Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Sellers mention and currency

In the open of the article Peter Sellers is mentioned in connection with Lolita and Dr. Strangelove. It seems somewhat out of place to specifically highlight any actor in any of Kubrick's films. Thoughts?

Also, in the mention of the sale of a photo by Kubrick, the denomination is in English pounds as opposed to American dollars. Should this be in the American denomination as the transaction took place in the US?THX1136 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick had a very well documented relationship. Both were landmark films. I think mentioning him is perfectly appropriate. Kubrick lived in the UK for over half his life. We should go with whatever the source says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again help desk questions wasting our time

Again we are trying to explain to our readers why the norm is not here. Sure you guys are doing right by our readers here?

Wikipedia:Help desk#Missing information ..........--Moxy (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anything good is going to come of dragging this whole tedious argument up again, for either side of the argument. With well over 4 million other articles that could do with improvement, I would suggest that your energies are best suited elsewhere. Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You got it 100%....waste of time dealing with it. To bad it keeps coming up....if only we could help our readers with the problem. Moxy (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If we are agreed that it is a waste of time, then why do you keep involving yourself? Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about the wars your in over this all over. But those here should be aware of what are readers are looking for when they read the article. Just as the last time I metioned this month's and months ago...same scenario.....simply FYI. Moxy (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"I don't care about the wars your [sic] in over this all over." -- Yes you do or you wouldn't be bothering me, again. Cassianto^Talk 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not aware this article was yours... nor was I aware you were here. Believe it or not there's many other articles that you're not aware of that the same topic comes up. Moxy (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't be impertinent; the article was improved to its current state by Ssven2 and Dr. Blofeld, so if anyone can lay claim to it more than anyone, it's them. Cassianto^Talk 22:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

OK then the FYI is for them. Have a good day and think of our readers always. Moxy (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Lack of infobox

I noticed there was a discussion about a year ago on whether to include an infobox or not, and was frankly shocked that so many editors were against it. I haven't read every argument, and I know infoboxes are optional, but its absence is very odd and striking. When I visit any article, the infobox is nearly always the first thing I look at. It's often the only thing I look at. I found my eyes immediately drawn to the blank space in the article where an infobox would normally be. It's an integral part of Wikipedia biographies; I'd even argue it's the most important part of a Wikipedia page. Maybe we should start another discussion to see if consensus has changed. Lizard (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Most recent discussion Nov-Dec 2016. We hope (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Consensus hasn't changed since the last discussion, or the one before that. Some articles are better without infoboxes, and this is one of them. JAGUAR  23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't see that. But it doesn't look like any consensus came from that discussion. Why does this talk page archive so quickly, anyway? Lizard (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone changed the settings recently; I've changed the settings to what they were before. We hope (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Can we please not have this bloody discussion again! Lizard the Wizard, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can't just keep having "discussions" until you get the answer you want. Cassianto^Talk 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies. It looks like this is something that's been hotly debated for a while now, but I was never part of those debates. As I said, I didn't notice the more recent discussion. But the fact that this discussion keeps happening, and infoboxes keep being added to the article, surely says something about how strong the currently established consensus really is. And I'd appreciate that you not accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT, especially when part of the rationale for excluding the infobox was "it looks far better without one." Lizard (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Lizard the Wizard, the fact that the article looks 100% better only forms about 25% of the reason why I think this article, and others like it, should not have an idiotbox. IDONTLIKEIT can be attributed to other subjective stances too, you know? Cassianto^Talk 09:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It does, in fact, look better without one, and that is a reasonable concern. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Exact opposite of what we should be doing..... never never pick looks over accessibility to information for our readers. Try to think of our readers and their different abilities to absorb information.... including non-native speakers of English..... and those simply looking for a quick tidbits. Forcing our readers to absorb information in the way you see best is not always best. Always better to give our readers options. Luckily this isn't an extensive problem. Now let's wait for the personal attacks.--Moxy (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Aesthetics is an important factor to the readability and presentation of an article. Some articles, especially biographies of people in the liberal arts field, would benefit from the lack of an infobox as it repeats information that is already featured in the lead at the cost of harming the article's layout. It also encourages readers to read the article, rather than glance at factoids that are either in the infobox or automatically generated by a Google search (which is a benefit in itself). JAGUAR  11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is that necessarily a benefit? Sure, it's nice for readers to actually absorb information from the article itself, but it's not of our business whether they read the article extensively or not. Perhaps you mean it would increase traffic for Wikipedia, but I don't know anyone who simply glances at Wikipedia in a Google search to obtain information. Considering that many of said readers seem to be questioning the lack of an infobox, perhaps an infobox should indeed be favoured over subjective aesthetic appeal. –Matthew - (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. More traffic is always a good thing, I suppose. Seeing quick tidbits on a Google results page would most likely deter a reader from clicking on the link to Wikipedia, but of course I'm only speculating. JAGUAR  15:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your perversion in wanting to implement an infobox onto every article is equally subjective when you assume on behalf of millions of strangers that they need something when you have no proof that they do. Cassianto^Talk 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Even after being shown studies of how people read it's odd people still say this. Our editors need to read up on how people use the Internet and how long there attention span is. Making points based on zero data does not help anyone especially our readers. Again today at the help desk more questions about an article missing basic info off the bat.Moxy (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have watched the past discussions, and though I do respect the past consensus against an infobox, I do find the reasoning against one less and less convincing considering WP's goal of being an educational work first and foremost. Substance over style in contrast to other types of works (particularly in the liberal arts). We want an article that makes partial digestion for rapid reference easy to search and use, and an infobox is normally part of that - not all users are going to want to read though 100k of prose - no matter how well written - to find basic facts and sources to get further information. The resistance against that has an air of elitism that is not appropriate for WP editors. I still get the reasonsing to avoid an infobox and this discussion alone is not sufficient to change that, but I do stress that I think times are changing and a more wider review may be needed. That said, critical first would be the ability in MediaWiki software to enable/disable visibility of infoboxes for those editors that do not want them to begin with. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

We are moving towards better acceses for our resders. We have changed the default for clasped infoboxes in mobile view to help our readers with disabilities.....as seen at the Frank Sinatra (mobile view will not hide infobox content). Slowly working towards better access to info.--Moxy (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I see no reason why we can't try to have a civil discussion on this; if you want to run a formal RfC, I see nothing in the guidelines that precludes you from doing so; I see no consensus in the previous discussion linked. A formal discussion to establish consensus would allow us (should consensus be not to add one) to place an note in the article to stop odd editors trying to add one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Why is the trouble surrounding Infoboxes always instigated, and then subsequently fuelled, by Yanks and Canucks? Cassianto^Talk 23:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Most likily becasuse there better educated, thus have a better ubderstanding of how different people have different needs, wants and abilities. ♡--Moxy (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

LMAO. And yet you can't even spell properly? JAGUAR  15:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, Jaguar, irony is completely lost on the Canadians and Americans. Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Pinning stars on the English-speaking countries west of the Atlantic is a fallacy. illiteracy in the US literacy in Canada We hope (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeesh, Moxy. I'm trying to side with you here but the irony is palpable. Lizard (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

lol burnt myself there lol...dame auto correct did not work. Have a fun day--Moxy (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My day would be a whole lot more fun if you'd just get lost. Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, if someone more familiar with the RfC process wants to go ahead and start one I'd gladly support per my reasoning above. Lizard (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no point ...as the outcome will be the same as others. What is needed is a shift from a small segment of editors telling our readers how to read over letting readers consume infomation in the manner they see fit. Options for our readers Is best....just need a very small segment of editors to read up on how best to present facts. No change will happen till some editors recognizes the different types of readers we have and how best to present the key facts all think our important. --Moxy (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your grammar is frankly awful. Thank god you you're incapable of writing articles, otherwise the poor ready would have to rely on an infobox. Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion took on a needlessly aggressive tone. Cassianto, refrain from mocking or being uncivil, nothing gets accomplished that way. If a new discussion/vote is desired by editors, perhaps take it to a location where the same editors aren't the only ones chiming in. Perhaps the WikiBio or WikiFilm projects? Rusted AutoParts 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree....best uninvolved editors look at this.....I have just state at the AI board I will no longer reply to inquiries or comment on these boxes. As I belive in time the community will solve the problem. I took his bait and got hooked. .....my bad. I would like to say that removing IP edits saying all IP edits are invalid will not help theses talks move forward.....as they don't just disappear....but inquiry at help desk and user pages.--Moxy (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, did anyone read the edit summaries of the 2 IPs? We hope (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IP 2

"Christ sake you dumb fuck, there are eight archives so the counter needs to be eight"

"don't delete my comments you asshole"

IP 1

"Stop fucking with the counter"

I saw. This whole discussion has brung out hostility I've seldom seen on Wikipedia. Lizard (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)