Talk:Frank Sinatra/Archive 4

RFC: Uncollapse infobox
Should the infobox be uncollapsed?

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


 * Support as proposer. The infobox shouldn't be collapsed for the accessibility reasons described in the guidelines at MOS:COLLAPSE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. Aside from accessibility reasons, it slows down the reader's access to the information (extra mouse click to unhide). It also hides the infobox content from search-on-page (CTRL+F) functionality, unless the reader makes an extra mouse click to uncollapse first. I think a collapsed infobox leaves too much whitespace at the top of the page, although admittedly that one is a purely aesthetic argument. Mostly, I support uncollapsing because accessibility guidelines suggest not collapsing, and I see a total absence of reason to not follow that guidance. Originally, the infobox was collapsed following a 2015 discussion where it was proposed as  and agreed-to by five other editors. Although the proposed compromise was for a  infobox, the compromise that was instituted was a pre-collapsed infobox. Since then, the  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  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. – Davey 2010 Talk 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. – Davey 2010 Talk 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? L EPRICAVARK ( 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. ~ HAL  333  21:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support uncollapsing. It was meant to be a temporary compromise. The way it is right now is out of line with MOS:COLLAPSE, and that needs to change. Either we have an infobox or we don't. But let me explain why an IB is a useful and positive addition to this article. Maybe this makes me an idiot, or lazy, or whatever, but I can tell you this reader right here found the infobox very helpful, especially in a pinch (both on Frank Sinatra and many more biographies). Not just this reader, you can tell by the number of editors utterly baffled on this talk page and in the archives that the vast majority also find it helpful. If you don't like infoboxes or think it looks ugly, as it turns out you don't have to look at it! No one is forcing your eyes to read it. I can think of plenty of benefits and almost no cons to keep an IB. Sro23 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support WikiProjects which cover musicians and actors like Sinatra strongly recommend the use of an infobox. One of the six goals of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is to "ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person." WikiProject Musicians' guidelines recommend the use of an infobox. Consequently, there is a strong precedent in usage; almost all other musicians of similiar notability have an uncollapsed infobox. Just go visit Elvis Presley, Prince, Dean Martin, Keith Richards, Michael Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Freddie Mercury, Whitney Houston, Sammy Davis Jr., John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Nat King Cole, Louis Armstrong, Billy Joel, Bob Marley, Ray Davies, Elton John, David Bowie, Ray Charles, Mariah Carey, etc. I could do this all day. There is nothing unique about Sinatra that merits the collapse of his infobox. I challenge those who oppose to list a single reason inherent to this article.


 * Ultimately, Wikipedia does not exist to fulfill the egos of us editors, but to make information easily available to the public. One only needs to look at the several IP and amatuer editors who question the collapsion of the infobox. Opposition to the uncollapse of an infobox ultimately amounts to a "I don't like it" attitude by editors who believe they own this article due to their past contributions. They base their reasoning on aesthetics, not accessibility, which a collapsed infobox hinders. Per MOS:COLLAPSE, collapsible features don't work well on some devices. I'm sure that many readers don't even realize that they can uncollapse it due to the rarity of a collapsed infobox. That is why I strongly support the addition of an uncollapsed infobox to Sinatra's article. ~ HAL  333  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. ~ HAL  333  21:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Going to several articles with infoboxes and campaigning to remove them would significantly harm your case here. Those leaning towards Oppose are under the impression that editors are exclusively advocating for this position in this particular article, despite scant to zero evidence that there is any particular information in that box that they would like removed (other than "all of it"), and there is much evidence that they in fact are against such a feature in general. It is very likely that only such individuals would make an RFC to remove the box, and we would only have to refer to their comments on other RFCs that demonstrate their general dislike of this feature. The only way to appease them is to remove all idiot..., er, I mean infoboxes. We need not give them the benefit of the doubt of their intentions when their intentions are in fact clear, especially those who do not bother making an argument. And so, the "temporary solution" is no longer necessary, because it has now come to this. Ender  and  Peter  14:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the collapsed infobox may be a compromise between editors, but this article wasn't written for us. Why create the information and then hide it from our readers? There's no compelling policy-based reason to collapse it. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose yawn.  Cassianto Talk  19:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason or...? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to explain your point? "Yawn" does not contribute to the discussion at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No clear reason to overturn existing consensus. Leave as is.  Tim riley  talk   20:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But what is the clear reason, if there even is, to maintain the consensus? That is the real question, because we all know that consensus can change. ~ HAL  333  21:09, 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. L EPRICAVARK ( 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&#124;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&#124;Talk 16:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD, I'm pretty sure MClay1 was referring to RFCs, which you proposed a moratorium on. ~ HAL  333  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&#124;Talk 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OTOH This is available. MarnetteD&#124;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 Wikipedia collaboration. Cassianto has been harassing me on my talk page. This attempt at bullying people into submission is really inappropriate, especially over something as minor as this. Let's all just have a civil discussion. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unproductive. Nothing has changed since the last discussion and no new information or argument has been produced. The continual drip-drip pushing from those with nothing better to do should not be rewarded because Wikipedia needs collaboration more than uniformity. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , - Pinging previously interested editors to broaden the discussion with new perspectives. ~  HAL  333  23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to keep posting on each of these "discussions", please have mercy and do something about your obnoxious signature. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 said earlier, most musicians Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. It's the norm on Wikipedia. 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? ~ HAL  333  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)
 * As an additional comment, it's worth noting that some of the regular editors on this page have expressed annoyance at other editors constantly leaving messages on the talk page asking why there's no infobox. The reason for that is because, to most editors, the decision to hide the infobox is baffling. If it were reversed, there would never be any comments from passing editors asking why there is a normal infobox. Visible infoboxes is the wider consensus on Wikipedia, and the decision to hide this one is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. M.Clay1 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite content, to see the infobox deleted. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 30 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. JAG  UAR   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 Wikipedia have inboxes that are uncollapsable. Also a majority sees it uncollapsed anyway on mobile. Accessibility just seems mitigated by a collapsed infobox. Either every article has one, or none of them do. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia due to an IB discussion and wager that I'll leave this platform after one too. ~ HAL  333  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. Wikipedia is changing all the time.... if it was not this thing then its another. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposer 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 poor reasons to keep the status quo (a "compromise solution"), and thus should be safely disregarded. It will unfortunately annoy prolific contributors to this article, but this is about the readers (& per Moxy on this point). Either uncollapse it, or remove it altogether, depending on what's preferred by editors. I see no good reason for having this specific article's infobox collapsed, per nom, and reading the archives it seems like the result of a weird case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS because a wider consensus on the issue cannot be obtained, with a drop of WP:OWNERSHIP. The underlying argument here isn't one of collapse, though, it's of infobox, for which this the status quo a compromise. I'm actually sympathetic to views against infoboxes in contexts, but here it comes 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 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, so long as we have it, uncollapsing the infobox is likely the better decision for our readers, and takes into account the diversity of reasons why someone views a Wikipedia article, and it's consistent with our other practices on the matter. I'd also note that having a collapsed infobox is even more rare than having no infobox at all, on a developed article, so this is clearly not standard, which makes me wonder: why are we doing it? If it's appropriate, someone should explain why. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC), e: 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This, a thousand times this! Appeasing a handful of editors is not a very good reason to oppose, especially when said editors' orignal argument against keeping an IB essentially boiled down to I Don't Like It. Reader preference should come first. The truth of the matter is the majority of readers at the very least don't have a problem with infoboxes, in fact many find them quite helpful considering a bunch of biographical details are not in the lead. And there's nothing wrong with that! We have no right to judge how readers use Wikipedia, and if you prefer to scan an infobox, more power to you. Also half of the readers are going to be on their phones and seeing the IB uncollapsed anyway. What kind of compromise is that, and why has nobody opposing addressed this yet? Sro23 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "handful of obstinate and owny editors", is an unfair description. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree., any chance you could recalibrate the focus of that portion of your comment towards policy rather than personality? Cheers, ——  Serial  16:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was wrong. I changed my comment. Sro23 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I've found some comments below slightly swaying, Serial raises a fair point with their characteristic brevity. I do think uncollapse is supported by policy, but I also think some consideration (unsure of how much) has to go to the fact that the collapse is the result of an editorial decision of compromise (not of collapse itself). Personally, I don't care whichever way this goes, thus no boldwords. I also note that as most arguments here are of general infobox collapsing, I think result on this matter is relevant to the fate and scope of Collapsed infobox section begin across the wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:26, 9 September 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 (talk) 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)
 * 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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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." Wikipedia is not a place to have factions or teams. A compromise inherently implies an concession-type agreement between adverse parties. Why on earth are we talking about "compromises" in a place that IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ADVERSE PARTIES in the first place? This is a consensus-building activity, not a WP:Battleground. I'm baffled by the language of "opening old wounds" and people being "sensitive about infoboxes." With all due respect, get over yourself. If you cannot have a discussion about a stupid box at the top of the page without "opening wounds," you should not involve yourself in discussions about infoboxes. Editors need to stay cool to remain neutral and maintain a neutral point of view (which includes accepting things like consensus changing over time). If you cannot engage a subject without getting angry or emotional, you should not engage that subject; there are many other articles to edit and other discussions to engage yourself in. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually,, this article once DID have a standard infobox, which was removed during the big article improvement drive that brought it to its present quality. I wish your dream of a world of wiki without factions or teams was true, but remember the adage, “freedom is to faction like air is to fire.” And some of us still have a bit of Wiki-PTSD from the “infobox wars.” The battle over the removal of a pre-existing (if old-fashioned) infobox in this article is what resulted in the compromise of the collapsed version. So, uncollapsing it would actually restore the status quo that lasted for about 10 years. (For what it’s worth, the same group of people worked on several other movie classic bios, removing infoboxes from most—the rest of us just got too worn out to keep fighting about it particularly after the ArbCom case penalized the pro-infobox parties harsher than the anti-infobox parties.   Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. It seems strange to collapse an infobox when more than half of Wikipedia users see it uncollapsed. Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk·✉) 22:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia, I am often looking for biographical data about the person. Things such as their birthdate, death date, marriages, etc. Just about every article on a person has one of these infoboxes for this reason. Not this one. For some reason, people have decided that it is "pointless", and some even going as far as to wanting it removed. Why? Why would you remove legitimate, necessary information from the encyclopedia? There is no point to collapse it. It sticks out from other Wikipedia articles like a sore thumb. It requires a completely unnecessary click. Collapsing is for large tables that would take up an unwieldy amount of space. Some editors are more caught up with defending a useless point than making the reader's experience better. Please remember this before you comment.  I-82-I &#124;  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)
 * Other than the MOS issues and mobile view problems? Or were you referring to the arguments on why it should be collapsed in which case I think you have your vote backwards. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in whether it conforms to the MOS at all, my long experience here informs me that it is rarely a force for good, and sticking blindly to the MOS (which after all, can often be changed by small groups of editors working in unison) can actually end up damaging articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So is that an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument? PackMecEng (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More like a WP:OHLORDGIVEMESTRENGTHNOTTHEMOSAGAIN one, but I suppose you could say that :) Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! Fair enough! PackMecEng (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I guess The colapse seemed to be a lose-lose proposition to stop an argument. It defeats the purpose of an info-box while at the same time gives the lede picture and ugly box on page load.   I'd feel a lot stronger in my support if the info box didn't have such unecessary information.  Years acitive seems like OR and is just trivia.  Deceased people do not have websites, their estates do and this is not an article about the estate.  Cull the genres or just remove it if you can't decide on one or two.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right on it being full of rubbish - years active is nearly always nonsense (and OR), the list of wives is fairly pointless, the list of record labels is mind-numbing, "Instrument = vocals" is a bit 'duh', given we say he was a singer, etc, etc... Still, just try removing any of them, and see how quickly you're reverted by someone claiming it's a crucial piece of vital information for a pub quiz trivia cheat box... - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I just removed them. ~ HAL  333  17:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And added back in record time. It turns out  can see the future.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I just remember previous similar cases. This is a good example of why those people who have been around for a while talk about a compromising agreement on this article, rather than demanding they get their own way regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you undo any long-standing status quo, you're likely to get reverted. That's just what Wikipedia is. If I removed an infobox, or added one for that matter, I know the likely outcome. We can discuss what the infobox should include once this rfc is over. ~ HAL  333  00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the MOS (The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article) and the arbitration committee (advising not [to] turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general, something which is very much at the fore here); saying as little as possible regarding the WP:LIKEIT section of the oppose stalls. ——  Serial  15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't discussing whether or not there should be an infobox in use - this page already has an infobox. The issue at hand is whether we should uncollapse it. ~ HAL  333  17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. Please desist from bludgeoning the discussion; I will not bother to link to that page, as you have consistently bludgeoned the discussion so much that you have been told many times. You should also not debate the merits of infoboxes generally: your !vote and comments doing merely that will likely be discounted by the closer. Please do not ping me again; I am clearly watching this page. Cheers! ——  Serial  17:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He's right though; your !vote (and a few others' !votes) are about whether the article should or shouldn't have an infobox, which is not the question asked by this RFC. You say "per the MOS", but as noted in my OP, the MOS says don't collapse. My support !vote is "per the MOS". Lev!vich 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I expressly noted that a number of support !votes merely advocate infoboxes in general, rather than for this page specifically, demonstrating either poor reasoning or a misunderstanding of the original question. ——  Serial  17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Here is how I see it. On the one hand, we have people who like the full infobox in this article, who hope it will contain information the casual reader is looking for such as birth and death dates, and appreciate the consistent formatting across articles. On the other hand, we have people who don't like the infobox in this article, who don't believe the casual reader will be looking for information such as birth and death dates, but instead would want to find out some career information that can't easily be distilled into a box, and appreciate the need to treat the presentation of each article on its own merits. Both arguments are valid. I kind of agree with AlmostFrancis' comment that it is a "lose-lose proposition to stop an argument", but that means favouring one side (full infobox) over the other (no infobox) cannot be done and we must compromise for the sake of everyone's sanity. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Compromising" for the sake of "sanity" is complete nonsense, perpetuated in an effort to appease a group of editors rather than serve readers. If an editor's "sanity" is compromised by discussions about infoboxes, they should not engage in discussions about infoboxes. I don't know why we would even entertain the idea of making decisions about a page based on the delicate sensibilities of a group of editors who are so "sensitive about infoboxes" they apparently can't handle discussion on the subject without "opening wounds" and "compromising their sanity". Who does that serve? Why would we cater to that? The answer is that we shouldn't. The page should be built on what is best for the reader, not what we think we have to do to soothe a group of Wikipedians. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, then remove the damned box, and watch the apoplexy of the IB warriors in response. Readers are better served without the misleading and pointless factoids that say sweet Fanny Adams about Sinatra, aside from meaningless dross like his list of record labels... And please don’t slur the thoughts of other editors by referring to “the delicate sensibilities” of people of either opinion who have been around this place for a lot longer than you and who have done an awful lot more than you. – SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder that this discussion is about whether the box ought to appear collapsed by default on the desktop version of the site, not whether it ought to be deleted. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * EC.:::::No Ikjbagl. The question asked in this RfC is "should the infobox be uncollapsed?" It was not "whether the box ought to appear collapsed." A yes answer to either question seeks a totally opposite outcome. Maybe some support/opposes are not what the poster intended because they misinterpreted the Rfc quesion, as have you. Moriori (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that the discussion is not about deleting the box. Nobody is confused about the fact that "support" means "uncollapse the box." Ikjbagl (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then don’t post flawed rationales that struggle to deal with things you can’t understand - and don’t badger other editors while casting slurs. - SchroCat (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) I did not use any slurs. I said some people are being overly sensitive, which they are. You, yourself, told me it is a "touchy subject", so you must agree. (2) "struggle to deal with things you can't understand" - Lol we're talking about a silly box at the top of the page - dramatic much? Ikjbagl (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You did. Yet again you personalised the argument to be about other editors rather than about focusing on your own points to make (and for the record, if something a "touchy subject", it does not mean "people are being overly sensitive" – that's a false equivalence.) This personalisation goes against the ArbCom restrictions of which you have been made aware. I'm afraid the second point was too grammatically flawed to make much sense out of, which may be for the best. Either way, it's clear this particular string of comments have too little to do with the overall point of the RfC, so I'll step away and let you have The Last Word. – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , "Yet again you personalised the argument to be about other editors" ... um, you're the editor who's been going around calling other editors "IB warriors". A bit of hypocrisy, no? Lev!vich 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. And don’t ping me again please. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are going to keep making unfounded accusations that I am making "slur"s against people, I am going to keep responding in order to deny those unfounded accusations. I clearly said nothing offensive or even negative beyond the fact that people are acting in a sensitive manner. I don't know what dictionary or thesaurus you are using, but every single dictionary or thesaurus I can find gives "sensitive", "oversensitive", or "hypersensitive" as a definition for "touchy", the word that YOU used. Stop slinging mud and focus on the discussion; you are the one who started this whole excursion by responding to my policy-based comment with a comment based on "apoplexy of the IB warriors" and discussion of particular facts within the infobox, which have nothing to do with whether the infobox ought to be uncollapsed. Since then, I have only tried to steer the discussion back on track and deny the accusations you are making against me. YOU are the one making this about other editors and "IB warriors". And you're also insulting me by saying that I can't understand a simple discussion, seemingly because I disagree with you. You're literally doing everything you're accusing me of doing. Knock it off. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which bit of “do not ping me again” do you not understand. Just bugger off. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the infobox on this bios article gets uncollapsed? it could easily begin a strong push to 'uncollapse' or 'add' infoboxes onto every bio articles. Should that occur? related MOS will be changed to support such moves & then any editor in future, who dares oppose it, will be dragged off to ANI or Arbcom. In my 'near' 15 years on this project, I know what can happen, if a majority of editors are allowed to cement their preferences on manual of styles. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who started this RFC. Have I ever "pushed" for an infobox to be uncollapsed before? Have I ever "pushed" for an infobox on an article before? No. So what in the world makes you think that this RFC "could easily begin a strong push to 'uncollapse' or 'add' infoboxes onto every bio article"? Hell, I only have two GAs under my belt, one is a biography, and it doesn't have an infobox. That really kills all arguments about this RFC being brought by an editor who wants an infobox on every biography, doesn't it?
 * Secondly, even if there were this strong push, why wouldn't you call that "consensus"? If everybody wants an infobox...
 * Thirdly, "cement their preferences" is what happened five years ago when you, SchroCat, Cassianto, and three others editors came to a compromise. You are opposing this proposal on the explicit (and sole?) basis that this compromise shouldn't be disturbed. How is that anything other than a cemented preference?
 * Fourth, you recently told Sro23 that "'handful of obstinate and owny editors', is an unfair description", and Sro23 struck it in response. Yet you haven't said anything about, for example, SchroCat's use of "IB warriors", which is also an unfair description (certainly when applied to me, the RFC proposer, who has never argued about an IB before). Moreover, in your post above, you seem to be perpetuating that mischaracterization in your own comments.
 * I would prefer if everybody in this conversation stopped making it personal. Let's just talk about whether this infobox should be collapsed or not, and leave everything else at the door. Lev!vich 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not even you will be able to control the coming tidal wave, if this Rfc succeeds. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fourth, you recently told Sro23 that "'handful of obstinate and owny editors', is an unfair description", and Sro23 struck it in response. Yet you haven't said anything about, for example, SchroCat's use of "IB warriors", which is also an unfair description (certainly when applied to me, the RFC proposer, who has never argued about an IB before). Moreover, in your post above, you seem to be perpetuating that mischaracterization in your own comments.
 * I would prefer if everybody in this conversation stopped making it personal. Let's just talk about whether this infobox should be collapsed or not, and leave everything else at the door. Lev!vich 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not even you will be able to control the coming tidal wave, if this Rfc succeeds. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not even you will be able to control the coming tidal wave, if this Rfc succeeds. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Infoboxes are for the benefits of readers also known as the people this project is supposed to serve. -- Calidum  16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Infoboxes are great when a user is looking for basic biographical information quickly. --  Dane talk  17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean that the infobox's collapsed state inhibits users who are "looking for basic biographical information quickly," if I catch your drift. ~ HAL  333  00:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. There is no valid reason for making basic information - which is all the information many readers want or need - less easy to access than otherwise.  Ease of access is important - editors should not assume that readers need to read the whole article, especially when it is lengthy.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Collapsing it is pointless and an inconvenience for the reader. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Poor arguments for why it should be collapsed. Why hide the information from readers? Meatsgains (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I like infoboxes, but I don't like to see them imposed against the wishes of the authors and editors who maintain the articles. The argument against is that some topics are too complex to summarize or that the box will become too cluttered to be useful. The collapsed box was intended as a compromise, and it seems reasonable to maintain it. SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that authors and editors who frequently maintain the article should have their wishes put first sounds a lot like WP:OWNERSHIP. Also, how is the infobox cluttered? Nothing in this infobox isn't also found in hundreds of other infoboxes, and is hasn't caused any problems except in this article for some reason.  I-82-I &#124;  TALK  06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are the authors and editors for this article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Infoboxes display basic information for the reader. There is no logical reason to then hide that information. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "I don't like to see them imposed against the wished of the authors..." Is such backwards ass reasoning to not want an uncollapsed infobox. That reasoning and those who are trying to use it to hide the info box might want to think about why they're writing an encyclopedia in the first place and hint: It's not to stroke the ego of those who write it. The author's wishes should have no baring regarding article content. Its the READERS that matter. If there is a place that can distill info so that is easily accessible to the reader, then why would we want to hide it? Valeince (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but I'm the author of this article and I don't support a collapsed box. It was only ever a compromise. It's a total non issue. I think the article is better without it entirely but if others disagree I'm not going to lose any sleep about a bloated box of trivia... Don't talk about people you don't know. † Encyclopædius  08:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Support - When present, infoboxes should be uncollapsed. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the excellent reasons given by Davey2010 and the article's creator above. The article does not require an infobox - collapsed or otherwise. I believe they can be a distraction from the actual article. Jack1956 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as I stated in the previous discussion on this topic; that an infobox contains nothing that should be in a well written lead section and the presence of one in an article does not encourage the reader to read on, in my opinion. Dreamspy (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should readers be obliged to "read on" to obtain basic information? I sometimes think that those who oppose infoboxes only do so in order that they can compel readers to plough relentlessly through their deathless prose.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support What a strange topic of discussion. Can anyone who opposes uncollapsing please provide better arguments than the following?:
 * We have discussed this before: Can anyone provide links to the original discussion please? Every link and reference I can find is to a discussion where people say that it was already discussed at great length previously. I am not going to mine through all this history. Please state your arguments here.
 * It is to appease people who do not want an info box: Either include the infobox or remove it. If you do not want to see the infobox, then do not look at it, or edit your theme to hide it or something. If you do not want it in this article, then yes make an RFC to remove it, wherein I would hope you would present solid arguments in regards to article quality and why it should not be in this article. Infoboxes exist. Some people find them useful, others find them annoying. The one here is perfectly fine. It is neither too big nor too small. I have seen no arguments on the Oppose side who have articulated what info exactly in that box they don't agree with mentioning. They simply do not like infoboxes. Some of the best articles on this site have giant infoboxes.
 * Again, you would be better off advocating for its removal. How does this particular infobox make this article worse? It would very likely tamper with the Good Article status if it was removed, especially if the reason was solely to satisfy a handful of people who do not like infoboxes. I see not a single Oppose advocate asserting that only this article's infobox is detrimental. They are clearly articulating their disdain of them in general. I do not recall seeing a Good Article with no infobox. Ender  and  Peter  15:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A small P.S.: I did finally take note of Levivich's intro and the reference to the 2015 discussion which I greatly appreciate. So... that's how this started? You think that section is too bloated? Is it still too bloated? What exactly would you remove? Would you keep anything or do you think infoboxes should not be in any article? Your disagreement is coming across as purely aesthetic. I repeat, you will be hardpressed to find a Good or Featured article, especially a biography, without an infobox. Ender  and  Peter  16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that apart from Ezra Pound, Noël Coward, Yehudi Menuhin, Ralph Richardson, Michael Hordern, Little Titch, Mozart, Benjamin Britten, Ian Fleming, etc, etc on the hundred plus FAs without them? Not that hard pressed to find them, apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.146 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the counterpoints. I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment to be in the same thread.
 * I don't think Yehudi Menuhin is a featured article, but still in regards to the others, I have a few points. First, take a look at Mozart. Yes, that's not an infobox... but it sure looks like one. So, would a "box" that lists and labels interesting information about the subject be a good compromise?
 * Next, take a look at this discussion of an infobox for Noël Coward. Some very interesting things can be observed here. You will note some, ahem, familiar faces, two editors in particular who I dare not name as it appears some people are offended by even being mentioned. Note how... um... unproductive, for lack of a better word, their ad hominem arguments are. Both individuals refer to infoboxes as "idiot boxes". That right there tells you their general view on this feature and that it not this particular article for which they think it is inappropriate. One editor refers to other comments as "moronic", and their large volume of rebuttals are downright hostile. Reviewing their comments will help shed light on where they are coming from and that this viewpoint is not limited to this article.
 * And so, just keep this in mind when reading some of the more prolific opposition comments here. Ender  and  Peter  19:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in the whole question of infoboxes, or any of the people who take part in these discussions, but I thought I would point out that you should check the ground upon which you stand before asking claims like “you will be hardpressed to find a Good or Featured article, especially a biography, without an infobox”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.13 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I concede to your point that you can find more than a handful of featured biographical articles without infoboxes, but they tend to be composers, and there has been very lengthy discussion on infoboxes for composers. They also tend to be artists who lived a long time ago and it is difficult to accurately sum up the kind of info typically in such boxes, sometimes anyway. It is not insignificant that quite a few discussions on infoboxes for other artists involve people who have commented rather strongly in opposition here. My argument about the use of an infobox here still stands. Also, thinking of it more, replacing an "infobox" with a "box with info" would be an odd compromise. Might you have responses to my other points? Ender  and  Peter  20:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made myself quite clear on infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes, my point is that you and others have made your dislike of infoboxes very clear. So what good does collapsing it do if you in fact want it removed altogether? I know that you do not want to see that info, but why should that info be hidden to everyone else? Ender  and  Peter  17:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we can't have it deleted? have it collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But again, why? Simply because you and others do not like infoboxes? Should all infoboxes be collapsed? Why just this one? Ender  and  Peter  19:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Collapsing the infobox is a compromise between those who want an infobox & those who don't. I very much would accept such a compromise on all bios where there's such a dispute. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you want all infoboxes collapsed, not just this one. Alright, as long as we're clear on your position. Ender  and  Peter  23:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Not all bio articles. Uncollapsed infoboxes are alright in bios of monarchs, politicians & sports figures. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It might move the debate forward if you explained why, rather than simply asserting your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Politicians, sports figures & monarchs have time served in office, sports career stats & reigns, which require showing in an infobox. GoodDay (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not follow your argument that only that arbitrary category of individuals require an infobox, whereas actors/musicians do not. Again, it is like you are asking us to cater to your own personal preferences rather than adopt a policy that benefits all readers and improves the quality of articles. Ender  and  Peter  14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll comment one (hopefully last) time to reassert that a compromise is illusory nonsense. What is the reason that we should care more about the feelings of a few Wikipedians than about ease of use to the reader? Nobody here should give a rat's a** what some Wikipedians want (in comparison to utility of the article) and nobody should give even a moment's thought to making a "compromise" based on personal preferences. Those editors could stop editing tomorrow and disappear- what will be left then? An article catered to the aesthetic desires of particular individuals who will not always be around. Many of the opposers have made it clear that they don't care about collapsing this infobox in particular, but rather that this is one of the last battlegrounds for them to make their stand that infoboxes are bad, and this is one of the last places where that argument might still win. This is an example of local consensus, battleground behavior, and is against Wikipedia policy. This argument needs to stop being about what individuals personally want to see happen with all infoboxes, and it needs to start being about why THIS PARTICULAR INFOBOX ought to remain collapsed in a manner that contrasts with almost every other Wikipedia article. Not a single reason has been put forth yet. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the result is to uncollapse here? Do you believe that result should be used to uncollapse infoboxes in any bio article? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the result is based on reliable application of good policy, and if the same policy should be applied in the same way to other articles having the same problem, then of course I do. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would support making infoboxes mandatory on all bio articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion on that, and I don't think anything on Wikipedia is "mandatory". Please stop side-tracking the discussion and try to stay on topic. This discussion is not about my (or anyone else's) preferences about all infoboxes in general; this discussion is about uncollapsing the Sinatra infobox. Any reasoning presented here should be specific to policy and the Sinatra infobox, NOT people's personal opinions. I don't know how much more clearly I can say that nobody's personal feelings should matter (including mine!). Ikjbagl (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already explained why (if an infobox is to remain here) I support having it collapsed. It's a compromise between two groups. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The full infobox would provide quickly accessible info for readers -- Just part of the service ma'am. I haven't seen any reason given why Sinatra should be treated any differently than his mates. Check the links in the caption to see his fellow Rats articles - all with uncollapsed infoboxes. Moriori (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Cal-Neva Casino, NV, Lake Tahoe, The Rat Pack 9-2010 (5782322671).jpg, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, Joey Bishop in Las Vegas]]
 * Support per MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. I'm not really sure what the fuss is to be honest. The infobox doesn't change much, if anything, when it's expanded. So in that case, might as well keep it expanded for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. If editors are concerned about the bloat and unnecessary content, they can discuss it per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably the strongest argument in support of why uncollapsing the infobox is to the benefit of all readers of this site. Ender  and  Peter  14:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support full UNcollapse as stopgap - Biographical infobox discussions have heated up more than any other infobox discussions. However, the full collapsing does not help matters, and it does not prevent further proposals like this one. Full infobox collapse is contrary to normal consensus about (not) collapsing content, and it still provokes curiosity, bewilderment, confusion, and outrage. Too bad the Wikipedia mobile app on smartphones by default fully collapses infoboxes. I think de-collapsing (or uncollapsing) the Sinatra infobox is the right thing to do for the time being. However, I can’t help admit the possibility that most people wouldn’t care reading for whichever part is in the infobox. There are other alternatives to propose later then, like removing the infobox or partial collapse, yet the main topic of the discussion is full uncollapse. —George Ho (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleting the infobox, would be an improvement. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you please propose that separately instead of continuing to try and make it the topic of discussion here. This conversation has been derailed enough times already, and as you said, you've "made yourself quite clear on infoboxes." Ikjbagl (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not the boss, here. Keep that in mind. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the points to keep in mind about consensus is that nobody is the boss. It can also become a challenge to keep WP:AGF in mind. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 's observation, annoyed me. But, I'm not interested in an back-and-forth argument with him. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I like infoboxes. I think that a dominant majority of Wikipedia biographies have uncollapsed infoboxes, and that most users will find articles with collapsed infoboxes weird. I think infobox opponents know this, because they must notice that these arguments don't seem to spring up all over the place on articles with infoboxes, and those pages don't have comments in the source begging people not to change the infobox collapse state or FAQs in the talk page headers about it. I think that the perennial nature of this debate (which I spent far too long trawling to learn about what was going on here) demonstrates the problem—people find an article with a collapsed infobox, are confused by the collapsed infobox, and rekindle the general argument about infoboxes. I think that a lot of the discussion around this is incredibly, unhealthily heated. I think that the noted dissonance between mobile and desktop presentation of infoboxes is an issue. I think the accessibility concerns are an issue. I have little sympathy for the anti-infobox (or at least pro-collapse) editors who feel the need to constantly argue the point every time it comes up and then complain about it coming up as if someone is forcing them to be here. And most of all, I think that there should be a single standard style decided on and applied to every biography consistently, because the main harm to the user experience isn't infoboxes (collapsed or otherwise)—it is the inconsistency in presentation.
 * In *spite* of all of that, this doesn't seem like the right place to hash any of it out. Past consensus might be a weak argument if we were talking about infoboxes in general, but since the current wiki policy appears to be that either is allowed, why should this one article be changed? This argument isn't about the infobox on the Frank Sinatra page any more than it's about the infobox on the Peter Sellers page. made this point succinctly. I would fully support general changes to infobox policy (though have no interest fighting in that war). I see no reason to change this one page's infobox. Dylan (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As the proposer of this RFC I can assure you that this RFC is only about uncollapsing this infobox and not about infoboxes in general. I see many oppose voters talking about infoboxes in general, making comments about this being part of some sort of broad sweeping change affecting multiple articles, but that simply isn't true. There is only one relevant question here: should this infobox be collapsed? I think it shouldn't because of MOS and accessibility, and the other reasons in my support vote. If you think this infobox should be collapsed, why? I've listed some disadvantages in my support vote; what are the advantages of collapsing this infobox? I have yet to see an answer to this question. Lev!vich 17:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but those aren't reasons that the Frank Sinatra infobox specifically should be uncollapsed. Also, regarding the MOS stuff in particular, I'm pretty sure that the infobox isn't the "main body" of the article, but not entirely sure. As to why this should be collapsed? Well, I think it shouldn't, and I'm not super interested in playing devil's advocate to the viewpoints of the pro-collapse crowd. If we accept "It's OK for an article to have a collapsed infobox" as a premise then I presume arguments made on changing a specific article's infobox would have to be "OK, why should this one be changed?" If we don't accept that premise, then it's a discussion about infoboxes in general. And yeah, it's weird how it got to this state, I'm not a fan of it, I think the whole discourse around this is incredibly disheartening, and I don't understand the torches and pitchforks. I'm fine throwing my support into a general "let's not have collapsed infoboxes" discussion (but I'm not going to push that hard, honestly). Dylan (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait... what?
 * You very clearly advocate for the uncollapsing of other similar infoboxes, and you explicitly state that you do not think this one should be collapsed... so why are you voting Oppose? Simply because this one is currently collapsed? Because it is a thing that can be done? This infobox in particular should not be collapased because there is no good reason to and there are several good reasons, as you yourself state and appear to agree to, to uncollapse it. Again, the oppose arguments are only of two types: "It has been discussed before" and "It is to appease those who do not want to see an infobox". These are not good reasons to collapse this article's infobox. The good reasons to uncollapse it significanly outweight the not so good reasons to collapse it. You have not defended any of the Oppose reasons, you clearly disagree with them and agree with the Support reasons, yet you still vote Oppose.
 * Your statement "As to why this should be collapsed? Well, I think it shouldn't" contradicts your claim that you are not convinced that the infobox should be uncollapsed in this article. Clearly you are convinced it should be uncollapsed in this article.
 * This is by no means meant to determine the policy of infoboxes on this category of biographies, but of course that topic is going to be discussed. Regardless, this is ultimately a discussion about this particular article. No one appears to have objections to this box's content. Ender  and  Peter  18:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Uncollapsing the infobox would provide useful information at a glance, without any need for extra clicking. The views of those who have contributed substantially to the writing of the article should certainly be taken into account, but on balance I believe the information that an uncollapsed box gives to our readers outweighs aesthetic considerations.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Besides the fact that this is the only article that I've ever come across that is collapsed by default, the infobox provides valuable and essential information about subjects of articles without requiring users to go to the extra effort of sifting through text to find it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It's fine to have a section of an infobox (or any other content) collapsible, as long as it is not collapsed by default. It is simply unacceptable to have anything in an article presented to the reader that requires JavaScript, a particular CSS or a mouse action in order to see it, as that will make it inaccessible to a proportion of our readership. That principle has site-wide consensus at MOS:PRECOLLAPSE and no local consensus can override it. Of course we can have the infobox content wrapped in a collapsible wrapper that allows those who don't like seeing the infobox to collapse it. If we wanted to, we could even arrange for infoboxes to be hidden, apart from the image, for any registered editor who installed a line of code in their common.css. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support uncollapsing infobox: Local consensus cannot override site-wide consensus or our commitment to accessibility. This has been an issue that has dogged this page, and only this page, for years. It's time to end it. Additionally, HAL333 has the best reason: our duty, ultiamtely, is not to ourselves as editors, but, rather, to our readers; and if the collapsed infobox is an issue for them, it's time to remove it or uncollapse it, the long-standing compromise here notwithstanding. That's the way I see it, at least. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I've implemented the above decision by making the collapsible section uncollapsed by default. It still allows the section to be collapsed by a reader who wishes to do so. If I've not understood the RfC result properly, please either let me know or simply remove the  and   lines from the infobox.

I've also amended the page notice to reflect the current consensus. If the notice is now deemed unnecessary, please let me know and I can remove it. --RexxS (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we've got the "hide" option. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Evreyone has that option, nd has had for over a deade, on every article with an infobox; see: Manual of Style/Infoboxes. You might find it useful, when your promised (it was a promise, right?) "coming tidal wave" arrives.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the editnotice can go now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

They did it their..... way. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation 321 - Kitty Kelly
There is a statement toward the end of the article that says "it is reported" that Sinatra became less outspoken about racism after he affiliated with Republicans. The source is Kitty Kelly, who Wikipedia's own page regarding Ms. Kelly points out numerous times where the accuracy of her statements were called into question. She wrote about Ronald Reagan committing date rape among other things. The page quotes Barbara Walters (not a Republican) who says that her books are more salacious than factual.

The obvious subtext of including such a line is obviously to suggest that either Republicans approve of racism or that Sinatra was pressured to tone it down.

Including this comment (i.e. "it is reported that he ...") from this dubious source appears biased and does nothing to support the article other than to taint the man for having the audacity to associate with Republicans.

104.186.177.104 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ronin Farrow paternity
There are ample reliable sources discussing Sintra as being the biological father of Ronin Farrow, so it seems odd that this isn’t even mentioned here. Indeed, it’s all over Farrow’s page so I doubt there are any BLP concerns. Thoughts about including something here? --Artificial Nagger (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there are "ample reliable sources," why not go ahead and add information about this? Or leave the sources here, and I'll do it. Dgndenver (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC) After posting the reply above, I went to look for those ample sources. I didn't find any. Then I looked for those mentions on Ronan's (not Ronin) page. Couldn't find any of those, either. Dgndenver (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Solís and Sinatra in 1965 (cropped).jpg

Frank Sinatra as producer and director
It must be mentioned that Frank Sinatra was also a producer of many of his own records. In 1960, he formed his own label, Reprise Records, and made quite a significant number of gold and platinum albums during the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

As music director, Frank Sinatra directed the orchestra on several albums, the best known is Tone Poems which he also co-produced.

As film and TV director, Frank Sinatra directed None but the Brave (1965), in which he also starred. he also directed two TV episodes of The Frank Sinatra Show.

As film producer, Frank Sinatra also produced several of the films and TV shows in which he appeared, such as, The Frank Sinatra Show (1952), Johnny Concho (1956), A Hole in the Head (1959), Robin and the 7 Hoods (1964), None but the Brave (1965),The First Deadly Sin (1980) and more. Steve shelok  honov  18:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Sinatra has no credit as a producer on A Hole in the Head, and is an executive producer on The First Deadly Sin. More importantly, putting "director" in the opening sentence would lead the reader to believe Sinatra directed a lot more than one film and two episodes of a variety show. While this should be mentioned in the article, it is not enough to support "director" being listed in the lead as an occupation. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong info about antidepressants
The text says "He also suffered from dementia-like symptoms due to his usage of antidepressants." Actually, this nonsense was said by his manager, as the link shows. Moreover, it is a fact that antidepressants do not cause dementia-lime sympthoms. 2804:14C:87D6:705E:DCA8:4231:5594:81F5 (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lowercase or uppercase?
A few days ago I had written the titles of all the paragraphs with a lowercase initial, a little while ago someone entered capital letters but did not respect the consistency. Obviously I will not intervene, but since the paragraph "Music career" is uppercase, while the paragraph "Film career" is lowercase, I would like us to agree on which one to insert for the whole article, whether lower or uppercase. JackkBrown (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @JackkBrown, there was a recent RfC on the question of capitalization after a colon in a section heading. It found consensus for the use of either lowercase or uppercase; generally, an article should use one or the other consistently. After your edit, changed one heading to capital letters, and  changed several others. Perhaps they can explain the basis for their change and why they didn't make all of the headings consistent.  Schazjmd   (talk)  17:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * *Eating Christmas candy while on the phone listening to someone's body of work* Hm?
 * Oh, you mean this. Well, I hoped I was consistent there, even if Consistency isn't my middle name. I focused only on the headings but not the sub-headings, which I now noticed and should've done. I also capitalized "Reprise years" because, uh, it was clearly referring to his music label? My apologies. I aimed to do what was standard, overall. Carlinal (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * given the inconsistency, I would propose writing the initial letters of all paragraph titles in lowercase. JackkBrown (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just made this edit to rectify the aforementioned mistake, but I wouldn't mind your proposal either way. :) Carlinal (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Length
At over 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also like to mention the sheer amount of references on this article. You know you’ve gone a bit overboard if an article about a person has the same amount of citations as the United States (609). Eticangaaa (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)