doing everything you're accusing me of doing. Knock it off. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit of “do not ping me again” do you not understand. Just bugger off. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the infobox on this bios article gets uncollapsed? it could easily begin a strong push to 'uncollapse' or 'add' infoboxes onto every bio articles. Should that occur? related MOS will be changed to support such moves & then any editor in future, who dares oppose it, will be dragged off to ANI or Arbcom. In my 'near' 15 years on this project, I know what can happen, if a majority of editors are allowed to cement their preferences on manual of styles. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who started this RFC. Have I ever "pushed" for an infobox to be uncollapsed before? Have I ever "pushed" for an infobox on an article before? No. So what in the world makes you think that this RFC "could easily begin a strong push to 'uncollapse' or 'add' infoboxes onto every bio article"? Hell, I only have two GAs under my belt, one is a biography, and it doesn't have an infobox. That really kills all arguments about this RFC being brought by an editor who wants an infobox on every biography, doesn't it?

Secondly, even if there were this strong push, why wouldn't you call that "consensus"? If everybody wants an infobox...

Thirdly, "cement their preferences" is what happened five years ago when you, SchroCat, Cassianto, and three others editors came to a compromise. You are opposing this proposal on the explicit (and sole?) basis that this compromise shouldn't be disturbed. How is that anything other than a cemented preference?

Fourth, you recently told Sro23 that "'handful of obstinate and owny editors', is an unfair description", and Sro23 struck it in response. Yet you haven't said anything about, for example, SchroCat's use of "IB warriors", which is also an unfair description (certainly when applied to me, the RFC proposer, who has never argued about an IB before). Moreover, in your post above, you seem to be perpetuating that mischaracterization in your own comments.

I would prefer if everybody in this conversation stopped making it personal. Let's just talk about whether this infobox should be collapsed or not, and leave everything else at the door. Lev!vich 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even you will be able to control the coming tidal wave, if this Rfc succeeds. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Infoboxes are for the benefits of readers also known as the people this project is supposed to serve. -- Calidum 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Infoboxes are great when a user is looking for basic biographical information quickly. -- Dane ^talk 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dane You mean that the infobox's collapsed state inhibits users who are "looking for basic biographical information quickly," if I catch your drift. ~ HAL333 00:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is no valid reason for making basic information - which is all the information many readers want or need - less easy to access than otherwise. Ease of access is important - editors should not assume that readers need to read the whole article, especially when it is lengthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Collapsing it is pointless and an inconvenience for the reader. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Poor arguments for why it should be collapsed. Why hide the information from readers? Meatsgains^(talk) 20:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]