Talk:Frank Sinatra

Frank's 100th birthday on December 12th

I'm considering putting in a grant request for books to get this article to FA by December 12th. Given how many books are available though (see Frank Sinatra bibliography) I think we'd really need to read around 20 books and countless other sources to really make it comprehensive and the best possible article. It's a big project but can be achieved, but I need a few others who can commit to it too and share the books. Such is the amount of material written on him I'd imagine detailed sub articles like Film career of Sinatra and Music career of Frank Sinatra would be the way to go with a general overview here which is highly comprehensive but condensed. Anybody interested?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We hope, This is Paul?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK-and that's the right person. :-) We hope (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential book requests by grant from WMUK:

1. Frank:The Voice (£3.91)
2. Sinatra - £12.64
3. Frank Sinatra: A Life Worth Living -£5.97
4. Frank Sinatra: A Life in Pictures -£9.80
5. Lady Blues Eyes: My Life With Frank Sinatra -£2.20
6. Frank Sinatra:An American Legend - £4.18
7. Frank:The Making of a Legend -£0.75
8. Sinatra - A Life Remembered -£0.01
9. Sinatra:the Untold Story -£0.01
10. Sinatra in Hollywood -£0.01
11. Sinatra:The Life -£0.01
12. Sinatra: The Man Behind the Myth -£0.01
13. His Way: The Unauthorized Biography of Frank Sinatra -£6.41

Total =£45.91 not including postage

Ideally three of us could split the reading with eight books each. If there's just two of us we'll have to reduce it a bit. But I really think all of those books should be read before this is promoted to ensure it is fully comprehensive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Bede735 would you be interested in this too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We have another hat in the Sinatra ring! :-) 78:26 has joined the team. User:Dr. Blofeld, you may remember the work to get Elmo Tanner to GA. We hope (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. Well let us know which books you're going to get, to make sure we don't get the same.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Question-Do we need the book on his FBI files, as the FBI has posted everything that's been released here in PDF form. All of the text is in the public domain because it was done by USG employees; they also can be downloaded and saved. We hope (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware it was the same stuff. you can take care of that one then!

• Frank Sinatra filmography is pretty much the equivalent to a "Film career of Frank Sinatra" article. Same goes for Frank Sinatra discography and "Music career of Frank Sinatra". Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. Those are lists. You could write over 100 kb of decent well-written informative prose for each.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the following would also be very useful for perspective:

1. Sinatra! the Song is You: A Singer's Art -£1.78 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@78.26: Yes I'll add that to the list. Just wrapping the Kubrick stuff up for GA. 78.26 if you can commit to this I'll request all of the books, split between the three of us.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, I think this is a great idea and I'd like to be involved. I got Jo Stafford up to FAC in 2013, and want to do some work on Johnny Mercer. But I'd be limited as to the number of books I could realistically get through in the timeframe we'll be working to. Three would probably be manageable, though I could do four at a stretch. Let me know which ones you get and I'll find some different ones from Amazon. I actually have a copy of Mr S so can make a start on that. Also, Sinatra is mentioned in the Jo Stafford/Paul Weston autobiography Song of the Open Road, which I've also got. The pair toured with him in the 1940s while they were all members of the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra, so I'll see what I can get from that book as well. This is Paul (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For anyone in the UK there is currently a very good series about Frank Sinatra, Sinatra: All or Nothing At All, airing on BBC Four that might be worth a look. This is Paul (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, just in case there is any doubt, yes, I am committing to this. My only request is I'd like to be assigned the book "Remembered: Sessions with Sinatra" as this is directly in my field of interest. For what it's worth, my local library has a copy of this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

According to their website my local library has a couple of Sinatra biographies that are not included on the above list, so I'll look into borrowing them. The titles are:

• All or Nothing at All by Donald Clark (1997)
• Why Sinatra Matters by Pete Hamill (2003)

It might take me a few days to get hold of them though because the list includes titles held by every library in the county, and it looks like they'll have to be sent to my local library from a different branch. Let me know if these would be ok, and in the event of them being unavailable I'll source them from Amazon. This is Paul (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also looks like there's an updated version of the Taraborrelli biography published this year, and coming in October is Frank Sinatra: An Extraordinary Life by Spencer Leigh. This is Paul (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@This is Paul: Can you let us know what books you get and cross them off the list?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: @This is Paul: @78.26:, I've got nearly all of those books and utilized them when I wrote the vast majority of this articles text several years ago. It really doesn't need that much more research. A much greater effort should be made, IMO, on Sinatra's album articles, none of which are GA, and neglected articles of great importance to his life and times eg Cal Neva Lodge & Casino, Bobbysoxer, Harry James, Gordon Jenkins etc. I can't believe Billy Eckstine's 100th passed without a murmur! I'm presently rewriting Nat King Cole for his 100th in 2019. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"It really doesn't need that much more research. ". Hmm. The film career coverage IMO looks very sketchy, and I'd expect there to be more on his earlier life in particular. I think this article could be greatly improved, not a criticism of your work on it to date, but given the traffic that this gets, more than even Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart I'd say this is more of a priority.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too hasty :) You're quite right re traffic, I'd love to see the page just expanded a little, tightened, reffed, and the music bought to the fore really. As regards books the least scholarly are Michael Munn and Donald Clark, the best are Kaplan, Kelley, Granata, and Hamil, Sinatra and Italian Identity and the two books by his daughters. I'm really excited to see this get to FA. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you still have the books? If so we probably don't see to get so many. I do think this is worth going for for his 100th anniversary. If you could try to find more on his earlier life from them I can begin improving the film career coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think early life is fine really, I remember when this article had a separate biographical article like Napoleon, etc! The greatest part of our work should be 1935-1973 IMO. Everything else an afterthought, and the gods at play. I'll list my books this eve. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I've ordered three books from the library, which should be with me in a couple of weeks. I went for the following;

• All or Nothing at All by Donald Clark
• Why Sinatra Matters by Pete Hamill
• All the Way: A Biography of Frank Sinatra by Michael Freedland

I see from the discussion above the Clark bio may not be so useful, but hopefully there'll be something good in it. As previously mentioned, I have Mr S, and plan to make a start on that over the weekend. I'll also consult the Stafford/Weston book again, and I have a bio of Johnny Mercer that may be worth a look too. All the best, This is Paul (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll cross those off the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, just a thought but Johnny Mercer could be worth an FAC drive at some point. We've missed his 100th birthday (that was in 2009), but 25 June 2016 will be the 40th anniversary of his death. I have improving the article on my to do list, but would welcome any help. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that can be the goal after Sinatra. Sinatra frequently mentions Mercer in credits for his live performances. He was a close friend I believe. Somebody like Danny Thomas might also be a possibility at a later date. What a beautiful soul his daughter is!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:78.26 and User:This is Paul Are you both definitely on board with this then? Once we settle what books you and We hope will get on your own accord I'll be making a formal grant request for books probably Tuesday. We can then split the remaining books between us.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote Death/Honours and Legacy/and Media portryals last year. Can't wait to help with everything else. How should it be structured? By decades or performance years? Or 35-46 (first fame) slump years 56-61 (capitol) 60s to retirement, then final touring years? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to cover his film career and singing career separately actually like Red Skelton. Two big careers, I think it would get irritating going back and forth between each two for each year but might be wrong. 56-61 might have been a slump in singing years but the mid to early 60s was the peak of his film career.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely in, and will read the books I've mentioned above. We have a nice long Bank Holiday weekend coming up so I can make a good start. As I go through each book I'll make some notes on significant stuff. This is Paul (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is great Paul, I'll include you in my grant request at WMUK which I should get around to Monday or Tuesday depending on We hope's own book acquisition. What structure would be prefer for this article then? Generally I prefer writing chronologically, but I think given the size of both of his careers I think it might be best to cover his music career and film career separately. Otherwise it'll be like "In 1957 Sinatra released xxx on the xxx label. He performed live at Seattle, which later was released as an album. That year he starred in xxx and xxx. In 1958 he recorded xx at." Opinion We hope? I think like Skelton would be the way to go.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't know whether I have the books or not until Monday morning here, but can tell you that if I do, this is a lot of 5 books, so will get all of the 5 in question. Think you're right re: structuring this like Skelton. Both of these men had long careers and were notable in more than one field. Sinatra was making records and films of note at the same time, so it would seem sensible to separate the careers. We hope (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My library has left me an answerphone message to let me know the Clark bio is waiting for me, but as it's August Bank Holiday weekend this weekend I won't be able to get it till Tuesday. Apparently the copy they have in stock is a large print edition, so the page numbering may be slightly different to the version listed above. Therefore if anyone else has it and there's anything usable we may need to standardize the references before nominating the article (unless two versions of the same book are acceptable at FAC; I've never put anything through where that's been the case so don't know how it would go). Re the structure. Red Skelton looks like a sensible layout to follow. Jo Stafford is also worth a look. Part of her career was as one half of a comedy double act, and I ended up discussing that in a separate section. This is Paul (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, yes, as previously mentioned, I am committing to this. I could probably be of most use in the "recordings" or "selected discography" section. I like collaborating, but I'm not really used to it because my contributions tend to be in obscure musical corners. Let me know what you (and the others) would like me to do, and I'll get down to it! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, on Tuesday then we'll sort out who has got what and then I can make a proposal for the remaining books probably Thursday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Which biography is considered the definitive one for Sinatra? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:This is Paul + User:78.26 -OK what books did you get then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have Why Sinatra Matters (Pete Hamill) and All the Way: A Biography of Frank Sinatra (Michael Freedland), which I picked up today and have till 24 September. I can renew them up to three times, so that should give me more than enough time to work through them. Still waiting on the Clark. I thought it had arrived, but that turned out to be some slightly crossed wires. It is the only one of the three in large print, and when I spoke to the library by phone I was told that a large print biography of Sinatra was waiting for me. I put two and two together and ... As mentioned before I also have Mr S, and a couple of other books that make reference to Sinatra. Give me a few days to read the two I got today and I'll start making some contributions. This is Paul (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My library has nearly all of the books you have listed above. I am going to concentrate on "Sinatra! the Song is You: A Singer's Art" and "Remembered: Sessions with Sinatra". However, if there are any of those books you are having difficulty acquiring, and you feel are essential to this project, let me know. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, we've begun drafting it at Wikipedia:Frank Sinatra. Obviously we will use a great deal of material from the current article but it's just easier to set out the new layout that way and see exactly where we are piece by piece.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Any reason for this not being in the draftspace? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As I work in the wikipedia space I'm increasingly feeling like abandoning the sandbox idea and just working with the main article. I feel more motivated when I edit the main article. We'll need to check the existing sourcing and rewrite but I think it might be best after all to just work on the main article and begin reshaping it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm well drafts are better fit for the draftspace, which is the more collaborative namespace for drafting content work. The project namespace is for information and discussion about the project, which I'm not sure if this qualifies. Frankly (no pun intended) this seems like a bad idea to begin with, as you'll end up overwriting other editors' efforts on the main article when you copy over the draft. Meanwhile you will lose attribution, which is required. So yes, let's stick to the main article, as the effort will surely get more attention there. I think I can merge the two and do a selective restoration so that the draft lives in the revision history but the current state will be that of the main article. How does that sound? That will ensure attribution is intact, and you can still view the draft version via a permalink and move over whatever you want to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done most of the work to date in the wikipedia space and don't care about the editing history or attribution. We hope has also done a fair bit and I'm assuming that she isn't bothered either as the material we've both written to date won't be wasted anyway. We'll both clearly be actively editing the main article in coming weeks anyway. I'm sure we'll both manage to copy over any material started to date and update it. In some cases it might be best to compile a section in the wikipedia space first like I just did with Early life, but I'm keen to work on the main article as much as possible having had a go in a sandbox and not liking it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright laws care about attribution. You could move the sandbox to your userspace, and link to there in your edit summary when you copy over content, among other options. Merging the two pages seems easier, though, as you won't need to bother with anything and everything will be in the revision history. You'll want to delete that sandbox eventually anyway. Does that sound good? Aside from nagging about where you're putting your drafts and ensuring attribution, getting this article to FA by the 100th birthday is a really cool project, and I am rooting that it will become a reality! :) Maybe if I have time or learn how to write prose I could help a little. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@78.26: and @This is Paul: Are either of you intending to work on it then? The focus really needs to be on his music, albums and songs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am, it's just taking me much longer than expected to go through the books and make notes. Still also waiting for one of them from the library. I should be ready in the next couple of weeks though. This is Paul (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@This is Paul: The thing is if we're really going to get it to FA by Dec it's got to be done this month. Obviously we don't have to bother with FA and could just go for GA but it wouldn't be the same. That's why I've been wanting to get a lot of the work done in early October because we can then see how much is left to do and work more leisurely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to go for FAC otherwise the article can't be a TFA on 12 December. I don't have a particularly busy week off-wiki this week so if I dedicate all my spare time to finishing my reading I could be ready to start adding stuff by Friday. That takes us to the 9th. I might not be round much next weekend, but could continue again the following week. By then it'll be approaching mid-October. I guess to get this to TFA for the date we want we need to be nominating it in early November. This is Paul (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be at TFA by second week of November at latest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, that doesn't give us much time at all. I wonder if we can suggest it for TFA while it's still at FAC. I saw that happen with an article last year, so think it could be possible. This is Paul (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: what area would you most like worked on? I've got the sources I promised in front of me. I've also written some album articles. If anyone else cares about this kind of thing but me, I can provide 78rpm label scans, for instance one of his hits with Dorsey. Otherwise I'll just look for gaps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Music career definitely, though anything you find anywhere is always appreciated. The focus now really needs to be on his music. More songs need mentioning and some discussion, particularly his better known ones like My Way, Come Fly with me and Fly me to the Moon. There needs to be mention of songs like I've Got Your Under My Skin, coverage of songs written especially for him, more of an insight into his relationship with Van Heusen, Mercer, Cahn, Arlen etc. critical commentary on them aside from mentioning many more of his albums. Also more on the technology behind them, I added a bit on changes in technology being important but it could be reinforced throughout with more technical record info which you seem knowledgeable about. I'm not sure how scans of the records will fare in copyright though, I'd imagine that most of them are copyrighted and would have to be removed at FAC anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The draft is now at Draft:Frank Sinatra. Epic Genius (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

wife-beater

what about his history of domestic violence and sexism towards women?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What about it? Do you have a reliable source? What is the appropriate context? What do you feel needs to be included, remembering that extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources? Yes, he certainly had a reputation for "womanizing", and he also had a reputation for violence, and not just towards women. In other instances he is/was viewed as a progressive. Constructive thoughts regarding a complete, encyclopedic picture are always welcome, from anyone. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging the Birthday Party Planning Committee (and other interested editors)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @We hope:, @This is Paul:, I've done some preliminary work with the books (by the way, I can add "Sinatra in Popular Culture" back to the list, I have it available at my library and on cursory review would be useful for a "legacy/impact" section) and would like to discuss they layout. Should discussion continue here, or should the re-write discussion take place at Wikipedia talk:Frank Sinatra? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I do want to get cracking with this. The grant request is currently being processed. I think for now we should work and discuss it at the Wikipedia: page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't see genres on his infobox

Frank Sinatra
Frank Sinatra in 1957
Born	Francis Albert Sinatra (1915-12-12)December 12, 1915 Hoboken, New Jersey
Died	May 14, 1998(1998-05-14) (aged 82) Los Angeles, California
Resting place	Desert Memorial Park, Cathedral City, California, U.S.
Spouse(s)	Nancy Barbato ​ (m. 1939⁠–⁠1951)​ Ava Gardner ​ (m. 1951⁠–⁠1957)​ Mia Farrow ​ (m. 1966⁠–⁠1968)​ Barbara Marx (1976–1998; his death)
Children	Nancy Sinatra Frank Sinatra, Jr. Tina Sinatra
Parent(s)	Anthony Martin Sinatra Natalina Garaventa
Musical career
Genres	Traditional pop jazz swing vocal jazz
Years active	1935–1996
Labels	Columbia Capitol Reprise Warner Bros
Website	sinatra.com

Could someone fix that? -Dpm12 Dpm12 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't even need the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we DO need an infobox; most film actors do, and my view is that it's needed for the "at a glance" user. I strongly suggest it be included. Frankly, the article looks unfinished without one. Modeling on my hero, Katharine Hepburn, an FA with an infobox, I strongly urge inclusion with improvement. From my review of the history, it was removed on Sept 28, 2015, existed in a different form in March of this year, had an infobox as far back as October 2012 with the same image but different formatting and though details changes, going back 500 or more edits at a time, I see stability and inclusion in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and so on until what looks to be the original infobox addition in December 2005. Given this history, I think removal is ill-advised. Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of info box and per WP:BRD I have removed it meantime so full discussion can take place here. In this case the box includes a lot of trivia resulting in severe bloat. A personality such as Sinatra with an extensive career covering so many genres and associated acts, has been married several times with a number of children means the box is filled to overflowing and trails never endingly down the page. It may be appropriate to use in bios of sports people but serves little useful purpose here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into polling on the issue, because it's an endless IDONTLIKEIT discussion and I want to keep things civil. There are any number of ways to collapse sections and such, if length is really the issue, and frankly, featured articles of both musicians and actors have infoboxes in most articles. (e.g. John Barrymore, Katharine Hepburn, Angelina Jolie, John Lennon, Elvis Presley -Elvis' infobox is quite a bit longer than this one, actually) The data is simple, at-a-glance and encyclopedic. It was in there for ten years, and I must note that BRD usually is interpreted to mean restoring to the status quo. The article looks amateurish in layout without a basic box. I'm fine debating what goes in, but it's not over the top horrible, but for now I'll pop it in here at talk to be worked on. I chopped the "rat pack" list that didn't show in the box anyway, and frankly, I don't see the need to list record lables there. Montanabw^(talk) 08:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians#Article_structure recommend infoboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Infobox states "When a non-classical musician-related article is found in need of an infobox, please try to add one yourself," and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has standardization guidelines that state, "To ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person and an image if possible." Clearly, though the local consensus argument generates more heat than light, the precedent is clear: Infoboxes are preferred. Montanabw^(talk) 08:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  There are also just as many actor/musician FAs without info boxes. Please do not try to infer I was not civil unless you are able to present diffs to back it up. Thanks. ArbCom advised that decisions re info boxes are made on an article by article basis and guidelines from individual Projects have no bearing on the matter. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh good lord. Please not now. Restore it (for the sake of editing peace and stability for the next month or two), but I'm not going to have this going on while I try to write it. Leave me in peace, please. We'll come to the infobox issue when we need to. BTW I founded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and think I wrote that guideline myself when I thought that infoboxes were actually compulsory. At the time there was an infobox actor, which was a lot pretty than the current one. It badly needs updating to reflect Arb's decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think that someone was deprecating everything to infobox Person, but infobox actor is still out there. The yellow banner was kind of ugly, though. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree that an IB isn't needed here (per WP:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and a number of other actor articles don't have one. A well-written lead covers all the important points, and does so in an intelligent way, providing context and nuance to the bare "facts". - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I am not the one who started removing infoboxes of longstanding placement and I have little interest repeating the same arguments to those who already know them. I thought that was only the LOCALCONSENSUS of the classical music crowd and those working on a few literary articles. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of an infobox per Sagaciousphil and SchroCat. I also think it's very poor form for MBW to be needlessly fueling the infobox wars so soon after her recently unsuccessful RfA. A good candidate for admin wouldn't contribute to perennial time-sink conflicts like this one. RO^(talk) 16:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that even if Montana doesn't further comment on it other people are going to keep turning up over the next few months adding an infobox or start a thread here. I really don't want to have to deal with it again and again while I'm writing. Yes, it looks long and bloated but I think it is the quieter solution until the article is written. I really don't want another infobox war before this is even fully written. I suggest we leave it until mid November to discuss the infobox issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Closing unconnected subthread - the IB conversation can flow round this - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it looks really bad that MBW had never edited this article until today ([1]), when she came over to interrupt the excellent work being done here with a silly time-sinker conflict like this one. Content creators like Dr. B. have more important things to worry about than this pedantic dispute, which has already wasted way too much of Wikipedia's resources. RO(talk) 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you for that useful link, RO. It is you who never edited the article before today, and you popped up only after Dr. Blofeld posted to my talk page about it. I first edited the article on the 29th (as history shows) and it is very poor form and looks really bad for you to be stalking my edits following your own highly questionable behavior at my RfA. I deliberately checked this article to see if you had touched it before I ever did a single edit! I noted the article was discussed at Blofeld's page and I actually had a sincere desire to help. I'm also willing to forego a long infobox discussion, though I don't think it is a good idea to remove an infobox from an article that's had one for 10 years and consider it a bit POINT-y. But I've said my piece and If the literature and classical music people wish to keep their own closed shop on the matter, I'm quite fatigued by it. Frankly, RO, I'm trying to avoid articles where you have edited in the past unless they clearly fall within the purview of a project where I am already a member, and it might be a really good idea for you to do the same. Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC) The 29th? Really? What day is it today? This is your first edit here, and it's dated the 30th, so the point stands that the very first edit you made here was to edit war over the infobox. I already avoid you as best I can, MBW, but I also like to make a few edits at Dr. B's projects, and I'll continue to do so. I suggest you stop threatening me and disrupting progress here. RO(talk) 21:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC) No "threat" involved unless it is you stalking and harassing me. Check your Time zones: When I check the diff, my computer (my prefs set to display my local time) reads "Revision as of 19:37, September 29, 2015 (edit) (undo)," which was last night for me on MST, but I'm -7 GMT. I restored an infobox of 10 years' history, made a few gnoming edits and immediately took the infobox question to talk per 1RR. You had not edited the article at all, and your first edit only appears with a time stamp later than Blofeld's comment at my talk page. I agree that this is not the place to bring up your personal vendetta against me and I suggest that you have plenty of other articles Blofeld has worked on to "help". If you want to boost your wikicup points, perhaps this isn't the best article to do so, as I also have a sincere wist to assist. Nonetheless, if you choose to stay on board, i wouldn't think of asking you to leave as I'm sure the multiplier points would be a huge boost to your score. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Yup. Keep on with the labels and keywords. This has nothing to do with the Wikicup, but I see that once again, in lieu of AGF, you feel compelled to ascribe motives to everyone's edits. RO(talk) 21:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC) C'mon, this isn't the place for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I agree, Dr. B, and I won't argue with MBW here. RO(talk) 21:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Except that you have. Pot. Kettle. Shall we step over to another locale? Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we don't argue as if someone wanted to include an infobox here now. Someone added it in 2005, as pointed out above. To remove it (as on 24 Sep) seems a rather bold edit which should be reverted and discussed. If the box seems bloated, discuss parameters please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support infoboxes for long bios since they are always important. This discussion is another in a series of infobox wars that were started when this and other editors summarily removed it without first discussing. --Light show (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, did someone just say something? Nope, must be just me again. Cassianto^Talk 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Light show, nobody cares what you think anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Support infobox... opposition is just more WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT obstructionism. It is a long bio with a long lede, the infobox has high utility and a net improvement. Especially, obstructionist...and I notice one of the opposer's big accomplishments is repeatedly insisting on the pointy insertion of a false title "the" in DYKs. A collapsible infobox is not an acceptable compromise, I consider it functional obstruction. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

'It is better to keep your mouth shut and to make people think that you are ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove them right'; your comment is possibly a paradigm of the truth there. The use of the definite article is correct in British English, and my requests for it to be included are hardly pointy, or evidence of a false title. It's also not any sort of "achievement" that I have to keep pointing out the poor use of grammer for DYKs, nor having to explain it to morons who like to make childish personal attacks. And that's all aside from your rather silly comments trying to dismiss the opinions of others just because they have the temerity to be different from yours: it's a sub-standard approach and you'd be wise to try and be more constructive next time, rather than whine and winge about the valid concerns of others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose -- I feel that strongly about it that I have come off of a break to say so. No surprises in seeing the idiot fraternity throwing around such inevitable guidelines including "WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT". I'll lay may mortgage on it that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF will come next. Cassianto^Talk 15:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Support infobox Sometimes readers need quick information and don't have time to browse through the entire article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

KK87, look below this thread to the compromise that's been agreed to. There is an infobox here as we speak. RO^(talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

True, I am just saying for the record my preference. The info-box isn't collapsed for those using mobile devices so it's not really an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well nobody cares what your preference is aside from Gerda. Do us a favour and bugger off back to ANI now, there's a good boy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked this was a talk-page for article improvement, others agree with me and you cared enough to comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What would you know about article improvement? What was the last article you improved? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the info-box? All I am seeing is you throwing "Nobody cares" against anyone other than those who share your opinion. If you want to have a debate, then have a debate and at least address the concerns rather than digging into what other editors have or haven't done. I will also add that I have seen editors get articles up to FA in all sorts of ways, these articles aren't cookie cutters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Last I checked this was a talk-page for article improvement". You said it. So you're inferring that by voting "support infobox" you think you're somehow bringing about an article improvement. Again I repeat, what would you know about improving articles which would appeal to anybody other than an 8 year old in Tokyo? Obviously you think your opinion and input in discussions is very valuable. What made you turn up here? Whose edits were you stalking? Montana's or Cassianto's? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Im not going to address your stereotypical remarks about a subject you know nothing about. Staying on topic, reasons why an info-box is better include it being a quick read, and is more mobile friendly. I also support the compromise below as it appeals to both sides. You aren't focusing on the topic at hand, you are focusing on the editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Frank Sinatra
Sinatra in 1957
Additional data Born Francis Albert Sinatra (1915-12-12)December 12, 1915 Hoboken, New Jersey Died May 14, 1998(1998-05-14) (aged 82) Los Angeles, California Resting place Desert Memorial Park, Cathedral City, California, U.S. Spouse(s) Nancy Barbato ​ (m. 1939⁠–⁠1951)​ Ava Gardner ​ (m. 1951⁠–⁠1957)​ Mia Farrow ​ (m. 1966⁠–⁠1968)​ Barbara Marx (1976–1998; his death) Children Nancy Sinatra Frank Sinatra, Jr. Tina Sinatra Parent(s) Anthony Martin Sinatra Natalina Garaventa Musical career Genres Traditional pop jazz swing vocal jazz Years active 1935–1996 Labels Columbia Capitol Reprise Warner Bros Website sinatra.com

In an attempt to allow Dr. Blofeld some peace and quiet to concentrate on re-writing the article without the distraction of this bickering, would it be acceptable to try to gain a temporary compromise using a collapsible info box as done on the Peter Sellers article in the meantime? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It would look like this. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't normally like the things, but in this case I think it might be the better solution for the time being. It hides the horrible bloat, and the infobox enthusiasts still have their cake.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing subthread - the IB conversation has a temporary fix, let's leave it be Montanabw(talk) 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The obvious solution is to restore the infobox in total. Only a few of the sixty-five recent FA media biographies lacks one, with a ratio of 20 to 1 in favor of including it. The ratio is actually 65 to 0 in favor if we exclude the same 3 editors warring to remove this one. Which is also a reason why the other bios where it was summarily deleted should have them restored. If peace and quiet is the goal, then destabilizing accepted formats shouldn't be done first. --Light show (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC) WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is no basis for anysuch "obvious" steps. Thankfully the first step isn't some brainless attempt at stability, but at article improvement. I'd take the collapsed box as a workable compromise. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Drop the sour grapes. OTHERSHITEXISTS is still no reason to eject toys from pram, and the consensus is against you regarding the collapsed box. – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC) So would I. CassiantoTalk 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I think it is a reasonable compromise. Support. For the record, my reasoning is that I think this goes into a similar category as colored quoteboxes, image layout, whether to have redlinks in a navbox and other issues that are essentially design questions to most of us who are involved; the primary difference between those elements and an infobox being the additional microformat and wikidata stuff. The collapsing option proposed (and implemented) allows the people who do not like the appearance of infoboxes to have the layout they prefer, but preserves the computer syntax stuff that is one of the more compelling reasons to use infoboxes on all articles. Montanabw(talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I think it's a great compromise, and I'm surprised we even have an Infobox War if these are available. RO(talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Perhaps it's because the small box and emptiness and all that white space at either side doesn't really look that attractive? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I don't know anything about coding or templates, but I doubt it would be hard to make a custom IB for this article. Maybe with a blue border that matches Frank's eyes. Do they do that kind of stuff at the graphics lab? RO(talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Heh, you really don't want to start scratching the "colors in infoboxes" itch... it makes the "shall we have an infobox" battle look like a session of kumbayah. Not a good pot to stir. Montanabw(talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Article size

This article is going to get pretty massive during the writing stage. It needs to be researched and made as comprehensive as possible first. It might head towards 200kb before I come to the cutting. Obviously we're going to have to create a number of sub articles and trim it down later. But it is one of the most "core" biographies on wikipedia, it's to be expected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A good place to start farming-out might be the material on his political views. This could be summarized into one paragraph, with the remaining stuff moved to its own article, assuming that's justified and necessary. RO^(talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll see how it goes. I agree that his political views shouldn't be given so much weight in a main article. But I don't know what's in each of the biographies. Better to read them all first and add material and then split.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that "write first, spin off later" is wise. You need to have the section developed pretty completely before a spinoff with a link can be done with a summary that meets FAC quality. You may remember that my California Chrome article (which I believe you reviewed at FAC) got pretty long and ultimately wound up having two other articles directly spun off from it, plus two or three related articles were created or expanded as well. If you want to discuss weight and importance of the political material, you might want to consult someone like Wehwalt, as he did the FAC on Richard Nixon and would be a good resource on those issues. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The politics stuff is totally undue here, unless it's needed to explain Frank's association with JFK, but that was much more about fame than politics. In the end, this will prove a good place to reduce bloat, but I also agree with Dr. B; these choices are better made after a proper survey of the biographical material. RO^(talk) 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, we agree on something. Let Blofeld do his work. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote the political views section, I think it originally had its own article! It's very important as he was one of the first celbrites to dabble in politics (with FDR), his mother was a Dem activist, he narrowly escaped being blacklisted as a Communist, he used his Mafia connections for Kennedy and was a key figure of the glamour side of Camelot, and he personified the dissatisfaction of his generations lurch toward the right in the 70s and 80s, his relationship with Agnew was curious as well. I do think it needs retaining, but trimming. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gareth E Kegg: The material you wrote was already very good and all relevant, and I agree, with some reading I see that it does need a fairly chunky section. We might still have to split and trim a bit though when we come to the chop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how it goes and what I find in the books. Obviously we don't want to exclude anything of importance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely going to get pretty enormous in the next week or two as we really ensure it is comprehensive. When we pass 200kb we might have to start the condensing process in parts of the article as it might prove problematic for some computers in the meantime. It'll be worth it once done though. I've ordered the next two books now. We'll find a way to split and keep most material though but condense in the main article once done. I think you'd expect an article on Sinatra to be a very long one anyway given the two major careers and other important things like politics and mafia etc. Last time I checked around lunch time it was 102kb of readable prose. Perhaps we should be aiming for something in 90-100 kb range once completed. We'll have to debate that one as some people would still find that too long. I think you'd expect this to have to be longer than the Laurence Olivier article which is about 70kb readable prose. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

default

fixed parameter of 250px

With "upright" default

"Upright=1.5"

Did a preliminary round of image formatting, basically with two goals: 1) Fixed image sizes are discouraged, as users can set different size defaults and a fixed size does not scale if that parameter is altered... for example, 180px is the default, but if someone sets their prefs to default at 300px, an image at 250px can look smaller, not larger. The lead image I kept a bit larger, which appears to be what others wanted, by use of the "upright" parameter combined with a scale as to how much larger... (i.e. "upright=2.0" would make an image double the default size). Open to size changes if needed, but within better formatting syntax. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

2) Did some very, very preliminary rearranging, mostly to avoid sandwiched text (at least, as it appears on my screen), played with the "upright" parameter on some of the images that otherwise seemed a bit too large, but that's not anything I'm real wedded to. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Montana but your "Fixed image sizes are discouraged" is starting to look preachy and petty again. I don't want to see that sort of thing from you. Some images do look better at a bigger size, sometimes they're needed. It should depend on the actual case, not on some invented "rule" by some pious numpty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone, I did not intend to be preachy or petty, just was explaining why I did what I did. Didn't realize it sounded that way. (Note to self, how do I convey a friendlier tone when intentions are friendly?) Let me know if you want some of the images bigger, I'd be glad to fix, or one can a) remove the "upright" parameter from the tall images, which will automatically make them default width and hence bigger or b) change the "upright" parameter to "upright=1.2" (for some bigger) or a larger number if you want a bigger image. I was a fan of fixed image sizes to get them bigger and didn't move easily away from them until understood the reasoning, which makes sense to me now. I'll post an example here, just to explain. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I generally like 250px, standard thumb for portraits. I won't object to all standard, though I do think some look better larger on my screen.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, according to my prefs, the default thumbnail is now 220px... I thought it once was 250px, and maybe it is, but I use the monobook layout...? I think that "upright=1.2" will give you the equivalent of 250 px if you want/need it. There are going to be some layout decisions that will have to be made at some point in the article, as there are more images that we can effectively lay out. I'm wondering - and willing to do the syntax - if we could do some multiple image layouts (like I did [[2]] or (less elegantly) here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Musical career vs film career

I know I said about Skelton being a good role model, in many ways I still think it should be. But given the fact that certain songs Sinatra sang go hand in hand with some of his films and were vehicles for his releases, not to mention my preference for reading about somebody's life chronologically as one, I'm thinking actually of merging both into one. I think if we do that the overall thing will deem less daunting to research and read. You get through a big singing career section and then have to read a big film career section. For me personally after reading a hefty singing section I'd probably not want to read the film career section. I'll see as it develops, but I really think merging is likely here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, chronology is the more elegant method, at least where the music and film have a lot of overlaps. Maybe the political and personal stuff belongs elsewhere, but "Entertainment career" probably must be chrono. If it's any help, though, look at how Wehwalt and I handled Homer Davenport, who had distinct careers as an editorial cartoonist and a horse breeder; we did different sections for those, but it WAS tricky to integrate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I've done the merge albeit haphazardly as to be expected for now. The 50s and 60s read poorly at present though given the awkward combo of mostly film info with some stray album sentences. Naturally when completed there'll be a decent balance there. I've not even begun researching his albums and songs yet! So it's going to be poor and unbalanced for a while but a temporary blip in the grander scheme of things and needs to be done I think to make it more straightforward to read in the long term. Any help from anybody to improve the musical coverage especially 50s period and sourcing the 80s and 90s will be much appreciated to help to start balancing it out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be in the best position to just wikignome the organization overall and focus on specific areas for research; it's what I did on Yogo Sapphire - I worked on the history and georgraphy sections the most, others did the geology, etc., but I went through the entire article with an eye to just keeping it readable and spotting problems, Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It has its wikignomes already, but it needs is proper researchers to cover the material on him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, based on what I found at the early life section, best to start by making sure each existing ref verifies what it is supposed to verify . the tag is a beauty for flagging problem areas you can't get to right away. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, somebody needs to go through it as some sources were added from the original, but as I was doing it I was aware that a fair bit of what was written wasn't in the sources. If you compare to the earlier version you can see what was unsourced previously. It will all need checking before it goes to FAC. If you, or anybody here can check as many of them as you can this would be a great help. I'll try to check the Santopietro ones this evening which seem to have the wrong page numbers in places later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of the Career section

Consider restructuring the Career section into his recording phases, which reflect a more common division of his career.

• Hoboken Four and Harry James, 1935–39
• Tommy Dorsey years, 1939–42
• War years, 1942–45
• Columbia years, 1946–50
• Capitol years, 1954–62
• Reprise years, 1961–81
• Final recordings, 1982–94

A separate Film career section could still be included, but limited to a summary of three or four paragraphs. Bede735 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable structure but I think including some descriptions like "Sinatramania" and "Career slump" etc are needed in places. Also a big timeline like 1961–81 would need to be sub split into digestible sections. I did think it might be best to cover his film career in chronologically but it might be too bloated with all the musical material. Perhaps we could return to a film career section, I don't know. I do think he had enough of a substantial film career to qualify for more than three paragraphs. But I think the best thing might be to create a Film career of Frank Sinatra detailed article and then a more condensed section in the main article which people would still be willing to read after the detailed musical section. Let the film material all remain for now anyway and let's try to write it in chrono order and make it as comprehensive as possible, as once it's written we can then rearrange the film material again, fully split and condense so it is still comprehensive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having a complete film section following his music career section would be too much. I see you've integrated the two chronologicaly. While that may be the better solution, it might create awkward breaks in the narrative of his music career. His Capital recordings, for example, deserve a more developed treatment in the main article, given they represent some of his strongest, most vital and innovative work. If you decide to go back to a separate film career section, I agree that it should be a summary, with a link to a main article. Bede735 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was my main concern, that is might disrupt the narrative of his music career. The problem of course is that numerous films featured songs which won or nominated for Oscars etc and would have to be mentioned twice. It would also have to be a fairly substantial summary as he did have a major film career too. Let's see how it goes in chrono order anyway, we can decide how to shift the material when we come to the condensing. It might indeed be smoother with flowing music sections and then a film summary and a main article in full detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bede735: I'm going to go back to the separate film career section. It works together in the 1940s but for the 1950s and 1960s along with the bulk of his record stuff and concerts it's too bloated and convoluted all in together. We'll have to find a way to deal with the overlap in parts where songs were recorded for film. Film career of Frank Sinatra has been started anyway so I think I'll re-sort again and condense. That should make it easier then to develop the music career in 50s and 60s without the bloat on both careers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Time frame

The reason why I've been working on this heavily the last few days is that if you think about it, if we're going to feature this as TFA on Dec 12th we only really have four or five weeks left. Minimum 2 weeks for TFA proposal, potential three weeks at FAC given who it is, a week at least for a peer review. So it really does need to be approaching FA standard by this time next month in early November to realistically get there in time. I'm sure we could grab an extra week and an exception could be made should the FAC start later and plan it for the 12th but it really needs to develop consistently over the next month. A GA DYK for Dec 12 is always a back up plan, but I think with a considerable effort this is achievable if there is mutual support here. I don't think the scale of the task left is as big as I'd initially envisaged, a lot of books recycle the same material and I don't think I really need as many books as I'd initially thought. Already we've consulted a wide range of sources on this, and nobody would expect us to use every source ever written about him! But it is important that we try to read as much as possible, and that's where I need a few collaborators helping make this comprehensive before we condense and finish it. The focus now really needs to go into his albums and songs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to arrange for Sinatra and an alternate for December 12? If we finish on time, they can go with Sinatra, but if we don't they could have an alternate already lined up. RO^(talk) 20:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it depends when somebody proposes something. As it's approaching FAC stage I'll let Crisco know the date. I believe he has to make a decision 2 weeks before the TFA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So we need to get this to FAC by the end of October and promoted to FA by November 28. That gives us about 8 weeks to finish and still leave 2 weeks time before December 12. RO^(talk) 21:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to nearing FA standard by the end of October yeah. I don't want anybody to feel too pressured for FA or that we're trying to force it though. It'll get written and as we near the end of the month we'll see what shape it is in. If it is genuinely nearing FA standard then we'll go for, if not we'll settle for a GA DYK. It wouldn't be the same as a TFA on somebody as big as Sinatra on his 100th anniversary though of course. In the meantime it's got to get a massive article as we try to make it comprehensive and balanced and then condense the whole thing throughout. There's enough material on Sinatra to sink a battleship!♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I took an article straight to FAC without doing GA first, it's allowable. From what I'm seeing here, the changes being made to get it to GAN are basically FAC quality anyway. I don't know if anyone has ever done a SIMULTANEOUS GAN/FAC submission, but given the GAN backlog, frankly I think there is something to be said for just going straight for the gold ring, (or star). Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends how good the article is this time next month. If it's ready then yeah, skip GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

But if we skip GA, then the FAC goes south there will be no DYK, and no Sinatra on the main page on December 12. The best plan is to get GA pre-FAC so we can go with plan B, which is DYK, in case the FAC doesn't go as planned, and we all know that sometimes they don't. RO^(talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The only problem with GA is that sometimes things can take several months to be reviewed. At least the FAC process is a bit faster. This is Paul (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That won't be an issue with this article though, as Dr. B knows lots of reviewers, and projects he works on do not wait months, or even days, at GAN. RO^(talk) 22:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, with a quick review we could probably do both. It's probably close to GA with the work that's already been done, so if one of Dr B's contacts could help steer it through GAN by early November we'd still be on course to nominate for FAC. And if it didn't go through first time we'd still have the potential for a DYK mention. I guess it must just be politics stuff that doesn't attract the reviewers. This is Paul (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing needs to be sound before it's GA level. A lot of the sources need checking and the full text verifying as there was a lot of unsourced earlier material which had to be traced up. Actually what I meant RO was that in early November we can head to FAC. Even if somehow it didn't go through FA then there'd still be time to nom and pass GA and DYK. But I think you're right at it would be best to take it to GA before nomming for FA to have that as a back up. There's still a lot of work to do even before I'd be happy with even a GA on this though. It's an extraordinary biography which needs a massive amount of research and pruning to really produce a good article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I realize that you should aim for GA and a DYK on December 12, but to try for FA by mid-November means the research will almost certainly be incomplete and rushed. Kaplan is releasing a sequel to The Voice on October 27, and it would be remiss to bring this to FA without first consulting that work, which is more than 950 pages long. RO^(talk) 19:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Santopietro

Unfortunately there seems to be a problem with matching up page numbers. I have the 2008 Sinatra in Hollywood book and there's a quote which was supposed to be on page 122 in google books of the 2009 book but it's not there in the book I have. In fact coverage of that film is around page 84, can't find the Till the Clouds quote either. Was it published by a different publisher in 2009 or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Found it on page 81 but somebody needs to check the Santopietro page numbers now with the 2008 book. I'll do it after I've gone through the book if nobody else can!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

MBW, per this revert: ([3]), with the accompanying edit summary: Material fails verification at source cited, which source did you check? Because the material that I added ([4]) and you removed is verifiable to the source I cited, which is Kaplan 2011. RO^(talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See below. Ping my talkpage, don't bother repeating yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved from talk

From my talk page and my reply:

Recent revert at Sinatra

Per this revert: ([5]), with the accompanying edit summary: Material fails verification at source cited, which source did you check? Because the material that I added and you removed is verifiable to the source I cited, which is Kaplan 2011. RO^(talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was scratching my head on this, and here is what happened: There are two James Kaplan sources used in the article ... when I was seeking it with the "find" command, I got this one and it failed verification. So that was my mistake. I did not see that there were two Kaplan works, I think that due to the number of Kaplan cites, I searched from bottom to top, hit the Lewis/Kaplan work and thought it was the only one. I can now see the edition of Kaplan 2011 you cited in google books, and that citation does check out. The nickname is sensationalistic, though, even in an endtnote. Dolly's arrests are relevant, but her nicknames are mere trivia. What's more interesting is the bit about how she chained herself to a fence to fight for women's suffrage, and, given the mob allegations that plagued Sinatra, the Sicilian roots of his father, the fake Irish name and so on. Sinatra's later political stuff makes perfect sense in light of his upbringing. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV suggests that we include notable facts that appear in reliable sources, and that's what I did. The "Hatpin Dolly" moniker might sound sensationalistic to you, but it's been reported by numerous Sinatra biographers ([6]), and the nickname directly impacted Sinatra, who was barred from performing at a local church because of it ([7]). RO^(talk) 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The nickname is irrelevant and sensationalistic; Sinatra being barred from performing at a church was because his mother was known to have performed abortions, not because she had a nickname. You made similar arguments about the use of racist and sensationalistic language at the Irataba FAC - the fact that something is in a source doesn't mean we have to use it indiscriminately. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we need an encyclopedic tone here. It isn't my opinion, it's MOS. Montanabw^(talk) 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

MBW, now you're bringing up criticisms that you launched at me 10 months ago on the first article that I ever created. Here's the version of this article before I stated adding material: ([8]). You'll see that there was already extensive discussion of Dolly the illegal abortionist, including info on her 6 or 7 arrests:

Kelley claims Dolly also ran an illegal abortion operation that provided services to Italian Catholic girls, given that pregnancy out of wedlock at the time would lead to their family disowning them. Kelly stated that Dolly became so well-known for her services that doctors referred their patients to her, and she would travel as far afield as Jersey City and Union City with her "little black bag".[25] She was reportedly arrested six or seven times and convicted twice for this offense,[26][27] the first of which was in 1937.[28]

It's not like the subject hadn't been included, so I don't see how the well-known nickname pushed it over the top for you. Still, I hear you, but I'll ask you politely to stop making everything about me. You should be discussing content not editors. RO^(talk) 16:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The nickname is tabloid-y in tone and thus unencyclopedic. I said that the abortionist thing was fair game, the nickname is not. As for the rest, I am merely pointing out to you a consistent flaw in your writing style and something you really need to address across all your articles. Perhaps if you are such a new user, you would be wise to take advice from those of us who are closing in on a decade of work here, eh? Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

MBW, your first article was the most blatant copy-paste and copyvio I've ever seen on Wikipedia ([9]), and one of your most recent TFAs, California Chrome, has no fewer that 10 worrisome close paraphrases and copy-pastes (examples available upon request). So you are really not someone who should be criticizing anyone for making mistakes, particularly when you've been beating that dead horse now for more than 8 months. RO^(talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor horse, as if being dead is not enough he gets beaten by MBW! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you, I learn from my mistakes; and the mistake of too-close paraphrasing I made in 2007 - as I told you at my RfA - was fixed within about 48 hours and that article is now GA-class. And as for Cal Chrome, it went through GA PR and FA with a rigorous review. There are a number of direct quotations in there, properly attributed,, plus it has now been widely copied on a lot of mirror sites, so I am aware that it flags red on an automated check. You want to start drama, go somewhere else. You've allegedly been here a year and yet have been accused of socking at least three times, and dragging people to ANI constantly (I see you name on 21 cases, though some are just comments.) So stop your personal attacks on me. And grow up. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Sfn}} citation errors

{{Sfn}} is giving out a few citation errors, because four of these templates don't link to any source. I've hidden three of them, but there is one that I am unsure of: "Levinson 2005, p. 138", currently citation #198. Is anyone willing to fix that, as well as any of the other citation errors? I am not confident as to where "Levinson 2005, p. 138" should link to. Epic Genius (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a book on Levinson in the sources, it should be there. Perhaps Sagacious can fix anything remaining.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've fixed Levinson (and another one for Lees that had been introduced). The other ones that Epicgenius has now hidden cannot be fixed until someone can find out which books they actually refer to - I had looked at them previously. Personally, I would have left them "unhidden" otherwise people may forget to go back to find either a new citation or find the details of the book being referred to. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Epicgenius please don't hide refs like that. Can you restore them so they can be fixed? It's usually the case that I forgot to add the book in the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here are the refs that need fixing:

• {{sfn|Landrum|2007|p=155}}
• {{sfn|Green|1999|p=141}}
  I've unhidden them. Epic Genius (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Planning sub articles

As this soars over 115kb of readable prose (with some vital info still left to cover) we're really going to have to start planning how to split the material. It's going to need a severe chop when we're done. Emailed a few people and somebody pointed out that Ronald Reagan's article is 84 kb of readable prose, a good example with two big careers, one of course President, bigger than Sinatra's. I was thinking about 90kb for Sinatra but I think some people will still complain about the length. So I think something in the 80s kb range might be the target. That means that we're going to have to lose at least 30kb of readable prose. Much of the material is relevant and it would be shame to lose much content. How about:

• Early life of Frank Sinatra
• Film career of Frank Sinatra
• Political life of Frank Sinatra
• Personal life of Frank Sinatra (merge relationships article into it)

We'll need to max the article out as it is though to make it as comprehensive as possible. But as it's approaching a stage which it might start to crash people's computers we might need to think about getting parts of it done and splitting in stages as soon as we can. Obviously Music career will be the last one to file down. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm astonished! Brilliant work so far, Mr Dr. I could start musical career, it is an enormous topic. What is the rationale if it it ever AFDed? Presumably main article would be FA by then. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure we can really get away with a Music career of Frank Sinatra actually. We have his albums and songs and it should really be the main article which gives a summary of it. I think we'll skip that idea. But it'll have to be condensed right down here once written, so if RO was going to add content on that I can't see the condensing part going very well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Early life

Proposing the following as a chop for the main article. Thoughts RO/Montana? I don't want to split it without RO agreeing to it. The details about the arrest and Barbato tiff can go in personal life in a trimmed down version. I think actually the 1938 Cafe stuff belongs in early career before Harry James. The sources will have to be checked as in trimming some refs might have got placed in the wrong place, particularly over his parents origins which needed a few different sources to compile.

Hoboken, New Jersey, early 20th century

Francis Albert Sinatra was born on December 12, 1915, in an upstairs tenement at 415 Monroe Street in Hoboken, New Jersey. He was the only child of Italian immigrants Natalina "Dolly" Garaventa, the daughter of a lithographer from Genoa, and Antonino Martino "Marty" Sinatra, from Catania, Sicily. The couple had eloped on Valentine's Day, 1913 in Jersey City, New Jersey. Sinatra weighed 13.5 pounds (6.1 kg) at birth and had to be delivered with the aid of forceps, which caused severe scarring to his left cheek, neck, and ear, and perforated his ear drum, damage that remained for life. A childhood operation on his mastoid bone left major scarring on his neck, and during adolescence he suffered from cystic acne that scarred his face and neck. Sinatra was raised Roman Catholic, but due to his injuries at birth, his baptism was delayed for several months.

When Sinatra's mother, Natalina, was a child, her pretty face earned her the nickname "Dolly". Having the temperament of a politician, she was influential in Hoboken and in local Democratic Party circles. She also worked as a midwife, earning $50 for each delivery, and according to Sinatra biographer Kitty Kelley, ran an illegal abortion service that catered to Italian Catholic girls. Sinatra's illiterate father was a bantamweight boxer who fought under the name Marty O'Brien. He later worked for 24 years at the Hoboken Fire Department, working his way up to Captain. Sinatra spent much time at his parent's bar in Hoboken, working on his homework and occasionally singing a song on top of the player piano for spare change. During the Great Depression, Dolly provided money to her son for outings with friends and to buy expensive clothes, and neighbors described him as the "best-dressed kid in the neighborhood". Excessively thin and small as a child and young man, Sinatra's skinny frame later became a staple of jokes during stage shows.

Sinatra developed an interest in music, particularly big band jazz, from a young age, He listened heavily to Gene Austin, Rudy Vallée, Russ Colombo and Bob Eberly, and "idolized" Bing Crosby, adopting Crosby's props such as a sailor's cap and pipe in his own performances. Sinatra's maternal uncle, Domenico, gave him a ukulele for his 15th birthday, and he began performing at family gatherings. Sinatra graduated from David E. Rue Junior High, and enrolled at A. J. Demarest High School on January 28, 1931, where he arranged bands for school dances. He left without graduating, having attended only 47 days before being expelled for "general rowdiness". To please his mother, he enrolled at Drake Business School, but departed after 11 months. Dolly found Sinatra work as a delivery boy at the Jersey Observer newspaper, where his godfather Frank Garrick worked, and briefly as a riveter at the Tietjen and Lang shipyard. He performed in local Hoboken social clubs such as The Cat's Meow and The Comedy Club, and sang for free on radio stations such as WAAT in Jersey City. In New York Sinatra found jobs singing for his supper or for cigarettes, and began taking 45-minute elocution lessons for a dollar under vocal coach John Quinlan to improve his speech.

---

This will go in early career----------

In 1938, Sinatra found employment as a singing waiter at a roadhouse called The Rustic Cabin in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, for which he was paid $15 a week. The roadhouse was connected to the WNEW radio station in New York City, and Sinatra began performing with a group live during the Dance Parade show. Despite the low salary, he felt that this was the break he was looking for, and boasted to friends that he was going to "become so big that no one could ever touch him". Fellow musicians began to resent his cocksure attitude and mocked him for having little talent, to which Sinatra would flare up, angrily cursing and swearing at the others.

References

• Comments I'm a little confused, because last week you said we should finish adding before we farm anything out (MBW agreed with you), now you want to farm stuff out before we've finished adding. At a glance I think it's a big mistake to farm out the one indication that Frank's mother was physically abusive. That's an essential element of the early life of a tortured artist. It speaks to the formation of Frank's temperament, which was quite similar to Dolly's. I also think it's a mistake to remove the early mention of Dolly and Marty buying booze from the Mafia in Prohibition era New Jersey, as it sets up the overarching narrative of Frank and the Mob, which is an important theme in his life. RO^(talk) 16:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The article crept up to 205kb. It was getting ridiculously long. If we kept on it would get to 300 kb. It needs to take shape gradually and get into proportion. I showed some respect here and told you the plan. If you're going to take it personally you can clear off RO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay dokie. Have fun! RO^(talk) 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bye bye then. Look forward to your oppose at the FAC. You're not worth it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I proposed it here was so you could indeed edit it and we can agree on the final cut. But I'm afraid that the more content you add to the article, the more I can see you objecting to every edit I make and the key thing for somebody like Sinatra is being able to freely cut and condense and edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But just last week, when I suggested trimming politics, you said we should add material first, and trim later (MBW agreed). So that's what I was going with, and you changed your tune on that as soon as I started adding material. You added tons of stuff last week from Kelly 1986, and that's where I'd start trimming, not the good stuff from Kaplan. Anyway, I wish you the very best with this, and just so you know I won't be opposing at FAC. RO^(talk) 17:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I know I did. But the article got too massive alarmingly quickly. I'll get hold of the Kaplan book myself. The Kelley stuff will be balanced out eventually. It's not ideal but we can't let the article get up to potentially 300kb or more. I really do want you to go through the Kaplan book, but the moment you start taking it personally I don't want to know. I can see as we progress you objecting to material from Kaplan which might have to be cut and saying "oh but you left that in from Kelley, that's not fair". I've cut an awful lot of material I wrote for these sections too, you act as if I only cut what you wrote. Good articles have to be cut, even if at times we don't want to cut it. I'd rather go through an 800 page book myself than have you objecting to everything I do. Thankyou for what you did do for it anyway, but this isn't going to work. I'll order Kaplan next week and look through it as it seems a very good book.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My view was "write before spinoffs," I didn't mean "ignore bloat." One thing I'd do is chop cruft before splitting, as if it's really and truly cruft, it has to go anyway. If my motives can be viewed as honorable, I'd like to take a whack at it, and anything you disagree with, {[ping|Dr. Blofeld}}, feel free to revert. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kelley 1986

I'd be very cautious about making the Kelley book a primary source for this article. Here's what the NYTs had to say: ([10])

"Unless one believes Frank Sinatra Jr., Mia Farrow (Frank Sinatra's third wife) and Elizabeth Taylor (one of his lovers) - all of whom have made public statements attributing to the author inaccuracy or cupidity - Ms. Kelley is a good reporter ... Even if one were to suppose that facts are in and of themselves truth, could one then say that Ms. Kelley has command of the facts of Mr. Sinatra's life? No ... [Sinatra] sued to keep this book from being published [and] Not a direct word is heard from any of Mr. Sinatra's four wives ... not a word from two of his three children.

There was a reason why Sinatra couldn't sue and also couldn't sue even after the book was published. It's largely true what was written. Kelley conducted over 800 interviews and used sources all of which are cited in the book. I checked a lot of them out and they're accurate. It's an excellent source, but the problem is there is obvious resentment towards Sinatra and she seems to have compiled a book reporting on everything negative he was involved in. It's a good place to start, but as I get the Kaplan and N. and B. Sinatra books it'll become more balanced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There are currently more than 130 cites to Kelley 1986, which is about 30% of the citations. Don't say I didn't warn you, but this will probably come up at FAC, or at least it should come up. A 29-year-old "unauthorized" bio that was slammed at the time for inaccuracy should not be the backbone of the Sinatra narrative in 2015. That should be Kaplan 2011 and Kaplan 2015. RO^(talk) 19:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have potentially 12 more books to use on this. Kelley was the first one I received. Barbara and Nancy Sinatra books are on there way through the post. RO please leave me alone now, you're turning nasty by trying to make me feel bad about the Kelley content I've added. If this is how you treat anybody who trims your content in articles heaven help them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a big mistake to build the article around a poor-quality book that you plan to replace later with better ones. That doesn't seem like good editorial organization. In fact, the Kelley book would have been a really good one to skip altogether. RO^(talk) 21:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL you'd be saying that about Kaplan if I had the book! If the book was really poor quality I'd not have used it. I tell you what I'll revert to the version the other day and let you use your expertise to write it instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we already know Kelly is weak. Where it can be replaced, it will be, though where it is a sole source, it depends on what it's sourcing. If it's tabloid-y gossip, probably best to toss; if some basic factoid like where he lived, it's most likely OK. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I avoided most of the tabloid gossip stuff and picked material which seemed legitimate and interesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld is right, this is a situation of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, sometimes it has to build before it can be refined; I often add more material than I need and then chop vigorously. Kelley will be good for some things, not so for others; it's a matter of judicious assessment. We can't just take sources blindly without analysis. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Barbara Sinatra has an autobiography; may be worth consulting: [11]. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)