Talk:Frank Sinatra/Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Frank Sinatra (1942 photo portrait).jpg definitely not 1959, more like 1949. He just didn't look like that in 1959. THAT is how he looked in 1959, he changed quite a lot from his younger years. That is decent quality, but we have a reasonably decent colour photo of him with a hat and classic Sinatra style. It's the best one we have overall, why must we keep discussing trivial issues on this article when there's millions of others to write?† Encyclopædius 12:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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