Talk:Frank Sinatra/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Senate Hearings Anyone???

I heard Frank Sinatra testified before Senate (Congress?) that rock and blues music are "lewd" and "immoral". Can anyone confirm or refute this? I don't know if this has anything to do with PMRC tho'. - Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.22.212 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't too long

It has alot of information, but thats just fine. It's a real feature article, and almost everybody will find what interests them here. Infact, it should be expanded. Somebody asked here about his vocal range, someone else might be interested in his political views. Anyway, the article isn't to long, it's an example for a normal-sized article for its theme. M.V.E.i. 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's quite long compared to say McCartney, Beethoven or Elvis...Could we move the bio to Life of Frank Sinatra, leaving a shortened versh? I've already created Frank Sinatra Filmography, List of Frank Sinatra's awards and accolades and Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy for similar reasons. Gareth E Kegg 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The filmography is now at Frank Sinatra filmography. -- Beardo (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I think it's admirable how much content is in this article, I really think it is too long. It's exhausting just going through the Table of Contents. The length is really what's holding this article back from being Featured. Williamnilly (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we delete Life of Frank Sinatra or add to it and condense the bio on the main page? We do need to strip out a lot...should a new article be created detailing Mob allegations? Or is this further evidence of my descent into Sinatramania? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sintra lived a lot longer than Elvis did, and rather longer than Paul has so far, and there is a lot more info available from living sources about Frank than there is about Beethoven, I daresay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, but what do other think of my proposal? Gareth E Kegg 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is a pain in the ass! Stop comparing Frank to McCartney or such jerkheads! --Shifty86 11:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax please. I was comparing the artists in terms of article length. The page has been cut by a third already. Gareth E Kegg 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my girlfriend and I split today and it's oh so maddening. Please keep doing your good work - will you forgive me? --Shifty86 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall. There's no one better for break up songs than Frank. Try In the Wee Small Hours, Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely, Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim or She Shot Me Down. Gareth E Kegg 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of his painting and artwork? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.132.98 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

another thing, i put in the article that he is a member of Alpha Phi Delta fraternity which he is a part of because I am in that same fraternity so I added it in because it's another piece of information about him.

If this is the case, we need a citation to support it. I've requested one with a {{fact}} template. Feel free to add a reference if you have one. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bing not Bob

I couldnt figure out how to do an edit, but the piece states that Frank was less popular as a singer than Bob Crosby. I think the writer meant Bing Crosby. Can someone with edit privileges please oblige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.146.244 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe this article has no image of Frank Sinatra!

There should be at least a request for an image. 194.79.44.109 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was one, and the deletionists killed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Summer Wind his favorite?

I thought I read somewhere that Frank's favorite song to sing was "Summer Wind." Does anyone know a reference for that? --cda 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Philly's Frank Palumbo and mob allegations

I have just added a note to the Palumbos article and one the newer article on Frank Palumbo looking for some sources. Palumbo, a local celebrity in Philly, was a prominent club owner and very popular with a number of groups for his various philanthropic efforts. He also had powerful friends in local politics and entertainment, including controversial mayor Frank Rizzo and Sinatra. Mob tie allegations and an apparently fixed fight (Jake LaMotta-Billy Fox) haunted his life and tied prominantly to Sinatra (the two were close and were reps for Lamotte and Fox).

However, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for anything including the words "Palumbo" and "mob", "Mafia", "mothers and fathers in association", etc. Since I'm sure allegations re Sinatra have been through the ringer here, does anyone have anything that might be of use in the Palumbo dyad? Mdbrownmsw 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds intresting. Have you tried Kitty Kelly's Sinatra bio His Way? That is the most detailed in reference to Mob allegations, though I admit I haven't heard of Palumbo before. Gareth E Kegg 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon's Search Inside finds no instances of "Palumbo", "Palumbo's", "Click Club" or "Nostalgias". Thanks, but nothing there.

Mdbrownmsw 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Death date

May 14, 1998, was a Thursday. The obits say he died Thursday. The article says it occurred at 10:50 pm, which means Thursday, not past midnight into Friday. It's hard telling where the May 15 stuff is coming from, but it appears to be incorrect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry with Brando

I updated the page to illustrate that sintra not only lost the role of Sky Masterson to Brando, but also that of Terry Malloy. The IMDb entry for On the Waterfront staes in the trivia section that Sinatra was offered the part after Brando turned it down, yet Sam Spiegal was hell bent on getting Brando. After losing the 2nd part to Brando it did in fact cause a rivalry between the two that only increased as they advanced in years. Sinatra even used to call Brando 'Mumbles'. I feel that this is a significant development in SInatra's career to warrant inclusion. Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.222 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple issues with the inclusion. The most significant issue is that IMDB isn't considered a reliable source because it depends on user submissions for trivia and is not fact checked by an objective 3rd party nor is a source required for the inclusion of trivia. Another issue is that a source must be provided for material, which was not offered in the material entered. If you can provide citations for this, then by all means, it can be included. What you added left the paragraph reading:

In 1954 Sinatra was offered the part of Terry Malloy in On The Waterfront after Marlon Brando had turned it down. Brando later U-turned on his decision leaving Sinatra out of the frame. The following year Sinatra missed out on the role of Sky Masterson, in the hugely popular and successful Guys and Dolls. Losing the part was not made any easier with the fact that Brando had again 'stole his thunder'. Sinatra played the second male lead Nathan Detroit. It was the beginning of a lifelong feud between the two stars which also made for a tense shoot. Despite the rivalry the movie became the highest grossing film of 1955. Also in 1955, Sinatra's first 12" LP In the Wee Small Hours, his second collaboration with Nelson Riddle, was released.

Some of the wording is a little tenuous, such as the "U-turned on his decision leaving Sinatra out of the frame" and should read more to the effect of "changed his mind." It sounds a little biased as it was and needs to be more neutral. A similar problem lies with the "stole his thunder." I have no doubt a rivalry existed, but it needs to be professional sounding and requires sources, which is why I removed it. Please feel free to include this, worded neutrally and with sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues

I appreciate the amount of work that went into this article and the accompanying biography expansion. It was a lot of work. However, I do have some concerns regarding how much this article and the "Life of" article are duplications of one another. I don't have a strong opinion on which article needs the greater work, but one or the other needs to be condensed and rewritten with an eye toward making the material more unique. Since this is about Sinatra in general, I would suggest that the personal life material be pared and the career material remain here. The article is also in need of improved referencing. There are a lot of facts, figures and quotes included with no reference whatsoever, although it's obvious that material for referencing is available given the bibliography and further reading sections. Another issue concerns the puffery and use of weasel word descriptions and peacockery. Use of language such as "gave an acclaimed performance," etc. aren't encyclopedic and violate WP:NPOV, WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel. I started working on some of this, but frankly, it's overwhelming. Hopefully, contributors will jump in and work on this. On the plus side, it's a lot cleaner than the Life of Frank Sinatra page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

References

How can you put an article up for GA when it has "This article needs additional citations for verification" at the top? Sorry, but's a waste of time.--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's getting there, but it's too soon. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick-failed GA nomination

Per the above and the quick-fail criteria, I am quick-failing this article's GA nomination. When the issue is fixed, please nominate the article again. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

'ol two eyes

Under Frank's photograph I think "'ol two eyes" should be "'ol blue eyes."

72.24.28.73 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 03/03/08

Yes, I think you are correct. But it should be " ol' blue eyes," with the apostrophe in the place of the "d." There is no letter replaced befor the "o." DJMsings (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Has a Cold

Is it possible not to mention the famous portrait by Gay Talese ? It surely is a fine piece of journalism, and a big document on Sinatra. Isn't it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.115.24 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a discography

This article needs a discography. There are so many "compilations," "collections," and "best-ofs," that it is hard to know what was originally released by the artist and what wasn't. This is of particular import to Mr. Sinatra, since he is lauded as having made his albums works of art as a whole, because of the way that the songs fit together and flow. I would really like to see at least a list of the albums he released with publication information, and somehow a way to know whether the album as a whole was created by Mr. Sinatra, or thrown together for remarketing by a record company.DJMsings (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wish is granted! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fails to answer the Big Question

Lots of detail, but after reading through the article, I still don't have the answer I came here for in the first place: What the heck was the big deal with this guy? Why was he so famous and popular? I've heard him sing, I've seen him act; he's pretty good, but nothing all that special. I've never been able to figure out why all the adulation, the almost religious ferver people have about the guy. The only clue I found here is that it started as a bobby-soxer thing (and really, who knows how bobby-soxers think). Seriously, I would love to see maybe a short paragraph or something explaining just what all the fuss was about, what it was about him that people adored and continue to adore so much. Get someone who's a real fan to write it or something. 24.16.111.20 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He predates bobby soxers by a fair bit. And if you've heard him sing (the good stuff, I mean, not "New York, New York" or anything after, oh, 1964) and don't get it yet, there probably isn't much an encyclopedia article is going to do for you. You have my condolences! Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a forum, but the appeal of Sinatra is, well, ineffable. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that it is true that many "stars", both actors and singers, are not necessarily the greatest practitioners of their art. But I think the article does need to make clearer his importance in the history of popular music. (As someone born after he had passed his peak, I can see taht when he was good, he was very good. And he continued to be good into the 1970s, at least.) I also have a fondness for him as an actor - and I admire the fact that he didn't always play "star"-type roles. -- Beardo (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy. -- Beardo (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There must be plenty of quotes that can sum up Sinatra. How about this one:

"Sinatra — this is both his gift and, on occasion, his downfall — is always Sinatra. Beyond his technical prowess as a jazz-influenced pop singer, building on the innovations of Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby and Billie Holiday, there is the sheer force of conviction, feeling, the weight of personal history in his voice. In this, only Holiday is his rival — perhaps even his better. Both exemplify what people in my generation like to flatter ourselves is unique to rock 'n' roll and its offshoots: the immediacy, the idiosyncrasy, the genuineness of expression. Sinatra is the century's musical equipoise, the pivot between the carefully crafted pop of its beginning and the looser, fiercer sounds of its end." Sourced from [1] Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We might also add as a partial answer to this good question that Sinatra was the kind of Hemingway of popular music - you may like them or not, but their influences were far-reaching and culturally transformative. Just as Hemingway's spare prose style made it nearly impossible for subsequent stylists to construct the florid, lengthy, prolix sentences of a George Eliot or Henry James - Sinatra's phrasing (which included the slightly off-tempo syncopation for which he was famous and that EVERYone since has imitated) and naturalistic tonality (almost conversational) changed pop vocalizing forever. Pre-Sinatra - listen to Rudy Vallee and Bing Crosby (OK, Frank's contemporary but definitely old school in style) and you might begin to get the idea of just how different his style was from what came before. Listen to the way that he transforms Cole Porter's smooth, preppy, crooner type songs like "Night and Day" or "I Get A Kick Out Of You" into robust, masculine, slightly jazzy pop classics.

In short - a large part of his genius is nearly invisible to younger generations cut off culturally from their own heritage in, say, film or books or popular music, by the immediacy and shallow contemporaneity of TV in its different iterations. You don't see Sinatra's greatness because now it's literally everywhere, part of the environment, like air. Virtually everyone who sings pop music today is doing some kind of Sinatra - even when they don't realize it.Sensei48 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1938 Arrest

There is no mention in the main article or his personal reltionship article about his arreest in 1938 on charges of adultery and seduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See Biography of Frank Sinatra. -- Beardo (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout gone fubar

The whole layout of this article is confusing and contradictory. The history of his works is under "biography" while his personal life gets a three-sentence mention in a separate section. A clearer split needs to be made between the Life/Works aspects of this article. Or, if the catch-all "biography" format is to be maintained, it needs serious cleanup. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of Kitty Kelley biography as a source?!

I'm a little uncomfortable that we're using the Kelley bio as a source of factual biographical info. Kelly's an author of trash bios that are the book-bound equivalent of supermarket tabloids, and every single thing she's published has been lambasted, by her subjects, by the media, by her peers, as being full of lies. Seriously, every book.

I think using it as a reference--particularly for potentially controversial claims like mob association--is damaging to the credibility of our article. Surely if there is truth to these things, we can find references in the more reputable biographies. The fact that her bio is even mentioned in the article is embarrassing. Ford MF (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a huge Sinatra fan, and love or hate Kelley's book, It's still the best and most comprehensive biography of Sinatra ever written. It is incredibly detailed, and whilst she hates to admit that he has any good points, there are plenty of other biographies of him which offer little or no criticism. The way Sinatra reacted to the publication of "His Way" was shocking, and he was laughed out of court. Kelley has never been forced to retract a word of her biographies, and there ARE extensive proofs of his Mafia associations in other books. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While that's true, when Kelley's bios are mentioned in any of the other articles whose subjects she's written about, that mention is generally there only to reiterate that everyone thinks Kelley is unreliable and full of shit. Imagine sourcing biographical details in the George W. Bush article to her Bush book. It's absurd. If there are other sources for the mob ties--and I'm sure there are--we should use them. Ref'ing them to the Kelley bio gives them an air of fatuous scandal-mongering. Using her as a source only makes it seem like we're regurgitating the claims of the yellow press. Ford MF (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Kelley is a poor reference for a encyclopedia like Wikipedia. She angles everything toward a trash agenda - for instance, saying that Sinatra had "lunch" with Nancy Reagan - the quotes give it a certain connotation. These public figures are always laughed out of court because they are public figures, and if they want to sue, they have to go through what's called discovery. NONE of them are willing to do that, so people who have complained about Kelley, such as Elizabeth Taylor, never follow through. Writers like Kelley therefore know they're safe.Chandler75 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Acting career

This article hardly mentions his acting career. Surely, we should have something about that ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Sinatra married in 2006...

...especially to Britney Spears. I could be wrong, but I removed it anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.16.214 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on Franks Famous Hat

I have an article on Franks Hat the link is http://www.dominichalpin.com/site/Franks_Hat.html Do you think this could go on the external links section of Franks Page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domh333 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an original article, and very litle of it deals with Sinatra. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Love to help clean up this article, but

There are still issues with the dire lack of inline references. I just did a bit of clean up and wondered what the heck am I doing? I don't know who would bother to clean up weasel words/peacockery if there was a chance stuff was going to be deleted because it isn't sourced properly. if I'd written any of it, I'd put the inline references in, but I've only done one main edit. Come on guys, Mr. Sinatra deserves better!! By the way, please see "Fails to answer the big question", above.Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dreesen on David Letterman said:

Tom Dreesen was on the Late Show with David Letterman and was talking about Frank Sinatra. He was telling a story of how Frank Sinatra met a wife of a fan. She told him that her husband was ill and would really love an autograph. As Frank was signing the autograph she made a passing comment on how she liked his cuff links (worth $2000). After signing the autograph Frank promptly took off his cuff links and handed them to her. She tried to refuse, saying that she was only admiring them but Frank insisted that she take them. Afterwards Tom asked Frank why he had done that. Frank then replied:

"If you possess something but you can't give it away, then you don't possess it ...

... it possesses you."

Awesome quote. Akadewboy (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Misleading construction corrected

"Born in 1915 in Hoboken, New Jersey, Sinatra's parents had immigrated to the United States in 1895 and 1897..." If his parents were born in 1915 in New Jersey, as the sentence states, they could hardly have immigrated to the US in the 1890s. Sinatra's birth date and place are already covered, including in the infobox, so the incorrectly-descriptive introductory clause was simply deleted. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon references

There's been a ridiculous pokemon reference in the first line that keeps coming back, and one instance of it stayed over several edits. I've changed it back, but it isn't going to last. Either the mod for this page starts actually paying attention or this page needs to be locked or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.206.189 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

His father

In his own article, Anthony Martin Sinatra is referred to throughout as "Marty". But here, he's "Tony". What gives? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Wikipedia is censoring certain external links to Frank Sinatra fan sites and 'unofficial' sites. I have tried to add a link to the expansive sinatraguide.com site, and have had it removed twice by Wikipedia, saying that it does not 'conform' to their guidelines - and yet similar links may be found on other many other artists' Wiki pages. I understand that 'fan' or 'unofficial' sites are not always valuable, but some of them are useful, and I think deserve a link. Iambret (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSPAM, including the note that just because bad links appear elsewhere is not justification for another bad link. It is no disrespect to your site. MusicaBaroque (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rephrase "professional career"?

Article currently reads: "His professional career had stalled by the 1950s ..."

"Professional career" seems redundant -- are not all careers professional? -- and not as accurate as it might be. The article then goes on to talk about his success in movies. Is not his movie career also part of his professional career?

A better phrasing might be:

"His musical career had stalled by the 1950s ..."

Opinions, anyone? I'm not an expert on Frank.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, sorry. I wrote the intro. He was hardly recording, and his moves were quite dreadful at that time. I just needed to convey the fact that he was at his nadir. How best can we put it? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "His professional songmanship" 68.35.62.144 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)12 March 2010

The Rat Pack

The Rat Pack. Oh, Wikipedia, will press agents ever stop reverting your alleged encyclopaedic content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.30.104 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian American heritage

Frank Sinatra was Italian American Sammy8912 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows this. However his ethnicity was not part of his notability. Paul210 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit silly. Information should not be excluded on the basis that "everybody knows this". I think his ethnicity is at least as notable as some of the information that has been included. His alleged Mafia connections were certainly notable and widely commented upon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but I don't think that "alleged mafia connections" should be tied in any way to "Italian American heritage". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Last words

Last words were "I'm losing it," not "I'm losing." See] and many other places on the Web. "I'm losing it" is the kind of "hip" talk that he favored. "I'm losing" goes against everything that is characteristic of his life and behavior.Lestrade (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Teeth

When did Sinatra undergo his major dental reconstruction? In his early photos, he did not have his signature rows of artificially perfect, straight, even, white choppers. It was obviously a good career move, as he can be seen smiling widely in most photographs. All of Hollywood emulated him in this, and still does so to this day. A related question would be: when did he start wearing a toupée? Sinatra was in the Kennedy coterie. Membership required vigorous hair and teeth.Lestrade (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I've seen very early pictures of him--like in his early 20's--where his teeth appeared remarkably well aligned. 68.35.62.144 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)12 March 2010

Please look at the top of this talkpage. This talkpage is meant for discussion about how to improve this article and not fansite type chit-chat. --Morenooso (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Page

Can anybody please help me change the link in the "info" tab on Facebook from the BBC obit link to his official website, www.sinatra.com? Thank you!User:FSE_Admin (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)FSE_Admin

About continued deletions of this article's picture - Single-purpose account(s) at work

I have this article on Watch and have noticed that frequently the picture gets deleted by anon IPs more than on any other article I have on Watch (approximately 800). I wonder if Single-purpose account(s) are doing this? --Morenooso (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The 112.203.x.x range dynamic IP vandal socks belong to a block-evading puppeteer. You can report them on sight as socks don't need to be warned before blocking. Prolog (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this article needs semi-protection as this deletion is on-going. --Morenooso (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protecting one of the many targets would not do much good. A range block would work, but there could be too much collateral damage. Prolog (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Works in which Sinatra's songs or life is the central subject matter

Would it be appropriate to start a new category in which items like the Broadway show "Come Fly Away" could be listed? Bryates999 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Bryates999

Photo not in Commons

Last week, I got two photos from the Library of Congress for the Crooner page. The Frank Sinatra one is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frank_Sinatra_ca._1947.jpg

More here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/p?ammem/gottlieb:@1(Gottlieb+Collection+Assignment+No.+455+):heading=Gottlieb+Collection+Assignment+No.+455+

While at LOC, I saw there's information on his Major Bowes appearance as well as a copy of the application made to the show for the audition. They're at:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm018.html

in case you might want to add any of them.

We hope (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Politics

The article claims Sinatra supported Henry Wallace's Progressive Party candidacy for president in 1948. If so, that would be a controversial move by Sinatra. Some supporting evidence would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.142.97 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the section, the reference was in Martin Smith's When Ol' Blue Eyes was a Red. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actor?

In the lead it says that he's an actor, but I couldn't find a single film with his performance in it. Can you name at least one? 92.46.98.220 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can name at least a dozen.. please see imdb.com for an extensive list. ttonyb (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• • A Dozen?!!! It's shame!!! Frank Sinatra plays in 61 movies and he was top-billed in many movies. Frank Sinatra has 3 Oscars and 3 Gold Globes. --LordWeller (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodness! He was indisputably an actor. Better known as a singer, perhaps, but just off the top of my head he appeared in On the Town (film), The Manchurian Candidate, and Anchors Aweigh (film). I think he also had a role in Guys and Dolls (film). These were all pretty big films; it's not like his credits are obscure. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only was he an actor, but he won the OSCAR (I think as 'best supporting actor') for "From Here to Eternity". His film work was highly praised, and in fact it was his oscar-winning performance which played a big role in resuscitating his musical career at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorMartin (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FFS see Frank Sinatra filmography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I added that to the "see also" section, but we ought to find a better place to put it on the page. DougHill (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sample of his singing?

Why is there no sample of his singing included in this article? - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Perry Como page has "watch" and "listen" subsections in its "External Links". That should make it easy to find songs to hear or watch, so I'll add such subsections here. DougHill (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth name

The info box gives his birth name as "Francis Albert Sinatra". I'm fairly sure that his birth name was simply "Francis Sinatra". Mr. Sinatra gave himself the middle name "Albert". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do realize that there are websites that give his birth name as "Francis Albert", but does anyone have a WP:RS that states this? Joefromrandb (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of the Cosby / Kennedy Incident

The paragraph about the Cosby / Kennedy incident puts the date as 1962, but the Rat Pack article puts the date as 1963. Which one is it? Looking at the references, reference "lpo" (http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/WestwoodObituaries/peterlawford.htm) has no date for the incident, and lists Wikipedia as its source, so surely it doesn't qualify as a reference. The other reference for the paragraph: http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/sinatra-turned-violent-after-kennedy-snub lists the date as 1962.Jesselong (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1974 Austrlian tour 'Two bit Hooker' incident.

I normally dont bother with these things... but I had reason to look this incident up, coming to Wiki, I find theres much less information about this than one might imagine, specifically beyond the 'fags, pims and hookers' Mr Sinatra address one female reporter specifically as a 'Two bit Hooker, and the fall out was severe amongst her peers solidaritous unions. I recall Mr Sinatra was basically sieged in his hotel room, without services such as water, or power, initially.. before Union chiefs calmed them waters, I believe the meeting between Bob Hawke and Mr Sinatra was in itself so .. confrontational, as worth mention. This whole incident gives some important incite into the man and his relationship with the media at time, and was such an evident miscalculation on his part, as far as gaffs go, that it surely has to be one of the more imfamouse Celebrity blunders. It wasnt just a tit fot tat, it almost unravelled the tour. Well thats just my two cents.. I dont know who works these things.. but something I thought worth mentioning, upon finding a lack of information on the subject the one place I thought I would find some details.

There is a more detailed description of the incident at Biography of Frank Sinatra#1970s Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why do this thing indicate in the biography? --LordWeller (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

finest singer of American popular music that ever lived, his only real rivals, artists such as Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Sammy Davis Jr., Dean Martin and Michael Jackson

"Many people consider Sinatra to be the finest singer of American popular music that ever lived, his only real rivals, artists such as Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Sammy Davis Jr., Dean Martin and Michael Jackson"

Why can't this be stated in the opening paragraphs with out someone always feeling the need to remove it? There are countless articles that were written over the years in many famous publications including Time, Downbeat, The New York Times and many more. And someone feels the need to say that this is an un-supported opinion? IT CERTAINLY IS SUPPORTED!

We are only trying to state facts, for those who are learning about Sinatra for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.90.50 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are "countless articles" in reliable sources saying this is what "many people" (whatever that means) think, then add an appropriate paragraph to the main text of the article establishing that as fact, and then it may be possible to add to the lead also, although that sort of non-specific puffery is usually not acceptable for article leads in any case. And if you have some sources saying his only (or closest) rivals are Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson, then use those sources to support a claim in the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 124.179.90.50 has raised some very valid points. Fat&Happy, there is countless evidence all over the internet and many decades of publishing work that proves all of this to be true. Why don't you try showing a little bit more respect and not resort to name calling and poking fun at 124.179.90.50's writing style as you did on the edit history page. I think you're the one who's trying to have an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.44.36 (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I am so impressed. Three different anon IPs from Canberra; Ol' Blue Eyes must have quite a fan club down under! Why don't you try reading, comprehending, and following the Wikipedia guidelines linked in my edit summary? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

G'day. I would love to put such a description in the lead, as it is undoubtedly true, but I must hold my fingers back, for is sheer puffery. The Stephen Holden quote used to in the lead, BTW, but that was taken out. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there are a few of us down under that feel this way about Sinatra. We have spoken about it often. Why don't you have a look at the entry on Elvis Presley? " was one of the most popular American singers of the 20th century" Why not take that out as well? I will gladly undo your edits so new comers will get to know Sinatra as they should. And so will my friends here in lovely Wagga Wagga Australia which is linked to the main Canberra internet data stream for our part of the world. How can one person change their ISP so quick in this world of "always on" ADSL connections? Don't you like a few young Sinatra fans getting together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.192.128 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you want references eh? There are thousands. Give me a few days to find some. This aint over. I'll give you your references then I hope all you Wikipedia people won't undo my edits.

"One of the most popular singers in history," "widely revered by music historians as one of the best artists of all time..." Those are facts that show how amazing he was. Just saying that he was one of the "finest singers" without reference is not encyclopedic. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra was the greatest popular music singer that ever lived. This can be evaluated objectively based on the way he interprets a song. The most important aspect of a song is the interpretation of the words. Everything else is secondary. Listen to Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World." It's not just the diction and phrasing that made Mr. Sinatra the greatest but when Mr. Sinatra sang a word such as lovely, the listener can feel it. No singer ever came close to Mr. Sinatra in the terms of gettinig the words across. He was the best at emphasing certain parts of the word in a subtle way without over emphasising, so the listener can feel the words being sung. For example, in the song, "Just the way you look tonight," Listen to when Mr. Sinatra sings "yes you're Lovely...," for the first time. Mr.Sinatra sings the word lovely with an ever so slight emphasis on the L, then going into a very soft open uh vowel with an ever so slight vibrato, then ending the word quickly with ..."vley." When Mr. Sinatra sings each subsequent word "lovely" it is sung differently according to it's context. Unlike other popular music singers, every single word that Mr.Sinatra sung was sung in such a way as to break that individual word down to interpret that word's meaning and context. And it's done so masterful that it's invisible. He also was the greatest at using the mobile microphone. The microphone was Mr. Sinatra's instrument. He knew every part of whatever mike he was using and what parts were good for the higher notes, the lower notes, and how to angle it to capture a whisper. He also was born with absolute pitch. I've read people writing things on the internet such as, "My father says that Sinatra sings flatter than a pancake." When you read something like this it's clear that the writer is talking out of their bazooka. No one born with perfect pitch is going to sing out of key. The list of objective reasons that makes Mr. Sinatra the greatest popular music singer that ever lived is endless. The above facts should be used to improve this article. I see nothing on here about Sinatra's technique, his use of the mobile microphone, his use of timing, nor the fact that he was born with absolute pitch. The above is not discussion or opinion, these are objective facts about Mr. Sinatra's techniques and abilities. So Fat&Happy please stop deleting my contributions. I'm not making discussion but I'm pointing out facts so maybe someone can pick up on them and do some research and use some of these facts in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but unsupported by reliable sources, facts from the above:

• Mr.Sinatra sings the word lovely with an ever so slight emphasis on the L, then going into a very soft open uh vowel with an ever so slight vibrato, then ending the word quickly with ..."vley." When Mr. Sinatra sings each subsequent word "lovely" it is sung differently according to it's context.
• every single word that Mr.Sinatra sung was sung in such a way as to break that individual word down to interpret that word's meaning and context. (though "every single" is highly dubious)
• The microphone was Mr. Sinatra's instrument.

Everything else in the original post was pure opinion. A post scriptum suggestion that these opinions be used to improve the article is a slim thread on which to hang this diatribe. Perhaps you could suggest some usable additions based on actual, cited, verifiable facts? Or, failing that, citations to notable experts who share your opinions? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this your gut feeling that what I stated was highly dubious? If not, what is it based on? Frank Sinatra broke down every single word and this is a fact. I know the technique he used and I believe Mabel Mercer pioneered it and Frank Sinatra perfected it. After you understand it well enough it just comes second nature. Even singing the word 'it' was broken down in the technique that Mr. Sinatra used and sung according to it's context. Yes, even the word it. As for notable experts that share my opinions look for Sinatra by John Rockwell. John Rockwell is probably the best authority on the voice of Frank Sinatra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in doing research to find sources that support your opinion. If you come up with any, get back to us. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra "An American Classic" by John Rockwell is a source that will support everything I stated above. Saying that, what is your source when you called my statement regarding Mr. Sinatra's technique of breaking every word down that he sung "highly dubious"? Do you even have any knowledge, other than what is widely known about his diction and phrasing, regarding Mr. Sinatra's singing technique to make such a statement? ---FattyJoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the one attempting to cram your opinions into the article. I don't need a source for my belief that they're overstated; you need a source that establishes them as true. For starters, what person – other than Sinatra himself – can be established as having heard "every single word" that Sinatra ever sang, and if such a person exists, what method did they use to analyze "every single word"? It's little nagging questions like that which keep most reputable commentators from loosely throwing around words like "always" or "never".

But you're making progress; so far we can probably justify "In Sinatra: An American Classic, noted music critic John Rockwell built a case for his opinion that Sinatra is the "greatest singer in the history of American popular music". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Some may say Mr. Sinatra used diphthongs in his phrasing, which he did. However his technique went beyond the use of diphthongs. I believe Rockwell's book says that Sinatra used Mabel Mercer's method then perfected it and made it his own. The technique does require the singer to break down every word for the proper phrasing technique. The word is inititally broken down as a dipthong. Then you have to look at the word that follows in order to evaluate how the initial word will be pronounced. For example, some t ending words will be pronounced as a soft d, and some s ending words will be pronounced as a soft z for smooth phrasing. It's a complex phrasing system that was pioneered by Mabel Mercer but perfected by Frank Sinatra. Fortunately I know the phrasing system very well. Unfortunately I don't believe Rockwell covers the details in his book. I learned the technique from a voice teacher in Philadelphia named Harold Singer and he called it the Mabel Mercer method. James Darren was one of Harold Singer's students and if you listen to him singing you can hear his use of dipthongs. On Sinatra's LA is My Lady album he cut "It's Alright With Me." The album was cut in the 80's. If you can listen to Mr. Sinatra's version and get a copy of Mabel Mercer's version which was cut at least 25 years prior, you don't need to be an expert to hear that the phrasing and timing are almost identical.

What I do remember in Rockwell was a story regarding Frank Sinatra's use of the microphone. When Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra did Guys and Dolls it was no secret that they didn't get along. In spite of this when Mr. Sinatra was cutting his tracks in the recording studio and Brando being present Marlon Brando was amazed at the fact that he could hardly hear Frank Sinatra sing even though he was relatively close to him. This was so key to Mr. Sinatra's phrasing. Along with Frank Sinatra's intricate phrasing technique, he was able to use the microphone to capture the softest sound in order to emphasise the feeling he wanted to get across. According to Rockwell, Frank Sinatra's use of the microphone was better than any other singer in the world and a close second was Johnny Mathis. Paul Anka speaks frequently about him picking up Mr. Sinatra's microphone to discover that it was very hot, set on real high volume. ---FattyJoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.9.8 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Movie Career Ignored!!

Weirdly, this article almost entirely ignores Sinatra's extremely important movie career. WTF???????? Upsmiler (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Frank Sinatra filmography. It would have been impractical to list his entire acting resume on this article, especially since, even though he was a great award winning actor, history remembers him much more for his almost unrivaled impact upon music history. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Never Wrote a Song?

did Sinatra ever write a song or did he interpret only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.13.253 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He co wrote one of the greatest torch songs that was ever written. "I'm A Fool To Want You" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley's book is a biased source

Why this garbage from 'the queen of gossip' is linked (without reference to real pages) to the article so often? Kelley never knew Frank Sinatra, she did not speak with his relatives or real friends. Her book is the collection of gossip and speculation about Sinatra from the tabloids. Why is the article not linked to 'Frank Sinatra: An American legend' by Nancy Sinatra, practically authorized biography of Frank Sinatra? Or other objective sources, for example, Earl Wilson's book, 'The Cinema of Sinatra' by Scott Allen Nollen etc. Is the artcle paid advertising of Kelley's dirty book? --LordWeller (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley's book on Frank Sinatra is so obviouly biased that it is clearly not a reliable source. For example: Kitty Kelley allegedly did extensive research on the life and works of Frank Sinatra. If this is true, she would have easily known that since the early 50's when Mr. Sinatra signed with Capital until the time of Frank Sinatra's death that it was common knowledge that Frank Sinatra was an album artist and that singles way outsell albums. In spite of this, in Kelleys biased book written about Frank Sinatra, she compared Mr. Sinatra's record sales to artists who primarily sold singles. This comparison is so blatantly biased against Mr. Sinatra that it should prove that her book is not an objective reliable source to cite in this article. --FattyJoe

• • Absolutely right. I have a lot of books and vintage magazines about Frank Sinatra and made an analysis of some of Kelley's 'original' research. Her research has been fabricated and exaggerated. Kelley managed to find nothing good of Sinatra's character, only selected from all the versions of events the most negative. For instance, Kelly nothing wrote about Sinatra's generosity, but colorfully described as Fred "Tamby" Tamburro, the former leader of Hoboken Four, came to well-known Sinatra, asked him for help and Frank refused. Tamburino beat to unconsciousness young Frankie. Kelley ignored that Sinatra's generosity saved people from death, but she was more interested in what Frank refused to help his enemy. Next. When Sinatra organized The World Tour for Children he personally pays all his expenses that was quite costly to him. He supplied facilities for five orphanages in Japan and helped build an educational hall in one; he raised money for an orthopaedic hospital in Flong Kong, created a youth centre in Nazareth, provided money for a nursery in Athens, helped a home for crippled children in Paris and the Boys Town of Italy in Rome. Kelley wrote only that Sinatra satisfied his vanity. And it's most important, Kelley is ignorant of Sinatra's artistic heritage.For instance, according to Kitty Kelley, Sinatra `seemed to have forgotten that when MGM had dropped him, Ava had gone to Hughes to get him movie work at RKO, Hughes's studio'. It's nonsence. This movie, `Double Dynamite', was completed during 1948 prior Sinatra started work on great box-office 'On the Town', and well over a year before his exit from MGM. On the contrary, Hughes banned to realize `Double Dynamite' for three years. Sinatra was excluded from the promotion for `Double Dynamite'. Billed first on the original 'It's only money' movie, Sinatra found himself to third place. It was Hughes' revenge.

Unfortunately, I cannot edit this article. I'm Russian and my English is not good. --LordWeller (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Since this article IS a biography of Frank Sinatra, it is extremely redundant to have a separate article entitled Biography of Frank Sinatra. Time to merge the latter into this article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not. I wrote both articles, and shall help with the merging. I am pleased the biography article still gets a good number of views. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think both articles are quite semi-literate. For instance, Sinatra did have some hits during this time — "Birth of the Blues", "Goodnight Irene", "Castle Rock", "Bim Bam Baby", "Mama Will Bark" It's absoletely noncence. "Bim Bam Baby", "Mama Will Bark" were the worst songs of Sinatra and they failed. I cannot understand, you, Americans, can not write good competent article about an American singer? I'm from Russia, I see a lot of inaccuracies and myths about Sinatra, which contradicted in serious literature about him. You took as an objective source of such garbage as books by Summers and Kelley?!! This is a collection of rumors and gossip from the tabloids? Kelley's lying about somebody interviewed. Compare her book with Earl Wilson's book and you'll see she took uncertain sources from the second or third hand. If you're too lazy to read or look for objective sources of Frank Sinatra, do not write any articles. Do you write the articles once again to defame Sinatra? --LordWeller (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, it's appropriate to have sub-articles if the main article gets too large, and have a summary in the main biography. See, for instance, the dozen or so articles about Barack Obama or Joseph Smith. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with Mmyers1976. The article Frank Sinatra is the biography of Frank Sinatra. If it were skillfully handled, it would contain all the most important points of Sinatra's life. There is no need whatsoever to have the "Biography of" article serve as a catch-all for extra little bits that somebody decided should be presented to the reader but not in the main article. Those bits are simply not needed! The catch-all article serves as a POV-fork, one that should not exist. If there is some specific aspect of Sinatra's life that has so much material and notability that it requires a separate article, then make that article. Call it something specific, such as Frank Sinatra's love life or Conjecture about Sinatra and the Mafia (just kidding here people) so that the separate article is very focused and not a shadowy duplication of the main biography. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Merge. would expect an article called Frank Sinatra to be a biography.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's extremely odd to have this distinction and two separate, general pages (separate sub-pages on specific aspects of Sinatra and his career are another matter altogether). I'm no expert on the technical aspects but can't we just do this asap? N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Biggest American icon/ influence

I believe a section of Wikipedia needs to be assembled for the Americas most important and influential figures. Or at least mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.156.151 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to ever use "whilst", regardless of nationality.

13 1/2 pounds at birth? That's bullshit, be serious.

It's possible. I was 12 pounds.99.150.201.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Please watch your language. Children come on here. Iluvmarchingband 21:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvmarchingband (talk • contribs)

And especially not in an article about Frank Sinatra, an American, describing events that mostly take place in the USA. --63.25.100.198 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MajorMarco2.jpg

Image:MajorMarco2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues

I appreciate the amount of work that went into this biography expansion. It was a lot of work. However, I do have some concerns regarding how much this article simply duplicates and expands the main Sinatra article. I don't have a strong opinion on which article needs the work, but one or the other needs to be condensed and rewritten with an eye toward making the material more unique. Since this is about Sinatra's life, I would suggest that the more extensive career material be pared and the personal life material more expanded. The article is also in need of improved referencing. There are a lot of facts, figures and quotes included with no reference whatsoever. Another issue concerns the puffery and use of weasel word descriptions and peacockery. Use of language such as "the results were, typically, outstanding," "in many ways could be considered the apex," "highly revered," "widely considered," "many considered," etc. aren't encyclopedic and violate WP:NPOV, WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel. I started working on some of this, but frankly, it's overwhelming. Hopefully, contributors will jump in and work on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent condensing work. This article was originally the bio part of Frank Sinatra, and the bio there reprensents a condensed versh of this. I think most of the relationship discussion should be in Relationships of Frank Sinatra, another fork. A lot of the puffery derives from the fact that I've only rewritten birth-1940s and 1970s till death, which been puffed since, adding to the 1940s-1970s Frank love-in. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In favour of the merging of the two articles, as suggested. I see no real reason for two distinct articles. Improved referencing is also required; I aim to do some of this from the enormous Kitty Kelley book, which is very thorough. FrankEldonDixon, 12:05 p.m. GMT+5, 5 August 2008. FrankEldonDixon (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - two similar articles is a joke. But so is spending time merging material that has no source, and loads in both articles contains no inline references, despite this fact being picked up eight months ago. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason whatsoever to have an article on Frank Sinatra and a separate article that is a biography of Frank Sinatra. Needlessly redundant. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing. Two articles were written by people who took the information from two of the most hideous and unreliable sources about the legendary singer and actor - Kelly's and Summers' books. One sentence was taken in an article on Oprah from the Kelley's book. In the article about Elizabeth Taylor one paragraph was taken. In an article about Frank Sinatra Kelly's is general source of Frank Sinatra's life. It's a shame. Nobody read Sinatra's interviews in 'Life', 'Look', 'Coronet', reliable sources of him. For instance,

• 'SINATRA: An Unauthorized Biography' by Earl Wilson;
• 'The Frank Sinatra Reader'. Edited by Steven Petkov & Leonard Mustazza;
• 'Legend: Frank Sinatra and the American Dream'. Edited by Ethlie Ann Vare;
• 'Sinatra! The Song Is You: A Singer's Art' By Will Friedwald;
• 'Frank Sinatra: An American Legend' by Nancy Sinatra;
• 'Rat Pack Confidential' by Shawn Levy;
• 'The Frank Sinatra Film Guide' by Daniel O'Brien;
• 'Sessions With Sinatra: Frank Sinatra and the Art of Recording' by Charles L. Granata;
• 'The Cinema of Sinatra: The Actor, On Screen and In Song' by Scott Allen Nollen;
• 'Sinatra: Twentieth Century Romantic' by Arnold Shaw;

--LordWeller (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote both articles, and I think Kelley is alright. A few books above ref her as well. Her research on Sinatra's life was groundbreaking. As a fan I may not like the way she writes about him and her dislike for Sinatra is evident, but I can distinguish between fact and opinion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are not fan. The articles about Frankie Laine, Perry Como, Tony Bennett were written by real fans. The articles about Sinatra are libelous, sketchy, biased, have many incorrect or missing important facts. For instance, you did not use information about Lee Mortimer, who was the main person who started to destroy Sinatra’s career. [2] You didn't write about the conflict between Sinatra and Mitch Miller, who forced Sinatra sing disgusting songs and humiliated him. You don't write about Howard Hughes' revenge, when he banned to realize `Double Dynamite' for three years. Sinatra was excluded from the promotion for `Double Dynamite'. Billed first on the original 'It's only money' movie, Sinatra found himself to third place. ['The Frank Sinatra Film Guide' by Daniel O'Brien, p49] This played a role in reducing Sinatra’s career. The most disgusting and smear part of main article is Alleged organized crime links. It's a absolutely defamation. This part has only real link to the BBC website. In 2005 BBC made the silliest TV 'documentary' 'Sinatra: the Dark Star'. If you watched the TV documentary you knew that there was a garbage, which was easy to refute. FBI dossier of Sinatra is online. His file contains no evidence of the criminal connections to the Mob. Nothing. Everything else was black PR, a black legend created by Sinatra's enemies on the basis of his Sicilian origins in the early forties. Most of the fables were created by Lee Mortimer, who never attempted to prove his charges [Earl Wilson. 'Sinatra', p80]. Robert Ruark attacked Sinatra about Sinatra's visit to Havana. Several years later, Ruark recanted some of these accusations [Earl Wilson. 'Sinatra', p74]. It seems you didn't read objective, full book about Frank Sinatra. You only took small quotes from the sources from Internet and garbage of Kelley and Summers. I have a lot of books and vintage magazines (from e-bay) about Sinatra from Kelley took the information. I can see how she manipulated them to discredit and defame Sinatra. Kelley had not even seen the books. Her literary slaves chose from these sources only negative information about Sinatra to put it in her book.
  • For instance, Kelley wrote that Sinatra needed in positive criticism in beginning of his career, cited George T. Simon of Metronome: "pleasing vocals of Frank Sinatra, whose easy phrasing is especially commendable", and made a poisoned comment: "That wasn't good enough for Frank. He needed raves to get where he was going. Pleasing vocals and commendable phrasing would never catapult him to stardom." In fact, young Frankie was so happy to get this George Simon`s comment that after a lot of years Frank Sinatra made wonderful foreword to Simon's book `The Big Bands'. If Kelley really saw this book, she could read about Sinatra's gratitude to George T. Simon. But she ignored it.
  • Next. Kelly wrote nothing about Sinatra's generosity, but colorfully described as Fred "Tamby" Tamburro came to well-known Sinatra, asked him for help and Sinatra refused. Tamburino (who was jealous because of Frank Sinatra enjoyed great success with young female fans of Hoboken Four) beaten to consciousness young Frankie. Kelley ignored Sinatra's generosity saved people from death, but she was more interested in what Frank refused to help his enemy.
  • Kelley did not write about Sinatra's fight against racism, but with pleasure said how he was rough with his black servant (never spoke to him please, thanks).
  • More. Earl Wilson wrote, when Sinatra organized The World Tour for Children he personally pays all his expenses that was quite costly to him. He supplied facilities for five orphanages in Japan and helped build an educational hall in one; he raised money for an orthopaedic hospital in Flong Kong, created a youth centre in Nazareth, provided money for a nursery in Athens, helped a home for crippled children in Paris and the Boys Town of Italy in Rome. Kelley wrote only that Sinatra satisfied his vanity.
  • More. Ava Gardner wrote in the autobiography that Frank was the only love of her life. Kelley devoted a lot of pages how much Ava hated Frank and she made abortion because of it. Ava Gardner had an abortion because of fear of losing her contract with MGM, which forbade her long breaks at work.
  • More. Kelley gladly devoted a huge number of pages of links of Sinatra to Mafia boss Sam Giancana. This part looks like a Latin American soap opera. But serious biographers admitted Giancana was Sinatra's plague. Frank lost his gambling license, all of his five music publishing companies, his reputation because of the association with Giancana. After the summer of 1963 the relationship between Giancana and Sinatra cooled. When Frank Junior was kidnapped in December 1963 Frank Sinatra refused to accept Giancana's help and contacted his enemy, Robert Kennedy.
  • Kelley always described in detail Sinatra's mistakes, failures, and never talked about his success, efforts. She knew nothing of his artistic heritage.
  • In the article you use the information, that ‘Sinatra is said to have introduced Kennedy to Judith Campbell, who had been a girlfriend of both Sinatra's and Giancana.’. But even in the WIKI article about Kelley it says that ‘Exner had been paid $50,000 to talk with Kelley, was terminally ill, and did not mention these "revelations" in her own autobiography, which had been published years earlier.[2] A former FBI agent also came forward and said that Giancana had been under a federal wiretap, so these multiple meetings with President Kennedy would have been impossible to cover up’.
  • This is just a small example. I can not refute all of her libel. It takes up too much time. I can only say if you trust her book and the Summers' book you defame Sinatra.

There is a book ‘Frank Sinatra: an American Legend’ by Nancy Sinatra. It is fully available online. [3] Nancy gathered an incredible amount of facts about her father in chronological order. If she loses specifically negative aspects of his life, this information could be taken from the sources were written by people who knew Frank Sinatra : Earl Wilson, Ava Gardner, Mia Farrow, Doris Day, Nelson Riddle, Charles L. Granata etc. Kelley did not know Frank Sinatra, she really did not speak with any friend or relative of Frank. I doubt Kelley even spoke to anyone, all her information from the second and third hand from Sinatra's enemies.

Unfortunately, I can not edit the articles and add information. I’m Russian and my English is not good enough for this. I can only say these articles are shame for English-speaking people. I’m the administrator of the largest Vkontakte group of Frank Sinatra and always I will be advised Sinatra’s fans to ignore WIKI information as not objective. --LordWeller (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you write. Kelley's dislike for Sinatra is evident, and it has a terrible effect on her writing. I shall attempt to rewrite the article, but I cannot agree that a fan is always the best chronicler of a stars life. I do not wish this page to be an endless recitation of feuds. Mitch Miller did force Sinatra to record some clangers, but Sinatra also did this to himself in later years. Tony Bennett has more of a nuanced view of Miller in his biography. Kennedy's philandering is well known, but what do you think of Tina Sinatra's comments on Giancana? [4] and James Kaplan's biography? Thank you for your criticism. I'm listening to "Dindi" to cool the atmosphere :)Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Tina said the same thing about Giancana and Kennedy that Nancy did.

FEBRUARY 1960: Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. ambassador to England during World War II and father of Jack Kennedy, met with Dad to ask for his help in West Virginia, where JFK had to win the primary election in order to win the Democratic nomination for president. Since anti-Catholic sentiment ran high among voters there, the senior Kennedy suggested that my father ask Sam Giancana for help in swinging the election; [5]

NOVEMBER 26-DECEMBER 2, 1962: Frank, with Dean and Sammy, played the Villa Venice in Northbrook, Illinois, a nightclub owned by Sam Giancana. The shows were Dad's way of paying back Giancana for the help he provided to the Kennedy family. [6]

There is nothing new. It’s well-known fact. But this is the only confirmed fact of Sinatra’s relations with the Mob. I have been studying the question of Sinatra’s links with the Mafia. And I did not find any positive effect of these relationships in his life. He was connected with the Mafia no more and no less than any other person of show business in those years. All serious biographers wrote about it. All Sinatra’s allegations criminal ties based on Sicilian origins of his parents. Frank liked to chat to gangsters because he grew up in a social environment of the gangsters but he did not have criminal deals with them. And I didn't want to say Miller destroyed Sinatra's career as Frank claimed. I'd love to say there was a conflict between them, because Miller had an unflinching sense of low-brow commercial appeal [The rough guide to Sinatra by Chris Ingham] and Frank was a musician of exemplary taste. Do you read Frank’s interview in ‘Metronome’, February 1948 ‘What’s wrong with music?’ He really hatred the commercial songs of those years.

James Kaplan's sympathized with Sinatra, but his book suffers from mythical details of those situations where he was not a witness. It's more a fiction book not serious biography. I think one of the best Sinatra’s biographies is ‘The Cinema of Sinatra: The Actor, On Screen and In Song’ by Scott Allen Nollen. He describes Sinatra’s life, movies, studio records, live concerts. He does not avoid the negative aspects. This is an honest, well-written biography. He makes absolutely correct citations and links to sources you can trust. If you have noticed, Kelley never gives exact quotes and links to sources to avoid being accused of slander and distortion of information from these sources.

I may assist you something in writing this article. And I do not want to you write as fans do. Frank was no saint and no great martyr. I think for the encyclopedia you should take serious sources written by people who understand Sinatra’s artistic heritage well. Kelley enjoys the dirty gossip about Frank’s personal life, but she knows his work very poor. Good luck! --LordWeller (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

lousy article

One of the most crappy articles about singer or actor, the most important popular music figure of the 20th century[7]. It uses as main sources are second-hand, defamatory, fabricated rubbish books as Sinatra: The Life by Anthony Summers and His Way: Frank Sinatra by Kitty Kelley. These books should not even be mentioned as a source. It's the personal opinion of the writers that specifically manipulated the gossip and rumors from tabloids to slander Sinatra. It's shame to have such a lousy article in an encyclopedia. --LordWeller (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ole Blue eyes?

He was never known as 'ole blue eyes' it was an invented marketing device to relaunch him the second time. Show me one single piece of evidence he was ever referred to as OBE prior to 1973!!! This is what happens when you get history written by musical ignoramuses who wern't even there at the time...... 80.5.101.158 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Grossly sanitized bio of Frank Sinatra - where is any mention of his not being allowed to sing for/meet Prince Charles because of his mafia connections???

I came here to read up on the scandal of Sinatra not being allowed to sing for/meet Prince Charles (with the Reagans) because of his mafia connections (I was hoping to read some of the quotes that Prince Charles said - I have a hazy recollection of them - he actually commented on Sinatra's gangster connections). Anyway, nothing about that at all in this bio. Zero. Zilch Nada. Clean as a whistle. The whole bio is laughable. I mean, why don't we have a bio of John Gotti and completely cleanse it of any mention of the mafia. It is these sorts of bios - this one of Sinatra - that make Wikipedia a less than useful resource. The information exists in print - in books like Kitty Kelley's book "His Way: Frank Sinatra" - but those books get criticized as being "fabricated" - well, if they were fabricated, then why didn't Sinatra sue? Or at least get the book prevented from being printed. It's because he couldn't - it would come out in court that it was true. Anyway, Sinatra was a choir boy according to this bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Because there was NO scandal. Sinatra performed a lot of times at the best halls of UK and often before the Royal family. This is simple information. You absolutely do not know anything about the Sinatra's biography and only came trolling. Sinatra sued Kelly for a libel, but in the U.S. there is the so-called Second Amendment, which allows such slanderous book. And Sinatra never was 'choir boy'. This is complete nonsense. You have not read any of Sinatra's biography, and I have more than 30 objective biographies and huge amount magazines about Sinatra. --LordWeller (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• To add the pure facts: Sinatra did perform, along with Dionne Warwick, George Burns and Perry Como, in a special Command Performance at 20th Century Fox soundstage in LA for H.M. The Queen on February 27, 1983, and on the following day, followed H.M.'s invitation to a gala dinner held aboard HMY Britannia anchoring off Long Beach. (There is a widely publicized photo of H.M. The Queen greeting Sinatra.) That tells a lot, does it not? --Bvo66 (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Tommy Dorsey

The part of the article which characterizes Frank Sinatra's relationship with Tommy Dorsey as being "troubled, because of their contract" is not true. Sinatra and Dorsey had a mostly 'father/son' type relationship that was not overly troubled. The contract dispute which is being referred to occurred only at the end of Sinatra's professional relationship with Dorsey, the contract which allowed him to leave the band after he had already been happily associated with it for over two years. This information was obtained from the excellent biography of Frank's early career entitled "Frank: The Voice" by James Kaplan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.85.204 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In the Early Life section is says that Frank "sucked other men's penises to make some quick cash". I don't know much about Sinatra, thats why I came to this article, But I'm pretty sure this is vandalism. Can somebody who knows more fix this?

Sales

Few years ago, i had read that the sales figure is above 500 million, but now i am reading here, that it's 150 million? I am sure that something is wrong, or maybe they are misinterpreted somewhere. Again, i am not sure, but you can have a look, [8], [9]. Capitals00 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for querying, but it's virtually impossible to find reliable citations for record sales figures. I'm in favour of removing them entirely from articles, we don't need to gild this lilly. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Do it, sales doesn't effect his image anyway, as he's not certainly best selling or current pop artist. Capitals00 (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronan Farrow

It is still unclear if Ronan Farrow is in fact Sinatra's son. The article probably should omit him from the list of Sinatra's children. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A line has been added to the Mia Farrow section of the Personal relationships of Frank Sinatra. There is a similar unresolved situation with Julie Sinatra. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will say, If I were Ronan Farrow, I would rather tell people I was Frank Sinatra's son than Woody Allen's. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Frank Sinatra by Gottlieb c1947- 2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Frank Sinatra by Gottlieb c1947- 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 5, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

American singer Frank Sinatra (1915–98) in 1947, at the Liederkrantz Hall in New York. Sinatra began his career in 1935, reaching unprecedented success after being signed by Columbia Records in 1943. After a lull in the late 1940s, his career regained new vigor in the 1950s.Photo: William P. Gottlieb

Frankie in Havana

Wow, someone managed to write an entire article without once mentioning Frank Sinatra's infamous trips to Havana? Total whitewash job. And to add to the point, I noticed a certain level of defensiveness in the earlier talk sections when someone mentioned his relations to the Mafia. 67.172.20.73 (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion

I removed "Atheisim" the reference did not support it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominated this as a vital article

Just nominated Sinatra as a vital article, with Jimi Hendrix being the candidate for removal. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Induct_Frank_Sinatra.2C_remove_Jimi_Hendrix.MackyBeth (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Vocal Style and Lasting Influence

Why is there no discussion of his vocal style and legacy here ? What is his contribution to that singing genre - surely near the very top ? Did he develop Bing's contribution or not ?

86.138.151.92 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (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)

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 [[10]] or (less elegantly) here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 3 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)

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)

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)

Recent revert

MBW, per this revert: ([11]), with the accompanying edit summary: Material fails verification at source cited, which source did you check? Because the material that I added ([12]) 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)

{{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)

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)

Can I suggest splitting this section into subsections as it's getting rather cumbersome to edit. I was alerted to a ping on this page from @Dr. Blofeld: this evening, but am having difficulty locating the post. This is Paul (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

this 'n' that

First, I get referencing errors at the end of the "notes" section. Can someone fix that? Second, how do I properly reference this in sfn format, given that each chapter has a different author? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I'll have a look at the cite ref errors in the morning (about 10-12 hours from now). Re: your second query - have a look at the Kitchener ref in Kellas cat for an example of how to deal with chapters authored by different people. Does that help explain what to do? If not, add it as best you can and I'll try to fix it, if I can that is. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the cite errors - except Larkin 2002 that needs the book added to the bibliography, please, Dr. Blofeld. @78.26: If you were for instance wanting to cite Brinkley from the Pugliese book you would add the following to the Bibliography: *{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Brinkley |first=Douglas |editor-last=Pugliese |editor-first=Stanislao G. |chapter=Frank Sinatra and the American Century |title=Frank Sinatra: History, Identity, and Italian American Culture|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sexzQgAACAAJ |year=2004 |publisher=St. Martin's Press |isbn=978-1-4039-6655-1}} then use {{sfn|Brinkley|2004|p=18}} if you were citing from page 18. An entry would be required in the Bibliography for each different author. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Article size again

The problem with this, and part of the reason why RO and myself had a run in is that this article very easily soars up to 200kb. Even with chopping 25kb odd the other day it's quickly heading back to 200kb. Now the best articles are usually written first without any form of condensing but it's impossible to do with this. I'm really not used to working with an article with this amount to cover and 200kb and 500 refs. I keep thinking somebody is going to interfere with it if it gets too large and complaints about computers crashing. Do we not worry about the size for now and potentially watch it get to over 250kb? Every time it hits 200kb I sort of groan. But it needs to get big to really make it comprehensive overall and to ensure there's a good balance of sources. Thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In looking Ronald Reagan is 209 kb in total size. I know he was President but Sinatra I think you'd expect similar coverage. We'll see how it goes anyway but I think by the time we're done we're going to find it impossible to get down to less than 150kb in total. I think it's going to have to be a very long one even condensed to do it justice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently 75kb readable prose. I think it's now in reasonable range.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved from talk

Off-topic discussion

From my talk page and my reply: Recent revert at Sinatra Per this revert: ([13]), 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 ([14]), and the nickname directly impacted Sinatra, who was barred from performing at a local church because of it ([15]). 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: ([16]). 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 ([17]), 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) Article: "She … often panicked in the saddling paddock, in effect losing races before she ever got to the starting gate." Source: "'She'd get so panicked in the paddock, she lost her race before she ever got to the starting gate,' Perry said." That looks like a blatant copypaste to me, and there are at least 9 more there (examples available upon request). So the same issue you had in 2007 is present in articles that went to TFA during 2015, which doesn't look like you learned very much. Every damn time you reply to me you include insults and insinuations in your comments. You've been acussung me of socking for 8 months without filing an SPI. In fact, the subject of your terrible record of accusing socks wasn't even broached at your abysmal RfA, but I bet it will be at RfA2, and it too goes back many, many years. RO(talk) 18:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Wow! You actually think this edit: ([18]) rectifies the copypaste? Looks like you still don't know the difference between close paraphrasing, copy-pasting, and copyvio, yet you are a self-appointed copyvio cop. That's scary, and you have a long history of falsely accusing people! RO(talk) 21:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC) If you really have an issue then take it to the article talk page. This is an irrelevant disruption here and is not about this article. Montanabw(talk) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Which is really weird, because when it comes to other people's edits, you think using even one of the same words is close paraphrasing: ([19]). RO(talk) 21:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC) I did review Cal Chrome at FAC actually and thought it was a very good article after MBW made the alterations. Anyway, let's not go into that here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review

User:Nikkimaria, User:Casliber, User:J Milburn? Is there any chance you could do a spot check and check as many of the sources for verification as you can? User:Montanabw and anybody else is also welcome to help. Perhaps split it between you? There's a lot of issues I think which need ironing out before this proceeds to GA and further in time for his centenary on Dec 12th. Some of the problems crept in I think because a lot of the previously written text was unsourced and I had to start patching it up, so if you compare with version in September you'll see what is still here and what might be the best place to look. I have the Nancy and Barbara Sinatra books coming probably on Monday and will then get the Kaplan and Granata/Friedwald wbooks I think and even out some of the Kelley sources, that should be enough then. But in the meantime I really need the sourcing all ironed out and as sound as possible before I continue. I'll try to chase up the Santopietro sources now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've sorted out all of the Santopietro ones for starters. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or shall we wait until the whole thing is done to do a source check as a lot of the Kelley sources and content will be replaced and it might still change a fair bit before its ready? I don't think it would harm to start checking a few of them in the meantime, but up to you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're still planning on making significant content changes, I would suggest holding off on spotchecking. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more I'll find from the next few books, it could be a lot. I think the bulk of the work is done though. OK, we'll hold off on that for now until it's approaching a level nearing completion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah agree with Nikkimaria, just wait until you are sure you have content right and that will be the time to check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 October 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 ([20]), 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)

I completely agree with Light show on this issue and I do remember how it became a war on the Peter Sellers page. Oh and btw Dr. Blofeld I do happen to care what Light show thinks. However when it comes to you I don't give a rats ass what you think and never will. Caden ^cool 15:31, 12 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)

References

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)

I think we can get it there within the time frame without a rush, but is does also depend on how much time others are willing to put towards helping review/improve and promote it. I thought it would be a rush 10 days ago but a lot has developed since then. The bulk of it is really done. We already use a massive range of books and sources. We can't be expected to use every source ever written about him. Given the size limitations we can't cram in everything, it has to be a basic outline which we're nearing achieving. The question is whether I can still be bothered to get it there. We'll have it at GA in a week or two but I will really need a lot of assistance in helping promote it all the way. I still have a few books I want to read to ensure it is definitely reasonably comprehensive but I'm a bit bored with it at the moment, I think this might be the longest I've ever worked on one article. I am enjoying researching it though, but I'll take a break from it now until Monday I think. Hopefully the sourcing issues can start to be ironed out by others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My 2c - go for the GA and DYK as first priority. I haven't touched the article so I could always do the review, and that will be wrapped up in a week. Then we can stick the DYK in the holding pen for December 12. If you want TFA you really need to have passed FAC round about now, and given I see discussions about source spotchecking, I'd have thought you'd need a minor miracle to get the front page for that date. Once the DYK has run (and this is the clever bit) you start work on the FAC, get that passed, and put it for TFA on May 14, 2018 - 20th anniversary of his death. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a two week minimum threshold for TFA requests. With Carl Nielsen a special case was made with a reserve article right up until days before. So that shouldn't be a problem. It would have to be largely finished by the end of the month though. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to go all the way, especially with the ilk of people this is attracting on the talk page. It could be the sort of article that a lot of people will be difficult with at FAC. So yes, definitely GA, but we'll see how it goes. There's so many other articles which need bare minimum work..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 12 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: ([21])

"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: [22]. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, I want to apologize for opening this thread. I had a valid concern about relying on this source, but I opened this thread in frustration, which was wrong. I didn't know how else to get it across to you, but this was a mistake. For that I am deeply sorry. RO^(talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm also sorry that I had to cut your work on it so soon but I'm having to chop most of the article to get it down to a more normal size. I was getting concerned that it was hitting 200kb which is pretty wild for an encyclopedia article, even on Sinatra. I was of course planning to write it all first but it got too big too quickly and desperately needed cutting. The Kelly thing is a valid concern as you say, and it is one of the most pressing issues with article at present until I get some more books. But in the context you brought it up I did find it most unsettling. I'll try to cut back more on Kelley and replace many of the sources. I think it can be used pretty moderately but nowhere near 30%, I hadn't realised it was quite that much. If you can replace many of the Kelley sources with Kaplan or anybody else I'd be fine with it to balance things out more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the Kelley ref count is now but I think we now use a reasonable number in comparison to others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

So what happened with the lead image switch - copyright problem? Should we consider just going back to one of the older ones that is of better quality? The one there now looks like something from a horror film. I think we can find appropriate fair use images and some PD copyright-not-renewed material that will work. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't better quality. Colour yes but like the Steiger colour one was fuzzy. The black and white was better quality I think but probably a bit too dark for the lede image. The 1957 one currently in 1950s I tried didn't look like him at all and makes him look like one of Blofeld's cats! I've restored it for the time being, not the cropped one though which looked fuzzier. I think the best quality image is the 1943 one in Honors which I think would look best at the top without an infobox. We'll come to that when we get there. Kaplan and Granata books on their way soon, after that, an article trim and copyedit and a lede update it should be ready for GA. The sourcing could still do with a random check but it should be a lot better now. I'm not going to work on this much until I have Kaplan now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Columbus Day Riot

Currently, Columbus Day Riot re-directs to Sinatra. However, there is no mention of this important event in the Sinatra article. I know the article has been pared down, but I feel this is crucial to understanding just how rabid his fan following was at the time. Was it taken out because of poor sourcing? If so, I've got a really good source. Perhaps the re-direct should be turned into its own article? This event was was important not only to Sinatra, but to American popular music in general, foreshadowing the treatment Presley, the Beatles, and to a lesser extent other artists have received. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well mention it then! It'll probably be mentioned in the Kaplan book. I don't know anything about it but it does sound like it might be worth mentioning.Was it the 1944 one? I might have accidentally removed mention of it during the condensing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've readded it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kaplan

Funny how RO was saying how wonderful the Kaplan book is and how crappy the Kelley book is. I'm reading the Kaplan book now and the quality of writing is actually better in the Kelley book. The Kaplan book is written a lot more subjectively.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Well, after all, Kelley's book is titled "The Unathorized Biography of Frank Sinatra".  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a very high quality book. Kaplan is a good read but I can find very little from it to really help the article other than what has already been added. As the NY Times quote says on the cover of the book "it reads like a novel". Well that's fine for reading, but when you want to glean facts for an encyclopedia it is not!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Maybe you can replace some of Kelley's references with Kaplan's ones.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've replaced enough Kelley sources as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Kaplan extensively uses Kelley as a source! She's still the greatest biographical researcher of FAS in my opinion. The second volume of Kaplan is out in a few weeks, BTW. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, I agree, the Kelley book is the best biography I've looked at on him, by some margin too, impeccably well researched and written with 800 odd interviews. She really did her research on it and I have every reason to believe she'd try to make it as accurate as possible. The problem though is that she disliked Sinatra and his family and I do think she was selective in picking negative things said or written about him combined to paint a picture. The way she drew out the Gaming Rights thing in 1981 was the real the point of the book it became a little excessive, like Kelley herself was putting him through a court case. We use it in moderation and extreme claims are xx claims so it's reasonable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Academy Award in lede

A question I have regarding the lead section is whether Sinatra's career was reborn because of his role in From Here to Eternity or because of his Academy Award win for the role. If it's the latter case, then the year would be 1954 since the ceremony happened that year. If it's the former, then it's 1953. But what exactly resulted in his career rebirth? Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 01:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It was the hype/success of the film which relaunched his career, the Oscar was the real icing on the cake. His career had already been kickstarted in 1953 by the time he won the Oscar, and was performing at Sands and recording new material with Capitol.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice! I see the lede is much clearer now. Great work on the page BTW! Looking forward to see it being a GA and eventually an FA for December 12. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 14:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Katastasi, some positivity on such a negative website is always warmly welcome! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I feel the award solidified his comeback. I forget which biography it was which detailed how he left his psychiatrist that weekend as well! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is he signed with Capitol records in March 1953, had a strong recording run through 1953 and started at Sands etc yet From Here wasn't released until October? And he wouldn't have got the Oscar until early 1954. His role in From here was hyped, even by the casting stage, where everybody in Hollywood was practically campaigning to give him a break. I think it was the buzz surrounding the actual casting which relaunched him and the Oscar the icing on the cake/solidifying the comeback as you say. Something is suspicious here though that he won the Oscar too IMO as his future was practically staked on that Oscar win. Now it was a great performance, granted, still... I have too many suspicions currently in my head at the moment! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gareth E Kegg: Are you happy with how comprehensive the article is now? I just have the Granata book to finish now which is very good on his musical side. What do you reckon on length for this? Knock off 1000 odd words? The problem is that it's very long by normal standards yet no part is very long really, perhaps 1946-1970s could be trimmed more though, but its the lot combined which bring it to that whopping length with a record breaking number of sources! It's 81kb readable prose, Reagan is 84, currently. Can we whip this into shape for FA. Do we really want to?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm being honest on this but I envisage too much trouble in getting it to FA for the 12th. I know that after the enormous effort which went into Carl Nielsen to get it there on the day the actual day itself was something of a killjoy. I'd rather just finish what I have to do here and move onto something else core which badly needs the work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup FA definitely off for Dec 12th. I've been told it would have to be nominated for TFA by Nov 20th at very latest. With the amount of peer reviewing this would need and reviewing at FAC, and a number of the regular reviewers being busy or inactive at the moment, not to mention the amount of effort would need it's not worth the rush. It'll get there sometime, the important thing is that this is largely written and is of reasonable quality and appears on the front page in any form on the date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Day

Proposal at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Day

a result of collaboration

Thanks in a box to all who participated in making this happen, - copy and style to your liking if you are not afraid of such a thing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ol' Blue Eyes

Ol' Blue Eyes redirects here, but the article doesn't explain why. It is only mentioned as part of an album title. Ol' Blue Eyes Is Back says the album is "appropriately titled", but again, it doesn't explain why. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Kind of obvious but I've now briefly mentioned it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the third most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 727,017 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. Sinatra's 100th birthday was December 12. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sales

I am surprised to see that sales of only 150 millions are claimed. I have been traveling in 42 countries of 5 continents for 55 years and anywhere FS was on the top list. In the last few years have seen quotes as high as 500-600m for him, that isn't surprising if we place Frankie Laine at 250 and Johnny Mathis at 300 (see Wiki).

Anybody has further info ? --Paolobod (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed completely, I would have guessed at least 500 million myself, but you have to find a reliable source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)