Talk:Frank Sinatra/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frank Sinatra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140226032837/http://cinema.usc.edu/facilities/sinatrahall.cfm to http://cinema.usc.edu/facilities/sinatrahall.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Mirokado (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

New WikiProject

I've long thought it would be a good idea to tie Sinatra-related material together, it's a big topic in its own right really, and one which overall badly needs an injection of quality. You're invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Frank Sinatra!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Politics and Activism" section should include government investigation of perjury

From "Frank Sinatra: The Popular Front and an American Icon" by Gerald Meyer "relatively little attention has been paid to his brief, yet intense, involvement with the political left, which among other things caused the United States Government to to deny him security clearance to perform before the troops in Korea, and led to an extensive inquiry to determine whether he should be indicted for perjury because on his passport application he affirmed that he had never been a part of a subversive group (FBI Files 62-83219-28 and 36, 211-232, 244)." Jake412 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Adding filmography/discography and awards to infobox

I keep trying to add his filmography/discography and awards to the infobox but keep getting reversed. I would like to know why this ia keep getting reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Frustrating

Anybody know whether Frank recorded or performed the song Everyone's Gone To The Moon? I love the Doris Day version and someone said Sinatra did it too but I cannot find it anywhere.Arturo bravuro (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Info box should not be hidden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's such a hindrance to readers. It's pointless. I've never seen a bio have a hidden info box before. People want to access info quickly and easily, and hiding it makes it just difficult. There's no need for it to be hidden at all. I've seen bio's with longer info boxes than this one, and they aren't hidden.  — Calvin999 09:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length quite recently. What is your purpose in bringing this up again? Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose seems to be to make it pleasant to the reader. Support uncollapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin, you said the same thing about the Women project, "pointless". Yet it produces a few thousand articles every quarter and happens to be one of the most productive wikiprojects ever. Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is "pointless" and "just difficult"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to change the thread to "Info box should not be". If we're going to press ahead with this conversation yet again, I'll plump for Support total removal. For now, and for all the good reasons that brought up the consensus last time we had the discussion: keep the damned thing collapsed. – SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was done as compromise of course. As Gerda can no longer respect that, I support total removal now too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Support total removal -- Me thrice. Cassianto^Talk 10:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I respect it. Otherwise I would have changed the article. I only interpreted ("seems to be") the purpose because it was questioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't respect it Gerda because you just stated that you wanted it uncollapsed. If you respected it you'd have opted to keep it collapsed. I'm confused. Cassianto^Talk 11:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Respect is one thing. Preference another. I never like anything collapsed = hidden = needing an extra effort from the reader to retrieve information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about your preference, this is about a compromise between both camps. Cassianto^Talk 11:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion for a compromise: show the first lines (birth and death, and what he did - the things formerly held in Persondata) and collapse from then on, if you have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. Cassianto^Talk 11:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not? I try ignore what has been said below about me "recruiting". I have recruited nobody to this discussion, accepting the compromise. Can't help liking the initial question, though. May I say so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of collapsing it is so we don't see the repetitive and redundant information that can otherwise be found on the first line of the lead. Cassianto^Talk 19:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I care about what the readers see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So what's the benefit of having a birth and death date next to the, er, birth and death date? Are some readers unable to look left a little bit? Cassianto^Talk 20:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this an answer? - How about answering my question? - I don't mind collapsed, just prefer open (but shorter, who needs spouses there?). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"We" are the reader, but "we" are also very different from one another. "We" have diffent needs and different expectations, more the reason why a collapsed infobox works as it keeps the different sections within "we" happy. Scholl's example is exactly what we have in place here, but why the need for "biographical information"? Was that his name? That's how it appears. To me the Scholl version is the twisted sister of the one we have here; so short, it's hardly worth the collapse. Similarly, it's so short extended that it's a direct lift from the very short lead section. This is precisely why Infoboxes on arts biographies don't work. Cassianto^Talk 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I need to explain that I wasn't referring to the looks of that infobox (compare today), but to the two birth dates, - they look the same but are not. I felt understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to explain, I understood the first time. My question would be why do we need a duplication of the birth and death date so close to each other? The lead section is the first thing a user will see. The first line of that lead, which includes the birth and death dates, and with the box collapsed, would be the first few words a visitor would read. What would be the point of uncollapsing the IB to find information they have already read? Cassianto^Talk 07:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Some readers go to the infobox first. I would serve many kinds of readers, not only one. - As for "hidden": it took me years to find out that what you see here is not a pretty image but a navigation box (just didn't see that little "show"). Some readers may be as stupid as I am. Why not serve us also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe I was the person who [reluctantly] suggested using the collapsed info box as an attempt to compromise; if the compromise is no longer acceptable, I would support total removal. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with Sagacious Phil and support total removal. Tim riley talk 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are we at this again, as there's been a discussion of the matter within the last year? To keep bringing this up when it's optional to have an infobox or not again and again, is a total time-waster of both sides of the infobox question. Right now, there are close to 2 million stub articles on WP; most are nothing but an infobox and a sentence or two. Time would be better spent trying to enlarge these stubs to serve readers. People using major search engines get an "infobox" before they arrive at WP: Bing Google. If this is all the information they want, they don't need to even come to WP for it; those who want further information are WP "readers"-people who want to know more. I support a "one discussion" limit re: infoboxes in articles to get people back to what the project is about--improving and enlarging content--not hashing and rehashing the subject. I am also in favor of removal of the entire infobox if the main editors of an article don't want one. We hope (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this has been active in the last few hours! Cassianto, I have never looked at this bio before. I only looked because his son died the other day. So how am I supposed to know that this had been discussed before? I don't have a crystal ball. Furthermore, my post here is the first thread, so nothing else on this talk page indicated to me that any form of discussion had taken place before. Collapsing/hiding things on Wikipedia just makes it more difficult for the reader to navigate around what it is that they have searched for. And Dr. Blofeld, I still think that WP:Women is a pointless WP and is too broad (I still don't believe that a WP Men exists? You know, gender equality and all), but we aren't talking about that here. We are talking about not being able to efficiently or easily navigate a well known persons info box which contains information that a lot of people are looking for, and will perhaps not be able to find as a result of it being hidden.  — Calvin999 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why would anyone want to not have any form of info box at all? Why is this article getting a special treatment? What makes this article different to the thousands of other bio's which have normal unhidden info boxes. The answer is simple: unhide the info box, and let it be like every other bio info box on Wiki. If it works for all of those, then it will certainly work for this one. This is a discussion, not a vote on consensus, may I remind each one of you who want to get rid of the info box altogether.  — Calvin999 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities? Cassianto^Talk 14:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the need for it in the first place? None of you seem to be able to answer that. Just looks like a lot of WP:OWN to me. Did you ask anyone if they thought it would be better collapsed? Did you do a poll on readers?  — Calvin999 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

old newsWe hope (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

?  — Calvin999 14:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to the previous discussion re: infobox. We hope (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Calvin999. There is no need for it, and the page would be better without the box. (No suggestion of WP:OWN: there are those commenting here who haven't contributed a noun or comma to the page, but have reviewed at PR and FAC.) Tim riley talk 14:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So you part agree with me? Lol.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, the first sign of someone losing an argument is when they trot out that old chestnut, WP:OWN. Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere. Cassianto^Talk 15:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope I'm fine here, but thanks for your opinion. You are exerting control exclusively and you are not letting anyone else have their opinion or edit the article to a way which you simply don't like. That is OWN.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've had your say, now shut up and face the fact that the collapsed infobox is here to stay. Cassianto^Talk 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose an infobox in this article for the following reasons, among others: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the actual article, making them feel that they can just glance at the box and move on. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

All bio's have these "unimportant factoids". Do you propose every article have it's info box deleted? By the way, that is why there is a revert button, so that wrong info can be reverted.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not all articles have info boxes, just so you know. Cassianto^Talk 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Calvin999, you have a history on here of doing things which you know will provoke a reaction. You did it with the Women group too. It comes across as trolling/attention seeking. I'm sure you would prefer a full infobox but you knew exactly what you were doing when you restarted this discussion, and it's rather sad that you haven't a better way to be the centre of attention.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If that's how you interpret it then I can't help that. All I'm saying is just leave the info box alone. It doesn't need to be deleted entirely, and it doesn't need to be hidden by a collapsable Wikilink. What is provocative about that? Who even said it needed to be hidden in the first place? What is the consensus for it? Were non-involved editors consulted for the sake of variety so that it wasn't just a group of three or four pushing everything through? None of you are willing to listen. None of you are willing to discuss. None of you are willing to do anything about it because you say so. It's clear that only your opinion matters and anyone else who doesn't agree, doesn't matter. You need to drop this "restarted discussion" thing. I don't believe I have ever been involved in a discussion relating to anything to do with this info box, and I most certainly have never commented or been involved in anything to do with Sinatra, so you're misinformed about that. You only feel like it is provoking a reaction because you don't agree and don't want me to have my opinion as it is the antithesis to yours. I've received private emails saying that it's about time someone completely uninvolved stepped in and said what most editors really think and want about this situation, which is an unhidden info box (Not my words, the words of other editors).  — Calvin999 16:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

And they are? Hearsay evidence is not helpful. The above screeds from Calvin could be taken by an unkind reader to boil down to 'some people want a box and others don't but only those who want a box are worth hearing'. Tim riley talk 16:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

""I've received private emails saying that it's about time someone completely uninvolved stepped in and said what most editors really think and want about this situation, which is an unhidden info box (Not my words, the words of other editors). " Yes, that's how the infobox warriors operate, emails offwiki, usually involving Gerda and co, recruiting other misguided editors to the infobox cause.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has recruited me Dr. Blofeld thank you very much. I don't need other people telling me how to make my mind up or how to form an opinion, I can do that myself.  — Calvin999 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support collapsed: This compromise had already been settled back when the article reached GA. I don't see the point in restarting this discussion. κατάσταση 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support collapse - Don't blow up the house, just because somebody no longer likes the paint color. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support total removal I'll go with all of the above. As usual, the infobox offers nothing to the reader (especially a collapsed one). JAGUAR  20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • How would you know what it does or does not offer to the reader? You can only speak for yourself. The info box is nine times out of ten the very first section I look at when looking on a bio. I'm usually looking to find out quickly where someone was born or how old they are or who they married, other relations etc. No one here has ever done a poll on readers who are not us of you to see what they actually look at. Most people in this thread are putting their own personal preferences forward and implementing them, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be about you, us or me, it's about the reader, and hiding the info box hinders the reader in be able to quickly pinpoint key info about a person of subject. That is the whole point of it.  — Calvin999 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That was why there was a compromise, I acknowledged that some editors might want to quickly know his resting place/record labels or dates he was married. Trivia, but it was a compromise having a condensed box and avoiding a massive long infobox by default. You've failed to account for those who don't want an infobox by demanding it to be fully restored. It was only ever done as a compromise as I didn't want arguments during the writing. It's always going to look better without it, in my opinion, but it's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of many of the others who regularly contribute quality articles here too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah well nobody cares what you think Calvin. You clearly create these topics with the pure intention of provoking people and spreading your dogma everywhere. JAGUAR  21:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that is a mature answer? Still, I'd disagree with it. Nobody can ever answer why a compromise was needed in the first place. In fact, none of you have really answered any of the question I've posed.  — Calvin999 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't need lessons of maturity coming from you. JAGUAR  22:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I was offering any. It's not something one can learn.  — Calvin999 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for a guy who throws WP:OWN accusations at people, strolls to ANI after templating the regulars and proposes a WP:MEN project can offer an enviable amount of maturity. JAGUAR  22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Then be respectful, don't swear and don't belittle. (Not sure when I've ever advocated for a WP:MEN, nor would I like to see one. I think you read a little too seriously into that).  — Calvin999 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not sure about a lot of things. Well I'm telling you, the thread you started here was even called "WikiProject Men". Same trolling comments then as now. And your " be respectful, don't swear and don't belittle" advice to Jaguar looks an absolute joke, coming from somebody who called the entire Women group "almost anti-male editors" and did your best to belittle the efforts that it has made.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

*Support removal as per above -Probably shouldn't have been collapsed in the first place......, Atleast to me it's a disadvantage to the readers not an advantage.... anyway support. –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remain collapsed - At the time of writing my !vote I wasn't fully aware of the compromise, I too a point disagree with the compromise but I'd rather there be a compromise than a huge divide like there is now ...... Everyone agreed previously on the collapse and so that should've been the end of it..... –Davey2010^Talk 13:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is though Davey2010 that not everyone agreed previously on the collapse at all. Most of us who supported the collapse only supported it to stop the infobox warriors putting me off writing the Sinatra article. If it wasn't for them we'd have been unlikely to agree with the collapse. It had always been my intention to remove it before it headed towards FAC, but haven't got around to it yet.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I know but I guess this route was better and still is - If it's removed everyone would want it back and If it stays uncollapsed people would want it gone so in a roundabout way everyone wins ... kind of... –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support collapse of info box for all the reasons discussed first time round. Failing that support removal.Jack1956 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support collapse As being help to older readers (80+), small children (-10) and readers with disabilities (Autism etc). I know some here call it the "idiotabox" but it helps non-abled readers in some cases where they cannot read and digest the lede. Collapsed is a good compromise. GuzzyG (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone refering to it as an "idiot box" here. Cassianto^Talk 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remain, collapsed or not Seems a reasonable solution. The reasons for outright removal have not really been argued that well. It is rather a lot of info but not huge, it may benefit from being collapsed but why? Sometimes it is nice to have a bunch of information in non-prose form. HighInBC 22:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, see the previous discussion which occurred months ago, links of which can be found in links above. Also, see Ssilvers' comment above. Why should these reasons have to be explained every time someone has a hissy fit about the fact the IB is collapsed? Cassianto^Talk 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if it does not seem as pointless to me as it does to you. It provides useful information in a clear and concise fashion. Not everything in an article is prose, we also use tables to provide information. I don't see what the fuss is about. HighInBC 07:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what the lead does, only in a more educational and professional way. Maybe you like dumbing things down, but frankly, I don't. Cassianto^Talk|

• Remain, collapsed or not as per HighInBc. The box is useful at providing information for a casual reader. Now get back to writing content, all you brilliant editors! Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support collapse - it was (is) a beautiful compromise, it is not difficult to access the collapsed information, and it does not clutter the page in the slightest. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support uncollapsing for the sake of consistency. Every Wikipedia biography I've ever seen does it this way, why we'd randomly deviate from the norm is beyond me. --AllOriginalBubs (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support unhidden infobox. The infobox is a staple of WP. I use them all the time. Casual readers are not going to know they can uncollapse the one here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Sinatra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026034922/http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/critics to http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/critics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected

To stop a group of highly-experienced and well respected editors tearing each others' heads off, I have protected the article for 24 hours to give everyone a chance to calm down. Find another article to edit, and add an admin request here if there is something in the article that is urgent to fix (eg: falsification of sources or factual inaccuracy). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarify

@Cassianto: I've genuinely spent like twenty minutes reading and rereading the sentence in the lead, and I've reread it another twenty times since, and trying to go through the reference to figure out what the sentence means. The sentence in question: "Sinatra was also heavily involved with politics from the mid-1940s, and actively campaigned for presidents such as Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, though before Kennedy's death Sinatra's alleged Mafia connections led to his being snubbed." I genuinely have no idea what "snubbed" means in this context. Did Kennedy refuse his donations because of his political ties? I genuinely have no clue what the heck the sentence is trying to express. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, can you assist? Cassianto^Talk 22:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sinatra was a friend of Kennedy's. Robert Kennedy was investigating the mafia and the government concluded that Sinatra was too close to some notorious figures. As a result JFK was advised to snub Sinatra when he came to California and stayed with Crosby instead. Sinatra was furious and smashed the helicoper pad he had specially built up. I thought I explained this in the article if you read the thing. So politically, yes I believe the Kennedy administration distanced themselves even though Sinatra had been involved in the campaign for presidency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Sinatra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002091150/https://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/trustee-awards to https://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/trustee-awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

Photo A

Photo B

We should use as the lead picture. This has been professionally done. Rather than which is just a screenshot from a film, where he is halfway through singing. Both were taken in the same year, 1957. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Professionally done? It looks very fake, almost as if a child coloured it in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• It looks a lot better than the image currently leading. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've taken the liberty of marking them photo A & B on this page for ease of identification. To me, photo A looks un-natural, almost as if it was photo-shopped, so I think photo B should be retained as the lead image. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep Pal Joey The other image is a page from a 1957 film magazine. Since this is a type of newsprint, the quality of the image is not as good as the film image. When I'm working with newspaper or magazine photos, I'm happiest when I can find an identical copy of the photo from film, etc. Here you see the photo as printed in a newspaper of the time. Here you see the same image as a photo. We hope (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Because PD still images weren't available, many of the photos used in Rod Steiger are screen captures from PD film trailers. We hope (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep Pal Joey per Sagaciousphil. BTW it was also shot by a "professional." MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep B: more life, more of an entertainer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Does anybody know if we should list his associated acts? I have already made a list of them. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Never formally learned how to read music

That phrase appears twice on the page. I'm not sure what it means. Does it mean he never learned how to read music? I can't think what else it could mean. So I'm going to remove the filler word "formally", which just seems a weasel word. Either you can read music or you can't; it doesn't matter much how you learn. (The phrase sounds like it was written by someone who couldn't read music.) It's a bit strange, too, the parts of the page assuring that Sinatra enthusiastically learned every possible aspect of music...except somehow never learning to read music. It all doesn't quite add up. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Also "he made his own notations to the music, using his ear to detect semi-tonal differences" makes no sense. So I changed it to "semitonal", i.e. differences of a semitone. Which at least means something, though I'm still not sure what it's supposed to mean - the same as the next bit, I guess, about classical musicians being amazed he could hear wrong notes. But gee, anyone who can't detect "semitonal differences" is called "tone deaf", it's nothing to brag about. I suspect someone with no idea about music wrote that and the next bit. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mental Health" section

I see there has been a little bit of to-and-froing over the addition of a section titled "Mental Health". Having an entire section dedicated to this is overkill and gives too much WP:WEIGHT to this one small part of his life and work. We already cover the fact he had depression - it's in the "Style and personality" section:

Throughout his life, Sinatra had mood swings and bouts of mild to severe depression,[502] admitting to an interviewer in the 1950s that "I have an over-acute capacity for sadness as well as elation".[503] Barbara Sinatra stated that he would "snap at anyone for the slightest misdemeanor",[504] while Van Heusen said that when Sinatra got drunk it was "best to disappear".[505]

Repeating this information in a separate section does not seem to be an improvement, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. The separate section is WP:UNDUE. The brief mention that Schrocat has highlighted here is sufficient. MarnetteD|Talk 16:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the infobox hidden?

Having the infobox hidden is still a bad idea. Perhaps people keep bringing it up for a reason. I have never seen another article with the infobox hidden, and in my opinion it only detracts from the article visually and obscures pertinent information to have it hidden by default. Most Wikipedia pages I have seen about persons have infoboxes shown by default because the infoboxes are an easy way to quickly present basic biographical information in an easily digestible format. Is the argument on the other side just that it looks better hidden? If so, I think a new vote should be taken. Ikjbagl (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

See the thread above, #Hidden infobox for an explanation. Please note we don't have "votes" on such matters, we have discussions based on guidelines and policies, not what people like or don't like. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah that old chestnut again...† Encyclopædius 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A total of 7 people contributed to that discussion over a span of two years. For something brought up this often, why not do an RfC to get more opinions? It's not surprising that a consensus was not reached if the question was not visibly posed to the community. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, with over 6 million articles on Wikipedia, I'm suspicious of the fact you seem to be so obsessive over this one and on such a contentious subject. I think you should be slapped with a DS alert. Cassianto^Talk 19:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: That's absolutely ridiculous. I've commented here two times and you say I'm "obsessive"? I have had this account for two years now and have contributed in many different areas, so if you're implying that I have some sort of point-of-view issue over two comments on a talk page then I wonder which of us is really obsessing. I see your username all over this page since 2017. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

CONTEXT: Hello, I'm SchroCat. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. . See Preliminary statements, ArbCom Finding of Fact, and ArbCom Remedy against Cassianto. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There was an RfC (in the archives, should you want to look for it), in which a lot of people commented, and the thread again was just a reaffirmation of that agreement. IBs can be a touchy subject where people do poke unnecessarily and don’t seem to accept a standing consensus because they don’t like it. It’s a always a wonder why people feel the need to press the point. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

die date

someone shoud chek tghe date

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

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

Sorry for stupid comments...

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

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

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

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

Why this article is not protected vandalism?

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

Starting the discussion about Sinatra infobox

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

I thought about I thought about starting a discussion about the Sinatra box (now collapsed since 2015), but I'm unsure when. Because the Kubrick infobox talk is occurring at Talk:Stanley Kubrick, maybe I shall hold off the idea until the discussion is closed. Shall I do the RFC now, or shall I wait until when? --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC) I know those using screen readers do not like hidden stuff. I would rather the infobox not be hidden either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Actually, I was planning to discuss whether to retain or omit the box (regardless of collapsing it or not), though it might be too soon. When shall I do the discussion? George Ho (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Please explain why infobox is hidden

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

@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)

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)

”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)::::

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)

Myocardial infarction vs. Heart attack

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lead image

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

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

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)

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)

Hidden infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do understand your concerns @Dr Blofeld:, but for the sake of consistency with other articles and for the enjoyment of readers who necessarily do not want to read a lead section to get the basic information on a subject of the article, an infobox should be implemented. I know plenty of people in my school that dislike reading lead sections, it's lazy, yes, but the infobox is handy for getting information quickly. I know these debates are very trivial and I may sound like a hypocrite saying that, but I think a decent infobox on most articles is fine. The inbox on this article I have found is better than a lot of other infoboxes and I don't believe it is bloated. Yes, we should focus on improving the actual content of the article but why should we collapse the infobox when it works perfectly uncollapsed? If it was an infobox on an article about a politician who served in 30 different offices during their career, sure, collapse it where needed but this is a very short infobox. Thank you to whoever did uncollapse the infobox and I apologise again for bringing this debate up but I really think we should just settle on an infobox uncollapsed as it doesn't damage the article, it adds to it to be quite honest. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 22:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep collapsed. If school readers are interested in finding something out about a subject then they actually need to read something. They will learn next to fuck all looking at the idiot box. That will tell you he was a singer born in xxxx, signed to a stack of labels and had x wives. How on God’s green earth does that inform anyone of anything? Read the lead and learn information; don’t bother with the pointless factoids of the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support unhidden infobox: Apart from how ridiculous it is to keep it hidden considering how little it affects those who don't want to read it and how ubiquitous infoboxes are on Wikipedia, having it hidden goes against the accessibility guidelines. See here and here. It should not be collapsible by default. Unless someone can provide a very good reason why we should ignore these rules, this needs to be changed. "That's what was agreed previously" is not a reason. Consensus can change. We need to establish consensus in this thread, regardless of what has been said before. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support unbidden infobox Collapsible infoboxes are simply not as functional as the standard noncollapsible infoboxes. To be honest, I would rather prefer no infobox than a collapsible one like this. ~ HAL333 02:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murumokirby360 and edit warring

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

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)

Archived discussion regarding dissent to hidden infobox and request for Wikipedia-wide RfC instead of page-wide

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

Infoxbox

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

”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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Possible alternative lede image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 
  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

• Note I uploaded the largest version of Photo 3 to Commons. ~ HAL333 13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• The Current Photo or Photo 3, either will do. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Current image is the best image out of the lot, followed closely by 2. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)
• To expand the discussion, I am pinging previously interested editors: Lemonreader and Encyclopædius. ~ HAL333 12:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)

File:Frank Sinatra (1942 photo portrait).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)

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)

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

---

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• I prefer we stick with the current photo. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• I'll have to roll with 11 or 15 as well. ~ HAL333 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)
• Photo 7 or 15 is the same, so I am for both options. Mikola22 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• 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)

• 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)

Collapsed

What's the purpose of a collapsed infobox anyway? GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

2nd round rfc on lede image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus in favour of replacing the image in the lede with image 1 (Frank Sinatra (1957 studio portrait close-up).jpg). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• 
  Current
• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3

Should one of these images replace the current lede image? ~ HAL333 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Image 1 The current image is a screenshot from a 1950's trailer. As a result, the color is off and it has a lower resolution than any of the other images which were taken by professional photographers. A popular choice in the last rfc, Image 3 isn't ideal because Sinatra is actually in a acting role and it was taken a little bit past his prime. Although Image 2 is wondeful, the framing isn't suitable for a lede image. Ultimately, Image 1 is a high quality image which adequately captures Sinatra's persona and is my preferred choice. ~ HAL333 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Image 4

• The lede image should capture the face, so Image 2 should be ruled out. Image 3 is not a particularly good photo of Frank. It's between the current image and Image 1 IMO. I lean slightly toward the current image due to the fact that the face is more prominent. But Image 1 is better in capturing the Frank vibe, so it's a close call between those two. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If I had seen the earlier RfC, I would have voted for Image 4 (to the right), as it is better than any of the nominees above in capturing Frank's full face (sans hat), and it is of good quality. Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

At a larger size, Image 4 just looks strange. The colorizer took "Ol' Blue Eyes" just a little too far... ~ HAL333 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Image 1 – I agree with the comments above, particularly about this image expressing the subject's personality, and why 2 and 3 are inferior choices. 4 is a somewhat distant second choice for me: I agree it shows his face well, but not his personality, and I think the colorization is not just aesthetically displeasing but even misleading: the colorization makes it look like a painting more than a photo, and dramatizes the subject in a way I think is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. For some reason the colorization of Image 4 reminds me of pictures like [4]. The colorization is also why I think the current image is a poor choice. So 1 first choice, 4 a somewhat distant second. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 1 – Image 2 is not suitable for the lede image because the framing is not perfect; also, the front microphone is blocking a part of it. Images 3 is missing Sinatra's vibe. Image 1 looks better compared to the current image. Because Image 1 has Sinatra's vibe as well as It seems clear than the current image. Rondolinda (talk)   22:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 1 – Image 2 + 3 both have their special charm, but Image 1 is the best for the purpose of a lede image (wish we could have one of these, but they're out of our reach...). –Austronesier (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 1 - Image 1 is as close as we can get to the image of Sinatra usually perpetuated by the Sinatra family. His Capitol sessions pictures are legendary, and Image 1 looks to be one of those photos. Image 2 is also from the same era, so it would fit, however I agree with the points above about that picture. Image 1 is my choice. ModernBingFan0377 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 1 - In my opinion, this is the picture that best fits Sinatra's image in the public consciousness. The current image has resolution and color problems, Image 2 has poor framing for the infobox, and Image 3 misses his vibe, as stated above. — Goszei (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 2 - I don't think the framing of the image is such a big turn-off. It's not like the microphone is obscuring his face and, if anything, it adds to his image as a legendary singer. In the unlikely case you've never heard of Frank Sinatra, you can just look at the image and tell what he's about, you don't even have to read the lead. Image 1 a close second. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• I like the current image just fine, but image 1 has an appealing, Peter Lindbergh-esque quality to it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 1 - Most representative picture. No unncessary details. --Thi (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.