Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 11

Collapsible Infobox Discussion
Please see the revised proposal for a collapsible infobox below:

Willydrach (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I have read the past two articles on including an infobox on this Wikipedia. I have yet to see/understand the argument against one. I understand that there is some pertinent information in the first sentence of the article, but there are many wikipedia pages on here with the same layout as this one and an infobox. What is the harm in having one? I haven't even begun to see the logical argument against one as there are more arguments FOR one. An infobox DOES make the page look cleaner. It provides a nice summary that you can glance at immediately when going onto the page. It also provides a nice uniform structure that is consistent with Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be used as a reliable resource that is easy to follow and read.

To whomever said that his spouses are not important - I would kindly disagree. If Richard "Old Man" Harrison is important enough to have his spouse shown, why is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time not allowed the same?

I created an infobox today with some relevant information. Yes some of which can be found in the first sentence. Most of it cannot be. I also provided a more accurate picture of Stanley Kubrick on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey - arguably one of the most innovative science fiction films ever made and one of his best works. Why in god's name would someone rather see a selfie of him when he was 21? That is NOT an accurate representation of the Stanley Kubrick whose work has transcended time and space.

My conclusion is that there are some people on this forum who just dislike Infoboxes, and their personal preference and bias is the ONLY reason one has been decided not to be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydrach (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion is poorly arrived at and utterly erroneous. I, for example, like info boxes and use them a lot. I don’t add them when they offer anything of use to readers, which is the case for all the ones proposed for this page. (I’ll add that your overly verbose posting would be a lot better if you didn’t focus on other editors think, and focus on what you think. As to ‘it looks cleaner with a box’, that’s no argument at all - de gustibus and all that. – SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my "utterly erroneous and poorly arrived" post above. I understand that you are an editor and it's probably hard for you to read poorly written pieces, but with all due respect please keep your snarky editor thoughts to yourself. They do not add any value to the argument and only serve to make you look bad.


 * With that out of the way, let me try to deliver a more concise argument to why I think there should be an infobox on this page.


 * I had created an infobox on director Stanley Kubrick's page. When I did so I had no idea about the previous (and multiple) discussions regarding the matter.


 * I would like to propose that an infobox is kept but made collapsible. It can be updated with any other pertinent information editors would like to add. I have read the discussions and have really only seen an argument against one as an editor's personal preference due to their distaste for "Idiotboxes" - mainly retired user @Cassianto.


 * I am an avid reader of Wikipedia pages and have been using it for years. I have learned countless things about many subjects and have used this is a resource for papers in school for as long as I can remember. I also love to browse it and read up on historical people and their achievements in my spare time. I do not contribute much but I have to say I was so taken aback by the lack of an infobox on Mr. Kubrick's page that I took the time to create one with data consistent of other pages. I understand that the lede on this page is extremely well written and has a multitude of good information, but I don't that is a good enough substitute for an infobox.


 * I truly believe that the infobox is the first place many (not all) readers look and that it is an astounding visual resource for fast facts. From there readers will read the article. Furthermore infoboxes are something that I associate with Wikipedia pages and believe that they should be consistent in that matter, especially on biographical pages of people with extreme historical significance.


 * The last thing I would like to do is start a hotheaded debate on whether or not an infobox should be added to the Stanley Kubrick biographical page. However I feel I represent some of the users that use this website for it's intended purpose. I have spoken to many of my peers (also fellow Wikipedia users) and they have all found it strange that one is not on Stanley Kubrick's page. I know that editors and contributors do see them differently, but I think that a good amount of readers associate them with people who are significant (IE if someone doesn't have one then they aren't important)


 * I think its time that info boxes be discussed again and that a compromise can be made. This subject has been coming up way too much with this page in particular and I think there is a reason for that. Many of the people (including myself) who have been asking about infoboxes or support them are regular Wikipedia users and our opinions matter. Have editors and contributors forgotten why Wikipedia was created? Wikipedia's sole purpose is to allow information to be readily accessible and available to anyone. What's so wrong with having a visual that may bring other people to the page or provide some fast facts about the person?


 * I truly think even a collapsible infobox would be a nice way to compromise and bring this matter to an end. I value any input from other editors, users and collaborators on this issue. However I request that all input be respectful and professional. There is no need to make this a reckless debate like the previous ones. Let's get somewhere this time.


 * Thanks for reading.


 * Willydrach (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Do not remove text after people have replied to it.
 * 2. "with all due respect please keep your snarky editor thoughts to yourself. They do not add any value to the argument and only serve to make you look bad." If your aim in that comment is to try and wind people up, that's the perfect way to go about it. Stating that you have arrived at a poor conclusion is not snarky, it's pointing out that you are in error. What you have written is factually incorrect. Geddit? That's not being snarky, it's saying that's the reason you have given is not true.
 * 3. Don't tell me to keep my thoughts to myself: shall I tell you to shut up in return? It would not be terribly nice of me if I did, and would hardly be "respectful and professional", so mind your time when you talk to or about others.
 * 4. Like most people on this site, I am also a reader, not just an editor.
 * 5. Like MarnetteD below, I would also like to see a link to these many conversations. others. - SchroCat (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. I apologize, I didn't know - figured new argument was more concise.
 * 2. Not trying to wind anyone up but I found your first remarks to be a personal jab at myself. I understand what you were getting at but they were no value to your argument and seemed to be made with the intent of insulting me. No need to be criticizing someone's writing/or lack of writing. You knew what my conclusion was and could've formulated an answer based only on my conclusion. No need to tell me I'm in error. Just respond to my opinion.
 * 3. I'm not trying to tell you to "shut up". I'm asking you not to criticize mine or anyone else's writing. Just address and respect the point they are trying to get across - not how they do so!
 * 4. Well I thank you for your contributions!
 * 5. Please see my response to their question below.
 * 6. I would like to apologize for my snarky editor comment, but I had taken your points to be offensive. Replying like that was very unprofessional and untimely of me, and I hope you can accept my apology and provide some opinion on my argument for a collapsible infobox. Willydrach (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. To clarify about my comment on your conclusion, just so you understand entirely where I am coming from, and so that you take on board that it was not a personal comment about you or what you had written, but to say that the conclusion you came to was deeply wrong. If you start off thinking that is what other people are thinking, it creates a logjam from the opening of any discussion. I am also not criticising your writing or anyone else's - if you read through in a calmer vein, you'll see that I did not do that - I said that the conclusion you came to was wrong.
 * To clarify what I meant, you are wrong to say that "there are some people on this forum who just dislike Infoboxes". That's just not true. What is more true is that there are people who do not find them useful or practical on biographies in the 'liberal arts' field (more just below on that). I like IB's and use them frequently (on articles I've taken to FA, GA, articles and lists I've started, all over the place), but I use them when they are beneficial. There is too much of a knee-jerk 'this article should have an IB' without thinking about what it is and why we should have one. I know I am not alone in thinking this, and I don't think I have ever come across anyone who dislikes them entirely. (To very briefly summarise why I don't think this should have one, among other points you can fee above or in the archives, IB's tell us so little about an individual or their body of work, about just why we think they are notable and what differentiates them from their peers. (You make the comment above about Kubrick's wives not being shown: what on earth is the point of that? Do they explain what type of person he was, or his style of directing?) If you reduce the box to include the indisputable bits of him - DoB & D, occupation, nationality - then it's just a repetition of the first line, and this factoids just don't give any really useful information about the person or his work. IB's work really well with sportsmen, soldiers, politicians, and anyone who has worked their way through positions or ranks, or those with a box of stats that quickly gives an indication of sporting achievements, they just don't work well with the more woolly liberal approach.
 * The second point you made where I think you are in error is saying "personal preference and bias is the ONLY reason one has been decided not to be on this page". That's just not the case. To change the WP:status quo of an article on a contentious point, there has to be a discussion to reach a consensus, and that discussion should be based on policies or guidelines, not just a vote (see WP:NOTAVOTE). You may not like or agree with the other arguments, but they are what other people think, and you shouldn't just dismiss them without being prepared to having your opinions dismissed in return - that leads to stalemate, lots of heat and no light.
 * I'll reply below about the collapsed IB - it's an awful idea, in short. Meant as a compromise in the first place, and no-one is terribly happy with them for a series of reasons. Most of the arguments against an IB are the same as a collapsed IB, with the additions that it's a pain for those who rely on our WP:ACCESS requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you VERY much for clearing up your thoughts on my first argument. I can now 100% see where you are coming from. My conclusion was not great in my first argument and I hope that you can see where I'm coming from moreso in my second one. Above all I have to say thanks for shedding some valuable insight and I hope we can move forward with no hard feelings and in good faith!! I look forward to your participation in the RCF. :) Willydrach (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the many conversations about how strange things are? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the many conversations about how strange things are? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh no, another thread? Look, I’m still one who’d like to see an infobox here, but the fact of the matter is the topic has been argued to death and at this point any new threads just create aggravation. This won’t prompt any change in the consensus. Rusted AutoParts  21:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I know, they have been even frustrating to read! I am not here to be an aggressor or to stir the pot. I would just like to see an infobox and I think a collapsible one (Like the one on Frank Sinatra's page) would be a nice compromise and solution.


 * As for my conversations they were in person after I created it. I was quite proud of myself since I really don't know much about the formatting here. Willydrach (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s fine and all, but the constant new discussions about a topic that, as of April 2018, still hasn’t changed it’s consensus that was first formed in 2015, doesn’t inspire anything new to be added. Those not wanting one still don’t want one. I’d say there should be a freeze in between new motions. Rusted AutoParts  21:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There definitely has been some serious debate regarding this topic but for some reason I remain hopeful a collapsible infobox is possible and would put this to an end by satisfying both sides here. I do sincerely apologize for opening any old wounds though on this subject. Willydrach (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad to hear that our lack of an infobox on this article has convinced you to become an active editor. You aren't alone in it feeling weird, and indeed the close of the last Request for Comments discussion (RfC) closed with a recommendation of a future RfC on a collapsible Infobox. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * there was a freeze on new discussion on this page, but that expired on 10 Sept. seems to be coming at this with good faith, and honestly there has never been a discussion about a collapsible userbox, despite a general consensus for some kind of userbox in the last RfC (~70%). See the close at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick/Archive_9 for more info, but it closed with the comment: "Next steps might include opening a new RfC tightly focused on a question of whether a collapsible infobox should be included or not, as this seems to be an area where compromise might produce a consensus". This has not yet occurred, and seems silly to punch down any discussion when a reasonable idea that was proposed a long time ago, but never followed up on, is being brought back up by a new good faith editor. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest we unexpire the editnotice but amend it to read "You may not add an infobox to the article without achieving consensus on the talk page, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." I would characterise four months as too short a freeze, but if discussion is going to be rehashed yet again we may as well advise good-faith new editors in a higher-profile notice than an html comment near the top of the wikisource. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind words and I am optimistic that we can find a way to compromise. What is the best way to get serious input on this? Just through discussion like this? I also agree with and his suggestion above since this is a discussion about the potential future use of an infobox. Willydrach (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is implied that users are not to add an infobox without consensus on the talk page, I was simply referring to a prohibition about discussing or proposing. The best way to get serious input would be to draft and run a Request for comments about a collapsible infobox, but this should be done in close cooperation with an experienced editor on a topic like this. I'd be happy to help, but am on holiday currently and will be out of internet reach over the next week and a half. If you don't care to wait, perhaps might be able to help (who is experienced and also very knowledgeable about the ongoing debate on the topic, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for more information on that). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I like Snuge purveyor's suggestion for a refurbished page restriction concerning an infobox now that the old one has expired: "You may not add an infobox to the article without achieving consensus on the talk page, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page". I've added this, as a page restriction, with the usual templated additions, both in the article edit notice and at the top of this talkpage. Civil discussion for the purpose of reaching consensus is highly encouraged, and surely discussion about a potentially collapsed infobox can be handled at the same time. If somebody would like to open an RFC, that's fine, but it's not the only way of reaching consensus — if feelings don't run too high, ordinary civil discussion is sometimes best. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Per 's comments, would it be best to keep the discussion here or to create a RFC? Is a consensus in this discussion able to bring change or do we need to create a more formal one? I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get a consensus on a collapsible infobox! I am also not in a huge rush so time frame is fine. Willydrach (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * an RfC would take place in a new section on this page, and yes, it would be necessary to establish consensus. On many pages a short discussion among a few editors might be able to create a clear consensus over a page dispute, but that isn't going to be possible on this page given the history. If you read through the talk page there are several previous RfCs (and other discussions), and the current consensus from the last RfC is that there is "no consensus to add an infobox". That still stands and will need a new RfC to establish a new consensus. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well let's go ahead and start a new rfc for a collapsible infobox! Whenever you have regular access to a computer, I'd like to work with you to make one happen. Thanks so much! Willydrach (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As I've just said above, the collapsed IB is an awful idea, in short. Meant as a compromise in the first place, no-one is terribly happy with them for a series of reasons. Most of the arguments against an IB are the same as a collapsed IB, with the addition that it's a pain for those who rely on our WP:ACCESS requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This, again? You'll excuse me if I have a difficult time accepting this thread in good faith. As recently as December 2017 we've had "new" editors, usually with 1–2 random past edits and a backstory about how they arrived, who show up here with a suddenly keen interest in whether this article has an infobox. These users tend to mount the same arguments, have the same rhetorical style, have uncanny familiarity with esoteric features like collapsible infoboxes, familiarity of and distaste for involved editors, but ignorance of arguments that have been stated over the years for not having an infobox here. Curious that you could read through all the back-discussions to get certain information but manage to miss the substance of what's been said in opposition to the infobox here. I doubt any new arguments are forthcoming—the tactic is to wear everyone down until eventually we have a box. Wait, I guess the "I've sat down with the lads over a pint and we're all agog that there isn't an infobox" is a new one on me. Please put this to bed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input on this but I can't say I appreciate the skepticism about who I really am or my motivations. I have read every single post and argument for & against the infobox once I found out about them. There were many posts in those archives that pointed to collapsible infoboxes as being a possible solution. I understand the argument against one. The more common arguments I've seen against one are as follows:
 * Most (not all) of the information that would be in an infobox can be found in the lead sentence or first couple sentences
 * Some editors don't want to put a notable works section in the infobox because it is subjective - therefore don't want an infobox at all due to this complication
 * Some editors believe that the information in the infobox would be of no value to readers (such as how they died/occupation is well known etc)
 * Lastly, some users such as Cassianto believe they look bad and would not like one on the page due to preference.
 * And if you are truly curious about how this all came about, let me tell you a little bit of what got me here. Last Wednesday I watched "The Shining" with my girlfriend. It was her first time watching it so I was telling her a little bit about it and who directed it. The next day I went onto Wikipedia to read up on Stanley Kubrick. From there I was shocked that there was no infobox, so I decided to go ahead and make one. After making one and saw it was taken down (the girlfriend looked on the page later to see what I did) I realized there was an ongoing argument about having one on this page. I posted my first argument, which wasn't really that great and then started doing some research and read through the archives 7, 9 & 10. As far as my conversations with others, I was so proud of myself for creating the infobox with such little editing experience that I told my roommate, my girlfriend and my co-worker, all of whom agreed the page looked odd without one. I'm not sure what or who you think I am, but I hope this clears things up! Willydrach (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a lovely story. However while you were reading every single post you might have noticed that personal commentary does not belong at Wikipedia. Your habit of mentioning other editors, even those not participating in this discussion, is exactly what a troll would do. Are you sure that a handy box with trivia-quiz answers is worth the ill feeling evident in past discussions? 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. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Intro section entirely unsourced
Maybe I'm just blind, but it seems that the entire introductory section is without cited references. Perhaps a notice is in order that the information may not be reliable. -- 69.143.102.146 12:45, 2018-10-19 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.102.146 (talk)
 * Per WP:LEDE less sections do not require citations outside of direct quotes, as long as the Samsung is sourced in the body. --M asem (t) 13:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its pretty common for a lot of articles for people to add the sources used in the body anyway, but it isn't required so long as the content in the lede is backed up by content in the body that is sourced. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely always make sure the Samsung is sourced in all my articles. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh! Predictive text, anyone?! ;)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:36, 19 October 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)
 * Neutral for now, since a draft collapsible navbox for us to examine hasn't been presented. Otherwise, I'm about evenly on the fence because a 70%-ish support rate in the previous round is nothing to sneeze at, but neither are concerns about unhelpful i-boxes on pages that don't really need them, and the opponents are pretty adamant that this page doesn't need one.  The MOS:ACCESS argument doesn't really apply beyond the central article content.  We use collapsibility all the time in both infoboxes and navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , Example at right for what it could look like. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll think it over. I like that it's got the vital stats, and the link to the awards page (probably  key supporting material that's in another page), and isn't stuffed with every possible bit of trivia. But I'm not sure it really adds all that much utility, given the quality of the lead.  I've never been convinced that the family name-dropping in bio infoboxes is of any encyclopedic use at all, for example.  It's not trivia, and is encyclopedic enough to include somewhere in the article, but it's not critical information for understanding the notability of the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose because collapsible items run against various guidelines (see above). They don't save download volume because the material is still part of the browsed page, and more importantly they hamper in-page searches, thus partly defeating the point of having them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way does it "hamper in-page searches"? I already pointed out that this is not against the guidelines; MOS:HIDE and MOS:ACCESS on collapsed content don't apply to navboxes and infoboxes.  If want them to do so, that would be a huge consensus discussion, probably at WP:VPPOL, and would requires both massive changes to our navbox system, and retooling of quite a few infoboxes as templates, and redoing of many thousands of fill-out ones in articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The in-page 'find' command in the vast majority of browsers will not return text from collapsed sections. ―StvnW talk 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - if it'll end these constant calls for an infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose—MOS:DONTHIDE does apply (If information in a…) and while WP:ACCESS doesn't directly address infoboxes, collapsible sections do pose accessibility problems. Furthermore, collapsing an entire infobox is an ineffective compromise when the intention of an infobox is to provide information at-a-glance. Either include one or don't. ―StvnW talk 14:57, 15 November 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)
 * It is no surprise that would check the talk page archives before making his first comment on this page in the above section. In the previous section that is basically what I said that anyone should do before commenting on infobox discussions. He also wasn't 'angling' anything. I offered to help him draft the RfC in the discussion section above, it is no surprise that he came to my talk page. I've seen no evidence that Willydrach is any kind of sock, and continuing to imply that fact is some serious bad faith. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Insertcleverphrasehere, I look forward to you striking the allegation that I have implied he is a sock (in a comment three and a half weeks ago). I have not done so, and so suggest I have is UNCIVIL and disruptive, although I am used to a range of such silly tactics from IB warriors. I really don't want to move onto industrial or more base Anglo-Saxon language, but if you accuse me again of something I haven't done, I won't hesitate to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You started with:-- 19 times with either the same people pushing or those miraculous sleeper accounts that were created years ago............That probably led to ICPH's impression and I can't fault him, though his linking of good-faith can easily come off as being patronising.
 * FWIW, whilst I can understand the frustration stemming from these repeated discussions (and am of a sincere belief that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Willydrach is not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of a returning user), I am certain that both of you and ICPH are here to improve the quality of the encyclopedia and would do better than snipe at each other.
 * Please move on; the enemies lie other-way....... &#x222F; WBG converse 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I HAD moved on until I was pinged about a comment from over 3 weeks ago. Unnecessary, really, really unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk)
 * Please move on; the enemies lie other-way....... &#x222F; WBG converse 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I HAD moved on until I was pinged about a comment from over 3 weeks ago. Unnecessary, really, really unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk)

Why is there no infobox?
I have not added an infobox, due to the debate there seems to be over it. I would like to say that I do support it, and that I agree with Willydrach that there seems to be no reason not to have it. I would have liked to add this to an established discussion, but they were all closed. Can someone please simply explain why there should be no infobox. Thanks (HAL333 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Just read the other discussions. There’s literally two just up above. Rusted AutoParts  15:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read the two above discussions, which I mentioned in the above post. I was unable to find a coherent reason why there shouldn't be an infobox. HAL333 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Basically, personal preference by a number of editors here has blocked the inclusion of an infobox. The previous RFA on a general infobox ended with no consensus (not the one above, you can find it here). Part of the reason for this was some that wanted a collapsible infobox instead. We tried a discussion about a collapsible infobox recently (the RfC above), but there is clearly a consensus against this option. It is possible that another RfC simply asking for a normal infobox could pass (now that it is uncomplicated by voters instead voting for a collapsible infobox), but I wouldn't hold your breath. A lot of people here are just kinda sick of discussions about it, and might just oppose because they want it left well enough alone and are fine with the status quo. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    17:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not against a discussion, what I am against is repeated discussions so soon after one ended. It should be where it's revisited six months-a year after the last one. And Hal, it's not me being rude, but you could've searched "infobox" in the talk page archives. All other discussions hold the reasons why. Rusted AutoParts  17:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with another RfC asking whether we should have an infobox or not, but am opposed to repeated non-RfC discussions about it. While we recently had an RfC, that was for a collapsible infobox. Now that the collapsible has been ruled out, we really do need to have another RfC asking if we should have a normal one at some point. However, I am well aware of the fatigue of editors that frequent this page and would be fine with a moratorium on new discussions like this one for a few months. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ”Basically, personal preference by a number of editors here has blocked the inclusion of an infobox”. That holds little in the way of truth, but the fact you have to keep stirring the dramah pot speaks volumes., there is no consensus to add an IB, that’s it. No-one has come up with good reasons, based in the guidelines or policies (as we are supposed to do), to include an IB. The reasons behind that are much deeper than the rather trite and silly answer given above, and if you look through the archives, or at the other threads on this page, you’ll see why. Personally I’m with RAP at being bored and tired by the constant raising of the question, particularly so soon after the last thread closed (particularly with the additional stirring when it’s not needed). - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , There really aren't any strong arguments for or against infoboxes. That is why the issue has remained and will continue to remain unresolved at a policy/guideline level. Personal preference, in the end, is the only real reason for or against an infobox. Policy doesn't give us clues one way or the other, and guidelines aren't any help either. RfCs on Infoboxes always boil down to essentially 'I don't like it' and 'I like it' !votes. Numbers are what make the decisions on infoboxes, not the strength of the arguments.
 * There seems to be no way to stop disruptive repetitive discussions by new editors that show up here while the article remains without an infobox. Banning the discussion won't stop new editors and IPs from coming here to ask why it doesn't have one; to them it just looks unfinished and unpolished. And permanently banning such discussions are against policy anyway. Per WP:CON, consensus is subject to change and editors are free to propose a consensus change by discussion, so long as the consensus is not so recent as to be disruptive. The most recent (non) consensus on this is from an RfC nearly 2 years ago, proposing a change of that is far from disruptive, especially given that the collapsible infobox discussion which derailed that RfC is well and surely closed at this point.
 * That being said, I still think we should have a break from RfCs for a while to let things cool down. I suggest a 3 month moratorium on infobox discussions. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are deeply wrong if you think that "Numbers are what make the decisions on infoboxes, not the strength of the arguments". See WP:NOTAVOTE. Policy and guideline will, should and (mostly) do trump any vote counting. Common sense arguments also have a major impact, which is why there is no IB here, but there are in other areas - in areas where the factoids are useful to readers and aid understanding, rather than distort it. I utterly reject your arguments about personal preference being the only reason - which is why everyone I have ever seen saying that an idiotbox is not helpful have used them on other articles where they are useful. I've seen some dross IBs that contain less than is in the first sentence, and I wonder why anyone would think them useful: the crap about 'resting place', names of non-notable wives and children, height, shoe size, inside leg measurement, all bloat boxes utterly needlessly. The key information should be in the opening sentence: the IB—in "art" biographies, at least—pointless. I have rarely seen an IB for an actor or director that is of any use for exactly that reason. This isn't personal preference: this is actually considering what an IB is, what it is for, and whether readers will actually learn anything useful outside the opening sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , And all of that is essentially your opinion, no more or less applicable by policy or guideline than anyone else's opinion on infoboxes. The fact is, there simply isn't any good policy or guideline based reason to include or exclude infoboxes, which is why I said "Numbers are what make the decisions on infoboxes, not the strength of the arguments". There simply are not any strong arguments (per any policy or guideline) to be made. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    01:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:NOTAVOTE. We don't decide by voting, which is why I have (again) taken the numbers out of the top of the page: they are misleading, as they are not the basis of decision making, it is the strength of argument. If you are struggling to get that, or disbelieve me, feel free to contact any of the admins who have closed one of they threads and ask them about the process. This is now going off at an even more tedious tangent than most IB discussions, so let's just leave it there - I really don't have the will to continue discussing the flaming things. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Once again, please try to read what I said, rather than attacking a strawman and just saying that I don't understand NOTAVOTE. NOTAVOTE generally applies to most discussions, but there is a reason why it is not a part of policy itself; there are a few things on Wikipedia where there simply isn't any way to argue consensus; either because policy isn't clear, or where because the arguments on each side are equally strong or equally weak (here I'd argue they are equally weak). When you can't argue consensus based on policy, it invariably falls down to how many people fall on each side of the discussion.
 * It isn't a tangent, it is essential to understanding why infobox discussions won't go away, and why there probably won't ever be a long term solution. If you don't feel like discussing it, you can feel free to edit elsewhere, but repeating "disruptive!" Ad nauseam every time this comes up isn't helpful in the slightest. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    08:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read it, thanks. And you're still banging the same wrong drum: numbers don't make the decisions, the strength of argument does. Again, go talk to someone who has closed one of the threads and ask the rationale, rather than try and misinterpret what I am saying. As for nonsense like "repeating "disruptive!" Ad nauseam every time this comes up isn't helpful in the slightest", I have mentioned it what, two, three times? You may not find it "helpful" when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, but the fact that you are keen to stir the dramah pot every time the question is raised shows that your definition of "disruptive" and "dramah" may differ from that of others. I'm off - your comments now (and my responses to them) are fuck all to do with the improvement of the article, and more to do with some soapboxing nonsense about idiotboxes and the process and procedure behind them - life really is too short to have to talk about them yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading the first box at the top of this page shows that chatting about infoboxes would be very unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read it, thanks. And you're still banging the same wrong drum: numbers don't make the decisions, the strength of argument does. Again, go talk to someone who has closed one of the threads and ask the rationale, rather than try and misinterpret what I am saying. As for nonsense like "repeating "disruptive!" Ad nauseam every time this comes up isn't helpful in the slightest", I have mentioned it what, two, three times? You may not find it "helpful" when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, but the fact that you are keen to stir the dramah pot every time the question is raised shows that your definition of "disruptive" and "dramah" may differ from that of others. I'm off - your comments now (and my responses to them) are fuck all to do with the improvement of the article, and more to do with some soapboxing nonsense about idiotboxes and the process and procedure behind them - life really is too short to have to talk about them yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading the first box at the top of this page shows that chatting about infoboxes would be very unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Then let us do one final RfC (since a great deal of the "Opposes" in the prior RfC were simply because it was collapsible), and then ban further discussion of the topic. HAL333 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should we? We’ve had a couple of them recently and the dust has hardly settled on them. (Jeez, if this was a series of attempts to remove a box, I’m sure several people would have been blocked for disruptive behaviour by now). - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just no. At least not for several months at least. The last discussion was not even a month ago, regardless if it was catered around it being collapsible. Just please let it sit for a bit. Rusted AutoParts  23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be reasonable and not organize a RfC now. But there will be one in 2019. HAL333 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing that I will add and think it can be framed to the community is that infoboxes only really work well when there is heirarchial or sequential data that makes sense to pigeonhole data into. If we're talking a world leader, or an athlete, or a businessperson, they fall within some organizational structure and there's details that you'd not want to spell out in the lede but makes sense in the infobox. But when you get to creative people like Kubrick here, they don't fall into any heirarchial data structure. We can state birth and death, and key people he's connected to, but there's little else that would not be in the lede already in a well-written article. This articles makes a prime example where there's really no benefit of an infobox with the lede as it is. What little omitted from the lede that would fall in the infobox is too trivial to force one. --M asem (t) 00:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)\


 * M asem, I understand your point, but plenty of creative historical and current figures have infoboxes. Examples include; Spielberg, Picasso, Beethoven, Hitchcock, Warhol, and Michael Bay, in a seemingly endless list. An infobox can include the few that Masem mentioned and his most important works(films in this case), signature (I always have liked that), and his numerous awards. (HAL333 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC))
 * There is the argument you should avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where infoboxes are and aren't used has been a long thread of discussion not just here, but the pattern that I see where editors want to omit them is on creative persons that do not fit into a hierarchical structure. --M asem (t) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * M asem If you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it will tell you that arguments like mine can be valid. According to it, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This very much pertains to my argument. Why should someone as "creative" and notable as Kubrick not have a infobox, when every Director from Spike Lee to Quentin Tarantino has them? HAL333 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make with that is that everything is a case by case, and this is presently a decision held up by the Arbitration Committee and community consensus. The Arbitration Committee has stated from a case a couple years back that the community should decide on some standards when infoboxes can and cannot be used, but until that's in place, editors should avoid causing disruption on inclusion or exclusion of infoboxes, and default to the status quo for the article in question. This one on Kubrick is probably the most challenged of the all. What others have said above is that you can review the talk page history and easily find 5-6 RFCS or similar debates about the infobox, all come out with no consensus to change from the lack of infobox, though many creative solutions (like collapsible ones) have been offered. --M asem (t) 02:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, that we shouldn't change it until there is a consensus. I hope to try a final Request for Comments in the New Year, an RfC to end all RfC's. If there is no consensus, then no infobox. But I do hope we can get one for this page. HAL333 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As people from both sides of the debate have advised you to drop this for at least three months, trying to force the issue yet again would likely be seen as disruptive. We get it: you want a box. Others disagree, and (as you can see from the links at the top of the page), this has been thrashed out before without a change. Why should we have to go through the whole song and dance again just because you want one. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to keep disruptively having the discussion over and over. This isn't Groundhog Day, where you can keep forcing it until you get the answer you want. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Arb need to urgently pass something to stop consensus being continuously disputed too, it's got completely ridiculous. The recurring "no infobox?" arguments are more disruptive than people adding an infobox in my opinion. Such a waste of everybody's time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so there is something on disruptive commentary. Well, it needs to be in effect from the getgo, it's already gone way too far. It needs to extend to editors who simply can't accept consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , And wanting Arb to gag order anybody who disagrees with you isn't disruptive? WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is WP policy, Arb will never make a ruling forbidding discussions. This page is subject to discretionary sanctions, and while HAL333 has brought it up again, they aren't being disruptive, they are stating their opinion, just like everyone else that has come here over the last two years (as far as I can see HAL333 hasn't edited this page before either). If you add all the new editors that have come here in the last couple years asking for an infobox together, they easily outnumber the crew of anti-infoboxers that follow this page religiously. "Shut them up" really just seems like the worst argument you can make and totally contrary to the way WP works. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    08:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, reach consensus. And something to stop it being disputed within a two year period or something. Time is precious and seems to pass quicker the older you get. Life is too short for silly bollocks like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , No gag order is going to stop new editors coming here with their dissatisfaction (and to do so with such a long term of 2 years is contrary to WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE). In any case, there actually hasn't been an RfC on a standard infobox for almost 2 years. Realistically, the only thing that will stop these discussions would be adding an infobox to the article (I've never seen a new editor show up to an article and want to remove the infobox). I've been unimpressed by the arguments on both sides of the infobox debates for some time, but will support adding an infobox because I believe that it is the best solution to stabilising this page and reducing lost editor time. I also think it would be nice to have a link to his filmography and awards readily accessible rather than buried later in the article prose (example at right). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  (click me!)    09:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (Example removed - there is already one above, and we all know what the fucking things look like - and trying to have yet ANOTHER IB discussion, despite the warnings at the top of the page is just plain disruptive) - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Example restored (the example several sections above will be archived soon and is also collapsible, this one is not). Complaining about disruption while swearing and deleting parts of other people's comments is not constructive in the slightest. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    09:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging me, FFS. Yes, you're being disruptive. There is a large sign at the top of the page and your continual pushing on the point is breaking the line on it. Considering you've advised a three month break on discussions above, I find it unsurprising you now want to try and push the conversation towards another pointless and disruptive discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging is generally seen as a courtesy, but apparently being courteous is a disruption now too? When have I added an infobox to this page? Because that is what the box says you aren't supposed to do. Just pointing at the large sign at the top of the page and yelling "disruptive" every time the conversation comes up is exactly that; disruptive. It stops any attempt at having a conversation or building consensus.
 * You do realise that most of the discussions in the last two years have essentially been someone new coming to this page saying "Hey, why isn't there an infobox, that doesn't make sense", and a handful of others yelling at them and telling them "not to be disruptive". The propensity to discuss editor behaviour rather than the topic at hand seems to me to represent disruptiveness, far more than anyone that wants to talk about the merits of an infobox.
 * After the next RfC, we should have a moratorium for a year or so (precedent for one year being Talk:Genesis creation narrative). I suggested this in a few months to let things cool off, but I suspect you will show up in a few months anyway, still saying that discussing infoboxes is being "disruptive". —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    09:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I note, not for the first time, that you are the first person to introduce inflammatory language into these discussions when they arise (personal preference by a number of editors here has blocked the inclusion of an infobox) and needless personalization of the dispute. Perhaps you should remove this page from your watchlist so you don't feel so agitated every time it comes up? -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am a bit confused. Your comment not for the first time, is very puzzling. Please see the discussion above about why policy and guidelines don't have anything to say about whether infoboxes should be included or not. I don't see how characterising it the way I have (as personal preference to block the inclusion of an infobox) is anything but accurate; it certainly isn't 'inflammatory'. In any case, I have nothing more to say on the subject until the next RfC is raised and have suggested dropping the subject for a number of months. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    14:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm quite surprised this has come back up again so soon. The consensus of the last RfC confirmed there was no way a collapsible infobox was going to happen, but I would think it would be a while before any infobox discussion would be brought back up again. As much as I would like to see another RfC on an infobox, I think we should wait a couple months until everyone calms down. When/IF you make a RfC on an infobox, if or  could please ping me I will gladly put in my two cents (again). Willydrach (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem Willydrach, I will. I also have to say that I am thoroughly disgusted by the un-civility and repeated use of profanity by users like . Why can't we have just have a polite conversation over the pros and cons of having an infobox. HAL333 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FFS, as I've already asked people to stop pinging me, stop pinging me - you are crossing over to more disruptive trolling by your actions. There is nothing uncivil in what I have said, so don't try and play the civility card with me - better editors than you have tried and failed to play that particular game with me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well given the continuity of the infobox debate and how quickly it's being brought up again I can understand it. Even though I am 100% for one, I have to respect the other side of the argument and there are many editors who are passionately against an infobox of any kind on this page. It's part of having a respectful debate. :) I will say though, considering I walked the same path you're going down-try to refrain from making personal comments. It's what got my first discussion closed. Wait until things have cooled down here and then I suggest you host a RfC which I will gladly participate in! willydrachtalk 22:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustrated but if possible try to refrain from using inappropriate language in the future. In our first argument with each other you were able to calm me down by telling me to read things in a calmer vein and I would like to see you do so as well. Apologize for the ping, but trying to reduce the heat in here. willydrachtalk 23:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which bit of “do not ping me” do you trolls not understand? And don’t tell me not to swear. Fuckety, fuckety fuck. There is nothing uncivil in using profanity, so cut out the requests on that front too. - SchroCat (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustrated but if possible try to refrain from using inappropriate language in the future. In our first argument with each other you were able to calm me down by telling me to read things in a calmer vein and I would like to see you do so as well. Apologize for the ping, but trying to reduce the heat in here. willydrachtalk 23:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which bit of “do not ping me” do you trolls not understand? And don’t tell me not to swear. Fuckety, fuckety fuck. There is nothing uncivil in using profanity, so cut out the requests on that front too. - SchroCat (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for closing this discussion, willydrach. I'm the admin who set the page sanction at the top, which I did when a previous page sanction against starting new infobox discussions expired. It seems a common sentiment above that at least a few months more should expire before a new infobox RfC is started, and that further informal infobox discussions shouldn't be started at all. I appeal to everybody to comply with this, both because there's obvious, and reasonable, 'infobox discussion fatigue', and because if the subject keeps coming up and causing so much fruitless back-and-forth and anger on this page, I'll set a new formal prohibition against it. At the same time, if new users turn up and ask why there isn't an infobox, I urge experienced editors of the article to please not bite them, but explain nicely that we're taking a bit of an infobox break and the history behind it. Finally, I have to say that I've never seen a comment such as the complaints above about "un-civility and repeated use of profanity", or "inappropriate language" have any good effect — so much so that I tend to read them as provocations rather than genuine attempts to improve the tone of the discussion. Everybody, please just model the kind of style you'd like to see, instead of admonishing others, as long as they're not attacking people with their use of swear-words, which SchroCat was not. Styles differ in this respect, not least geographically.


 * Once there has been a moratorium of a few months and then an RfC (hopefully a good one with a clear consensus), I'm planning to set a new, formal, pretty long page ban against further infobox discussion, per the infobox discretionary sanctions. Maybe a year, maybe two. Bishonen &#124; talk 04:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC).

Photo
Let's please not edit war over the lede photo. --M asem (t) 16:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Of course, there doesn't seem to be any edit warring going on though. Its been changed back and forth and back again (not even 2RR and all by different people anyway).
 * As for rationale; the new photo is better. Just as we should use commonly recognisable names for titles, we should use commonly recognisable photos as the lead photo. As far as I know the old one was used because we didn't have any decent photos of Kubrick from when he was older that were free. Someone recently (Sept 2018) extracted this photo from the trailer for Dr Stangelove, which apparently has lapsed due to being published without a copyright notice. While the old photo of him at 21 is a great photo, and is well used later in the article for that period of his life, it fails to represent the subject as he looked later in life and isn't recognisable as Kubrick. It would be even better if we could find one of him with a beard and a bit more resolution, but we will have to wait until one surfaces. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no obvious 3RR, but I would still be extremely cautious of changing that photo; I would consider which photo is used along the same lines as whether to have an infobox or not. One thing to consider, that unlike, say, Spielberg who was very public about his image, Kubrick did not seem to be all that public, so using a "later" image that is closer to how he appeared when he was directing his best work may not be the best image. --M asem (t) 17:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Recent photos are good except when they are dreadful pictures (truly awful, actually). Please do not support a single-edit account in their quest to do something, anything, to poke the top-right-hand corner of this article. The self-portrait is an excellent photo and should remain. Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Well, I added the Strangelove photo to the Stanley_Kubrick section of the article, at least we can have an older photo of him later in the article. As far as "supporting a single-edit account", I couldn't care a lick for who I'm supporting. When I see a good idea, I'll back it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Previous discussion) Opencooper (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel that Kubrick's self photograph is not a good picture to represent his life. We need a picture of him in his prime, filming and with his iconic facial hair. It should be from the post 2001 time frame, but not when he is too old. I do like the selfie, but I think it better belongs in the section describing his first experiences with photography. The top picture shouldn't be of him when he was young and awkward. HAL333 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find a better high resolution photo of him. HAL333 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this: Hope it is better HAL333 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember there was a copy of this image on the page years ago, but it was removed. I seem to think there was a copyright problem with it, but I can't be sure on that. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So should we use it (even if it is copyrighted, which I doubt, we can at-least try using it) or find a more suitable one? HAL333 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If it’s not free it shouldn’t be used unless it is somehow iconic or shows a different aspect of him or his work. This doesn’t, so it fails the NFCC criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , and SchroCat (no ping has been requested, so not sure if you will see this). The 'Live Auctioneers' source where the image is from specifically states that the image is "Original 1975 publicity photo taken of Stanley Kubrick (American, 1928-1999) during the filming of ‘Barry Lyndon.’ Public domain image. Photographer unknown.". I mean, we are taking the word of that source, which isn't ideal.
 * Doing some sleuthing, the photo also appears in an article on Signature Reads, where it is cited as 'public domain', a Guardian article (sourced to "Corbis via Getty Images"), Plano Critico (no source given), Filmmaker Magazine (no source given), and an article on Kinky little boots (no source given).
 * It is also for sale on the aforementioned Getty images and for sale on Alarmy (curiously the image is mirror-reversed on Alamy). Getty cites the picture as being from "Corbis Historical" (which just means that the image was from Corbls before it merged with Getty) and that it is "Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis". This still really means nothing, as Getty has gotten into trouble before for selling public domain images. I'm not sure what "Sunset Boulevard" is, but the 'Sunset Boulevard/Corbis' label is used on a lot of film photos scattered around the internet (and 10,000 or so images on Getty), and I found a similar unanswered question on a forum post asking if it is a photo agency or archive, but no luck. I suspect that Getty managed to get their hands on a very high quality version of this photo through the archive of production stills that Coblis had, (they are selling up to 5082 x 3996 px), but nothing stops them selling access to the hi-res photo, even if it is devoid of copyright.
 * All in all, we have two sources claiming it is public domain, and we have some other stock image suppliers selling it. The photo is from 1975, and from what I have read, anything that is from before 1978 that doesn't have a copyright notice on it should be in the public domain, and most production stills from this time period generally were not copyrighted. That being said, I'm no expert on the subject and we generally require proof positive of the lack of copyright, rather than taking it on face value. 'Live Auctioneers' source does specifically refer to a good reason why it shouldn't have copyright though, which adds to thier credibility and that they know what they are talking about.
 * Dunno, what do you guys think? The image is a really good one, and would be great as main image, but not sure if what we have cuts it in terms of copyright. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    00:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I obviously support adding it, but let's see what others say. HAL333 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Anything published before 1978 without copyright notice is generally PD - do we have any indication that this image was published contemporaneously? Do we know the image's venue of first publication? It wouldn't be appropriate to use a non-free biographical image when we have free ones, so we do need to determine whether this is truly free before even discussing whether we should include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , The live auctioneers source says it was a publicity photo, that indicates that it was published contemporaneously. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    14:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Where was it published contemporaneously? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a publicity photo for Kubrick's film, Barry Lyndon. HAL333 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria I can't find any information indicating where it was published, which isn't surprising given that this was in the mid 70's, very little of that is online. The best we have is a source saying that it is public domain image that was a contemporaneous publicity photo. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    15:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless you can prove where and when it was published, it’s deemed under copyright. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, Yeah, well, it's a problem for sure. I did another search and really just can't find anything. The photo probably is public domain, but I can't verify it 100%. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    19:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted new photo, from 1980. It’s from the documentary Making The Shining, which to the best of my knowledge is public domain. It features Kubrick with his iconic look, beard and all. Only thing, I messed the file name up. I can’t edit it myself as I don’t have the privileges. Would someone be able to change the name for me? Silly mistake by me, don’t edit while drunk. Ducktech89 (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like this image has been tagged at Commons as lacking evidence of permission - what leads you to believe it is in the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No valid copyright info leads me to believe that. The page where it’s from also states it’s a community work allowing it to be used by everyone freely.


 * This suggests there is a valid copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Just because they say that doesn't mean that its true. If it was originally published without a copyright licence, then it isn't copyrighted. In any case, I don't think we have proof positive. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    14:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Works published after 1978 have automatic copyright, and I see no evidence that Vivian released the film on archive.org as a free licens e. The person that uploaded it at archive.org is clearly not Viv ian, and thei r other uploads there are questionable. So this clearly cannot assumed to be a free production. --M asem (t) 17:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry I thought we were still talking about the other photo.. my mistake. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    18:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure
I've added a request for closure of the RfC at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

Information box
How does one request an informational box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:540:A307:A1DC:634D:EE91:F3FA (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, see the big box at the very top of this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, That's the big question. HAL 333  02:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)