Misplaced Pages

Talk:Frank Sinatra

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levivich (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 26 August 2020 (Undid revision 975069998 by SchroCat (talk) I agree with I82, this shouldn't be collapsed, and "noise reduction" is rude). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:53, 26 August 2020 by Levivich (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 975069998 by SchroCat (talk) I agree with I82, this shouldn't be collapsed, and "noise reduction" is rude)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important" Addendum by Mr. Guye: Subject is very high profile and thus this is a highly visible page. The subject is long dead, so it is also stable. Lastly, it is a Good article, so it is not like we do not want people to hear it. 06:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Sinatra article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Good articleFrank 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 22, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 25, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages'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
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the infobox. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Q1: Why is the infobox collapsed? A1: The utility of an infobox was disputed in the article, with supporters saying that infoboxes were de facto standard in biographies and opponents saying that the infobox was prone to be bloated and that policy did not de jure require infoboxes. A compromise was reached whereby an infobox would be present but collapsed. This compromise has been maintained throughout various discussions and should not be overturned without consensus.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPop music High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFrank Sinatra (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRadio Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew Jersey Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Misplaced Pages feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNevada (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJazz Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=GA|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=mid}}

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This was the 3rd most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6 to 12, 2015, according to the Top 25 Report.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Sinatra article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Starting the discussion about Sinatra infobox

Please refer to the discussion that ended just 6 days ago. Starting this so soon is purely disruptive. Cassianto 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)

Hidden infobox

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

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)

  • 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Infoxbox

Having read the discussion above about the reasons for the collapsed infobox, I'm still highly confused. This is literally the only Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy on accessibility. M.Clay1 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Which policy? MarnetteD|Talk 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
MarnetteD, Misplaced Pages: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 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: " 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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages-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 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 Misplaced Pages-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 04:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible alternative lede image

There was no clear consensus either way, so we'll stick with the status quo. At least BLZ provided some fantastic new images which can now be integrated into the article. ~ HAL333 04:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

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  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. 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. v!v 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  06:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
That's cool. We're all volunteers. Levivich  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 17:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Ahah, then it's best we stick with the current photo. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 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 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)

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

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)
  • 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 8 (1954 publicity photo)
  • Photo 9 (c. 1954–55 studio photo) Photo 9 (c. 1954–55 studio photo)
  • Photo 10 (1956 studio photo, published in DownBeat) Photo 10 (1956 studio photo, published in DownBeat)
  • Photo 11 (1957 studio photo, published in DownBeat) Photo 11 (1957 studio photo, published in DownBeat)
  • Photo 12 (1957 studio photo) Photo 12 (1957 studio photo)
  • Photo 13 (1957 Pal Joey publicity photo) Photo 13 (1957 Pal Joey publicity photo)
  • Photo 14 (c. 1958–59 publicity photo) Photo 14 (c. 1958–59 publicity photo)
  • Photo 15 (1967 – same as Photo 7 above, but w/o cropping his hat) 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 1942 CBS publicity photo
  • 1944 CBS publicity photo 1944 CBS publicity photo
  • 1945 color portrait by László Willinger for Modern Screen 1945 color portrait by László Willinger for Modern Screen
  • 1946 publicity photo 1946 publicity photo
  • 1951 publicity photo 1951 publicity photo
  • 1952 publicity photo 1952 publicity photo
  • 1953 publicity photo 1953 publicity photo
  • 1964 publicity photo for Reprise Records 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)
  • 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 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.

RFC: Uncollapse infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the infobox be uncollapsed?

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

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    The arguments against collapsing are not IDONTLIKEIT. However, you are calling infoboxes "nonsense" and previously said "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." As you said to me, "Why is it that people who can’t deal with a consensus against their own preferred position always go to the IDONTLIKEIT argument"? Do you have any actual retorts to the arguments presented? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not WP:BLUDGEON other editors: I see you commenting multiple times just because you don’t like the arguments put down. My comments here stand as they are, and quoting out of context from previous threads which pose different questions is misleading. Please don’t do it again, and please don’t bludgeon everyone who happens to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
It's called having a discussion, something which a number of editors here are trying to avoid. I didn't quote you out of context at all, and the context is right above to prove that. I can make any comments I like. M.Clay1 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop BLUDGEONING please. And yes, quoting from a thread asking a different question is obviously taking something out of context. I have no interest in any further comments you wish to make, or any further bludgeoning. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I am perfectly entitled to ask people to explain their reasoning. That's the whole point of the discussion. I am giving people who disagree with me an opportunity to provide their point of view. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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 18:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
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 20:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Ultimately, Misplaced Pages 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)
I would support deleting or collapsing the infoboxes on all those bios you've linked to. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Oppose. Leave collapsed for all the reasons discussed in the previous infobox discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    What are those reasons? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    MarnetteD, I'm pretty sure MClay1 was referring to RFCs, which you proposed a moratorium on. ~ HAL333 17:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    OTOH This is available. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages needs collaboration more than uniformity. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages articles have infoboxes. It's the norm on Misplaced Pages. Bowling is life (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support not collapsing the infobox (ie expanding it) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Support removing the collapse feature because it seems pointless collapsing an infobox for this page when the majority of person-pages on Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
You're not alone - I feel exactly the same way. I originally got involved on Misplaced Pages due to an IB discussion and wager that I'll leave this platform after one too. ~ HAL333 18:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
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. Misplaced Pages is changing all the time.... if it was not this thing then its another. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    This, a thousand times this! Appeasing a handful of obstinate and OWN-y 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 23:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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 22:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages effort) has an infobox. BlueJackfruit (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Additionally, I'd like to say something about the notion of a "compromise." Misplaced Pages 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)
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 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems strange to collapse an infobox when more than half of Misplaced Pages users see it uncollapsed. Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk·✉) 22:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
Categories: