Freeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs) reply |
→Lack of infobox: a new person perhaps. ...they will understand... explaning |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:*Apologies. It looks like this is something that's been hotly debated for a while now, but I was never part of those debates. As I said, I didn't notice the more recent discussion. But the fact that this discussion keeps happening, and infoboxes keep being added to the article, surely says something about how strong the currently established consensus really is. And I'd appreciate that you not accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT, especially when part of the rationale for excluding the infobox was "it looks far better without one." [[User:Lizard the Wizard|<font color="#008000">Lizard</font>]] ([[User talk:Lizard the Wizard|talk]]) 00:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
:*Apologies. It looks like this is something that's been hotly debated for a while now, but I was never part of those debates. As I said, I didn't notice the more recent discussion. But the fact that this discussion keeps happening, and infoboxes keep being added to the article, surely says something about how strong the currently established consensus really is. And I'd appreciate that you not accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT, especially when part of the rationale for excluding the infobox was "it looks far better without one." [[User:Lizard the Wizard|<font color="#008000">Lizard</font>]] ([[User talk:Lizard the Wizard|talk]]) 00:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::It does, in fact, look better without one, and that is a reasonable concern. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
::It does, in fact, look better without one, and that is a reasonable concern. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Exact opposite of what we should be doing..... never never pick looks over accessibility to information for our readers. Try to think of our readers and their different abilities to absorb information.... including non-native speakers of English..... and those simply looking for a quick tidbits. Forcing our readers to absorb information in the way you see best is not always best. Always better to give our readers options. Luckily this isn't an extensive problem. Now let's wait for the personal attacks.--[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:22, 31 December 2016
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sellers mention and currency
In the open of the article Peter Sellers is mentioned in connection with Lolita and Dr. Strangelove. It seems somewhat out of place to specifically highlight any actor in any of Kubrick's films. Thoughts?
Also, in the mention of the sale of a photo by Kubrick, the denomination is in English pounds as opposed to American dollars. Should this be in the American denomination as the transaction took place in the US?THX1136 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick had a very well documented relationship. Both were landmark films. I think mentioning him is perfectly appropriate. Kubrick lived in the UK for over half his life. We should go with whatever the source says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Again help desk questions wasting our time
Again we are trying to explain to our readers why the norm is not here. Sure you guys are doing right by our readers here?
- Wikipedia:Help desk#Missing information ..........--Moxy (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anything good is going to come of dragging this whole tedious argument up again, for either side of the argument. With well over 4 million other articles that could do with improvement, I would suggest that your energies are best suited elsewhere. CassiantoTalk 19:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I was not aware this article was yours... nor was I aware you were here. Believe it or not there's many other articles that you're not aware of that the same topic comes up. Moxy (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be impertinent; the article was improved to its current state by Ssven2 and Dr. Blofeld, so if anyone can lay claim to it more than anyone, it's them. CassiantoTalk 22:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I was not aware this article was yours... nor was I aware you were here. Believe it or not there's many other articles that you're not aware of that the same topic comes up. Moxy (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Lack of infobox
I noticed there was a discussion about a year ago on whether to include an infobox or not, and was frankly shocked that so many editors were against it. I haven't read every argument, and I know infoboxes are optional, but its absence is very odd and striking. When I visit any article, the infobox is nearly always the first thing I look at. It's often the only thing I look at. I found my eyes immediately drawn to the blank space in the article where an infobox would normally be. It's an integral part of Wikipedia biographies; I'd even argue it's the most important part of a Wikipedia page. Maybe we should start another discussion to see if consensus has changed. Lizard (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Most recent discussion Nov-Dec 2016. We hope (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus hasn't changed since the last discussion, or the one before that. Some articles are better without infoboxes, and this is one of them. JAGUAR 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Can we please not have this bloody discussion again! Lizard the Wizard, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can't just keep having "discussions" until you get the answer you want. CassiantoTalk 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies. It looks like this is something that's been hotly debated for a while now, but I was never part of those debates. As I said, I didn't notice the more recent discussion. But the fact that this discussion keeps happening, and infoboxes keep being added to the article, surely says something about how strong the currently established consensus really is. And I'd appreciate that you not accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT, especially when part of the rationale for excluding the infobox was "it looks far better without one." Lizard (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- It does, in fact, look better without one, and that is a reasonable concern. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Exact opposite of what we should be doing..... never never pick looks over accessibility to information for our readers. Try to think of our readers and their different abilities to absorb information.... including non-native speakers of English..... and those simply looking for a quick tidbits. Forcing our readers to absorb information in the way you see best is not always best. Always better to give our readers options. Luckily this isn't an extensive problem. Now let's wait for the personal attacks.--Moxy (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)