Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

FAQ page

I added a FAQ at the top of this talk page to provide responses to questions that have arisen regarding the discretionary sanction established by Bishonen. The FAQ includes an edit link which is possibly not a good idea but I left it at the default. The edit link can be replaced with a link to the FAQ page by changing {{FAQ|collapsed=no}} to {{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}. The FAQ is at Talk:Stanley Kubrick/FAQ and this section can be used to discuss its wording. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from "FAQ" to "FAQ page" because I added a "FAQ" anchor at the FAQ, and that messes up the ToC. To refer someone to the FAQ, write See [[#FAQ]]. which gives See #FAQ. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The text you put in currently says:

Extensive discussions have not agreed that an infobox should be added and an RfC concluded that "one should not be added".

It should say:

Extensive discussions have not agreed that an infobox should be added, and an RfC concluded with "No consensus. Given the status quo of the article having no infobox, one should not be added."

So readers won't get the impression there was consensus against an infobox. It's supposed to be neutral and accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with this. Virtually every discussion has ended with no consensus, so there is no reason to claim there is a consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 03:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Some of the "no consensus" wording might be included, but why? The current FAQ text is not misleading—the close really did conclude that "one should not be added" and it is better to avoid misleading editors. The phrase "no consensus" has a standard meaning highlighted in the consensus can change link which is also in the FAQ. No consensus means that a new discussion tomorrow might change the current situation. That is not going to happen because the RfC was closed with "one should not be added" and the discretionary sanction that is now in place means the issue is not be discussed before September 2021. @Barkeep49: You closed the RfC—do you feel that the FAQ text above is a fair representation of the close, or should some other wording be used? Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the alternative wording suggested by Gothic more clearly leads into the second question - if there was a consensus against adding an infobox that would be a stronger reason to not add one. If I had been drafting the FAQ that would have been more closer to what I would have written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I edited the FAQ accordingly although I slightly changed the quote (by including an ellipsis) because the close did not exactly include the quoted text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49—you write "There is no consensus about whether to include an infobox on Stanley Kubrick and consensus is closer towards being against inclusion than in favor of it." Have you given any reason "consensus is closer towards being against inclusion than in favor of it"? Maybe you have, but I just didn't notice it.

(Incidentally I apologize for opening the RfC after you closed it. It was my oversight that I didn't read what you said that you were working on it and would be closing it today or tomorrow.) Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop the reasoning is based on a careful reading of the comments made by the participants,the summary of which I did attempt to include, and the applicable policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
And thanks for that apology - I know this was a charged issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for issues to be charged but I don't think my posts in opposition to keeping this article sans Info-box were charged; I think they were all low-key posts. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new images

WITHDRAWN
No consensus has been reached and all of the proposed images will likely be deleted. Thanks to everyone for the advice. ~ HAL333 02:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

There is a dispute over which of the following images should be added, moved, or replaced. The images are numbered for ease while discussing. The proposed change is next to each number.

Question: Should any of these images be added?

I hope that through a civil conversation we can come to an agreement over this. Thanks.HAL333 23:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support inclusion of 5. As you stated below, there are no images of Kubrick on a film set anywhere in the article (yet). As one of the most influential filmmakers in cinematic history, I believe No. 5's inclusion is appropriate and even warranted. Aside from that, I have no strong opinion regarding the other images. KyleJoantalk 11:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose number 4. Awful image that does nothing except raise questions of 'what an earth is that supposed to be?' As such, leave the signature there; to claim there is a "more relevant area" for a signature is questionable, given there are no areas in the text that are particularly "relevant" to a signature on any biography. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • And now Oppose 5: copyright infringement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is already image top-heavy with no less than 27 pictures, and you want to add a further five? I think you have taken leave of your senses. If anything, we should be reducing the amount of images there are. CassiantoTalk 12:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually images 1 and 3 are already in the article. If all of these changes would be made, only 3 images would be added, not 5. - HAL333 22:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't care, the suggestion is still stupid. CassiantoTalk 23:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1-->2 and 5. Oppose I don't like 4 and his signature I am ambivalent on (if we had an infobox it would likely be there but let's not go into that please). It seems there are copyright issues with most of the new images so this is a non-starter. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support replacing pic 1 with pic 2. The shot of O'Neal from over a decade before he performed in Barry Lyndon adds nothing to a readers understanding of that film. Oppose 3 and 4. I am indifferent to Oppose 5 and though I do agree with Cassianto that the article is already top-heavy with pics. MarnetteD|Talk 18:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • MarnetteD, just so you know, picture 5 was uploaded by a known copyright infringer, see here. I think adding any of their uploaded images would be a step in a very rocky direction. CassiantoTalk 00:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you go through the others, you'll see they've also been uploaded by the same editor. Light show/Wikiwatcher is the same person. Picture 1 is the only image I'd use, and the uploader is very trustworthy and much missed. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    Cassianto, Hmmmm... I know that the copyright of images for Kubrick's works can be difficult to sort out, as a lot of them were in the old copyright system where you had to mark them, but were not marked and some were. We can't really just take the uploader's word for it. Does anyone know if the Barry Lyndon trailer had a copyright notice? If not that image is all good (from memory Kubrick's trailers didn't have copyright notices). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The image from the Barry Lyndon trailer is a copy vio. This is the trailer on which the copyright mark can be seen. This picture is taken from it. CassiantoTalk 09:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Cassianto, Having looked at both revisions IMHO the previous images and layout is much much better, Also I agree there's too many as it is and imho doesn't need to have more. –Davey2010Talk 19:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 4, leaning oppose on the others. I'd support removing some of the current images. Dartslilly (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Which current ones strike you as unnecessary? - HAL333 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 5, if there is no copyright issue. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
But there are. Have you not bothered to read the comments above? CassiantoTalk 07:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

My reasoning for each of these images:

1 - The main problem with this image is that it has nothing to do with Barry Lyndon and is from 1962, quite a bit before the film came it in 1975.

2 - This picture should replace the previous due to the fact that it shows both Ryan O'Neal and Marisa Berenson, and is actually from the film and more representative of Kubrick's work. It also helps to provide an example of the inspiration from work such as the William Hogarth image opposite of it.

3 - The problem with this image is its placement. I see little reason why it should be in his legacy section. This image likely belongs elsewhere in the article.

4- This image helps to show the international appeal of Kubrick due to the fact that it shows an exhibit of the Netherlands. Although there is room for a better image, it is more relevant to Kubrick's legacy than his signature.

5- This image is quite good. I didn't replace any images adding it. Considering this article is about a man best known for his directing, I believe that this is a great image as it actually shows Kubrick directing an actor, which none of the other images on this article do.

- HAL333 23:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have nominated images 2 and 5 for deletion at Wikicommons on the grounds of copyright infringement. Image 2 is a clear-cut violation (the trailer CLEARLY carries a copyright notice which remains on screen for over seven seconds). Image 5 is slightly less clear cut, but there is no evidence that this is public domain, and the link from the initial upload is now dead. If it had been archived we may have been able to see, but there is nothing to say this is PD, so it should go. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why a famous film Director like him who don't have an infobox. Please anyone insert an infobox.

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

Infobox is necessary for him Ananthakrishna1000 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ananthakrishna1000, please see the extensive discussion above regarding infoboxes. There is currently no consensus to add one to this article. Also, there is a moratorium on opening an RfC regarding infoboxes on Stanley Kubrick until 2021. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Clearly trolling. Please don't feed them. CassiantoTalk 08:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discretionary page restrictions

The RfC is closed and found no consensus, which defaults to the status quo, i. e. no infobox.[1] As I mentioned a few times before and during the RfC that I would, I have now set discretionary page restrictions against adding an infobox to the article, and against starting further RfCs or other discussions about infoboxes here on talk, both restrictions to run for two years. Please see the page notice that comes up when you edit the article, as well as the talk notice at the top of this page. I tried to make it clear that editors, especially new users, who try to start new infobox discussions should be set right gently, and I also hope the idea about an infobox FAQ that was floated above comes to fruition, to make the situation as clear as possible to people who come to this page for the first time. They won't necessarily read my notice, as there's an off-putting amount of stuff at the top of the page, some of it interesting, some (IMO) not so much. If anybody wishes to appeal either or both of the infobox restrictions, the place for that is WP:AE. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

Seems reasonable but I think the two messages in the editing page are very clear to even newbies. Even if they don't see the talk page note they can't miss the messages in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain wrote in the above section The moratorium on opening new discussions is to alleviate all of our exhaustion, as continuously re-opening discussions on things that have an existing consensus is disruptive. There is no existing consensus here. SchroCat claimed there isn't lots of readers coming here to ask "Where is the infobox?" And now you have done just as I thought you would - you are discouraging new readers from commenting here about the lack of an infobox. Very convenient for those against an infobox, and completely unjustified as there is no consensus. A moratorium on another RfC is one thing. Banning discussion is quite another, and against the spirit of WP Talk pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It's ok to vent for a short period after a decision has been made but please bear in mind that there have been two Arbitration cases on infoboxes: WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2. To limit endless bickering, the topic is under discretionary sanctions which means that unusual remedies may be established by uninvolved administrators. Such remedies must not be debated (after the initial venting period) on article talk pages—the whole point of such remedies is to limit the endless bickering. There is an appeals process (see Appeals and modifications) which says to appeal to the admin or WP:AE or WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Limiting RfCs and "endless bickering" should not result in the side that wants to forbid an element most readers expect to see, but failed to get consensus for their removal, being given a result the same as if they had gained consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gothicfilm: Let me more explicitly state what Johnuniq is getting at: It's time to stop litigating this issue for two years, else you may find yourself the subject of a filing at WP:AE. --Laser brain (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do have to wonder if this page restriction will ever actually be logged? PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Restrictions on opening discussions regarding infoboxes

I understand that arb need to still make this subject to consensus either way but currently anybody can bypass the ruling by opening up a new discussion. If there was at least a restriction on how frequently these discussions are allowed to take place that would at least resolve it in part. I think three years would be reasonable. I'm sick of these discussions still taking place. Would it be reasonable to pass something which means that consensus can only change after a three-year window or something? If these discussions were fruitful then there wouldn't need to be any restrictions but they never are, it's valuable time wasted every few months having to discuss it and getting nowhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Compare my comment above from December 2018, Dr. Blofeld.[2] There was no restriction against opening an infobox RFC, as HAL333 did above on 14 August. But once that RFC has been closed, I intend to place a restriction for probably a couple of years against further, future, RFCs. If anybody would like to share an opinion about how long that restriction should be, please do so below. Note, though, that this is not an invitation to a vote; I'm going to place the restriction as a discretionary sanction, per my admin discretion. But I'm very interested in getting good advice about it. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
Rather than a temporal restriction, I suggest some language similar to what's in place at WP:PERENNIAL, specifically the phrase about addressing past rebuttals if you're going to raise the issue again. My observation every time this comes up is that the reasons given for and against are essentially the same and there is a failure to reach consensus for adding an infobox. The language could be something like, "Attempts to add an infobox this this article have repeatedly failed to reach consensus. Please do not open additional proposals unless you have new to argue." This is admittedly subjective while a time restriction is easier to follow and I'm not interested in inviting more threads that are difficult to parse for uninvolved closers. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
For sensible people yours is better, I know, Laser. But it can be gamed as well as quarreled over; a simple unsubtle stupid-sounding time restriction can't, that's what I like about it. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
Given the subject matter, I might recommend using this language. —BLZ · talk 16:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who's more determined. The Infobox inclusionist or the Brexit remoaners ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

They are probably the same people, GoodDay. CassiantoTalk 08:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that Arbcom has had a say in this situation, it might be worthwhile that (presumably) after this RFC closes against the inclusion of an infobox, to ask that a motion be passed that for Kurbick's page, there should be no RFC started on wanting an infobox for at least .. 3 years? unless through an AE motion that there is a valid new reason to discuss the infobox as to along an RFC to proceed. In other words the AE would be to judge if the reason is better than "other pages have infoboxes, readers expect them, this should have one too." This would allow the (well-outside chance) case of if we standardize on infoboxes for all BIOs to include it, or something along those lines. I do agree the persistent nature of trying to argue the addition of an infobox with no change in rational to why it needs one is disruptive to a point. --Masem (t) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Er... not sure why we would need an arbcom motion, Masem. Is there something wrong with me placing a discretionary sanction, as described above,[3], or did you not notice my post? Bishonen | talk 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC).
I missed your post :P --Masem (t) 19:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
To add though, I think the only part about that that I would want to see is that if you place it but you are not response to a request to remove, a consensus of uninvolved admins should be able to review the request to remove as long as there is a significantly different reason presented than what has been given so far for starting an infobox RFC. --Masem (t) 20:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a restriction would make sense. I think it would be fair to say that opposition to an infobox takes the form of "people shouldn't read the article that way." Personally, I think that is a flawed view which discards much evidence about how people consume information and how people use websites. As I said above, I sympathize with that view without sharing it. I invested a good deal of time in the prose on Superliner (railcar) and that prose is the primary reason it's a featured article. I also recognize that for many readers, God is in the details, as delivered by the infobox and other tables. That's the reality and I respect that. No policy commands that outcome, and so long as there's a significant bloc of editors who don't share that view there will never be a consensus to have an infobox here. I think Laser brain makes a sensible suggestion, but Bishonen's is more practical. I think two years is reasonable, perhaps adopting Laser brain's wording once those two years have passed. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a big difference in value of the inbox though. In rail articles like yours they actually contain a lot of data which can't be put into prose. More importantly the data actually summarises the article subject. They're obviously essential in such circumstances. But in arts biographies like this the inboxes don't summarise the article subject in any way, there is no data, and what is included has no relevance to his work as a film director so it ends up being an unwanted piece of furniture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

12,272 words (and counting) wittering on about whether or not to add a few words in a box. A dissertation of irrelevance. WP:DISINFOBOX Fortnum (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fortnum: Thank you for the summary of what's going on here, however your words would be more useful if you provided an argument either opposing or supporting the addition of one on this page in the RfC so this can be put to rest.willydrachtalk 15:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Willydrach: - the argument is to be found in WP:DISINFOBOX. An infobox here will just be more needless repetition which adds nothing to to the topic. But that's already been covered in the previous 12,000 words. Endlessly. Hence my original comment Fortnum (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fortnum: I understand - but again, what I was asking is that you participate in the RfC above rather than the discussion so your opinion counts. willydrachtalk 15:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Willydrach:Oh I see - sorry, I totally misunderstood what you were saying there. Yes, of course - happy to. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • An additional thing I would do , thinking about this, is that while you have linked to the past discussions above in the talk header area, I would also add in 2-4 bullet points that succinctly answers the question "Why does this page not have an infobox." This should include "Infoboxes are not required." , maybe link to DISINFORBOX, and something like "There is minimal categorical information related to Kubrick that would fit well within an infobox, so consensus has opted not to include one for sake of simplicity and visual appeal.", and any other previously established reasons. And if some type of ban against infobox RFC is added, make sure that's added there too as well as the instructions if they feel they have something new to contribute of who to talk to. That way, when IP #40,192 comes along to ask the question again, you can point to that section and hat-off the section immediately. --Masem (t) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Even the essay WP:DISINFOBOX concedes that "an infobox can be useful in certain articles". Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
DISINFOBOX isn't even correct in any non-trivial way about anything at all. The only legitimate argument that any infobox is ever a disinfobox is if the information in the infobox is actually objectively incorrect, and even then the solution is to correct the errors, not to remove the box outright. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The absence of "nuance" is not "disinformation". Yet WP:DISINFOBOX asserts that Info-boxes are "stripped of nuance". Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There has never been a single article in the entire history of Wikipedia whose visual appeal was ever improved by the lack of an infobox. The idea that article's visual appeal is improved by not having an infobox is categorically the single most brain-dead argument in the history of brain-dead arguments, and I am already accounting for both "some people are so inherently notable that they don't need any sources" and "I am a very stable genius" when I state that. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
A nicely balanced, courteous and well-thought-out contribution from Bearcat. Obviously anything I say is worthless as I am braindead. I don't regard the aesthetics of info-boxes as the point. It is whether they are helpful to our readers (remember them?) and sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. But I am braindead, it seems, so I must be wrong. Tim riley talk 13:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This article, for example, looks better without an infobox. For one thing, on infoboxes about individual people it's a bit unaesthetic to repeat the name. If a photo highlights the Stanley Kubrick article then we know who it is, and don't have to be reminded with an excess mention of the name. On other articles the main "danger" of adding an infobox is that someone will come along and slap on one of those giant maps, which throw the aesthetics all to Hell (large map to Hell included) so people can see, for example, where in North America Florida happens to exist. The use of "brain dead" language for people who don't perceive as you do is quite insulting but entertaining enough not to cause a fuss. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
People are not geographic places, so the idea that an infobox inexorably leads to a map in a biography of a person is definitely not a real or legitimate concern. As I said above the last time you invoked the threat of a map, people are not geographic places — if we were talking about a geographic place, then yes, a map would be expected, because informing the reader of where geographic places are is most certainly part of our core responsibility as an encyclopedia. (You know where Florida is already, yes. Not everybody actually does, though.) But we're not talking about a geographic place, so OMGMAPNO! is not a relevant concern. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently to Bearcat and Bus stop, this heading, which was supposed to be about restricting the opening of future threads (regardless of outcome), is another place to continue litigating their side of the debate. WP:BLUDGEON. @Masem: I support the idea of an "FAQ" of sorts so that the next poor sap who comes along to open one of these discussions has some ready answers. However, I'm not confident it will do any good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If there was a FAQ, and assuming consensus stays the course (no infobox), then in the future, any attempt to open an infobox discussion, even if in good faith, should be quickly closed and the editor pointed to the FAQ. --Masem (t) 14:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There is not general agreement that there should not be any infobox on this article. It is now more likely this will end the same as in 2017 - Result: No consensus. As such I would be against any restriction against the normal process of reopening this discussion, particularly as it is a discussion of a common element found on almost all pages of this nature. Many of the arguments against infoboxes are quite unpersuasive, as I said well above in the previous thread. I agree with many of Bearcat and Bus stop's points. DISINFOBOX is a one-sided essay that should not be pointed to as anything authoritative. Nothing backs up the idea that an infobox discourages anyone from reading an article who was inclined to do so otherwise, nor that an article is improved by the lack of one. An infobox is included at the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Kubrick. It appears they are not afraid an infobox will scare away readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Laser brain, Bishonen, I think I'd have to agree with the idea of some form of long-term moratorium on further discussions. The basic point here is that there has not been a consensus to overturn the status quo. There have been no new arguments put forward and no changes in policies or guidelines. There is little point in rehashing the same discussion over and over if it is just the same unpersuasive arguments. If there is some larger change (if the MoS changes to insist on IBs, or similar), then of course the subject should be re-opened, but without that, all that will happen is the same go-around with canvassing, off-Wiki co-ordination, 'redlink' users, intemperate language to bait others and all the rest of the trappings that accompany the circus. – SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
SchroCat: See [4]: "once [the] RFC has been closed, I intend to place a restriction for probably a couple of years against further, future, RFCs". As well as discussions by any other name. That'll be a discretionary sanction per the arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to discussions about infoboxes. Gothicfilm, anybody who thinks my restriction, once I place it, is improper can then appeal it at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard. Anyway, the RfC should run for 30 days first — I'd hate to see it impeached on a technicality. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
SchroCat: you mention "intemperate language to bait others". What would be an example of that? Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have said all I intend to say on the matter. What I have said is clear enough, and you should read through the thread to find examples. Please do not ping me to this page again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering if I was the one who said something "intemperate". I'm trying to be mild-mannered, low-key and all, and I think I'm just arguing logical points. I've said a lot of things. But maybe it was someone else who was being "intemperate". Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Not having an infobox is really dumb. Emass100 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The benefit of an infobox is that it quickly gives the reader summary information about what is in the article so that they can decide if they want to read the entire article. A good infobox can entice the reader to investigate further, while lack of an infobox (especially in a long article) can cause the reader to skip it. Wikipedia has infoboxes and they have been used for decades ... why not use them? I am in favor of infoboxes, and personally think that just about every article (maybe not very short stubs] should have one. Truthanado (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Template:Infobox person lists 311,000 mainspace articles have infoboxes, including Alfred Hitchcock, who many consider to be Kubrick's near-equal. There is no consensus against an infobox in this article (see above discussion) and any decision to prevent is arbitrary and in contravention of Wikipedia's "edit in good faith" guidelines. Therefore, an infobox has been added to the article, and Wikipedia editors are encouraged to improve it. Truthanado (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I see that the infobox has been reverted. Following Wikipedia guidelines and policies, a request to the ArbCom has been made to review the decision that prevents a userbox on the Stanley Kubrick article. Truthanado (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
1) Why are you posting to a thread that was last edited almost 5 months ago? 2) Are you aware of the discretionary sanctions that you might be violating with these posts? 3) I can find no request to arbcom about this in your editing history. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Disable the talk page

Whatever sanctions are imposed, people will find a way to continue wasting time here. I'm seriously beginning to think that this talk page would be better off locked from all discussions and anybody editing it. It's one of the worst pages on the entire site, I don't think I've ever once seen a decent conversation which is productive or actually benefits the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a non-starter solution. Wikipedia requires a place to discuss issues. And I will say, in comparison to the usual "this needs an infobox" the question on a different image is a fair enough proposal. But we do need to stop new discussions from editors that clearly have not read the top of the page or the archives from asking the same questions over and over. --Masem (t) 17:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Masem and opinions (expressed in a civil manner) SHOULD NOT be silenced. The big thing is, there's other users that go out of their way to provoke other (see the things @Cassianto: said to HAL333 and to me in the "lede photo" section just up above). We should not take a nuclear route like this.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a proposal. Just an expression of sheer disgust at the trolling going on here. It stinks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I get you. I don't like it either. I think something we should all do is just not feed the trolls, because when we do, we bring out some of the worst in not only others but ourselves too. If someone is trolling you (as in any of us), throwing insults or the like, we should just ignore those replies and messages. Something to consider however is not everyone is trying to troll or harass others. For those of us having civil discussions (no insults, harassing, etc.), we could possibly start to work things out everywhere, not just here.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Even if it's civil it's usually a waste of time discussing things and gets nowhere, there's millions of articles needing more urgent attention..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
With the infobox situation, yes (I was wrong to post about it some days ago on messageboards). We shouldn't have to deal with that particular thing till next year. I think it's fine to discuss other things here, such as the lede photo (and because it barely has anything to do with an IB, it's valid for now). That being said, I don't think we should close the discussion on the lede photo, at least not yet. During this time, and after though, yes, let's try to help out more articles. I know I need to.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
FWIW this User:Thatstinkyguy/Project: An Infobox for Stanley now exits. While not exactly prohibited by the sanctions on this article IMO it is trying to skirt them. It is also redundant as all anyone has to do to see the article with an infobox is dig into its edit history. There is also more than one (including this Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 11#Why is there no infobox?) in the talk page archives. It is clear to me that this editor is simply waiting for the calendar to pass by and then start the whole rigamarole over. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Mind if I tell you some things, @MarnetteD:? I did start that sandbox project yesterday as a way to express freedom of speech. I also made the infobox from scratch. I copy/pasted info from the article. In regards to how long I've been involved with the whole infobox: not long; 2-3 days. And in regards to me "simply waiting for the calendar to pass by and then start the whole rigamarole over," no, I won't be the one who actually starts it. Once it does get started, I will put in my vote and opinions.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
freedom of speech? gimme a break; sounds like something a 10 year old would say. MarnetteD is bang on in assessment. Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, looking back, it was dumb of me to put it that way. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose That is a ridiculous proposition. It is articles like this that need a talk page the most. The main issue here is that many editors have a mentality that they own this page and resist any constructive changes. I would understand your frustration if this were a featured article with little room for improvement, but that is simply not the case. All you have to do is look at the featured articles for directors (e.g. Andjar Asmara, Rudolph Cartier, D. Djajakusuma, Aaron Sorkin, etc) and you’ll notice a few glaring differences. ~ HAL333 21:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

re OWN, you mean, like you are so desperately wanting to do? CassiantoTalk 22:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
While it is a silly proposal I can see the point; this talk is a magnet for people taking pot shots at specific editors. A word beginning with "t" comes to mind. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't consider myself an owner of this article. I've not purchased it. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

lede photo

See no consensus below to alter the present photo in this article's lead section. Closure requested at WP:ANRFC (permalink). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

.

Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.

However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Photo 1 and 2 are much better than the current. Of the two, I personally prefer Photo 1, as it portrays Kubrick in his prime. The current image misses out on Kubrick's full life of 71 years. Further, the current photo is awkward and the fact that it is staged does not make it suitable for the lead image. ~ HAL333 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is nothing wrong with what is currently there. This is simply more fetishising over the someone wanting to own the top right hand corner of the article. Isn't it odd that the requesting party is a five month old account with only two edits to their name, this being the second. CassiantoTalk 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
noise reduction
    • It must be a conspiracy then. Maybe the fact that the first edit was on 9-11 is a hint. Is it George Bush’s? ~ HAL333 00:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Or maybe it was you? You can't seem to let this article go. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I need to let it go? You're the one with a grudge, who is hostile, and spams my talkpage. I don't appreciate the entirely false accusation that this is a sock-puppet. Go ahead and geolocate the two accounts. If I wanted to begin a discussion on this topic, I would have. Believe me. ~ HAL333 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
          "Spams [your] talk page", what on Earth are you going on about? With what? Diff? CassiantoTalk 06:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
        Cassianto, I'd also like to express my distaste for the constant assumption of sockpupettry from yourself and others towards each new editor that arrives here and starts complaining or proposing something. Have you considered that maybe people actually think the lede of the article looks like an unformatted mess with a poorly representative photo? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        Oh well, never mind. By the way, who's the "new account"? CassiantoTalk 05:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current lead image is engaging and good quality. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The current image doesn't represent Kubrick when he was most active, even if it is a nice quality image (he is largely unrecognizable, even to those who are familiar with Kubrick's life). Copyright issues unfortunately preclude the usage of most of the best images out there of him, but I would prefer an image that represents what he looked like in his middle years or later years (This is generally what is done with the lede photograph on biographies). I'm happy with either of 1 or 2, though 1 is probably a better representation of him (with his iconic beard), 2 seems to be of markedly better quality. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • "Iconic beard"? Who gives a monkeys about his facial hair? Marylin Monroe was known for that photo, but on her WP entry, there is nothing of the sort. Please don't treat our readers as if they are thick. They are perfectly aware, and have the required amount of intelligence to work out for themselves, that the first picture on the Stanley Kubrick article is of Stanley Kubrick. If they want to see him with a beard, they can scroll down to see one. CassiantoTalk 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Cassianto I’m glad you brought up the example of Marilyn Monroe. Note that the image is of her in her prime, with blonde hair, not a photo when she was an amateur 21 year old actor with brown hair. Lede photos should generally be from the peak of their career, or at least when they were fairly notable. Another example would be Frank Sinatra, whose lede image is from 1957, around the middle of his career (versus the available photos of him as a 20 or 70 year old). ~ HAL333 20:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Bore off. You're incredibly tedious. CassiantoTalk 20:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
noise reduction
@Cassianto: Don't just write someone off like that just because they have a differing opinion. If you want to keep up with that attitude, I have no problem with reporting to ANI for impolite and insulting behavior from you.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Cassianto, Who cares? I do... I thought that was obvious from my comment. The fact that people who would otherwise recognise Kubrick have to work out that the photo of Kubrick is actually a photo of him from context is a bug, not a feature. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      What on earth are you droning on about? What's to work out? It's a picture of Kubrick. Who would anyone visiting Kubrick think it would be? Barbara Cartland? Look at the caption if you're particularly confused to see a man with a camera (kind of his job, right?) staring back at you. People who are visiting Kubrick's page are going there to read about bloody Kubrick, they are not going there to learn about the history of the Sinclair C5, are they? Stop treating our readers as imbeciles. CassiantoTalk 20:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      Cassianto, I think my first comment speaks for itself to be honest. I'll agree to disagree. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      It certainly does. Absolute drivel. CassiantoTalk 18:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
      Cassianto, are you really just trying to provoke other editors with this BS... honestly. Grow up. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
      Did you not say "my first comment speaks for itself"? CassiantoTalk 19:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose They're just not as good quality. If we had a quality colour one of an older Kubrick I might support it but they look horrible. Kubrick looks like he borrowed Rylan Clark's beard dye in the second one and Kubrick looks like he spent an entire year eating pies on the other.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current one is just fine. Unfortunately, it appears that Kubrick wasn't very photogenic (at least as far as free content goes), so my reasoning is similar to Dr. Blofeld's. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that the image found here and here is the best public domain image that we have. It's not on commons though, despite two sources that say it is public domain, because Getty images got their grubby hands on a high quality version from an old archive somewhere and started selling it online and claiming the copyright. It's a publicity photo released in 1975 by Warner Bros of him filming Barry Lyndon. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, that stinks! I wonder if there's a way to still get it to Commons, and prove that it's public domain. If so, a cropped version of that should be the lede photo for sure!
Thatstinkyguy (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as the current image is the best quality. PS - If someone can come forward with a quality image of Kubrick in his directing prime? that would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: Kinda odd, that the proposer has only ever made 2 edits on Wikipedia, one of which is opening up this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
...and nothing since, either. Better not say anything, otherwise it'll start snowing. ;) CassiantoTalk 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, particularly photo 1. In the popular imagination, Kubrick is best known for his appearance when he was older and had a beard. Google does it right. If you search for Stanley Kubrick right now, it makes photo 1 the prominent one. Vadder (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Only as a comment overall to think about: Kubrick was not as visible a person to the public as some directors today like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, or Quentin Tarantino. Whereas in the case of those three (or similar) there are leading photos that I would expect to be used to match the common we have generally seen them int he public (in which case we might put the recognition over quality if it came to that), Kubrick's face is far less recognizable to the general public, and this would be a case that I think one can argue quality over recognition would be better (particularly when coupled with the reasons no infobox is used here). Yes, I would think the best recognized image if we could would be of a bearded Kubrck but more full on (eg the lede image on this article [5]), but right now, we don't have anything free that works like that. --Masem (t) 19:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    That is a good image, Masem, and if it were free then I would be supporting it. CassiantoTalk 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support He is primarily known as a filmmaker so the lede photo should be from his days as a filmmaker. The quality of photos 1 and 2 are not so much worse than that of the current lede photo to override this principle.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for either photos 1 or 2. They both showcase Kubrick in his prime as a filmmaker.
    - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Back on this topic again? - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I immediately recognized the guy in photo 1 with the beard, but wouldn't have recognized who the other pictures are of. You the man(converse) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - interesting to note that the instigator of this RfC has, since posting this time sink, done absolutely nothing, this being the second of only two edits. Still, no sock puppetry going on here, guv! CassiantoTalk 11:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yet more noise reduction. Thatstinkyguy, if you can't do anything but shit stir, then don't post at all. You are dramah mongering here, nothing more.
  • @Cassianto: It is extremely weird that the one who posted this discussion, Intothenight1987, has only made two edits in total and none ever since. I figured since they started this, they would've weighed in again, but I guess not. Thing is though (whoever they are) and agree with it or not, they did bring up a solid argument. In case you were wondering Cassianto, this user (Intothenight1987) is not me. I'm saying that in case you wanted to throw an accusation my way.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fascinating. You're ever so twitchy, aren't you. But I'm glad you've thrown me off the scent by saying it's not you. I appreciate that. CassiantoTalk 15:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cassianto: Not twitchy. I'm just making myself clear.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you really want me to report you to ANI, @Cassianto:? Your type behavior may have gotten you places before, but it is NOT going to work with me. Now, are you going to be civil to everyone here, or are you gonna keep insulting everyone with a different opinion than you? Paraphrasing what Bill Foster from Falling Down said, "In America [and on Wikipedia/the internet], we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree."
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Paraphrasing what Harry Callahan said in Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day". What makes you think I give a monkey's toss about ANI? CassiantoTalk 19:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
ANI is at best a bad joke. Don't expect them to do anything worthwhile that lasts. 2600:1003:B84A:2C3B:F9C2:4730:3D10:60FE (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Mostly per Dr. Blofeld. Although "Photo 1" is from the period of his greater success, it's an inferior quality image. The current lede photo is much more aesthetically pleasing, conveys more meaning, and is frontally focused. The background and foreground are weirdly blended in photo 1, which strains my eyes (I can't look at it for more than a few moments before my eyes start trying to goddamn autofocus like a cheap digital camera switching between fore and back). And what is up with that hand in the bottom right hand corner? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
What meaning does the current photo convey to you that the others do not? After looking again, I agree photo 1 is lower quality.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
In the other two photos he's just looking at someone addressing him. In the current photo, although in reality he's just taking a photo of himself, he's successfully created the illusion that he's doing something more meaningful, as if he's at work on a photoshoot (which makes sense he was a photgrapher during this time). Mr rnddude (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I can understand that, but I feel that it is misleading to have the lede image of Kubrick depicting him as a photographer. Imagine if AOC’s lede image were of her as a bartender or if Ronald Reagan's were of him as a lifeguard. A minor career shouldn’t dominate the article in a lede photo. Kubrick simply wasn’t notable as a photographer. ~ HAL333 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • He was Stanley Kubrick. Who did you think he was? CassiantoTalk 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Specifically I'm in favor for Photo 1. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment About a week ago I sent an email (found here) to Kubrick's widow asking if she might share a quality image of Stanley. I have not yet received a reply. It was worth the try. ~ HAL333 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I came here thinking about closing the discussion, but found myself forming an opinion as I read through the comments and evaluated the pictures, so thought I'd better !vote rather than close it. MOS:IRELEV indicates that there are two factors we should consider here - the quality of the image, and how well it illustrates the subject. There seems to be universal agreement that the current photo is the highest quality picture - the other two are fuzzy, mottled and basically pretty poor. All three of the images indisputably illustrate the subject, so we come down to weighing which aspects are the most important to consider. The current image shows his full face, and he is also shown holding a camera, which is relevant given the nature of his career; it is however from earlier in his career than the reader might expect. Photo 1 is almost in profile, which to my mind is not such a good way to illustrate him; it is from later in his career, which is a plus point, and he has a beard in it which is apparently a good thing from comments above. Photo 2 is also later in his career, and shows more of his face than Photo 2; however, he is clean-shaven, and the blurry white thing in the foreground is somewhat distracting. On balance then, I think that there are pros and cons to each of the images in terms of how the subject is presented, so I come back to image quality - Image 1 is far and away the best from this perspective, and so I think this is the one we should use in the lead. GirthSummit (blether) 11:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Summary The count is 9 Support (including the original proposal) and 9 Oppose, hardly a consensus either way. If someone changes the photo or leaves it as-is, there's really no complaint. Truthanado (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, time to shut this "discussion" then as "no consensus" to change the image. CassiantoTalk 07:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a thought

I was thinking that it might make more sense if the signature png was moved to the top right, under the lede photo, as is done at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. His signature has little relevance to his legacy. If it is going to be included, I think it would make more sense as more of an overarching item. Interested to see what you think. ~ HAL333 18:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, I'd support this. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I've waited six days. I assume no one else has a strong feeling about it. ~ HAL333 01:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Where's the infobox?

No consensus for an infobox and infobox discussions are prohibited until September 2021. Please see the FAQ on top of this page. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThatJazz2012 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Kubrick's first film

Kubrick's first film Flying Padre can be found here[6]. I'm really bad with copyright but since this was made in 1951, is there any way to upload this to commons? ~ HAL333 01:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Stanley Kubrick have an information box?

Question answered, we are done here. (non-admin closure) Jip Orlando (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Other famous award winning directors have these. Such as Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Francis Ford Coppola, Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, Woody Allen, and Clint Eastwood. Not to mention many more. Why is Kubrick the only one that doesn’t have the information box? It just doesn’t seem fair. Cj7557 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQ box above. Editors have come to a consensus here that Kubrick's career is too difficult to summarize easily in an infobox. --Masem (t) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
How could it be "too difficult to summarize"? Does the subject of the article have a date and place of birth and death? Wouldn't that "summarize" the article? Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see how it’s too difficult to put the place of birth and date. Place of death and date. Name of his wife and possible children. Possibly his resting place. Not sure if he went to college but if he did you could put that there pretty easily. Cj7557 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Cj7557—you might not know the history of this. See this for instance. I argued for an Info-box, but WP:CONSENSUS was to not have an Info-box. Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop I went to the link you supplied. I have to say I am sad to see the results but I have to except them. Thank you for your time. Cj7557 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
My time is not valuable. Thank you for raising the issue. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Cj7557, "possible children"? An infobox presents them as fact, so why introduce misleading material in the interests of "quick facts, now!"? And it's not a "resting place". He's not "resting", or "sleeping", or "waiting for god". He's dead. It's a burial place. CassiantoTalk 09:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto You need to lay off! I get it you don’t like me. To bad. You’re being incredibly impolite. Cj7557 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Lede image

The current image is there through WP:CONSENSUS. The attempts to change it have had no discussion and the edit summaries by the editor who wants to replace the image indicate that they do not understand WP:BRD. Now that an IP (sock or meat or new editor) has made the same edit they are invited to start a new discussion about the situation. IMO a WP:RFC will probably be needed to reach a final decision but that is just me. MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's an admirable effort to be kind, but actually the IP isn't invited to start a discussion. The editor has been indef blocked. Starting a discussion would be block evasion. I don't really get IP range blocks, or I'd place one. A look at contribs from IP addresses similar to this one show they've been edit warring and arguing about images and being obnoxious for a while (see, for example, Lou Reed back in October). Now, if other established editors want to discuss the lead image, that's obviously fine. But this person is not welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Floquenbeam. I hadn't checked on the status or editing history of Wilderwyck before starting this thread - I just felt that, when the IP popped up, this thread was going to be needed to deal with a possible 3rr situation. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 03:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Infobox discussions are prohibited until September 2021. See notice at the top of the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

It humors me that people think this page doesn't need one. LOL Donaldd23 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Input needed

Filmography of Stanley Kubrick is currently an FLC. Concerns about its size have been expressed. Should it be merged with List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick (as it was before) to provide a more holistic view of his films and reception? ~ HAL333 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

HAL333, I don't think so. His output was sparse compared to giants like Spielberg and DeMille but the weightiness of his output supersedes his limited volume, in my opinion. His films have been taken apart and discussed/analyzed virtually frame-by-frame. I also have trouble seeing how to merge his filmography with his accolades in a meaningful way. I don't know anything about FLC but why is his limited output a problem for making it a featured list? He is not going to be making any more films (lol). Jip Orlando (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll respond here since I voiced some of these concerns. Kubrick's filmography is only 16 films, which is not very long. Without more information, there is little justification for keeping it as a separate page, especially if you consider that the majority of the current page is the lead, which includes information already covered in the Stanley Kubrick article. In other words, it would be easy to merge that list with this page, as that page has little to say on its own (meeting merger criteria #2) and is not very long (merger criteria #3). Yes, he is an important director, but that does not automatically justify keeping the article. The list needs to provide plenty of unique information or be too long to easily fit into another page; at the moment, it does neither in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've done a little thinking about this. It's quite common for biographies to include massive filmographies. (One example would be Taika Waititi.) By that standard, most current featured filmographies are fit to be delisted. All filmographies articles essentially just summarize comtent from the main biographical article and could easily be merged back in. Where should the line be drawn? Kubrick's filmography would also be larger than many other FLs, such as this one passed this month. ~ HAL333 06:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Length is not necessarily the issue. To quote from WP:FLCR #3c, featured lists could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. The filmographies are often split away because they make the page too long, hence why they could not reasonably included. On the other hand, the Latvian Oscar submissions page is short, but there is no other page on the topic (i.e. nothing like Latvia at the Academy Awards), so it could not reasonably go into another article. Kubrick's filmography fails both of these tests: there are other existing articles on Kubrick and it would be reasonable to incorporate the list into one of those articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proper license of lede image

Does anyone have the source url for the lede image (File:KubrickForLook.jpg). Thanks. ~ HAL333 15:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Content removal

Hey, Nikkimaria, you recently reverted this and I'll have to respectfully disagree. For clarity, I'll go through each change in a bullet format:

  • "men being dehumanized" --> "dehumanization" Why say in three words what you can in one? And why make it gendered?
  • "taking over $30 million in the first 50 days alone" --> "taking over $30 million in the first 50 days" Use of "alone" is complete unnecessary - puffery and somewhat authorial.
  • "a country mansion" --> "a mansion" Does removing "country" affect the reader's understanding of Eyes Wide Shut? I think not.
  • "New York City in the 1990s" --> "1990s New York City" Not only is this more concise, but it maintains the structure of "turn-of-the-century Vienna" which it is compared to.
  • "get the film out" --> "release the film" More concise - the former just sounds ugly too.
  • The final change was the removal of Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post disliked the film, writing that it "is actually sad, rather than bad. It feels creaky, ancient, hopelessly out of touch, infatuated with the hot taboos of his youth and unable to connect with that twisty thing contemporary sexuality has become.". This quote is unnecessary - we already stated that critical response to the film was mixed (implying that some critics disliked it). Also, by choosing this one review out of hundreds, we are giving it undue weight. Why not use the NYT or The Guardian? The overuse of quotes in this article bloats it and shifts emphasis away from Kubrick as an individual.

While I understand that some of this may be contentious, do you actually disagree with every single one of these changes? This article is nearly 90K bytes—twice as long as it should be—and conciseness makes a lot of sense here. ~ HAL333 16:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • While I haven't looked at the sourcing for this point, given the context it seems likely that the dehumanization was of men only. Is there evidence to the contrary? If no, I think specifying is appropriate.
  • I don't agree that this is puffery - it's emphatic, but appropriately so IMO
  • It impacts the reader's understanding of the setting
  • Don't think this is worth fussing over
  • Don't agree that this is in any way "ugly", and a single-word difference doesn't seem significant in terms of concision
  • Don't agree that including quotes shifts emphasis away from Kubrick in any way, and it provides direct evidence of significant critical opinion. If there are other critics that you feel should be quoted instead/additionally, feel free to present those, but I don't think "we can't quote everyone" is a strong argument for "don't quote anyone". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In Full Metal Jacket, the native Vietnamese - "the enemy" - are also dehumanized (not just via combat but also through the sexual objectification of women). So prominent is this theme, that NBC and the Wapo mentioned it in articles last month.
  • It's authorial language that does not belong in an encyclopedia.
  • The distinction between rural and urban has no relevance to Eyes Wide Shut. I'm not sure if being an hour drive outside of NYC even qualifies as country... Could you explain how it impacts the reader's understanding?
  • If you don't think that this is worth fussing over, then why did you revert it?
  • You really prefer "get out" to "release"? And a single-word difference may not seem like much, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of these throughout the article.
  • Do you see no issue with the length of this article? Why repeat things? I'm not sure whether you actually care about this or whetehr you are just trying to be contrarian because it's me. ~ HAL333 20:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said, I haven't looked at the sourcing on this point, so if there are sources supporting a non-gender-specific version that's fine.
  • I don't know what you mean by "authorial language"; I don't agree that this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia
  • Being an hour drive outside NYC is quite different from being in the heart of NYC, wouldn't you agree?
  • Because it doesn't seem particularly warranted
  • (covering both of the final points): I didn't say I saw no issue with the length of the article, although given the readable prose length it's not an urgent concern. I don't think the best way to reduce the length is by cutting out single words, or getting rid of all quotes (as stated, they do provide value beyond just saying "mixed critical opinion). I also don't care that it's you doing it - my answers would be the same if it were someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the infobox be removed?

Now that this article has had an infobox for a few months, it seems appropriate to open a discussion about whether or not it should be removed. Should the article

  • A - Keep its infobox
  • B - Not have an infobox

Tkbrett (✉) 11:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • B obvs. But only if we can have another ten years of arguing about it  :) SN54129 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • It's April Fools, isn't it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • To be honest, this is the first (and probably only!) April Fool's here today that made me laugh out loud. Very clever indeed! I hope absent friends can have a wry chuckle too  :) SN54129 12:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I got scared there for a second, you got me. —El Millo (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support option D only makes logical sense to have 2 infoboxes.Moxy- 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Jip Orlando (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Kubrick/Archive_13&oldid=1123135499"