Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 10

Kubrick and Harlan tied the knot?
I quote the article: 'Kubrick married Harlan in 1958, and the couple remained together 40 years, until his death in 1999.'

Also, Kubrick is listed as a spouse on Christiane Kubrick's wiki page. And this is discussed at the Personal_life_of_Stanley_Kubrick page.

I have good reason to doubt that they ever actually married. Firstly, I read here that Stanley Kubrick married Christiane in 1958. Okay, then I wonder, when Kubrick’s divorce from his second wife, Ruth Sobotka, became final? The answer given here is that 'They divorced in 1957'. I'm real curious about the reference given for this: 'Santas, Constantine (2011). The Epic Films of David Lean.' I think that the book title suggests a detailed study of the five epic films of David Lean. I think there must be a typo there, eh? So we have no reference for this info, but we do have the wiki entry on Ruth Sobotka, which has this to say:

'they married in January 1955; separated in 1958, and divorced in 1961.'

ooops. Now, how come I don't think that Kubrick and Christiane Harlan ever married? I won't bother with that, because 'why bother with that' is a better question. I'll settle for the more modest point that repeating something that you heard doesn't make it true, along with the logical point that we don't really know, at the very least, *when* Stanley and Christiane might have gotten married. Anything about a wedding reception? Where? When? I guess that doesn't prove they *didn't* marry, but where is the burden of proof? Whose word are we trusting here, anyways? Maybe I'm a trusting guy, but how did this rumor even get started? DanLanglois (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No better/more photos?
(Full disclosure: I wanted to discuss infobox too, but seeing how it's a "sensible" subject, I'll keep to my original point of speech.) Let's be honest - the current picture is not the appearance most people remember Kubrick by. In most film discussion forums I have been in, he is older, slightly bigger, and has a gigantic beard. A little bit more like this, I find. And as it turned out when I looked at Commons:Category:Stanley Kubrick, we have not many pictures of him with that iconic look. I do wonder, is it really that hard to find aptly-licenced photos of one of the greatest artists of the 20th century? Maybe it is, and I won't judge either way. If we can't find another portrait, maybe we at least can discuss it a bit and maybe find consensus on whether the picture should be replaced and with what. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to find. The File:Kubriku.jpg image you link to is awful. The current one is a lot better.  Cassianto Talk  22:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do realize the other one was awful. Had I thought it good, I would have put it in right away, doing it by the book. The current portrait is easily the best one we currently have. But is it the best considering what SK looked like in most of his film career? I think not. I think we need another portrait - for the lead at least, and move down the current one to a section or something - and my main concern is that Kubrick generally didn't look like that . Consider for instance that the lead of Adolf Hitler does not contains this image, but rather a portrait showing the appearance most commonly represented with the person in question. Once again, the issue I raised is a theoretical one and maybe not instantly fixable. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 22:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the dates involved, the older you want him to look the less likely you are to find an image now out of copyright - see the copyright term chart. If you do find one you can propose it, but you'd need appropriate documentation regarding copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
I recently added an infobox for the article and was notified that there is no consensus to have an infobox. I would like to add that as a general reader (with not much knowledge of American cinema), I found it very strange that this article didn't have an infobox because this is the first place I look at when reading on Wikipedia. Reading the ongoing and past discussions, I feel that the editors are in the wrong here by putting their personal preference above the benefits of general readers. Seeing that the demand of infobox keeps coming again and again, I think it would be best if it is kept. Those who do not like it can simply ingore it.

Ankit2 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've been forced to revert your addition, mainly per your own argument: The extent of your experience here does not allow you (or even me, for that matter!) to over-turn previous discussions, with which this this talk page runneth over. Thanks for your input, though. Happy editing!  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should this page have an infobox?

 * Per WP:STRAWPOLL: polling is not a substitute for discussion

No

 * 1.
 * 2.

Yes

 * 1. Hentheden (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2. SiliconRed Ferdy V 14:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3. Ferdy V (talk 22:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC+1)
 * 4. Kajuenastar Kajuenastar I only came to this specific talk page because I couldn't understand why there was no infobox. I got the information I wanted about a famous director I was already familiar with but in a format that was not as user friendly as it could be. 23:59 PM 18 March 2018 (UTC-4)
 * 5 Ambo100 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Main Photograph
I think it is worth considering using a different photograph as the main portrait of Kubrick. Using a selfie from so early in his career inaccurately represents his physical appearance at the point when most readers would be familiar with his work. My thought would be to use a photograph somewhere between the 1960s and 1980s rather than from 1949. SiliconRed (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed a few times including Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 10 and Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 8. The problem is always the difficulty in finding a pic that meets the free/fair use guidelines. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for pointing me to those talk pages. Did not realize this had been discussed before. SiliconRed (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Came here for info, not getting it
So I was here to look up some quick info about Stanley Kubrick after a conversation with a friend, and I noticed that there's no Info Box. I am well aware that there's a conversation about it here, but we need to just consider a simple fact: Info boxes give information that the vast majority of users coming to this page are looking for. The only other thing that someone would generally come to the Stanley Kubrick page other than the quick information is his Filmography. Generally speaking, though it's nice we have all this information, unless the opening paragraph did its job then they do not care about the details, and do not care to slog through them to get the information they actually want. The alternative to an info box is a lot of Ctrl+F's, which are NOT usually available on Mobile, and so we just have a mess. I get it, aesthetics, but form follows function, you build aesthetics around the function, not the other way around. The function of Wikipedia is to give information to the masses, and this is going against that. I dusted off my ancient account to say this: I, the average Wikipedia user (not editor,) had a bad user experience. This page in particular failed to do the basics of what the user expects.

That's just my two cents. Take them or leave them, but I 100% guarantee you if you were to poll the average Wikipedia user (not editor, user) if they do or do not want Info Boxes, they would agree that Info Boxes should stay. Do not enforce your artistic vision over the needs of the people actually using this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PheonixDev (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're offering the choice, then we'll leave them. Thanks.   Cassianto Talk  23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Been looking at your edits, Cassianto, it seems like you have a lot of love for the idea of your grand "artistic vision" for Wikipedia bios, in fact, you're so thorough in your grand misunderstanding that 41/145 comments on this talk page are by you, so let's make this clear: This isn't about art. This is about information, and half of the idea of compiling information is the ability to find information. If you don't understand this, and let's be clear: this is a critical idea to the concept of encyclopedias, that's a massive problem and I suggest you take a break and figure it out. PheonixDev (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you just take a break. That's it.  Cassianto Talk  23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * PD if you can't be bothered to read the article - which is where the "information" actually is - there is little that anyone can do for you. Considering that these are the first posts you have made in over two years one has to wonder what other usernames you have used. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have never used another username. Again, I told you what it is, dusting this one off for this. I usually do not partake in edit arguments, but this issue is glaring. And here's the thing: Your romanticized "editor's view" of what the page should look like does not match up with what the users actually want. This is why this keeps coming up. This is why info boxes are on most other pages. This is why these features exist - it's because users want them. You don't get to remove something critical to the user experience on Wikipedia because you don't like the aesthetics. PheonixDev (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at your edit history you don't take part in anything. Add to that the fact that proof is sadly lacking which backs up your declarative statements about what readers do and do not want. BTW no one is forcing you to read Wikipedia. Please avail yourself of any of the 100s of others websites that don't offend your tender sensibilities. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In all of your posts, you keep saying you're looking for information and can't find it. You've repeated the IB credo in every one of them, but have yet to say what it is you're looking for and couldn't find. We hope (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, so, I'm gonna say it again for you: I do not edit. I'm giving you the user opinion. Specifically I'm giving you the opinion of someone who has a degree that involved tons of work with UI/UX - you are denying people concision. The title of the thread is a reference to the ease of use of info. For example, in order to find out where he was born and when he was born, I have to go to two different paragraphs in two different sections of the article (intro and Early life.) To find out details about his family, I have to go to a third section (Personal Life) and overall it's just a big mess. You need to get yourself out of "editor mode" and actually view this from the perspective of those using the site. PheonixDev (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are that desperate for such details so quickly - it takes all sorts I suppose - there is always google.  Cassianto Talk  08:22, 30 December 2017 (UT·C)

There's undoubtedly something sinister going on behind the scenes as this trolling over infoboxes is getting out of hand. What was the last thing arb said because they should be doing something to stop this happening.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the person to ask I'm afraid, but in any case they tend to aver they don't go by precedent (while of course they often do). In any case the current lot are lame ducks for another day or so. Two things strike me. First, the examples of information that infobox lovers can't wait to get, or are reluctant to seek in any but tabular form, always seem to be bathetic stuff like where someone was born, their citizenship, and who they had sex with; or, judging by other controversies, their nationality, religion, and what they are "best known for", such as what pigeonhole(s) their music can be put into. These are awful things to reduce a career to, let alone a life. Far from being an aesthetic issue, I believe this is an issue of fairness to both the person being thus reduced to tabloid headlines, and the reader who deserves accuracy. Second, I'm informed off-wiki that the WMF has recently announced "structured information" as one of their priorities. i.e., Wikidata rather than Wikipedia. So,, if you don't want to use Google as suggested above—and Google builds its own infobox where Wikipedia doesn't have one—then I suggest going straight to Wikidata, where there is no nuance or perspective whatsoever. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So there is a TON of weak attempts at discrediting me, which is cool, but point still stands. Ultimately, this boils down to an extremely inflated sense of "justice for the artist." In your head, having an info box that gives quick facts about an artist simplifies their entire existence to that singular info box. Though it'd be tragic if that was the case, and I'd agree if it was, it seriously isn't. You don't stop reading at the info box, but you aren't going to do a deep search through three different sections to get basic information which is ultimately what you're arguing for. Like, I get it, you're all lovers of art, that's cool, and there's nothing wrong with that. But part of a job of editing for an encyclopedia is making sure the encyclopedia gives people an easy and organized way of accessing information, with the most basic information requiring little to no effort to be found. Period. If that is a problem, and it really does sound like it is for you, then this, unfortunately, is not the place to express that frustration. Again, and I'll repeat this for nth time - the user experience is paramount, being able to find information is more important than anything else. Wikipedia is a source of compiled information first and foremost. It is not a place for artistic flare that compromises that idea. Period. PheonixDev (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't write for people who are after "quick facts". I write for people who are genuinely interested in the subjects that I write about. Those interested in my articles will want to read on. Those who aren't, have either visited by accident or haven't visited at all. If you want "quick facts" to cheat in quiz nights or to impress a date, I suggest you google it.   Cassianto Talk  17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that's really cool you write for that reason. Unfortunately Wikipedia is meant to consolidate information in a user-friendly and useful manner. There are other sources for more artistic writing, this really isn't one of them and never will be. PheonixDev (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In your opinion.  Cassianto Talk  20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No it's not just "in my opinion." Wikipedia's mission is to compile knowledge in a concise and clear manner. The entire reason for editors is that. Period. If you are not willing to accept this, then I highly recommend you cease editing immediately and find something else to do. You are clearly not in a healthy mindset to provide objective facts and uphold a uniform standard that users can rely on. I understand this means a lot to you, and you have several pages, and heck, you even go through the effort of having an inflated username with the big text and font, but this is not your job and you are doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. So I highly recommend you either take a break and review what Wikipedia is all about or stop entirely. PheonixDev (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the why this article should be an exception. Ambo100 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not.  Cassianto Talk  22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is right now. Almost all other bios have info boxes. PheonixDev (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it right.  Cassianto Talk  11:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a lot you do that most would consider not right. I'm gonna be honest with you, man, you strike me as the kind of guy who's constantly on the wrong side of things due to nothing more but an extremely inflated sense of self. When the vast majority of bio pages have infoboxes and now you want to grind your heels and throw tantrums saying no everyone else in Wikipedia is wrong then that's really just something you need to get checked out. PheonixDev (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, screw my dignity. I'm jumping on the Kubrick infobox war and state my opinion: "Of course we should have an infobox, everything else is ridiculous!" The suggestion to the right is mine. It gives all vital information on SK without in any way decimating his life or whatever the concern is. I don't even get this point about how SK's legacy is tainted by a harmless infobox. Of course he did much more than die, marry, and carry a passport, but anyone on this article can see that. If we were to intentionally hide it (and yes, making it deliberately less accessible is the same as hiding), that would feel like declaring SK more or less over-human and not worthy of talking about in terms of demography. Consider my satire infobox below. Is that how high Wikipedia will think of SK? Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 01:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to WP:AN and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived.   Cassianto Talk  11:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the love of Jimbo, Cassianto! What exactly are the points of WP:TPG that makes this discussion worthy of admin intervention, aside from your personal POV? As far as I see, all the previous discussions closed without consensus, and even if they didn't and consensus existed, is it a crime to discuss it? Or are you claiming ownership of this talk page? You've been rather blunt and arrogant as far as I can see, If you really had "[e]nough of this fucking bullshit", just unwatch and let others more interested take the debate, be civil and let it go! Heated discussion doesn't mean forbidden discussion. I can't see how we're abusing Wikipedia. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no debate. It's been had many, many times before, just check the archives. There's a consensus in place NOT to have an idiotbox, and by keep dragging this up every couple of weeks, is tantamount to disruption. It's best an uninvolved admin comes here and presides over the matter. If they deem the amount of diffs I've provided at AN to be ok, then so be it. The fact you state there is "no consensus" is because the consensus has not fallen on your favour. The discussion has been had, the result was that an infobox was not required. If you claim that's not enough, then I'll raise you one and say that there is a "silent consensus" in place as the box has remained off the page since the last RfC. Oh, and do not make condescending remarks like this. Do it again, and I'll have you up at ANI.   Cassianto Talk  13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting hypocrisy from someone who's been blocked a dozen or so times for personal attacks. It'd be great if I could just go around removing the personal attacks from comments you make. Looks like someone can dole out the personal attacks but can't take it themselves? jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that laborious MO of attempting to derail the thread by bringing up the irrelevancy of my block log is still alive and kicking.   Cassianto Talk  16:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aided by Mother's little helper We hope (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting decision to highlight what's clearly a good faith attempt at deescalation. If this is a way of saying thank you to me, it's definitely a new one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to thank you for. We hope (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's shit like this "Thank you-for adding humour to an infobox discussion! - I stopped commenting, find them a complete waste of time, but read of course, and your deity box made my day! I just read again what I said in 2013, - no need to change, I'll just add 2017." that keeps the ammo in the war flowing. We hope (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor finds those discussions such a "waste of time" that it was necessary for her to initiate this discourse about them recently. We hope (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium
We need a freeze on these repetitive 'infobox' disucssions. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. But perhaps the freeze may take place in hell, first, rather than here.  Cassianto Talk  15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually quite like the look of a collapsible infobox. It seems possible for a compromise of collapsible infobox to get consensus. I'm thinking of starting an RfC on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I especially like it as it frames the image nicely. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? I reckon we should then have an RfC about what to call the next RfC.  Cassianto Talk  16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This entire chain of 'discussion' is probably the saddest thing I have ever seen on the internet and it is worrying to see how long it has been going on for.

The fact that there is a constant argument about it, day in day out, and it's effectively been a one man war with Cassianto having this page watched and just running into every single post and immediately harassing anyone and everyone who dares talk about it, leads me to think you're misunderstanding what the solution here is. PheonixDev (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A moratorium isn't going to happen, because consensus can change. At some point people are just going to have to accept that this oddball decision to have no infobox on a prominent biography (when nearly all other bios have them) is more trouble than it is worth and creates far more disruption than it is worth. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it can, and indeed it has. Hence no infobox.   Cassianto Talk  23:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lets put it this way, if you didn't have status quo behind you, you would never get a consensus to remove the userbox infobox. A couple of "no consensus" RfCs do not result in "There's a consensus in place NOT to have an idiotbox" as you so eloquently put it above (the most recent RfC could easily have been closed supporting the userbox as ~70% supported an userbox infobox of some kind). You guys are being as disruptive as anyone else asking for a userbox by demanding that everyone shut up about it. Consensus can change, there has never been a consensus that no userbox infobox is the right way to go; but rather no consensus either way, you don't have any sort of precedent to demand a moratorium. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I got as far as your first line and then couldn't be bothered to read the rest. The fact you call it a "userbox" suggests to me that everything else you've written is rubbish. Thank you for your contributions; they are invaluable.  Cassianto Talk  05:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a typo clearly makes any point I might make invalid. Try to be a bit more civil, you don't own this article or the others where I have seen you engaging in similar discussions about infoboxes that I have seen linked at AN. Your lack of respect for other editors' opinions leads me to believe that there is little point in engaging with you further on this topic. However, I doubt that you will sway anyone to your side with this attitude you have developed. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It works both ways:
 * 1) Oh dear. "you don't own this article" -- cliche, but sadly, neither do you.
 * 2) How about your lack of respect for those editors whose opinions differ to yours?  I see you've made zilch improvements to this article, but are keen to inforce this cancer here. Why? Have you checked with the editors who've brought this article up to the standard that it's at, as to whether they think this article needs an infobox?
 * 3) "However, I doubt that you will sway anyone to your side with this attitude you have developed." -- I'm not here to "sway people". People are capable of making their own minds up as to whether this article needs an idiotbox.

Anything else? I'm enjoying this! Have a great New Year.  Cassianto Talk  11:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Compromise
Let's use a collapsed infobox', seeing as it works for Ol' Blue Eyes. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work on that article though, does it? SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was challenged over a year ago, but survived. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, a collapsed infobox would still invite people to ask why there isn't a full one. We need to find a solution so that we can stop these discussions from recurring. JAG  UAR   14:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only because a lot of time was again spent providing amusement for some; it was also questioned again very shortly afterwards. I'm also not going to waste time hunting for how many times myself and others have had to keep reverting it from being 'uncollapsed'. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Get an Rfc going at WP:BIO. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An RfC won't stop anything. Nobody seems to give a flying toss, as proved at AN. ARBCOM need to get their shit together and stop all this disruption.  Cassianto Talk  19:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am eager to contribute. I am catching up on the reading, but once I feel fully informed I will propose something to the committee if no one else has filed something at WP:ARCA by then. Alex Shih (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I think the problem here is the obvious abuse of the "consensus can change" policy by those who cannot stand the idea that people may have differing opinions to them.   Cassianto Talk  20:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Renewal of Discussion
I've just seen this talk page and read through the discussions that were had in late December and early January regarding Kubrick's infobox. I find the argument that Kubrick should not have an infobox because of aesthetics, or because it makes him more human or normal, inappropriate in this context. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to assert personal opinions by making Kubrick's page fundamentally different from virtually all other directors. Why should personal bias be allowed on Kubrick's page in this manner and not others? Should I start changing other pages to look different from the standard because I think a certain individual should be held to a higher regard? No; once more: this is an encyclopedia, which is not a place for such bias. I'm sorry for renewing a discussion that has been the subject of intense debate for quite some time, but it doesn't appear to me that anyone has clearly articulated this point (correct me if I'm wrong), and it seems very worthwhile to bring up. SiliconRed (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I don't see any good arguments for why there shouldn't be an infobox apart from "I don't like it that way" (which isn't a very good argument). On the other hand, there are plenty of good reasons to use an infobox: it's a quick way to glean information about a person without perusing their entire article; it also makes that information more accessible to young people or people who do not have research skills who may not in fact be able to easily read and digest the entire article to find whatever information they're looking for. And besides, there's no need to make anyone work to find information just because someone thinks they only deserve to know if they're willing to try hard enough. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is never an argument for inclusion or exclusion. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean or who you are replying to, MarnetteD. I didn't personally think my argument hinged on the way any other Wikipedia page is, but I also wouldn't call WP:OTHERCONTENT a good reference point here. The information is included on the page no matter what; the problem is that it could be included in a more accessible way that readers of Wikipedia have come to expect for articles, especially biographical ones. Of course, formatting and layout do not need to be the same across the entirety of Wikipedia, but when there's a good reason for a layout choice, I think it's silly not to follow it. I'm not saying "other Wikipedia pages have infoboxes, so this one should too"; I'm saying "other Wikipedia pages have infoboxes for a good reason, and that reason is just as good for this page". Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and, please present arguments specific to this article and the content, and avoid talking about Infobox in general. For instance, if you are proposing a simple Infobox with date and birth, what would be the reason for that if it is already repeated in the first sentence of the lede section? Which parameter(s) for the proposed Infobox would you suggest that would provide a fair overview of Kubrick, and without repeating what is already written in the lede section. For parameters such as "Cause of death", is it really necessary to feature it in a prominent section when the manner of death was rather not unusual? If it is to make it easier to search, are you aware these data are already being covered in Wikidata? These are some of the questions you may want to ask yourself. Be specific on which parameters to propose and specific rationale relevant to this subject, and that will be a good point to start if we were to have a renewed discussion. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for your input, but I am a bit confused about why arguments about infoboxes in general are not relevant here. It seems that any reason an infobox is good and helpful in general is a reason that it would be good and helpful on this page in particular. I am also not sure why the assumption seems to be that the lead is equivalent to the infobox. The lead here is nearly 600 words long, and would take a few minutes for the average reader to read in entirety, whereas an infobox can be read in a few seconds. As far as the "cause of death" question goes, why would a mundane cause of death make it less worth noting? I don't understand this point at all. The Bronx is a pretty mundane place to be born, but that still gets a mention in the lead. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 07:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and, thanks for your replies. My main point is that the argument against including an infobox, i.e. that it devalues Kubrick by allowing people to quickly glean information about him rather than forcing them to read and actually learn about who he was, isn't a solid argument to remove the infobox, as it stems from a bias about Kubrick. An encyclopedia is not a place for such bias. Any variety of arguments could be made to include the infobox (I would point to  's comments for this) but I am most interested on eliminating the bias that is clearly apparent on this page because of its lack of infobox. SiliconRed (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As per the infobox documentation, the 'cause of death' parameter should not be included in this specific article anyway. As to the inclusion of an IB on this article, the date of birth and death can be found in the first handful of words - the standard position immediately after the subject's name - and anything else does not allow sufficient nuance for Kubrick's life and career. The actual wording on the IB template is: "Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness, e.g. Bruce Forsyth, Eduard Khil." SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I've been reading this discussion for a while now after somebody posted it on a facebook group with a caption effectively being 'this is why I don't edit on wikipedia' and I'm really not sure there's the consensus people seem to think there is (that, as stated in the source of the page, there is a consensus against adding an infobox).
 * With this in mind, I'd like to propose a straw poll in an effort to build and/or reveal consensus, with the simple goal of showing whether or not there is a consensus for what. Hentheden (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I know I shouldn't need to say it, but please keep in mind WP:Canvassing and WP:SOCK :) Hentheden (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , good point. It seems that there has been significant general discussion on this subject but no clear consensus has been drawn. The Straw Poll is an excellent idea. SiliconRed (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be newcomers to this page, so they may not be aware that right now there is a current ARBCOM case over civility over infobox inclusion (of which this article is one of those places where there have been incivil discussions), over here Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Because of that, I would strongly urge editors to wait until that case is concluded to reopen discussion of infoboxes, since participation of those involved in the case that have had a stake in this article in the past may influence that case. --M asem (t) 14:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Any discussion about Infobox for this page should ideally wait for the outcome of the ArbCom case. Alex Shih (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I wasn't aware. Not that I'm at all in any way familiar with WP arbitration decisions, and definitely not to pre-empt any decision from there, but it doesn't seem like anything in the proposed decision of the Arbitration committee would actually affect this article directly. Nevertheless, you have a point, and it's only infoboxes - I could care less ^^. I'll wait. Hentheden (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll Proposition 2
Returning to this page after some time, I'm seeing plenty of familiar users and a renewal of a discussion that has already been had many times over in this thread. It seems that exactly the same arguments have been made (by both sides of the argument) over and over. I will not summarize them here, as I do not wish to misrepresent any specific side on the issue, though I would highly recommend users refer to older threads to fully understand the arguments and context. My understanding is that the constant renewal of the discussion happens largely because of the abnormality of the lack of infobox.

That being said, I would like to recommend a second straw poll to help reveal some sort of consensus on this subject. Hentheden proposed this in the past, though arbitration on the matter effectively nullified the results of their poll. With this arbitration concluded, I would like to propose a new straw poll. I remind editors that this is not a substitute for discussion, but rather a way to gain a better understanding of consensus on the matter. I encourage other editors to continue the discussion and sign the straw poll with their opinion. SiliconRed (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:STRAWPOLL: polling is not a substitute for discussion

Should this page include an infobox?

Yes

 * 1. SiliconRed (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2.

No

 * 1. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2.


 * Ridiculous to start this up again, the last long discussion finished last month!Smeat75 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Archival of ongoing discussion??
Why was the ongoing discussion - the straw poll - archived ? Hentheden (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was waiting until the arbitration decision (which I haven't looked at) could be built around whether or not to have an infobox. Hentheden (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank for this. Althouhgh oddly, I didn't get your ping—lucky I'm watching the page! Take care,  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't answer the question: if only so that I understand the rules about archiving (which I confess I don't), why did you archive the discussion above ? Hentheden (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
Considering that nobody has as of yet objected to an infobox on the straw poll, and nobody is discussing anything, I think we have consensus. I'll add an infobox. Hentheden (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Two of those editors are basically SPA's. Also you agreed above to wait for the outcome of the ARBCOM case. Add to that the fact that you claim that you could "care less" so waiting is still the way to handle this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. I didn't realise everyone was so pickly on this. Fine. Hentheden (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Post Arb-com case: Infobox, yes or no?
Ok, so the Arbcom case is closed, and other than reaffirming that we should all be civil and act in good faith (and that consensus can change), it doesn't have any bearing on infoboxes on this page. Considering this, does anyone have any objections to the adding of an infobox to this page, or do we have consensus? Hentheden (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection, but keep it simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection to a simple infobox. Would stop all the pointless bickering on this page. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple IBs are, if anything worse, than useless. They would exacerbate the "pointless bickering" by failing to address even less points of note than a "normal" one. As a solution to satisfy none but enrage all, it's a killer though. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 13:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Different people may mean different things by "simple". How is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Jeez... not this yet again... Oppose the addition of an IB. Skimming through the thread above from not that long ago (where there was no consensus for change), no one put forward any good reasons to change the situation, and the consensus from some time ago for non-inclusion still stands. The now (thankfully) archived "poll" means absolutely nothing: little on WP is decided by a simple vote, and it is discussions based on policy and guidelines that hold sway, not IDONTLIKEIT voting. This constant pushing for IBs is disruptive and distasteful, and with all the millions of articles that actually need improving, it seems odd that this subject still seems to be the focus of constant driving for too little effect, except to create more heat than light. – SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . Please don't be hyperbolic. As an artistic choice only, an infobox decision cannot be determined by policy or guideline. That is the primary issue that leads to so much discussion on them. Whether the infobox is added actually is decided primarily by IDONTLIKEIT voting (or if you prefer ILIKEIT voting). \The main issue that leads to constant disruption is the fact that you can never get IP's and new editors arriving at this page to accept the reasons why there is no infobox without explaining it to each and every one of them and then arguing with them. Frankly it is just weird and inconsistent with most other articles, so they just want to help to fix it. Given that the only thing that is hurt by adding the infobox is the feelings of a few editors that JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I think that I'll support any infobox discussion simply to end the repeated discussions that result from not having one. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no hyperbole in what I've said. The inclusion of an IB is in no way "an artistic choice only", and if you look through previous threads you'll see that people give a range of reasons, which go far beyond such a simplistic and misleading a statement. I'm glad that you think POV pushing by people simply to get an IB just to achieve a 'one size fits all' approach is an endless process that will continue, despite any valid and very real reasons to the contrary. That is all too obvious to anyone who has observed this behaviour by socks, IPs (read into that logged out editors), IB warriors and the occasional flashmob to keep pushing. If such behaviour of going round article after article to remove the IBs was undertaken with such vigour and using such tactics, I can guarantee that overly heavy-handed action would have been taken against anyone who takes a more flexible approach. Voting to include an IB to stop pushing by disruptive editors from ongoing pushing their IDONTLIKEIT view... not an approach I'd take, but each to their own, I guess. – SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you assuming that every new editor and IP that comes along is a sock? Seriously? Why are new editors not allowed to have an opinion on infoboxes? You keep saying "their IDONTLIKEIT view", but as far as I can see, your only argument for not including an infobox is the same. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "" No. "" Then you have not read in the previous threads what I have actually written, because that is a gross misrepresentation of my opinion, so please don't try and play the 'bad faith' game with me. – SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then what might I ask... is your policy or guideline based argument? (links or just copy here please, I'm not going to spend an hour digging through old threads for your name). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to keep my input into IB discussions to a minimum, but as you've already told me what my opinion is, I thought you would have bothered to read through? As you haven't, I'm not sure why you think it's based on IDONTLIKEIT. As I've said above, go through what I've written previously and you'll find my reasons. I'm de-watching this now, as I don't think anything constructive will come out of this, but plus ca change as far as IB discussions are concerned. – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You opposed the infobox and said that it should be decided "based on policy and guidelines that hold sway, not IDONTLIKEIT voting". The only other reason you gave boils down to 'maintain the status quo because it is the status quo'. I read through all the old discussions in the archives of this page a couple months ago and I haven't seen any policy or guideline based reason for including or excluding an infobox, at least for an article like this one. I'm happy to be pointed wrong, but as far as I can see, it is mostly/entirely an editorial decision and therefore essentially can't be chosen by any other method than a vote of personal preference (i.e. IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT). Arbcom has similar views, having found no reason in our polices or guidelines to fall on one side or the other. My argument is simple: it is less disruptive to have an infobox than to not have one, simply because new editors will keep showing up in discussions on this page if there is not an infobox (and they have as good a reason as anyone else because there is no good reason to have/not have an infobox other than the personal preference of a group of editors). The consistency argument for an infobox that is often made isn't based in policy or guideline, as articles are not required to be consistent with each other's formatting. However, most high quality/high profile articles do have an infobox, which naturally leads to new editor questions about why there isn't one (and new editors or visitors to this page are naturally dissatisfied with the answer that they eventually get: "some guys at the beginning decided that it looked bad and we haven't been able to get a consensus to change it so it just stays that way because it is the status quo"). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "some guys at the beginning decided". In the beginning, indeed, this article had no infobox, but then to . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I thought it was a long term thing, though this just confirms my hypothesis that having an infobox is less disruptive than not having one (the repeated discussions in the archive and edit warring on the article don't start until Blofield unilaterally cuts the infobox, and it was stable for a long time previously). In any case, the situation is still the fact that the most recent discussion was closed as 'no consensus' (despite 70% of the !votes being in favour of an infobox of some kind, I might add). The most recent discussion close actually suggested opening another RfC at some point to discuss a collapsible infobox which I would agree might work as a reasonable compromise that might reduce the amount of disruption. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as I find an infobox adds no value to this article. The information presented is readily available in the lead and anything more is too complex to condense into infobox parameters. The infobox creates a non-ideal visual presentation as well, and will be a magnet for those wishing to introduce unsourced parameters. I do find it curious when random IPs and new editors find their way into these discussions. I don't think suspicions of socking are that novel, since the topic of infoboxes (and editors' behavior around the same) has been discussed on external sites known for recruiting trolls to come disrupt our site. I find your repeated requests for "policy or guideline" arguments to be weak. Have you considered that it might just be common courtesy to at least consider the editorial choices of the principal editors of a page, similar to what we do for citation style? There's a difference between what we're allowed to do and what we should do. -- Laser brain   (talk)  13:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the first person to bring up "policy or guideline" arguments, and I'm not "repeatedly requesting" them; I don't believe they exist one way or the other (which I thought I made quite clear in my comments above). Considering the editorial choices of the principal authors over others runs completely contrary to the concept that no one WP:OWNS the article and I wouldn't consider my editorial choices any more valid than anyone else's on an article I was the principal author on either. What is your opinion on a default-collapsed IB? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've asked more than once for a policy or guidelines argument, so that is the definition of "repeated". I don't accept or buy the WP:OWN argument that's often presented against editors who have content-based arguments for keeping them out. So, instead of being pedantic, perhaps come up with some content-based arguments of your own. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * On another note, I'm not sure what point there is with the 'support' and 'oppose' !voting here, nothing in particular is being proposed (yet), I was under the understanding that this was a discussion, please don't try to turn it into an RfC. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you're claiming that someone writing "Infobox, yes or no?" in the section heading isn't proposing anything? That's a bit disingenuous. My answer to the question/proposal is no. Oppose. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the OPs original question is well and truly answered. Yes there are objections, no there is not consensus to add. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Existing consensus hidden message (archive 7 vs archive 9)
There is a hidden message in the text of the article near where an infobox would be added that reads.

I tried to change this to: but was reverted by  with the message: "There was no change to the consensus established way back, and the votes mean nothing. The consensus still stands."

This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what WP:NOCONSENSUS means. The RfC contained at archive 9 clearly closed with a result of no consensus to change the current state of the article. This means that we stick with the status quo of no infobox, but this does not mean that the consensus reached back in archive 7 somehow still stands. Linking to that discussion and not the much more recent RfC is very misleading. We can say that there is no consensus to add an infobox, but we cannot say that there is an existing consensus for no infobox. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not ping me to this thread again. To clarify why I reverted: there has been no discussion that has overturned the stated consensus held in archive 7. All subsequent discussions have ended as no agreement to overturn that consensus. Consensus 7 still stands, despite any semantic acrobatics to try and twist it to something else. – SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't ping you, but discussions that end in 'no consensus' don't 'fail to overturn the previous consensus', they establish a new situation where there is no consensus (and then WP:NOCONSENSUS kicks in and advises us to stick with the status quo). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Insertcleverphrasehere. Your wording is a more accurate reflection of the current state of affairs and is what should be used.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The guideline at Manual of Style/Hidden text explicitly deprecates "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit, so we shouldn't be completely forbidding the edit. There is also the argument about whether a later discussion that ends in "no consensus" replaces the "consensus against" of an earlier debate. Could we compromise by softening the wording in that hidden comment and also avoiding the use of the word "consensus" in this particular case? I've just offered my idea for replacement wording. I won't replace it if anyone chooses to revert, but I do think it's more MOS-compliant and reduces some of the risk of meta-conflict over it. As an aside, I prefer a full url to a wiki-link in a hidden comment because my browser allows me to highlight it and go to the page via a right-click; I understand that not every browser has that functionality. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That damn infobox
I have this article on my watchlist for I-don't-know-the-reason, and every edit war so far seems to revolve around that damn infobox. Obviously consensus hasn't been reached. My opinion is: meh. Meh, leaning towards including an infobox, but still: meh. Since talk page isn't going to resolve this, how about going to DRN or that third-party-invitation noticeboard? byteflush Talk 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * DRN has nothing to say. There is no policy reason to have or not have an infobox, as such it is editor preference and choice. Essentially it can only ever be decided by a head count, which will always leave a large contingent unhappy. DRN or third party will waste a bunch of time telling you the same thing. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Have considered taking it off your watchlist? I only ask as then you wouldn't need to think of a reason to keep it on there.    Cassianto Talk  18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good god this is still being debated? Rusted AutoParts 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm sure ArbCom are all aware and will be delivering DS alerts. Frankly, I think there's more of a chance that Elvis might deliver my milk in the morning.  Cassianto Talk  19:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing is for sure: I never get tired of hearing about it every 30 days. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. Ok, fine, I guess you're right. Didn't think of it that way. Nevermind then. byteflush Talk 22:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll Proposition 2
Returning to this page after some time, I'm seeing plenty of familiar users and a renewal of a discussion that has already been had many times over in this thread. It seems that exactly the same arguments have been made (by both sides of the argument) over and over. I will not summarize them here, as I do not wish to misrepresent any specific side on the issue, though I would highly recommend users refer to older threads to fully understand the arguments and context. My understanding is that the constant renewal of the discussion happens largely because of the abnormality of the lack of infobox.

That being said, I would like to recommend a second straw poll to help reveal some sort of consensus on this subject. Hentheden proposed this in the past, though arbitration on the matter effectively nullified the results of their poll. With this arbitration concluded, I would like to propose a new straw poll. I remind editors that this is not a substitute for discussion, but rather a way to gain a better understanding of consensus on the matter. I encourage other editors to continue the discussion and sign the straw poll with their opinion. SiliconRed (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:STRAWPOLL: polling is not a substitute for discussion

Should this page include an infobox?

Yes

 * 1. SiliconRed (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2. Hentheden (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No

 * 1. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2. Tkbrett (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous to start this up again, the last long discussion finished last month!Smeat75 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agrreed. closed the last "poll",  made some relevant points recently too.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 21:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think so, so be it. Though if there is anything I've learned in monitoring this page, it's that there never really has been consensus drawn decidedly one way or another. The page remains infobox-less because whenever one is added it is nearly instantly reverted, but there is no clear rule to dictate that. There must be a way to close this discussion decidedly one way or another so it doesn't open up again every month or so. SiliconRed (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 's point that the argument should be brought up for the sake of argument and entertainment doesn't convince me that this discussion should continue indefinitely. It's frustrating to see the lack of interest in securing closure on this issue. SiliconRed (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason this keeps coming up though is that random editors keep adding one to the page or talking about it on the talk page because this article (unlike most others in this topic) is missing one. The solution should be to compromise and add a simple, small and clean infobox, a compromise between not having one and having a huge one Hentheden (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Previous debate
I suggest that we should give the issue a rest for a while. You all know my views on having an infobox, but I also have sympathy with the regular editors of the article who must be exhausted by now. If the arguments for having an infobox are strong, they will be just as strong in a few months. There's no deadline and folks could use the time to re-read the previous debates and try to understand the other side's views. I'll also suggest that editors may wish to peruse (and maybe even contribute to) an unfinished essay I've been working on at User:RexxS/Infobox factors. I hope it proves useful. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The discussion on August-September 2015 at Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 7  attracted at least 20 editors commenting on whether to have an infobox or not. There were 12 firm oppositions to an infobox and 5 supports for one. Both sides brought forward multiple arguments, but the weight of opinion was clearly against having an infobox.
 * 2) The discussions on December 2016 - January 2017 at Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 9  and Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 9  produced at least 38 editors commentating at length. Of those 20 unconditionally supported an infobox, 11 opposed an infobox, and 7 supported an infobox if it were collapsed. The discussion was wide-ranging and robust, including a threaded discussion section. The RfC was closed as "no consensus".
 * 3) In December 2017 - January 2018 there was extensive, but rambling and eventually inconclusive, discussion in Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 10, followed by another request in January 2018, and by a straw poll in March 2018. Both of the latter were cut short, possibly because of burn-out over the Arbitration case, which was open for almost two months (Feb-Mar)


 * RexxS's summary of the historial debate seems accurate. Consensus can change. But I'd ask, as a gesture of good faith toward people's sanity if nothing else, that we give this a rest for at least 90 days. Nothing is going to burn down if this article doesn't have an infobox (and I acknowledge that nothing is going to burn down if it does) and I feel like there is an incredible amount of negative energy around it right now. I don't know what you're talking about above when you mentioned my name. I made some comments to ArbCom that those parties who are against an infobox here are mentally exhausted by the non-stop proposals. Can we take a break and have a well-formed RFC later that doesn't degenerate into a "rambling and eventually inconclusive discussion"? -- Laser brain   (talk)  01:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing inline citations
The last two paragraphs of the "Hollywood success (1956–1961)" end with endnotes, but no inline citations. I assume this is an oversight that whoever contributed these bits can fix easily.

Also, the article's missing an infobox. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The citations are in the footnotes, which is an acceptable place for them to be. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SchroCat: I don't see why it would be, or why anyone would think they would be. Rationale, please? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The footnote is an extension of the paragraph, so the citation in the note supports what precedes it. It's not a practice I follow, but I know others do, and I've seen experienced writers use it in FAs, where it's use of accepted by source checkers. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you throw me an example? I have yet to see one, and I think it's poor practice.  It's not in the least bit clear that the citations are even intended to cite the body text. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try and dig out the last example I saw, but it may take some time. As I said, it's not a practice I follow, and prefer to be a bit more belt and braces in applying citations. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, somewhere, there is a parallel universe in which your comment won't be seen as plain old trolling  :D   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 10:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Get your facepalm ready, Serial Number 54129, because that someone is SchroCat. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * please also see the thread below. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To the extent it needs saying again, per the section below and the big notice above it's time for everyone to give it a rest on suggestions for an infobox on this article. No harm in raising it every now and again, but the endless reopening of the same debate has become disruptive. If there's a good argument for an infobox, bring it up if/when the DS is lifted. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Press-box BRD
Today i added a Wall Street Journal article on this talkpage. I disagree with the removal here. IMO, this is press looking at what sometimes happens on WP, nothing wrong with including it. They get some stuff wrong, but that's par for the course. Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't. And I'd kindly ask you to use some common sense. I find it highly inappropriate and the headline of the WSJ very offensive.   Cassianto Talk  19:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems like a fairly normal newspaper headline to me. It also seems common sense to me to add the article to this page and the other one  in a press-box. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason it seems "fairly normal" to you is because you've had nothing to do with this case and the headline is not about you. Frankly, I don't like any of these people, least of all the confounded troublemakers who start all these discussions. Not only is it describing me and others as wanting to kill each other, which I find highly offensive, but I refute the idea of the editor of the WSJ blowing smoke up the committee's backside while making out that those subject to this case are trouble makers.   Cassianto Talk  19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with the info box also ultimately has zero relevance to Kubrick himself. Rusted AutoParts 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't make this about infoboxes as I won't be able to continue.  Cassianto Talk  19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As RAP points out the WSJ article has nothing to do with Kubrick. It only uses previous discussions on this talk page as a pretext for writing about ARBCOM. Thus it does not belong in this article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I have zero interest anymore in the infobox/no infobox debate. Just saying, what editors on Wikipedia decide to do with his article has no impact on Kubricks life or career. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But like the template says, it mentions it. Oh well, consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, to me it's an interesting article that reasonably fits on this talkpage. Perhaps this thread will give WSJ or Haaretz material for another article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s becoming more apparent this is just baiting for an argument. I’m out. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I can prove to you that that is not my intent (it is not), so I won't try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...by not posting on this subject again and leaving the talk page as is?  Cassianto Talk  20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...It's a thought. We'll see what my common sense tells me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly keep snark to yourself.   Cassianto Talk  23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nice of you say "kindly". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Heck, I ain't subscribing to the Wall Street Journal, to read that story. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see the particular relevance of the piece; I mean, if it was about Kubrick, then knock yerselves out. But basically, it's about the ArbCo., and the Kubrick article is just a vehicle to get themselves there. Suggestion: Stick it on WT:ARBCOM perhaps. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 20:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the press mention box should clearly be added because this situation fits the criteria: "This article has been mentioned by a media organization." However, I see no need to quote the WSJ article in the box. --Albany NY (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Planning a page restriction
I'm considering placing a page restriction here concerning infoboxes and discussion about them. I'm not sure whether page restrictions per the infobox discretionary sanctions have been done before — those ds are pretty new altogether — so I've asked for input at WP:AE, where you can read about my proposed restriction and also comment. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Support. Good idea, thank you Bishonen for trying to help.Smeat75 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We might as well use it. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 10:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, if the gods allow me to do so, that is. By far the most productive thing any administrator has done in this whole dispute. Puts ArbCom to shame.   Cassianto Talk  12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be a solid solution to cease these continuous discussions and arguments. Thank you Bishonen. SiliconRed (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't understand the desperation to add an infobox, nor the desperation to keep one off the page. Probably for the best to let people cool down. Tkbrett 16:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Obviously, and about time. Thanks Bishonen. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I would generally support stopping 'strawpolls' and such, the last RfC suggested a future RfC concerning a collapsible infobox, and that still has yet to happen. Yes to a moratorium on smaller discussions, no to stopping a full RfC that was suggested in the last one. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to those above, this isn't something that's put up for a vote. Discretionary sanctions are placed by uninvolved admins at their.. well.. discretion. If you have a reasoned argument for why the ArbCom remedies for infoboxes don't apply here, you should comment at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly something in aware of at least; indicating a particular course of action had a degree of consensus (or otherwise) is very much in line with WP:NOTVOTE. I agree that those !voting "Oppose" are wholly wasting their time though-telling an admin you disagree with their prospective course of action when it clearly has a groundswell of support is the Wikipedia equivalent of pishing into a strong wind. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 08:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If I were the principal author of a page, I'd stick an infobox on it if there an appropriate one for the subject. Yet knowing the context surrounding the adding and removal of infoboxes here, I can only see such activity as purely disruptive, in a sense merely trying to stir another argument, or trying to get certain so-and-sos blocked, as they cannot speak about infoboxes. talk to ! dave 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too late for my opinion, but putting discretionary sanctions against DISCUSSING something on the TALK PAGE (which is where you discuss things) is ridiculous and completely against what WP is about. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  23:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page?
Background: The most recent infobox RfC on this talk page concluded with 70% support for some kind of infobox, but with 17% in favour of only a default-collapsed infobox, it was ultimately closed as no consensus. The closer suggested a future RfC on the inclusion of a collapsible infobox as a possible next step. This option has recently been brought up again by in the section above where it was decided that an RfC was the next step. Let's try and have a civil RfC on this so we can establish the consensus on whether a collapsible infobox can serve as a compromise.

Question: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page?

Regards, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support If it can serve as a useful compromise, lets do it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose—collapsible infoboxes are a menace to accessibility and defeat the purpose of even having one. Either include a box or don't—don't slit the baby in half. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose What I wrote above is still correct: At any rate, a collapsible infobox is not going to happen. Try raising a general proposal (that collapsible infoboxes should exist) at WP:VPR to test that. Basing an RfC in such a problematic area on the request of an obviously problematic account is most undesirable. We are all supposed to sing the civility song knowing that a single-purpose account is pulling the strings. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Curly Turkey and Johnuniq. There are two problems with these: 1. ACCESS is an issue to some; 2. There is no consensus for an IB because of the limitations of the IB, and the exact same arguments hold true even if it is collapsed. The exact same information, whether hidden or unhidden still contains what is essentially trivia when trying to understand the person behind his body of work. As per Johhnuniq, I'm also not happy that an SPA is the tail wagging the dog and trying to drive this forward. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ACCESS and MOS:DONTHIDE. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Curley and Schro, and I suggest something to be done on repeat RFC s for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I support a collapsible infobox because I think it's a great visual for fast facts and caters to more readers, keeps this page consistent with other biographical pages on Wikpiedia and serves as a compromise to the infobox debate. — Willydrach (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC) — Willydrach (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to the "consistent with other biographical pages" statement. For the record in my travels around the 'pedia I have seen thousands of biographical articles without an infobox. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Oh good grief... again? SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This RfC topic was suggested all the way back in the close of the early 2017 RfC, and the idea of a 'collapsible infobox' has only continued to come up since. An RfC about a collapsible infobox has not occurred on this page as far as I know. Complaing about it isn't going to make the issue go away, but perhaps we can have a discussion about the merits or lack thereof. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. This the 19th thread from the people who can't accept a consensus unless it agrees with their point of view. Of course the issue isn't going to go away if people keep fighting for the same small agenda over and over and over. There is even less merit in a collapsible IB than in an uncollapsed one. It was initially introduced as a compromise, but it's one that no-one likes at all and is a target for IP editors (or perhaps logged out editors) uncollapsing on a regular basis. But you just ignore that and keep pushing those buttons that will drive more people away. (And as for your rather silly instructions to me "discuss... don't complain": please don't try and tell long-standing editors how to do things: it could lead to a strong blast of more industrial language next time you try and patronise someone) - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This only affect very very few articles......the no group is small and has a very limited range of articles under their scope. The community in general has accepted the fact that a small group of articles will not have these boxes. Best move on and try to improve another article. That said admitting this has come up 19 times should be a big hint as to what our readers are looking for. --Moxy (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 19 times with either the same people pushing or those miraculous sleeper accounts that were created years ago, have a handful of edits from then, but silence for several years until they pop up to start an IB discussion. The one above kept pushing Cassianto's name into the discussion, despite him not having edited for eons. He's the same one that has been angling on the talk page of the opener for this to be opened. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be me. The only reason I kept mentioning Cassianto is because he commented quite a bit on this topic in the archives. Either way I'll keep personal commentary out of this one as it is the reason my last discussion was closed. If the consensus of this Rfc is still no infobox, I'll put this one to bed and get out of everyone's hair. Willydrach (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox restrictions enabled, see top of page
Encouraged by the positive discussion here, and also here on WP:AE, I've put this page under discretionary sanctions with regard to infoboxes, please see the new template at the top of the page. The restriction is mandatory, not optional, so I hope to see everybody abide by it. After four months have passed, we will hopefully be ready to start talking about infoboxes again. Or not. Meanwhile, if people break the restriction it's most likely because they haven't seen it — it's shouty enough, but there's a lot of stuff at the top of the page, some of it more interesting, some less. So please, everybody, don't drag those that miss the restriction template immediately to WP:AE, but tell them politely about it and ask them to self-revert. For stubborn cases, WP:AE is in fact the right venue, or drop me a line if I'm around. If anybody disapproves strongly of the restriction, WP:AE is also the place where it can be appealed. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Right now the warning says "You must not start an infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before 10 September 2018." I think it's preferable to say something like "In view of this RfC, you must not start an infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before 10 September 2018." Basically link the reason why the restriction is in place along with the warning, so any new participant would know this has been discussed before, and where that discussion is. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Data box
There is missing the Statistical data box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:561:4A1A:889E:CEB:2E10:6597 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Because he is a Jew?
Does this page not have a statistical box because he is Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:544:A14:4CF5:42FF:3F33:E121 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have anything to do with him being Jewish. Please see the archives of this talk page for more information (listed at the top of this page) for reasoning as to why there is no infobox. In short, there is disagreement as to whether to include an infobox, and there is no consensus among editors to include such an infobox on this particular article. There are currently sanctions on this article not to begin a discussion on whether to include an infobox until at least September 10th 2018. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: Should an Infobox be added?
Background: Adding an infobox to this article has long been discussed and contested. Last year, I promised that I would make an Rfc in 2019, I waited 9 months as a sort of moratorium, and believe it is time to address the topic once again, hopefully for the last time. The last Rfc to propose adding a non-collapsible infobox was in January of 2017, which failed to determine a consensus. That was over two years ago, and a consensus may have developed in that time.

Question: Should an infobox be added to this page?

Hopefully we can have a civil and productive discussion, thanks HAL  333  03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey 2

 * Support An infobox has been badly needed on this page for a long time. HAL  333  03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2
There is no downside or cost to including an infobox. All it does is make the information within the article more accessible to the reader. I experienced this a month or so ago, when I wanted to see who were Kubrick's wives, I had to spend some time looking through the article to find it. And for those who may say that an infobox is not needed for a director like Kubrick, go look at Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Quentin Tarantino. HAL 333  03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Not this yet again? Aside from WP:OSE, I'll weigh any argument based in policy or guideline as to why this should have an IB, but I've not seen a good one for the arts articles biographies yet, and I doubt that will change much. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The arts articles" so not music albums, movies, books? Seems to go against project wide consensus in that regard. Can you clarify what you mean? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Partly true: I was too sweeping, it should have been "biographies". And project wide consensus is summed up in the relevant section of the MoS: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no reason not to have an infobox on a page like this. What harm does it cause? HAL  333  20:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reasons, and if you read through the earlier arguments in the archives, you'll find them there. In order to turn over the consensus, you have to provide some good arguments as to why one should be added. So far, in all the myriad of discussions, I've not seen a good argument to overturn the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to overturn, just one to create. The purpose, and benefit, of infoboxes is to allow the reader to quickly access information, instead of having to read through to find a single fact. For the reader who just wants to know a few small facts, an infobox is an invaluable tool. And to the reader who wants to read the entire article, an infobox can serve as a jumping point. An infobox does NOT harm or negatively effect the reader whatsoever. There are no downsides whatsoever. And so far, in all the myriad of discussions, I've not seen any editor explain a single drawback to having an infobox. HAL  333  20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "There's no consensus to overturn": yes, there is. It's the consensus not to have an IB on the page. If there wasn't such a consensus, one would have been added.
 * "to allow the reader to quickly access information: such as 'what was Kubrick's first Hollywood film?', or 'is it true he worked with NASA to create new lenses'? The mission of the IB to provide "data" misses the point that they don't bring knowledge or understanding of the subject, but provide selective factoids that don't provide explanation or context to a subject. Look at the example IBs in the sections above: born in the US, died in the UK. Where was he in between and for how long? Why is photographer missing from the long list of occupations - his training there was vitally important in his cinematography (as the lead explains). For the arts biographies, the IB will ALWAYS leave out the key points of the reason a person in included in an encyclopaedia. What is there is such a shallow representation of the individual that we do our readers a disservice by having it. It doesn't say what impact he had on cinema, what changes do we see in filming now were introduced by him, how was perceived by critics, his peers or audiences. It dumbs down to some mindless personal details that don't enlighten anyone, and that aren't help for anyone to understand the topic. Sure, you want to search for his wives' names, but I want to know which pets he wants: how much dross do you need in the top right hand corner that doesn't actually inform or educate the first time reader? - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Fucking hell, again? No, for the umpteenth time, per all the good reasons given in past discussions. Why do people keep opening these discussions? -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)