→top: New edit restriction re infobox, since the old one has expired. |
→Infobox Discussion Part 3: new infobox page restrictions now added on this page and in the article's edit notice. Good luck everybody. |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
::::::::::{{re|Insertcleverphrasehere}} 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 {{re|snuge purveyor}} and his suggestion above since this is a discussion about the potential future use of an infobox. [[User:Willydrach|Willydrach]] ([[User talk:Willydrach|talk]]) 22:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
::::::::::{{re|Insertcleverphrasehere}} 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 {{re|snuge purveyor}} and his suggestion above since this is a discussion about the potential future use of an infobox. [[User:Willydrach|Willydrach]] ([[User talk:Willydrach|talk]]) 22:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{od|::::::::::}}{{re|snuge purveyor}} 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. {{re|Willydrach}} 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 {{u|SMcCandlish}} 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''). — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]] <sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])</sup></small>''''' 22:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
{{od|::::::::::}}{{re|snuge purveyor}} 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. {{re|Willydrach}} 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 {{u|SMcCandlish}} 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''). — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]] <sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])</sup></small>''''' 22:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
*I like [[User:Snuge purveyor|Snuge purveyor]]'s suggestion for a refurbished page restriction concerning an infobox now that the old one has expired: {{tq|"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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC). |
Revision as of 23:32, 5 October 2018
Before you edit this page:
This page relates to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which is a contentious topic. Your behavior on this page is subject to special rules. You must follow:
If you do not follow those rules then you may be banned from editing on the topic or blocked from editing entirely. This restriction is authorised by the Arbitration Committee. Before making edits in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the contentious topics policy. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Press-box BRD
Today i added a Wall Street Journal article on this talkpage. I disagree with the removal here [1]. IMO, this is press looking at what sometimes happens on WP, nothing wrong with including it. They get some stuff wrong, but that's par for the course. Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't. And I'd kindly ask you to use some common sense. I find it highly inappropriate and the headline of the WSJ very offensive. CassiantoTalk 19:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a fairly normal newspaper headline to me. It also seems common sense to me to add the article to this page and the other one [2] in a press-box. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- The reason it seems "fairly normal" to you is because you've had nothing to do with this case and the headline is not about you. Frankly, I don't like any of these people, least of all the confounded troublemakers who start all these discussions. Not only is it describing me and others as wanting to kill each other, which I find highly offensive, but I refute the idea of the editor of the WSJ blowing smoke up the committee's backside while making out that those subject to this case are trouble makers. CassiantoTalk 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- The issue with the info box also ultimately has zero relevance to Kubrick himself. Rusted AutoParts 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't make this about infoboxes as I won't be able to continue. CassiantoTalk 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- As RAP points out the WSJ article has nothing to do with Kubrick. It only uses previous discussions on this talk page as a pretext for writing about ARBCOM. Thus it does not belong in this article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. I have zero interest anymore in the infobox/no infobox debate. Just saying, what editors on Wikipedia decide to do with his article has no impact on Kubricks life or career. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- But like the template says, it mentions it. Oh well, consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- As RAP points out the WSJ article has nothing to do with Kubrick. It only uses previous discussions on this talk page as a pretext for writing about ARBCOM. Thus it does not belong in this article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Correct, to me it's an interesting article that reasonably fits on this talkpage. Perhaps this thread will give WSJ or Haaretz material for another article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It’s becoming more apparent this is just baiting for an argument. I’m out. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can prove to you that that is not my intent (it is not), so I won't try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...by not posting on this subject again and leaving the talk page as is? CassiantoTalk 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...It's a thought. We'll see what my common sense tells me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Kindly keep your snark to yourself. CassiantoTalk 23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's nice of you say "kindly". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Kindly keep your snark to yourself. CassiantoTalk 23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...It's a thought. We'll see what my common sense tells me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...by not posting on this subject again and leaving the talk page as is? CassiantoTalk 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can prove to you that that is not my intent (it is not), so I won't try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It’s becoming more apparent this is just baiting for an argument. I’m out. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't make this about infoboxes as I won't be able to continue. CassiantoTalk 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a fairly normal newspaper headline to me. It also seems common sense to me to add the article to this page and the other one [2] in a press-box. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Heck, I ain't subscribing to the Wall Street Journal, to read that story. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see the particular relevance of the piece; I mean, if it was about Kubrick, then knock yerselves out. But basically, it's about the ArbCo., and the Kubrick article is just a vehicle to get themselves there. Suggestion: Stick it on WT:ARBCOM perhaps. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 20:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think the press mention box should clearly be added because this situation fits the criteria: "This article has been mentioned by a media organization." However, I see no need to quote the WSJ article in the box. --Albany NY (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Planning a page restriction
I'm considering placing a page restriction here concerning infoboxes and discussion about them. I'm not sure whether page restrictions per the infobox discretionary sanctions have been done before — those ds are pretty new altogether — so I've asked for input at WP:AE, where you can read about my proposed restriction and also comment. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
- Support. Good idea, thank you Bishonen for trying to help.Smeat75 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support We might as well use it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support, if the gods allow me to do so, that is. By far the most productive thing any administrator has done in this whole dispute. Puts ArbCom to shame. CassiantoTalk 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to be a solid solution to cease these continuous discussions and arguments. Thank you Bishonen. SiliconRed (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support – GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I don't understand the desperation to add an infobox, nor the desperation to keep one off the page. Probably for the best to let people cool down. Tkbrett 16:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Obviously, and about time. Thanks Bishonen. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I would generally support stopping 'strawpolls' and such, the last RfC suggested a future RfC concerning a collapsible infobox, and that still has yet to happen. Yes to a moratorium on smaller discussions, no to stopping a full RfC that was suggested in the last one. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- With all due respect to those above, this isn't something that's put up for a vote. Discretionary sanctions are placed by uninvolved admins at their.. well.. discretion. If you have a reasoned argument for why the ArbCom remedies for infoboxes don't apply here, you should comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Laser brain (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Certainly something in aware of at least; indicating a particular course of action had a degree of consensus (or otherwise) is very much in line with WP:NOTVOTE. I agree that those !voting "Oppose" are wholly wasting their time though-telling an admin you disagree with their prospective course of action when it clearly has a groundswell of support is the Wikipedia equivalent of pishing into a strong wind. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 08:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- With all due respect to those above, this isn't something that's put up for a vote. Discretionary sanctions are placed by uninvolved admins at their.. well.. discretion. If you have a reasoned argument for why the ArbCom remedies for infoboxes don't apply here, you should comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Laser brain (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support If I were the principal author of a page, I'd stick an infobox on it if there an appropriate one for the subject. Yet knowing the context surrounding the adding and removal of infoboxes here, I can only see such activity as purely disruptive, in a sense merely trying to stir another argument, or trying to get certain so-and-sos blocked, as they cannot speak about infoboxes. talk to !dave 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - too late for my opinion, but putting discretionary sanctions against DISCUSSING something on the TALK PAGE (which is where you discuss things) is ridiculous and completely against what WP is about. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Infobox restrictions enabled, see top of page
Encouraged by the positive discussion here, and also here on WP:AE, I've put this page under discretionary sanctions with regard to infoboxes, please see the new template at the top of the page. The restriction is mandatory, not optional, so I hope to see everybody abide by it. After four months have passed, we will hopefully be ready to start talking about infoboxes again. Or not. Meanwhile, if people break the restriction it's most likely because they haven't seen it — it's shouty enough, but there's a lot of stuff at the top of the page, some of it more interesting, some less. So please, everybody, don't drag those that miss the restriction template immediately to WP:AE, but tell them politely about it and ask them to self-revert. For stubborn cases, WP:AE is in fact the right venue, or drop me a line if I'm around. If anybody disapproves strongly of the restriction, WP:AE is also the place where it can be appealed. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC).
- Right now the warning says "You must not start an infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before 10 September 2018." I think it's preferable to say something like "In view of this RfC [3], you must not start an infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before 10 September 2018." Basically link the reason why the restriction is in place along with the warning, so any new participant would know this has been discussed before, and where that discussion is. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Data box
There is missing the Statistical data box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:561:4A1A:889E:CEB:2E10:6597 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Because he is a Jew?
Does this page not have a statistical box because he is Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:544:A14:4CF5:42FF:3F33:E121 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't have anything to do with him being Jewish. Please see the archives of this talk page for more information (listed at the top of this page) for reasoning as to why there is no infobox. In short, there is disagreement as to whether to include an infobox, and there is no consensus among editors to include such an infobox on this particular article. There are currently sanctions on this article not to begin a discussion on whether to include an infobox until at least September 10th 2018. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Infobox Discussion Part 3
Please see the revised proposal for a collapsible infobox below:
Willydrach (talk) 22:25, 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)
- 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)
- @Willydrach:, 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)
- @Rusted AutoParts: there was a freeze on new discussion on this page, but that expired on 10 Sept. Willydrac 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#RfC:_Should_an_infobox_be_added_to_this_page? 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)- @Insertcleverphrasehere: 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 @Snuge purveyor: 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)
- Suggest we unexpire the editnotice but amend it to read "
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@Snuge purveyor: 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. @Willydrach: 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 SMcCandlish 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 | talk 23:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC).