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

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.

---

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)

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.

RFC on banning infobox discussions from Kubrick?

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.

---

I'm wondering if a case could be made for banning infobox discussions over Stanley Kubrick. Every few months/weeks a new discussion seems to start, which always ends in disruption and incivility. Consensus should be respected and people who bring up the issue quickly punished I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

People shouldn't be "punished" for wanting a new opinion on something. I agree egregious discussions is much. But seeing as the discussion pertains to content in this article, I cannsee why people start new ones here.

As for conduct in the discussions, the only hostility I've seen displayed so far is by @Cassianto:. Extremely rude. Rusted AutoParts 19:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that "wanting a new opinion on something" happens every few weeks here. If it happens enough then it gets disruptive. If it was maybe just once a year, it wouldn't be so bad. Most of us have better things to do..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. But as opposed to punishing them for bringing it up (some tend to be new people to the article), simply close off the discussion and point them to the most recent one. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's 100% against WP:CCC. If there was actually a recent open RFC that could be documented to refer people to about the issue, that can be used to say "we just discussed this" for several months after it, but in time people still have a right to challenge that. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict) What an absolutely absurd proposal. Consensus can change. It looks to me that the only reason it becomes uncivil is because of a single editor, or perhaps two, strong-arming anyone who brings it up. So we should punish the innocent party due to the inability of a few editors to gracefully respond to their opinion being challenged? What a bizarre premise. Lizard (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2017 (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.

RfC: Should an infobox be added to this page?

Background: There has been to-ing and fro-ing about whether there should be an infobox added to this article, with recent frequent attempts by various editors to add one being reverted. The last formal discussion was held one year and a half ago, and can be seen here. There was another attempt at a discussion just last month, which suffered from insufficient participation and was accidentally archived preventing discussion being continued. As consensus can change and there has been renewed discussion (which can be seen just above), let's try and have a civil RfC on this so we can establish the current consensus.

Question: Should an infobox be added to this page?

Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose Some biographies, especially those related to the liberal arts field, do not benefit from having infoboxes. The infobox in this case emphasises unimportant factoids and undermines the lead. It also obstructs the presentation and looks far more attractive as a standalone image. I disagree with including an infobox in this article because the most important points in it are already discussed in the lead (albeit in the first paragraph), or adequately discussed in the body of the article. The infobox in this case is redundant because it doesn't add any value and hampers the layout. The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. See WP:DISINFOBOX. I will, however, support a compromised collapsed version in similar vein to the one featured in the Frank Sinatra article. JAGUAR  21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The Infobox method of presenting information offers a good alternative to reading the whole article for those inclined to gather a few key bits of information. The Infobox has its virtues. It is in a standardized form that allows for a quick grasp of certain basic points. Infoboxes are an alternative and their use depends on the mindset of the reader. Those clicking through articles are going to be inclined to quickly glean information from an Infobox. There are various reasons why an article should and shouldn't have an Infobox. A reason why this article should have an Infobox is simply because it is a lengthy article. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Oversimplifies the career and of necessity overemphasizes personal details. A well written lede is more informative and thus more accurate. Moreover, excess use of templates reduces accessibility for some readers as well as contributing to slow load times that make the encyclopedia less useful to readers with poor internet connections (not all our readers are in wealthy countries). No compelling reason in this case, such as statistical information, to override these concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my reasoning in the above discussion. Lizard (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I support mainly based off wanting to maintain consistency. You look at articles for the directors like Spielberg and Hitchcock. They have info boxes. They jump to Kubrick and see it doesn't have it. You may concern yourself with aesthetics, but if a vast majority of articles possess a recurring trend such as infoboxes, why are we trying to break with consistency. WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's the opinion some hold. It is by no means enforceable. Rusted AutoParts 22:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support I've seen a lot of argument here for leaving the infobox out that -- from what I can ascertain -- originates from editor preference for what editors think looks good. Infoboxes, just like articles, are for readers, and this should be our first priority in editing and shaping an article. Not what makes editors happy but for what makes readers enjoy what they are seeing. I realize there are no statistics (that I have seen at any rate) which indicate readers like or appreciate infoboxes, however, my bet is most do. Personally, when I go to a Wikipedia biography article as a reader and there is no infobox, it looks "wrong" and incomplete. Having no infobox in the article for someone like Kubrick seems remiss and neglectful. I support an infobox for the sake of uniformity and consistency in biographies but most of all to benefit the reader's experience while they're here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"benefit the reader's experience", do you have any evidence to show that the below infobox would greatly enhance the reader's experience?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"I realize there are no statistics (that I have seen at any rate) which indicate readers like or appreciate infoboxes, however, my bet is most do." Lizard (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Though I can't speak for WV, I would agree with them that consistency and uniformity are strong reasons for including an infobox. Additionally, the absence of one may cause readers to question why an infobox is not present, which has apparently been the case before with this article. –Matthew - (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Arb have ruled that infoboxes are not compulsory and not necessarily should be subject to unformity though. If that's a strong reason, see my post further down, get arb to change the ruling and make them compulsory.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm only commenting on this article and why I think it should contain an infobox. I'm not commenting on policy nor am I advocating for anything to be made compulsory. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it is going against policy by arguing that adding one for the sake of uniformity is a "strong reason". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Uniformity from the standpoint of a reader, not from the standpoint of policy -- that's what I'm talking about. We're supposed to be creating an encyclopedia for readers, not policy and not editors (I know you know that, just trying to further explain why I feel the way I do about this). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Arb didn't see it that way, they didn't agree that readers expect uniformity. If you're certain that the majority of readers expect and great value an infobox, and that the vast majority of people strongly support them regardless of content, then perhaps it's time the issue was readdressed to arb. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, encyclopedias don't use Infoboxes. So your point is factually wrong as well as irrelevant. Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Both you, Blofeld, and you, Cassianto, are very practiced and accomplished at arguing until the last dog is dead to counter positions made in these type of discussions. I'm not interested in arguing or splitting hairs over this and dragging my portion of the survey out and on ad infinitum. I've stated my case for supporting an infobox and that's really all I'm interested in saying about it. -- WV ●

✉ ✓ 23:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Off topic sniping

Of course it is; that's because you are a selfish and oppressive. CassiantoTalk 23:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC) A selfish and oppressive what? Might want to add WP:AGF to your reading list. Rusted AutoParts 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Don't feed the troll. He's obviously only trying to instigate. Lizard (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Why don't the two of you just Fuck off?. CassiantoTalk 05:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Oo, the f-word. You want us to go away? Are you in need a safe space? Rusted AutoParts 05:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Infoboxes should be used only occasionally and with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text. Further reasons include:

1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
2. Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
4. Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Having said all that, I appreciate a compromise and would support, reluctantly, a collapsible version which seems to work on Frank Sinatra and Peter Sellers. Further, I would also request certain fields be stripped, such as "religion - unknown" and bullshit like that. FWIW, I'm wholly opposed to any infobox here, period, but for the sake of a quiet life and a gleeful attempt at a return to sanity, I'd be happy with this appropriate compromise. Cassianto^Talk 22:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, for the sake of consistency and for condensing information simply and effectively for many readers. In my opinion, it's better to have an article for an important figure such as Kubrick fall in line with the infobox-including style of the wide majority of articles about other famous persons. –Matthew - (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What a load of hypocritical bullshit. So the "opposers" get jumped on by the "supporters" for voting based upon aesthetics, while the "supporters" think it's ok to support based on aesthetics? Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I mean, "opposers" seem to like the aesthetic of no infobox just because it looks "professional", which is a subjective view. "Supporters" are not voting based on whether or not it looks pretty, but whether it is consistent with other articles. –Matthew - (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So you are voting on aesthetics then. You want all articles to be consistent with each other; i.e, look the same. What a stinking hypocritical view. Cassianto^Talk 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a "Wikipedia aesthetic" as long as it is a good aesthetic. The advantage of consistency across articles is that readers know what to expect. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Heck, I guess I am voting on aesthetic value then. I can admit when I'm wrong; that's okay. At least I have the point of consistency on my side, whereas you have nothing to back up the perspective that the lack of an infobox equals professionalism. –Matthew - (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to provide me with a professional encyclopedia that uses Infoboxes? And then explain to me why they don't use them? Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MatthewHoobin: Bus Stop's argument isn't about professionalism. Reread his support. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey: No no, I meant that those who oppose the inclusion of an infobox, like Cassianto, seem to argue against it for the sake of having the page look professional. If I recall correctly, that was a frequent argument in past RfCs about this issue. –Matthew - (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're mistaken if you think this is solely about aesthetics. Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misread the indenting and thought you were responding to Bus Stop. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support an infobox which shows at a glance when and where he was born and died, and his occupation. I don't care for religion, nationality, cause of death, spouses, years active, - those parameters could not show or be collapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course; because you can't find when and where he/she was born and died by looking to the first line or two which is situated on the left? Cassianto^Talk 23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I find it more easily with parameter-value pairs, - look at Te lucis ante terminum (Gardiner). How many times did I try to explain the difference between a date of death in prose, and one in a template which includes the date of birth and calculates, and works in other languages without a translator? - My last comment here, - two comments per discussion was the wisest remedy in the infoboxes arb case, - imagine everybody sticking to it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support a collapsed infobox like that in Frank Sinatra. It maintains the clean look that those that are generally opposed want to keep with this article, but makes the info readily available with a click to those looking for more detail. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an infobox, as Kubrick didn't hold any political office or position. PS - Was bold & removed the confusing numbering of support/oppose posts. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support To summarise the key basic bio information for the reader, for consistency along the same lines per Rusted Auto Parts and Winkelvi. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I find infoboxes useful where critical information can be readily compared between articles (e.g. the speed of a car, or the height of a skyscraper); in this case, that doesn't seem to apply. The key information I'd most want as a reader - Kubrick's profession and dates of birth, etc., are already in the first line of text, so I think it would be repetitious to put that in an infobox as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This might be one of those points of divergence on this matter: What is critical information to one (a student of the arts) may not be the same as critical information to another (a general reader). I fully agree that from the standpoint of him being a movie legend, those data points are impossible to condense into an infobox and no one is suggesting this be done, but there are information because he was a notable person that others would take as critical that should be presented in a readily-accessible manner. This information clearly doesn't define Kubrick's career to any degree, but neither does this infobox on other biographical articles, nor is that its purpose. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose collapsed infobox - It's a bad idea. Although MOS:COLLAPSE advises discretion on using boxes and collapsing them, collapsing a lot of info in the box doesn't make readability or accessibility or editing easier than people hoped for. Rather the collapsed infobox requires a little more complicated coding. Neutral on adding the box for Kubrick, however. I hope infobox works for Kubrick; otherwise, why waste time on making an infobox? George Ho (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC); edited. 00:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is the coding a problem? Once the collapsed coding is there people shouldn't be messing around with it. Cassianto^Talk 13:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I see there are {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{Collapsed infobox section end}}, which has complex coding, despite simply typing the templates. No point on discussing the coding further... unless you want to rebut me. Anything else to comment? George Ho (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your strawman argument cuts no ice with me. I think you're coming across as rather sad and desperate. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Then I see no reason to argue with you. George Ho (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Then don't. I see you're now attempting to start an RfC on Sinatra having followed me there, and you're sniping at me on Doc James's page. I have to say that you're doing a pretty poor job of not wanting to argue with me. Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Already apologized to you at your talk page. By the way, your arguments about the coding is convincing. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - But a collapsable infobox is a compromise to go about, like in the mould of Sellers and Sinatra.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose collapsible—one of those compromises where both sides lose, and utterly defeats the purpose of having an infobox.
  No comment on whether to have a box. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree exactly with the reasoning of User:Jaguar at the top of this survey, except that I disagree that a collapsed box would be helpful. I also think that a userbox here would actually discourage readers from reading the text of the article, instead focusing on the box and then ignoring the well-written article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is actually something I've considered when writing articles; that I wouldn't want readers to be satisfied with just reading the infobox and thus ignore the main text. I mainly work on sports biographies, the infoboxes of which naturally usually contain more info than most infoboxes. But really, I think if someone is truly interested in a topic then they're going to want to read the main text, regardless of the infobox. I would think (I have no proof; just a hunch) that there aren't many readers who would skim through an article looking for certain tidbits, and upon seeing the article is well-written say "wow, since this article is so well-done I'll read the rest of it." Lizard (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "I wouldn't want readers to be satisfied with just reading the infobox and thus ignore the main text" -- Perhaps you think an infobox encourages people to read further? It doesn't; they click off and then ignore the hard work we've put into creating the actual informative stuff. Also, FWIW, I agree that IB's work extremely well on sports articles, in the same way they work for political articles, and royal articles, and film articles, and most history articles. But they don't work everywhere. Cassianto^Talk 23:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support collapsed infobox: I see a lot the argument that the infobox is not needed, since all the information is in the lead paragraph. But the thing is, Wikipedia should be directed to readers, not the editors. I agree that the infobox is mostly just repeated info, but it helps readers who want to simply scan through simple data. If it helps readers, why not include it? You can simply ignore it and read the lead with no problem or hindrance if you don't like it. But I think the better solution would be to just collapse it, just like in Peter Sellers. I think it's a nice compromise. 189.120.148.98 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but let me get this right: you're for an infobox, but are wanting it collapsed? I find your "support" a little bit confusing. Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant is I support an infobox, but I believe the compromise of making a collapsed infobox would be a decent, if not better, solution. 189.120.148.98 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd be so kind as to bold the fact you support a collapsed version, and strike your support for "wanting an infobox" as the two are essentially the same thing. Whoever counts up this clusterfuck at the end will take your support as meaning you support an uncollapsed infobox. Cassianto^Talk 12:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, changed it. I support collapsed IB. 189.120.148.98 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Infoboxes should have only uncontentious information, if anything is discussable it should be taken out specifically and not at large cause "it looks better". Bertdrunk (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"it looks better" is not the sole reason against having one. Do try and keep up. Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support presence of an infobox per consistency arguments presented by Bus stop, Rusted AutoParts, WV and Matthew. It does not seem, on the surface, that the article's aesthetics or the content presentation which resulted in its GA status would be compromised by the infobox. As for collapsing, the only mentions of entries with such boxes are those for Frank Sinatra and Peter Sellers. In the absence of Category:Articles with collapsed infoboxes, the frequency of collapsing is not evident, but the practice appears to be relatively rare. Since there is opposition to collapsing, it should only be done as a last resort in an effort to obtain a rough consensus for the infobox's existence. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Roman, Template:Collapsed infobox section begin is used in 100+ pages. Not sure whether it qualifies as rare. Some of the links shows high-profile and controversial topics. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

George Ho: Take a look at how it's used in some of those "high-profile and controversial topics", though, such as Female genital mutilation, where it's used to collapse a tedious data portion of the box; and Paris, where it's used to collapse a couple of "Other destination" sections in a box in the Air transportation subsection. Actually, clicking around, it seems fairly common to collapse only subsections of the boxes, rather than to collapse entire boxes as a "compromise" between pro- and anti-Infoboxers. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What would be the reason for collapsing the infobox for Kubrick, Sinatra, etc. anyway? –Matthew - (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The anti-infoboxers get to "compromise" by technically having an infobox, while having it out of sight & out of mind. The pro-infoboxers are appeased but don't really gain anything, because the infobox ceases to be a quick, easy-to-scan overview—it's hidden away, and only frustrates those who want to quickly click through from another article they're in the middle of reading and scoot right back. Note: I don't use infoboxes myself (I just had an infobox-less book article on the Main Page for New Year's), but my reasons have nothing to do with condescending swill in WP:DISINFOBOX, which I disagree with on every point. But that's the level the arguments in these disputes unfortunately keep coming down to. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Consistency with similar articles would call for an infobox in this article. Infoboxes present a quick glance of information for readers looking for quick tidbits regarding someone. Collapsed infoboxes can present a problem for assistive reading devices If I'm not mistaken, so I support this infobox uncollapsed as well. -- Dane ^talk 05:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose/tentatively support compromise of collapsible infobox per Cassianto. Some time ago, just out of idle interest, I went back and read some of the past RfCs on this same issue like the quite heated discussion over an infobox for Noël Coward. I'm an avid consumer of Wikipedia biographies, but I've never written one. My kneejerk take on the issue, prior to a considered reading of the Noël Coward discussion, was pro-infobox because I favor consistency; after reading and thinking about it, to my surprise, I sided with the anti-infobox faction, and I guess now is my chance to emerge from lurking and weigh in on this issue.

Along the lines of Cassianto's "Undisciplined expansiveness" objection: to me, the worst universe is one where we end up with an infobox of Kubrick that reports that he died of a heart attack, as an item of trivia, before the reader even has a chance to know that he is the director of 2001. The argument for consistency (the universality, standard, or inevitability of the infobox) falters in light of a prominent counterexample, the evident consensus that pages for classical music composers prefer thumbnails to infoboxes. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Pierre Boulez, and many more all currently have thumbnails. As a further counterexample, Johann Sebastian Bach has an infobox at the moment, although perhaps the fact that infoboxes tend to not be excluded but don't have to be excluded should seem like an argument in favor of editorial freedom to choose when it is best to deploy the infobox. A parallel concern is that infoboxes seem to become de facto mandatory only above some certain quasi-arbitrary level of notability. For example, among academics, Judith Butler gets an infobox, but not (among countless possible examples) Corey Robin. (I'm aware that there is likely a free image availability problem for Corey, but I think you get the gist of my point: you've surely seen many less-notable pages with either no image or just a thumbnail image and not batted an eye, but infoxboxes with an image or not seem to be de rigueur for highly notable pages.)

I'm not completely convinced of the aesthetics of a sole thumbnail image at the head of an article, but I think there is a persuasive case for allowing editors to determine whether there should be a thumbnail or an infobox. More so, I am persuaded of the case for the "collapsible infobox" solution which seems to elegantly fuse the best elements of both worlds, and I'm especially encouraged by the evident practicability of this solution on pages like Frank Sinatra. Of course, some stray vandal could always put a goatse.cx in a collapsible box, so it's not a perfect solution. But it seems like wider-spread adoption might lessen the need for these discussions (and the accompanying polemics) in the future. —BLZ · talk 09:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - for exactly the same reasons I opposed a matter of weeks ago; people who keep returning to continue this crusade should be blocked for the constant disruption caused especially as they admit to finding it "actually quite amusing" (note: only admins will be able to follow the link as the page has been deleted after an MfD) or getting "fun" from the conflicts. I would also highlight that those who are pro-IB appear unwilling to accept the compromise of a collapsed IB for any extended period as the present disruption on Frank Sinatra after only six days demonstrates. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Until you get arb to change their policy on infoboxes not being compulsory, I see no reason to include an infobox for the sake of it "because other articles have one" when the informational value is very questionable. Pointless time wasting which could be going into articles which actually need the attention.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The arbs" have no such policy, and no authority to make such policy Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sympathetic to the editors arguing that the presence of an infobox will prevent readers from reading through an article. Articles such as this one represent a significant and laudable time investment by all the people involved. We want people to read them. Absent analytics, heat maps, and usability tests we can't know for certain how our readers are reading this article. It's possible, however, to speak more generally about how people use websites. People (readers) view websites more prosaically than the people who create the websites. People visit websites in order to obtain information. A large number of people who visit this article, sadly, aren't interested in how Kubrick composed the shots in Barry Lyndon. They want to know simple things such as when and where he was born, his years of activity, his profession, and when he died. Yes, you can get that information from prose, but usability study after usability study has demonstrated that people skim instead of read, and that the eye is attracted to elements such as lists and tables. You can't force someone to read prose by removing the alternative; the prose is not diminished by providing the alternative. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The thing is, this article gets well over 100,000 hits a month. This article has been without an infobox for a good three years now I think, so has been visited by millions of people. And it has only been a tiny handful of people who have tried to enforce one or question the use of the article without one.. That tells me that it is isn't an essential component.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a non sequitur. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support An infobox on this article would make key biographical details about Kubrick available at a quick glance. It would also make them available in machine-readable format. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What a lot of delusional bullshit. Cassianto^Talk 13:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Stanley Kubrick
File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg Kubrick in 1949
Born	(1928-07-26)July 26, 1928 The Bronx, New York City, USA
Died	March 7, 1999(1999-03-07) (aged 70) St Albans, Hertfordshire, England
Cause of death	Heart attack
Nationality	American
Occupation(s)	Film director, producer, screenwriter, cinematographer, editor
Years active	1951–1999
Spouse(s)	Toba Etta Metz (1948–51; divorced) Ruth Sobotka (1954–57; divorced) Christiane Harlan (1958–99; his death)

Presuming the infobox added would be like on the right. How much informational value does it really have on Kubrick's career? What important info does it tell us which isn't mentioned in the lede? I'm not automatically opposed to the adding of infoboxes, but when I wrote this I simply thought it had little informational value and looked better without it. I still think that. I don't know why people think it is of extreme importance that one is added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems the will to have infoboxes is more for uniformity/consistency than actual function/informational value. If this is the case, you might want to all challenge the arb ruling that they're not compulsory and look to pass something which makes it compulsory for all articles to have one, regardless of actual value.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are to argue that the infobox would add little informational value alongside the lede, then couldn't the very same be argued for the majority of articles with infoboxes? –Matthew - (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, your point about the arb ruling makes this comment rather unneeded. –Matthew - (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I generally support them in articles where there is a lot of data, aircraft, sportspeople, even some buildings and settlements etc. In arts biographies, however, I think the informational value is often very questionable, and I think they often look better with simply a photograph. A lot of work went into this Kubrick article. I simply did what I thought looked more professional. It is an infobox which largely gives you no information, so seems redundant. If the infobox had real statistics on his career, like total gross, highest grossing film, lots of facts and figures and something of value representing his career I'd support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The argument for consistent use of infoboxes in, for example, biographical articles, in addition to having been rejected by the Arbitration Committee (which ordered us to discuss each case on the merits—hard to do, but I keep trying and for certain types of articles, I do add an infobox as soon as there is enough information) is just as much a personal preference for a certain look as is the argument that many such articles look better with just a photo. I am not suggesting that that is the only reason some editors would prefer to have infoboxes everywhere, but I suspect what kind of reference books one is used to is a big factor: I am used to encyclopedias that only use summary boxes for things like countries (population figures, major exports). More importantly, however, I would urge the proponents to consider not only that we are required by the Arb ruling to consider this article specifically, but that the "personal preference" response cuts both ways. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What strikes me as particularly oppressive is that there is no compromise when it comes to the infobox nazis. It's either their way or no way. I have suggested a collapsed version but so far, only Masem (pro-IB) and I (anti) are grown-up enough to consider it. Cassianto^Talk 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's time that arb recognizes that infobox discussions and warring create a major problem. It's gone on long enough, I would prefer it if something was passed to stop it happeneing time and time again. Sad to say, but if that meant making infoboxes uniform to all bio articles I'd probably support that to avoid this disruptive process happening frequently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I'm being cast as an "infobox nazi" in this situation, so I'd like to point out that I am not outright against the idea of a collapsed infobox. –Matthew - (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am against the idea of a collapsed Infobox. I think that part of the idea of an Infobox is instant availability. I think it should not require that the reader do anything but peruse the readily available information in the usual and expected fields in Wikipedia Infoboxes. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop does make a fair point when it comes to accessibility. I would also like to expand upon a point conjured up by Rusted AutoParts earlier; take a look at articles for other filmmakers. Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppola, Sofia Coppola, Billy Wilder, Edgar Wright, Hayao Miyazaki, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Wes Anderson, Sam Raimi, Ishirō Honda, Robert Zemeckis, Akira Kurosawa, David Fincher... hell, even Uwe Boll, they all have infoboxes. None hold political positions or offices, and no such infobox contains information not readily available in the article itself. What makes Kubrick's article different? –Matthew - (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been wondering the same, Matthew. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Kubrick's article is different because unlike most of those somebody (myself) has taken the time to write a decent article and promote it to GA. I would likely do the same on any of the above if I developed them and promoted it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So, from what you are saying, the only thing I can gather here is your reason for not wanting an infobox is about you and what you like and don't like? I never thought you'd feel that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, please (and I hope I am). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So, Dr. Blofeld, allow me to bring up these examples then: Clint Eastwood, Paul Thomas Anderson, Joss Whedon, and/or James Whale. All of these are GA-class, and all of these just as well have those pesky infoboxes. Is the infobox the reason for their GA status? Of course not. But it also means that Kubrick's article has no reason not to have one. –Matthew - (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does your list mean that Kubrick has to have an infobox? I've looked at both the James Whale and the Paul Thomas Anderson articles and consider both boxes to be utterly pointless. If I were the one investing time and money improving either of them, I'd be inclined to delete the infobox as it serves no purpose. As the main author, I'd consider that entirely my prerogative. Cassianto^Talk 19:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who promoted Eastwood to GA status. I didn't remove the infobox because it had at least more value than the Kubrick one in terms of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto: The reason for my list-making was to show that Kubrick's article having an infobox is hardly at all different from the numerous articles on other filmmakers (including some which are GA-class like Kubrick's) which have infoboxes. Therefore, Kubrick's article having an infobox would be in line with consistency. Additionally, Dr. Blofeld, I don't personally see a problem with repeating some information in the infobox format, as it is a quickly accessible panel of important biographical facts about whatever person the article focuses on. But I suppose that's a subjective view to hold. Also, I commend your work put into both the articles for Kubrick and Eastwood, as well as several other pages you've likely helped promote to GA status. Good stuff. –Matthew - (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

MatthewHoobin: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a terrible argument, moreso in light of the fact that Infoboxes are officially optional. Focus on the merits of the infobox itself, otherwise this will be another tedious, souldraining back-and-forth. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Help:Infobox, "[a]n infobox is a fixed-format table usually added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." The infobox for Kubrick (see the example created by Dr. Blofeld) would present a summary of information regarding Kubrick's life in a concise manner, and would also improve navigation to interrelated articles. Additionally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "can be valid or invalid", and, "[w]hen used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". –Matthew - (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to help you, MatthewHoobin. Sorry, I won't make that mistake again. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Um... my apologies about that. –Matthew - (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on the example Infobox: the "religion" field has been deprecated for almost all bios—the exception being for people where religion plays a key rôle in their lives (priests, missionaries, etc). See: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, which ended in an "Overwhelmingly clear consensus". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Most of them don't. They just get turned on when they create and take part in drama. CassiantoTalk 21:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC) The current discussion didn't have "drama" until you started hurling uncivil comments. Rusted AutoParts 21:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC) And the "uncivil comments" were not deemed "uncivil" until you turned up. Funny that. CassiantoTalk 21:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC) It would be in your best interest to back off. Rusted AutoParts 21:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Would it? Fascinating. While I take my security blanket behind my sofa and rock backwards and forwards to a Cliff Richard number, why don't you go and do something more constructive with your time. Or perhaps the thrill of being part of this fucking pantomime is all too great for you to ignore. CassiantoTalk 21:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC) "Cassianto Presents: How To Look Like a Tool" doesn't interest me. Stop trying to derail the conversation. It would make MY day a whole lot more fun if you grew up. K, champ? Your attempts to be condescending are way too tryhard. Rusted AutoParts 21:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Jesus F. Christ—I check my Watchlist this morning and all I get is the last four hours worth of changes. Why? Because another Infobox shitfest is eating up the whole list, replete with PAs on a handicapped editor and oddly cherrypicked data to push odd bigotries. (Here's another cherry, for anyone with the reading skills to digest it.) You can be sure of the quality of discussion when it descends to sniping at typos. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sooner or later

We need to have a discussion (in the appropriate place) to decide which type of bio articles should have infoboxes & which bio articles shouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's not likely to happen. WP:COMPOSERS decided they should not be used in composer articles, but that has been overthrown, and now we have some composer articles with infoboxes and most without. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support all articles having infoboxes, however amateurish they may look in places, if it meant putting an end to silly infobox disputes!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't solve a thing. You'd still have infobox fascists insisting on filling in as many fields as they can, or have to put up with the idiocy that WP:NOVELS insists on, where each {{Infobox novel}} must include an image of the original book cover and ISBN, no matter how irrelevant or out of date that info is, under threat of a block for removing it. That's right, I was threatened with a block for removing the cover image from The End of the Road, even though I wrote the entire article and nothing in the body even mentions that cover (which doesn't even relfect the content of the book). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that article includes maps of the US pinpointing Maryland and the town the book is mostly set in, where the town itself doesnt matter - it could be called 'Everytown, Middle America' for the impact it has - there are bigger problems than which book cover to use or not use. Even Robocop, a film which arguably owes a large debt to Detroit for the sense of decay throughout, does not have a map pinpointing Detroit for the readers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

On the lead section

I edited the lead section a while ago, but the edits were reverted. The changes I had made were there for the following reasons. "His films, most of which" is preferable to "His films, which are typically" because the director is deceased; the "Creative differences" sentence is moved to start a new paragraph because the previous paragraph was too large; "and skillful use of music" was deleted because it verges on POV and because his "evocative use of music" is already noted in the first paragraph; and the final sentence is added to tell readers which works of his are the most renowned. I would like an explanation of why none of these were improvements. AndrewOne (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to "meticulous attention to detail and use of music". You don't write leads with five paragraphs and one tiny sentence paragraph. I suggest you read the MOS guidelines and how to write a good lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

AndrewOne, I don't agree with any of your changes. In some cases you diverge from proper style, in some cases you are introducing awkward writing, and in some cases you are making the writing sterile and boring under the guise of removing what you perceive to be POV. Kubrick is indeed noted for his mastery of incorporating music into film—"skillful use of music" is actually putting it mildly. --Laser brain (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If there is something I am misunderstanding about this policy, please inform me of it. The sentence is indeed a biased statement, because it assumes as fact that Kubrick's use of music was skillful when it is a critical consensus, not a fact, that his use of music was skillful. In the section of the NPOV guidelines concerning the description of aesthetic opinions, it is noted, "Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language." This is the same reason I could not write that "Bach is noted for his brilliant use of counterpoint" or that "Godard is noted for his masterful use of jump cuts". AndrewOne (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid your point is eluding me. If the preponderance of reliable sources used in an article note that Kubrick's use of music is skillful, that's what should be reflected in the article. Saying someone is good at something is not "biased" if our sources say they are good at that thing. We may be talking past each other because I really don't understand what your issue is. --Laser brain (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The point he's making is that it's a fact the he made such-a-number of films, but the quality of his skills is not a fact, but an assessment. He is considered skillful, but that's not the kind of thing that could be determined by empirical means. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)