Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Lede image

The current image is there through WP:CONSENSUS. The attempts to change it have had no discussion and the edit summaries by the editor who wants to replace the image indicate that they do not understand WP:BRD. Now that an IP (sock or meat or new editor) has made the same edit they are invited to start a new discussion about the situation. IMO a WP:RFC will probably be needed to reach a final decision but that is just me. MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's an admirable effort to be kind, but actually the IP isn't invited to start a discussion. The editor has been indef blocked. Starting a discussion would be block evasion. I don't really get IP range blocks, or I'd place one. A look at contribs from IP addresses similar to this one show they've been edit warring and arguing about images and being obnoxious for a while (see, for example, Lou Reed back in October). Now, if other established editors want to discuss the lead image, that's obviously fine. But this person is not welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Floquenbeam. I hadn't checked on the status or editing history of Wilderwyck before starting this thread - I just felt that, when the IP popped up, this thread was going to be needed to deal with a possible 3rr situation. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 03:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It humors me that people think this page doesn't need one. LOL Donaldd23 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Input needed

Filmography of Stanley Kubrick is currently an FLC. Concerns about its size have been expressed. Should it be merged with List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick (as it was before) to provide a more holistic view of his films and reception? ~ HAL333 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

HAL333, I don't think so. His output was sparse compared to giants like Spielberg and DeMille but the weightiness of his output supersedes his limited volume, in my opinion. His films have been taken apart and discussed/analyzed virtually frame-by-frame. I also have trouble seeing how to merge his filmography with his accolades in a meaningful way. I don't know anything about FLC but why is his limited output a problem for making it a featured list? He is not going to be making any more films (lol). Jip Orlando (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond here since I voiced some of these concerns. Kubrick's filmography is only 16 films, which is not very long. Without more information, there is little justification for keeping it as a separate page, especially if you consider that the majority of the current page is the lead, which includes information already covered in the Stanley Kubrick article. In other words, it would be easy to merge that list with this page, as that page has little to say on its own (meeting merger criteria #2) and is not very long (merger criteria #3). Yes, he is an important director, but that does not automatically justify keeping the article. The list needs to provide plenty of unique information or be too long to easily fit into another page; at the moment, it does neither in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done a little thinking about this. It's quite common for biographies to include massive filmographies. (One example would be Taika Waititi.) By that standard, most current featured filmographies are fit to be delisted. All filmographies articles essentially just summarize comtent from the main biographical article and could easily be merged back in. Where should the line be drawn? Kubrick's filmography would also be larger than many other FLs, such as this one passed this month. ~ HAL333 06:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Length is not necessarily the issue. To quote from WP:FLCR #3c, featured lists could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. The filmographies are often split away because they make the page too long, hence why they could not reasonably included. On the other hand, the Latvian Oscar submissions page is short, but there is no other page on the topic (i.e. nothing like Latvia at the Academy Awards), so it could not reasonably go into another article. Kubrick's filmography fails both of these tests: there are other existing articles on Kubrick and it would be reasonable to incorporate the list into one of those articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proper license of lede image

Does anyone have the source url for the lede image (File:KubrickForLook.jpg). Thanks. ~ HAL333 15:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Content removal

Hey, Nikkimaria, you recently reverted this and I'll have to respectfully disagree. For clarity, I'll go through each change in a bullet format:

• "men being dehumanized" --> "dehumanization" Why say in three words what you can in one? And why make it gendered?
• "taking over $30 million in the first 50 days alone" --> "taking over $30 million in the first 50 days" Use of "alone" is complete unnecessary - puffery and somewhat authorial.
• "a country mansion" --> "a mansion" Does removing "country" affect the reader's understanding of Eyes Wide Shut? I think not.
• "New York City in the 1990s" --> "1990s New York City" Not only is this more concise, but it maintains the structure of "turn-of-the-century Vienna" which it is compared to.
• "get the film out" --> "release the film" More concise - the former just sounds ugly too.
• The final change was the removal of Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post disliked the film, writing that it "is actually sad, rather than bad. It feels creaky, ancient, hopelessly out of touch, infatuated with the hot taboos of his youth and unable to connect with that twisty thing contemporary sexuality has become.". This quote is unnecessary - we already stated that critical response to the film was mixed (implying that some critics disliked it). Also, by choosing this one review out of hundreds, we are giving it undue weight. Why not use the NYT or The Guardian? The overuse of quotes in this article bloats it and shifts emphasis away from Kubrick as an individual.

While I understand that some of this may be contentious, do you actually disagree with every single one of these changes? This article is nearly 90K bytes—twice as long as it should be—and conciseness makes a lot of sense here. ~ HAL333 16:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I haven't looked at the sourcing for this point, given the context it seems likely that the dehumanization was of men only. Is there evidence to the contrary? If no, I think specifying is appropriate.
• I don't agree that this is puffery - it's emphatic, but appropriately so IMO
• It impacts the reader's understanding of the setting
• Don't think this is worth fussing over
• Don't agree that this is in any way "ugly", and a single-word difference doesn't seem significant in terms of concision
• Don't agree that including quotes shifts emphasis away from Kubrick in any way, and it provides direct evidence of significant critical opinion. If there are other critics that you feel should be quoted instead/additionally, feel free to present those, but I don't think "we can't quote everyone" is a strong argument for "don't quote anyone". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• In Full Metal Jacket, the native Vietnamese - "the enemy" - are also dehumanized (not just via combat but also through the sexual objectification of women). So prominent is this theme, that NBC and the Wapo mentioned it in articles last month.
• It's authorial language that does not belong in an encyclopedia.
• The distinction between rural and urban has no relevance to Eyes Wide Shut. I'm not sure if being an hour drive outside of NYC even qualifies as country... Could you explain how it impacts the reader's understanding?
• If you don't think that this is worth fussing over, then why did you revert it?
• You really prefer "get out" to "release"? And a single-word difference may not seem like much, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of these throughout the article.
• Do you see no issue with the length of this article? Why repeat things? I'm not sure whether you actually care about this or whetehr you are just trying to be contrarian because it's me. ~ HAL333 20:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• As I said, I haven't looked at the sourcing on this point, so if there are sources supporting a non-gender-specific version that's fine.
• I don't know what you mean by "authorial language"; I don't agree that this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia
• Being an hour drive outside NYC is quite different from being in the heart of NYC, wouldn't you agree?
• Because it doesn't seem particularly warranted
• (covering both of the final points): I didn't say I saw no issue with the length of the article, although given the readable prose length it's not an urgent concern. I don't think the best way to reduce the length is by cutting out single words, or getting rid of all quotes (as stated, they do provide value beyond just saying "mixed critical opinion). I also don't care that it's you doing it - my answers would be the same if it were someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)