Talk:Frank Sinatra: Difference between revisions
→Why is the infobox hidden?: Capping the personal comment. There is no need for this |
|||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
{{u|Murumokirby360}}, You are strongly advised to DISCUSS what you are trying to do, as you are on the verge of being blocked. Please do not revert again, but DISCUSS here. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
{{u|Murumokirby360}}, You are strongly advised to DISCUSS what you are trying to do, as you are on the verge of being blocked. Please do not revert again, but DISCUSS here. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Murumokirby360}}, This is slightly moot now, given you have been blocked (and you really can't claim you weren't warned), but when your block lifts in 31 hours, please do not try reverting again, or the block will be even longer. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
:{{u|Murumokirby360}}, This is slightly moot now, given you have been blocked (and you really can't claim you weren't warned), but when your block lifts in 31 hours, please do not try reverting again, or the block will be even longer. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Why is the infobox hidden? == |
|||
Having the infobox hidden is still a bad idea. Perhaps people keep bringing it up for a reason. I have never seen another article with the infobox hidden, and in my opinion it only detracts from the article visually and obscures pertinent information to have it hidden by default. Most Wikipedia pages I have seen about persons have infoboxes shown by default because the infoboxes are an easy way to quickly present basic biographical information in an easily digestible format. Is the argument on the other side just that it looks better hidden? If so, I think a new vote should be taken. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:See the thread above, [[#Hidden infobox]] for an explanation. Please note we don't have "votes" on such matters, we have discussions based on guidelines and policies, not what people like or don't like. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah that old chestnut again...† [[User:Encyclopædius|<span style="font-variant:;color:#838996">'''''Encyclopædius'''''</span>]] 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::A total of 7 people contributed to that discussion over a span of two years. For something brought up this often, why not do an RfC to get more opinions? It's not surprising that a consensus was not reached if the question was not visibly posed to the community. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Ikjbagl}}, with over 6 million articles on Wikipedia, I'm suspicious of the fact you seem to be so obsessive over this one and on such a contentious subject. I think you should be slapped with a DS alert. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 19:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{reply|Cassianto}} That's absolutely ridiculous. I've commented here two times and you say I'm "obsessive"? I have had this account for two years now and have contributed in many different areas, so if you're implying that I have some sort of point-of-view issue over two comments on a talk page then I wonder which of us is really obsessing. I see your username all over this page since 2017. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::CONTEXT: {{npa}}. See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Preliminary_statements|Preliminary statements]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Cassianto|ArbCom Finding of Fact]], and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Cassianto_and_infoboxes_(II)|ArbCom Remedy against Cassianto]]. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 20:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There was an RfC (in the archives, should you want to look for it), in which a lot of people commented, and the thread again was just a reaffirmation of that agreement. IBs can be a touchy subject where people do poke unnecessarily and don’t seem to accept a standing consensus because they don’t like it. It’s a always a wonder why people feel the need to press the point. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 20:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:16, 20 June 2020
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important" Addendum by Mr. Guye: Subject is very high profile and thus this is a highly visible page. The subject is long dead, so it is also stable. Lastly, it is a Good article, so it is not like we do not want people to hear it. 06:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)". |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Sinatra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Frank Sinatra has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Q1: Why is the infobox collapsed?
A1: The utility of an infobox was disputed in the article, with supporters saying that infoboxes were de facto standard in biographies and opponents saying that the infobox was prone to be bloated and that policy did not de jure require infoboxes. A compromise was reached whereby an infobox would be present but collapsed. This compromise has been maintained throughout various discussions and should not be overturned without consensus. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This was the 3rd most viewed article on Wikipedia for the week of December 6 to 12, 2015, according to the Top 25 Report. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Sinatra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
Starting the discussion about Sinatra infobox
Please refer to the discussion that ended just 6 days ago. Starting this so soon is purely disruptive. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
I thought about I thought about starting a discussion about the Sinatra box (now collapsed since 2015), but I'm unsure when. Because the Kubrick infobox talk is occurring at Talk:Stanley Kubrick, maybe I shall hold off the idea until the discussion is closed. Shall I do the RFC now, or shall I wait until when? --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Came here tonight with my kids looking for info on Frank Sinatra. First time ever on this article. Was disappointed there is no infobox, as we couldn't quickly get the information we needed. Not interested in reading the entire article when looking for simple stuff like birthday, age, years active, etc. Why in the world would you remove the infobox from someone's page? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can't find any reason (coming from someone that usually finds more than one reason to justify something) to keep the infobox hidden. I think it's stupid and the people who did it have to explain themselves. I haven't got time or patience to read this entire Talk page, so if anyone can explain me why I should keep the infobox hidden, please tell me here. My opinion is that it's stupid and very misleading to people doing research here to keep it hidden. I won't change it yet, because it says not to (and because then it would be reverted by some guy who doesn't want to justify himself and just keeps reverting other user's edits for no apparent reason). JUSTIFY WHY IT SHOULD BE HIDDEN AND GIVE A DECENT REASON!! User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 08:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- This has been gone over several times before, and you should read the threads in the archive to get a grasp of why. Your opinion may be that it is stupid, but demeaning the opinions of other editors is not likely to lead to a constructive discussion. Demanding something in SHOUTY caps as a new reader is also not the way to persuade and influence the mood of the tp watchers. - 213.205.194.168 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- You still haven't given a reason. I've seen some of the other threads about this and no one can give a decent reason to keep it like that. User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 10:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am not arguing for or against, so I do not have to give a reason for anything. There I see an explanation in the archives, but whether it sways your opinion or not is not down to me. If you want to change the status quo, you are the one who has to put forward arguments to change the consensus, not demand something from other editors that they have already discussed to death. - 213.205.194.168 (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I give up. I'll go edit some stuff. Thanks for you time. User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 12:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am not arguing for or against, so I do not have to give a reason for anything. There I see an explanation in the archives, but whether it sways your opinion or not is not down to me. If you want to change the status quo, you are the one who has to put forward arguments to change the consensus, not demand something from other editors that they have already discussed to death. - 213.205.194.168 (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- You still haven't given a reason. I've seen some of the other threads about this and no one can give a decent reason to keep it like that. User talk:Sinclair_98_luis 10:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- This has been gone over several times before, and you should read the threads in the archive to get a grasp of why. Your opinion may be that it is stupid, but demeaning the opinions of other editors is not likely to lead to a constructive discussion. Demanding something in SHOUTY caps as a new reader is also not the way to persuade and influence the mood of the tp watchers. - 213.205.194.168 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
die date
someone shoud chek tghe date
May 14, 1998 or March 16, 2016 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.159.73 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Date is checked and 1998 is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why infobox is hidden
I came to this page recently as a longtime Wikipedian and Sinatra fan of much longer-standing and was surprised to find no infobox. Could someone please summarize why the infobox should be hidden on this article? I know that there has been back-&-forth on this in past, but I've found it difficult to discern the explanation for why this article's infobox should be hidden, despite it's being (in my view) highly accurate and parsimonious. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Hobbes Goodyear: If you're looking for the history here, I've found it at this discussion and its conclusion. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wow, that history looks really...horrible, and unconvincing. Seems like a tiny I-don't-like-it mob exhausting other editors into submission. The sort of thing that explains why editors abandon WP. If I had more energy, I'd propose uncollapsing it. But I do not. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- ”a tiny I-don't-like-it mob exhausting other editors into submission”? Please see WP:AGF and focus on the content not the contributors. - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)::::
- I see your own response to the "Hidden infobox" section further down, proving my point. "focus on the content", indeed--" I want to _see_ the content. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- ”a tiny I-don't-like-it mob exhausting other editors into submission”? Please see WP:AGF and focus on the content not the contributors. - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)::::
- Thanks. Wow, that history looks really...horrible, and unconvincing. Seems like a tiny I-don't-like-it mob exhausting other editors into submission. The sort of thing that explains why editors abandon WP. If I had more energy, I'd propose uncollapsing it. But I do not. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for stupid comments...
Internet makes us all crappy people. Two times I almost lost a good friendship because of Facebook. Thank God no friend of mine is here. I just wanted to apologize if I offended anyone today. I just wanted to understand why the hidden infobox and got a sanction notice, whatever that means (I read the link, but it looked like a court case and I never understand those...). I still think it's wrong, but I give up. Let the will of the people govern it.
BTW, I created an article that has the title stuck with the "Draft" thing in it (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Search_(band)). No one has noticed that article so I don't get any answer on how to get it out. SOme help? Comment on the Talk page of that article, please. Thanks in advance. User:Sinclair_98_luis 12:54 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll work on you draft (link not working but found it anyway), if you make proper citations (not only "bare urls") with title, website and accessdate (minimum, you can use {{cite web}}), and if you strike your comment about Cassianto in this thread, - I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks! User:Sinclair_98_luis 15:36, 19 July 2018
Hidden infobox
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is the infobox hidden? I think it should be removed as it does no good to the article. This is the only page I have seen that hides the infobox. It is point less. Bowling is life (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, however I !vote to un-collapse it, not remove it. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- This type of thing affects very few articles. It definitely is not the norm or accessibility friendly but it's the result of many long talks.--Moxy (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sinatra wrote it in his will, it was one of the last things he wanted, it meant the world to him. We must respect Sinatra's will!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- LOL ....we should tell Google they should drop there box? Last thing we want is to gain and retain readers.--Moxy (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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. –Davey2010Talk 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)
- 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.
- 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)
Why this article is not protected vandalism?
Many people vandalized this article. I think this article needs to be protected. Yonezuu (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Infoxbox
Having read the discussion above about the reasons for the collapsed infobox, I'm still highly confused. This is literally the only Wikipedia article about a famous person that has a collapsed infobox that I have seen. There is no need for this whatsoever. For consistency across the site and for general practicality purposes, why not just make it normal? What's so special about Frank Sinatra that he needs to be the only person on the site with a collapsed infobox? Could someone please enlighten me as to why it's such a big deal. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's not the only one "literally" or not (although they are limited). Not everyone wants IBs on every page as they are of extremely limited use for those in the liberal arts field. The collapsing was a compromise that was reached a few years ago, and, as you can see from the discussions above, the consensus is still to keep it collapsed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Myocardial infarction vs. Heart attack
Recently, I have been in something of an edit war with @MarnetteD: over whether to add the category "deaths by myocardial infarction" to the article. To me, it seems like an easy yes, since this page cites [New York Times article] explicitly stating he died of a heart attack, and "heart attack" is the common term for myocardial infarction. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a minor detail, who really cares? CassiantoTalk 15:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- ...I take it this means you're okay with me adding the category? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why? It's not a defining characteristic by any means. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why not take it that I'm not okay with you adding it? An assumption works either way, and not necessarily in your favour. Why not invest your time giving the article a light copy edit rather than fussing about such an irrelevant detail? CassiantoTalk 16:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I kinda interpreted it as "if you want to do it, I don't care." Sorry if I misunderstood. Still, I'd like to ask you something. Is that OK? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, how can I help? CassiantoTalk 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- What did I do differently from @MarnetteD: that meant I was the only one called into this conversation? Or were they called in too and I just didn't know? I ask because I want to know if I crossed a line that they didn't. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Let me explain something to you: If you make a Bold edit, and it is Reverted, then the onus on you is to Discuss the matter on the talk page before adding it again. That talk page discussion should then seek to find a consensus to either add it or not. This can all be found here. The category, in my opinion, is such a minute detail to Sinatra's life that it is hardly worth blowing a lot of steam over. The other reason why I don't think it should be added is that we have already established that it's easy to confuse the cause of death, so what makes your diagnosis any more reliable than what is currently there (which is evidenced by a reliable source).CassiantoTalk 10:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, the first part I understand. Thank you for explaining. But I'm afraid I can't say the same for the second part. As I mentioned above, The New York Times - the reliable source for Sinatra's death - explicitly states that he died of a heart attack. It's not my diagnosis, it's what the source gave as the diagnosis. You can see for yourself. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- This seems like a non-issue. Why must we clutter up the category space at the bottom of the page? CassiantoTalk 15:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, the first part I understand. Thank you for explaining. But I'm afraid I can't say the same for the second part. As I mentioned above, The New York Times - the reliable source for Sinatra's death - explicitly states that he died of a heart attack. It's not my diagnosis, it's what the source gave as the diagnosis. You can see for yourself. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Let me explain something to you: If you make a Bold edit, and it is Reverted, then the onus on you is to Discuss the matter on the talk page before adding it again. That talk page discussion should then seek to find a consensus to either add it or not. This can all be found here. The category, in my opinion, is such a minute detail to Sinatra's life that it is hardly worth blowing a lot of steam over. The other reason why I don't think it should be added is that we have already established that it's easy to confuse the cause of death, so what makes your diagnosis any more reliable than what is currently there (which is evidenced by a reliable source).CassiantoTalk 10:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- What did I do differently from @MarnetteD: that meant I was the only one called into this conversation? Or were they called in too and I just didn't know? I ask because I want to know if I crossed a line that they didn't. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, how can I help? CassiantoTalk 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I kinda interpreted it as "if you want to do it, I don't care." Sorry if I misunderstood. Still, I'd like to ask you something. Is that OK? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Instead Myocardial infarction categories, you need add Deaths from heart-related cause at categories, that was good thing to do. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Lead image
Is the lead image enough for now? Or is there any improvement needed? Roif456 (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, the lede image is fine. CassiantoTalk 12:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Would in the future be possible to find a good quality image of SInatra? Just asking, as the image has a natural look, yet low-quality. Roif456 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- We're restricted with what is available, it's fine anyway, though I can see the argument of one with more light showing on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Murumokirby360 and edit warring
Murumokirby360, You are strongly advised to DISCUSS what you are trying to do, as you are on the verge of being blocked. Please do not revert again, but DISCUSS here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Murumokirby360, This is slightly moot now, given you have been blocked (and you really can't claim you weren't warned), but when your block lifts in 31 hours, please do not try reverting again, or the block will be even longer. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Spoken Wikipedia requests
- Wikipedia good articles
- Music good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- Inactive project pages
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- GA-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Pop music articles
- High-importance Pop music articles
- Pop music articles
- GA-Class Radio articles
- Mid-importance Radio articles
- WikiProject Radio articles
- GA-Class New Jersey articles
- Top-importance New Jersey articles
- WikiProject New Jersey articles
- GA-Class Jazz articles
- Top-importance Jazz articles
- WikiProject Jazz articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- GA-Class Organized crime articles
- Mid-importance Organized crime articles
- Organized crime task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles