Rose Abrams (talk | contribs) |
→Came here for info, not getting it: remove condescending remark |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
*Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to [[WP:AN]] and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 11:03, 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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 11:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
::For the love of Jimbo, [[User:Cassianto|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 [[WP:OWN|claiming ownership]] of this talk page? You've been rather blunt and arrogant as far as I can see, |
::For the love of Jimbo, [[User:Cassianto|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 [[WP:OWN|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Kubrick&action=unwatch unwatch] and let others more interested take the debate, be civil and [[Let it go (Disney song)|let it go]]! Heated discussion doesn't mean forbidden discussion. I can't see how we're abusing Wikipedia. [[WP:LOVE|Thankful]] for [[WP:Community|cooperation]], [[WP:LOVE|thankful]] for [[Special:Statistics|Wikipedia]], ''[[User:Gaioa|Gaioa]]'' ([[User talk:Gaioa|talk]]) 13:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:16, 31 December 2017
Stanley Kubrick has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infoboxes, again
I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop yet another set of reverts over the infobox. As Graham Chapman once said, stop this, it's silly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- They're gone---and I'm not sure where the edit was that removed them is, looking at the history. :\ - Phone Charger (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Directors Guild of Great Britain lifetime achievement awards show
The source linked for the Simpson's homage to Kubrick at the awarding of the DGGB lifetime achievement award, is just a post on a forum, which obviously isn't a reliable source. I've searched for a better source and found this: http://www.thecliffedge.com/?p=2695 This is a blog post by Ray Bennett, but it was apparently originally published in the Hollywood Reporter on September 14, 1999. Is there someone who has archive access that can verify this? In the meantime, I'll add this reference (the blog) to the article. Jaxcab (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- This would not be considered to be a reliable source as, like you say, it's a blog. Who is Ray Bennett? What's his credentials? Is he a known authority in the world of film? Or is he an amateur film enthusiast? The Hollywood Reporter would be a RS but access looks to be through subscription only. We hope, would you have access to this? CassiantoTalk 07:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I tried them online because we don't have subscriptions to view this, but no luck with being able to view their archives without a Hollywood Reporter subscription. We hope (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers. Jaxcab, this’ll be unverifiable then and won’t be able to be used, unless you attribute Bennett to it, as long as he himself can be considered as verifiable. You’ll need to evidence his verifiability though; you can do that here. CassiantoTalk 13:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are newspaper accounts of the award being given, but nothing re: the "tribute" mini film. I can get a newspaper story as a ref that supports -there was an award given posthumously from the Guild on that day. We hope (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've found some stuff on Bennett, which at least establishes him as a professional film critic. He has 186 reviews used by Rotten Tomatoes that have been published in The Hollywood Reporter and the Chicago Sun-Times: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/ray-bennett/movies . He is also a member of the London Film Critic's Circle http://www.criticscircle.org.uk/film/members-film/ , and BAFTA http://www.bafta.org/about/membership/list-of-full-members-of-the-academy . Jaxcab (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is what you want to add amply covered by We hope's newspaper article? If so, I'd forget about Bennett and go with that. If you want to attribute something to Bennett that is not covered by the newspaper article, then go for that as well, but not instead of. The newspaper article looks too good to ignore. CassiantoTalk 06:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers. Jaxcab, this’ll be unverifiable then and won’t be able to be used, unless you attribute Bennett to it, as long as he himself can be considered as verifiable. You’ll need to evidence his verifiability though; you can do that here. CassiantoTalk 13:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I tried them online because we don't have subscriptions to view this, but no luck with being able to view their archives without a Hollywood Reporter subscription. We hope (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- September 10, 1999 page 10-The Marshall News Messenger (via Newspapers.com)We hope (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
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. CassiantoTalk 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)
- 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)
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. CassiantoTalk 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)
- 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|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|Talk 00:03, 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)
There's undoubtedly something sinister going on behind the scenes as this trolling over infoboxes is getting out of hand. @Yngvadottir: 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, PheonixDev, 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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)
- 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)
- 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. CassiantoTalk 17:59, 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 can't see the why this article should be an exception. Ambo100 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not. CassiantoTalk 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)
Stanley Kubrick | |
---|---|
File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg | |
Born | The Bronx, New York City, USA | July 26, 1928
Died | March 7, 1999 St Albans, Hertfordshire, England | (aged 70)
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)
Kubrick | |
---|---|
God of film | |
File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg | |
Other names | Stanley Kubrick (for unbelievers) |
Affiliation | Masterly cinema |
Region | United States and United Kingdom occasionally, but mainly transcendent planes |
Ethnic group | Cinephiles |
Festivals | The Annual Great Offering to our Lord and Champion Kubrick |
Consort | none worth mentioning, Kubrick was beyond human pleasures such as sex |
- Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to WP:AN and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived. CassiantoTalk 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)