Talk:Frank Sinatra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.

Info box should not be hidden[edit]

I think a consensus was established a long time ago to leave this infobox collapsed. CassiantoTalk 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This has been discussed at length quite recently. What is your purpose in bringing this up again? CassiantoTalk 10:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The purpose seems to be to make it pleasant to the reader. Support uncollapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Calvin, you said the same thing about the Women project, "pointless". Yet it produces a few thousand articles every quarter and happens to be one of the most productive wikiprojects ever. Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is "pointless" and "just difficult"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to change the thread to "Info box should not be". If we're going to press ahead with this conversation yet again, I'll plump for Support total removal. For now, and for all the good reasons that brought up the consensus last time we had the discussion: keep the damned thing collapsed. – SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was done as compromise of course. As Gerda can no longer respect that, I support total removal now too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Support total removal -- Me thrice. CassiantoTalk 10:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I respect it. Otherwise I would have changed the article. I only interpreted ("seems to be") the purpose because it was questioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't respect it Gerda because you just stated that you wanted it uncollapsed. If you respected it you'd have opted to keep it collapsed. I'm confused. CassiantoTalk 11:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Respect is one thing. Preference another. I never like anything collapsed = hidden = needing an extra effort from the reader to retrieve information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This isn't about your preference, this is about a compromise between both camps. CassiantoTalk 11:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion for a compromise: show the first lines (birth and death, and what he did - the things formerly held in Persondata) and collapse from then on, if you have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not a compromise. CassiantoTalk 11:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not? I try ignore what has been said below about me "recruiting". I have recruited nobody to this discussion, accepting the compromise. Can't help liking the initial question, though. May I say so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The whole point of collapsing it is so we don't see the repetitive and redundant information that can otherwise be found on the first line of the lead. CassiantoTalk 19:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Who is "we"? I care about what the readers see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
So what's the benefit of having a birth and death date next to the, er, birth and death date? Are some readers unable to look left a little bit? CassiantoTalk 20:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this an answer? - How about answering my question? - I don't mind collapsed, just prefer open (but shorter, who needs spouses there?). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"We" are the reader, but "we" are also very different from one another. "We" have diffent needs and different expectations, more the reason why a collapsed infobox works as it keeps the different sections within "we" happy. Scholl's example is exactly what we have in place here, but why the need for "biographical information"? Was that his name? That's how it appears. To me the Scholl version is the twisted sister of the one we have here; so short, it's hardly worth the collapse. Similarly, it's so short extended that it's a direct lift from the very short lead section. This is precisely why Infoboxes on arts biographies don't work. CassiantoTalk 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I need to explain that I wasn't referring to the looks of that infobox (compare today), but to the two birth dates, - they look the same but are not. I felt understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No need to explain, I understood the first time. My question would be why do we need a duplication of the birth and death date so close to each other? The lead section is the first thing a user will see. The first line of that lead, which includes the birth and death dates, and with the box collapsed, would be the first few words a visitor would read. What would be the point of uncollapsing the IB to find information they have already read? CassiantoTalk 07:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Some readers go to the infobox first. I would serve many kinds of readers, not only one. - As for "hidden": it took me years to find out that what you see here is not a pretty image but a navigation box (just didn't see that little "show"). Some readers may be as stupid as I am. Why not serve us also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe I was the person who [reluctantly] suggested using the collapsed info box as an attempt to compromise; if the compromise is no longer acceptable, I would support total removal. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd go with Sagacious Phil and support total removal. Tim riley talk 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are we at this again, as there's been a discussion of the matter within the last year? To keep bringing this up when it's optional to have an infobox or not again and again, is a total time-waster of both sides of the infobox question. Right now, there are close to 2 million stub articles on WP; most are nothing but an infobox and a sentence or two. Time would be better spent trying to enlarge these stubs to serve readers. People using major search engines get an "infobox" before they arrive at WP: Bing Google. If this is all the information they want, they don't need to even come to WP for it; those who want further information are WP "readers"-people who want to know more. I support a "one discussion" limit re: infoboxes in articles to get people back to what the project is about--improving and enlarging content--not hashing and rehashing the subject. I am also in favor of removal of the entire infobox if the main editors of an article don't want one. We hope (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) Why would anyone want to not have any form of info box at all? Why is this article getting a special treatment? What makes this article different to the thousands of other bio's which have normal unhidden info boxes. The answer is simple: unhide the info box, and let it be like every other bio info box on Wiki. If it works for all of those, then it will certainly work for this one. This is a discussion, not a vote on consensus, may I remind each one of you who want to get rid of the info box altogether.  — Calvin999 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities? CassiantoTalk 14:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the need for it in the first place? None of you seem to be able to answer that. Just looks like a lot of WP:OWN to me. Did you ask anyone if they thought it would be better collapsed? Did you do a poll on readers?  — Calvin999 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
old newsWe hope (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 ?  — Calvin999 14:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Link to the previous discussion re: infobox. We hope (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Calvin999. There is no need for it, and the page would be better without the box. (No suggestion of WP:OWN: there are those commenting here who haven't contributed a noun or comma to the page, but have reviewed at PR and FAC.) Tim riley talk 14:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
So you part agree with me? Lol.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, the first sign of someone losing an argument is when they trot out that old chestnut, WP:OWN. Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere. CassiantoTalk 15:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope I'm fine here, but thanks for your opinion. You are exerting control exclusively and you are not letting anyone else have their opinion or edit the article to a way which you simply don't like. That is OWN.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, you've had your say, now shut up and face the fact that the collapsed infobox is here to stay. CassiantoTalk 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I oppose an infobox in this article for the following reasons, among others: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the actual article, making them feel that they can just glance at the box and move on. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
All bio's have these "unimportant factoids". Do you propose every article have it's info box deleted? By the way, that is why there is a revert button, so that wrong info can be reverted.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Not all articles have info boxes, just so you know. CassiantoTalk 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

If that's how you interpret it then I can't help that. All I'm saying is just leave the info box alone. It doesn't need to be deleted entirely, and it doesn't need to be hidden by a collapsable Wikilink. What is provocative about that? Who even said it needed to be hidden in the first place? What is the consensus for it? Were non-involved editors consulted for the sake of variety so that it wasn't just a group of three or four pushing everything through? None of you are willing to listen. None of you are willing to discuss. None of you are willing to do anything about it because you say so. It's clear that only your opinion matters and anyone else who doesn't agree, doesn't matter. You need to drop this "restarted discussion" thing. I don't believe I have ever been involved in a discussion relating to anything to do with this info box, and I most certainly have never commented or been involved in anything to do with Sinatra, so you're misinformed about that. You only feel like it is provoking a reaction because you don't agree and don't want me to have my opinion as it is the antithesis to yours. I've received private emails saying that it's about time someone completely uninvolved stepped in and said what most editors really think and want about this situation, which is an unhidden info box (Not my words, the words of other editors).  — Calvin999 16:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
And they are? Hearsay evidence is not helpful. The above screeds from Calvin could be taken by an unkind reader to boil down to 'some people want a box and others don't but only those who want a box are worth hearing'. Tim riley talk 16:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
""I've received private emails saying that it's about time someone completely uninvolved stepped in and said what most editors really think and want about this situation, which is an unhidden info box (Not my words, the words of other editors). " Yes, that's how the infobox warriors operate, emails offwiki, usually involving Gerda and co, recruiting other misguided editors to the infobox cause.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Nobody has recruited me Dr. Blofeld thank you very much. I don't need other people telling me how to make my mind up or how to form an opinion, I can do that myself.  — Calvin999 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support collapsed: This compromise had already been settled back when the article reached GA. I don't see the point in restarting this discussion. κατάσταση 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support collapse - Don't blow up the house, just because somebody no longer likes the paint color. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support total removal I'll go with all of the above. As usual, the infobox offers nothing to the reader (especially a collapsed one). JAGUAR  20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    • How would you know what it does or does not offer to the reader? You can only speak for yourself. The info box is nine times out of ten the very first section I look at when looking on a bio. I'm usually looking to find out quickly where someone was born or how old they are or who they married, other relations etc. No one here has ever done a poll on readers who are not us of you to see what they actually look at. Most people in this thread are putting their own personal preferences forward and implementing them, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be about you, us or me, it's about the reader, and hiding the info box hinders the reader in be able to quickly pinpoint key info about a person of subject. That is the whole point of it.  — Calvin999 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That was why there was a compromise, I acknowledged that some editors might want to quickly know his resting place/record labels or dates he was married. Trivia, but it was a compromise having a condensed box and avoiding a massive long infobox by default. You've failed to account for those who don't want an infobox by demanding it to be fully restored. It was only ever done as a compromise as I didn't want arguments during the writing. It's always going to look better without it, in my opinion, but it's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of many of the others who regularly contribute quality articles here too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah well nobody cares what you think Calvin. You clearly create these topics with the pure intention of provoking people and spreading your dogma everywhere. JAGUAR  21:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you think that is a mature answer? Still, I'd disagree with it. Nobody can ever answer why a compromise was needed in the first place. In fact, none of you have really answered any of the question I've posed.  — Calvin999 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't need lessons of maturity coming from you. JAGUAR  22:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe I was offering any. It's not something one can learn.  — Calvin999 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, for a guy who throws WP:OWN accusations at people, strolls to ANI after templating the regulars and proposes a WP:MEN project can offer an enviable amount of maturity. JAGUAR  22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Then be respectful, don't swear and don't belittle. (Not sure when I've ever advocated for a WP:MEN, nor would I like to see one. I think you read a little too seriously into that).  — Calvin999 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You're not sure about a lot of things. Well I'm telling you, the thread you started here was even called "WikiProject Men". Same trolling comments then as now. And your " be respectful, don't swear and don't belittle" advice to Jaguar looks an absolute joke, coming from somebody who called the entire Women group "almost anti-male editors" and did your best to belittle the efforts that it has made.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

*Support removal as per above -Probably shouldn't have been collapsed in the first place......, Atleast to me it's a disadvantage to the readers not an advantage.... anyway support. –Davey2010Talk 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Remain collapsed - At the time of writing my !vote I wasn't fully aware of the compromise, I too a point disagree with the compromise but I'd rather there be a compromise than a huge divide like there is now ...... Everyone agreed previously on the collapse and so that should've been the end of it..... –Davey2010Talk 13:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The point is though Davey2010 that not everyone agreed previously on the collapse at all. Most of us who supported the collapse only supported it to stop the infobox warriors putting me off writing the Sinatra article. If it wasn't for them we'd have been unlikely to agree with the collapse. It had always been my intention to remove it before it headed towards FAC, but haven't got around to it yet.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I know but I guess this route was better and still is - If it's removed everyone would want it back and If it stays uncollapsed people would want it gone so in a roundabout way everyone wins ... kind of... –Davey2010Talk 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support collapse of info box for all the reasons discussed first time round. Failing that support removal.Jack1956 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support collapse As being help to older readers (80+), small children (-10) and readers with disabilities (Autism etc). I know some here call it the "idiotabox" but it helps non-abled readers in some cases where they cannot read and digest the lede. Collapsed is a good compromise. GuzzyG (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anyone refering to it as an "idiot box" here. CassiantoTalk 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Remain, collapsed or not Seems a reasonable solution. The reasons for outright removal have not really been argued that well. It is rather a lot of info but not huge, it may benefit from being collapsed but why? Sometimes it is nice to have a bunch of information in non-prose form. HighInBC 22:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, see the previous discussion which occurred months ago, links of which can be found in links above. Also, see Ssilvers' comment above. Why should these reasons have to be explained every time someone has a hissy fit about the fact the IB is collapsed? CassiantoTalk 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if it does not seem as pointless to me as it does to you. It provides useful information in a clear and concise fashion. Not everything in an article is prose, we also use tables to provide information. I don't see what the fuss is about. HighInBC 07:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That's what the lead does, only in a more educational and professional way. Maybe you like dumbing things down, but frankly, I don't. CassiantoTalk|
  • Remain, collapsed or not as per HighInBc. The box is useful at providing information for a casual reader. Now get back to writing content, all you brilliant editors! Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support collapse - it was (is) a beautiful compromise, it is not difficult to access the collapsed information, and it does not clutter the page in the slightest. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support uncollapsing for the sake of consistency. Every Wikipedia biography I've ever seen does it this way, why we'd randomly deviate from the norm is beyond me. --AllOriginalBubs (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support unhidden infobox. The infobox is a staple of WP. I use them all the time. Casual readers are not going to know they can uncollapse the one here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Politics and Activism" section should include government investigation of perjury[edit]

From "Frank Sinatra: The Popular Front and an American Icon" by Gerald Meyer "relatively little attention has been paid to his brief, yet intense, involvement with the political left, which among other things caused the United States Government to to deny him security clearance to perform before the troops in Korea, and led to an extensive inquiry to determine whether he should be indicted for perjury because on his passport application he affirmed that he had never been a part of a subversive group (FBI Files 62-83219-28 and 36, 211-232, 244)." [1] Jake412 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meyer, Gerald. "Frank Sinatra: The Popular Front and an American Icon." Science & Society 66.3 (2002): 311-35. Web.

Adding filmography/discography and awards to infobox[edit]

I keep trying to add his filmography/discography and awards to the infobox but keep getting reversed. I would like to know why this ia keep getting reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Frustrating[edit]

Anybody know whether Frank recorded or performed the song Everyone's Gone To The Moon? I love the Doris Day version and someone said Sinatra did it too but I cannot find it anywhere.Arturo bravuro (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting the discussion about Sinatra infobox[edit]

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)

I know those using screen readers do not like hidden stuff. I would rather the infobox not be hidden either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I was planning to discuss whether to retain or omit the box (regardless of collapsing it or not), though it might be too soon. When shall I do the discussion? George Ho (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Came here tonight with my kids looking for info on Frank Sinatra. First time ever on this article. Was disappointed there is no infobox, as we couldn't quickly get the information we needed. Not interested in reading the entire article when looking for simple stuff like birthday, age, years active, etc. Why in the world would you remove the infobox from someone's page? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Sinatra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

To stop a group of highly-experienced and well respected editors tearing each others' heads off, I have protected the article for 24 hours to give everyone a chance to calm down. Find another article to edit, and add an admin request here if there is something in the article that is urgent to fix (eg: falsification of sources or factual inaccuracy). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarify[edit]

@Cassianto: I've genuinely spent like twenty minutes reading and rereading the sentence in the lead, and I've reread it another twenty times since, and trying to go through the reference to figure out what the sentence means. The sentence in question: "Sinatra was also heavily involved with politics from the mid-1940s, and actively campaigned for presidents such as Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, though before Kennedy's death Sinatra's alleged Mafia connections led to his being snubbed." I genuinely have no idea what "snubbed" means in this context. Did Kennedy refuse his donations because of his political ties? I genuinely have no clue what the heck the sentence is trying to express. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, can you assist? CassiantoTalk 22:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sinatra was a friend of Kennedy's. Robert Kennedy was investigating the mafia and the government concluded that Sinatra was too close to some notorious figures. As a result JFK was advised to snub Sinatra when he came to California and stayed with Crosby instead. Sinatra was furious and smashed the helicoper pad he had specially built up. I thought I explained this in the article if you read the thing. So politically, yes I believe the Kennedy administration distanced themselves even though Sinatra had been involved in the campaign for presidency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Sinatra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Lead image[edit]

Photo A
Photo B

We should use as the lead picture. This has been professionally done. Rather than which is just a screenshot from a film, where he is halfway through singing. Both were taken in the same year, 1957. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Professionally done? It looks very fake, almost as if a child coloured it in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It looks a lot better than the image currently leading. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've taken the liberty of marking them photo A & B on this page for ease of identification. To me, photo A looks un-natural, almost as if it was photo-shopped, so I think photo B should be retained as the lead image. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep Pal Joey The other image is a page from a 1957 film magazine. Since this is a type of newsprint, the quality of the image is not as good as the film image. When I'm working with newspaper or magazine photos, I'm happiest when I can find an identical copy of the photo from film, etc. Here you see the photo as printed in a newspaper of the time. Here you see the same image as a photo. We hope (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Because PD still images weren't available, many of the photos used in Rod Steiger are screen captures from PD film trailers. We hope (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep Pal Joey per Sagaciousphil. BTW it was also shot by a "professional." MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep B: more life, more of an entertainer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)