Talk:Stanley Kubrick

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)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bedroom model (8649770252).jpg (discussion)
• WarRoomModel.DrStrangelove.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede photo question

Kubrick during the production of Dr. Strangelove

(With this question, I am not asking this to stir up drama, let alone about IBs. This is just about the lede image, and nothing else.) Should this image replace the current lede? I personally believe it should, because it adequately presents Kubrick as a filmmaker (which is what he is known for), instead of a photographer. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

How does it adequately present Kubrick as a filmmaker? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I should've put in a caption, and I'll do that. It's a photo of him during the production of his film, Dr. Strangelove. And the current lede is a good image, but it does not show him as a filmmaker, or in his days as a filmmaker. It's him in his younger days as a photographer. Edit: What I am proposing is an image with him in his days as a filmmaker/director (which is what he was and is known for). StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that particular image is more representative, regardless of its timeframe. See also this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Could we leave this open to see what other editors think? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The current pic is from 1949 and he hadn't yet directed any film. To my eye it has always looked a bit like Rowan Atkinson's Mr Bean but I know that is silly on my part. I would prefer this DS pic in the lede as it is more representative of his film directing career and move the other one to the Look magazine section of the article. OTOH I know that there are objections to that as well as copyright problems with other pics of SK. MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

He does look a tad like Mr. Bean in that photo. You're not alone. lol ~ HAL333 23:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The current lede photo is a beautifully composed photo but not a great lede photo in my opinion. I've always preferred the Strangelove photo as it shows him closer to his prime. I can't think of any other article of a hugely notable person where the image is of them as a near-teenager. (Exlcuding Thomas Pynchon - that's a whole 'nother thing.) Would we use a lede photo of a young non-blonde Marilyn Monroe? Would we use a lede photo of Bill Clinton with his dated 1970s (although rather impressive) hair? It's just a shame we don't have a licensed photo of a bearded Kubrick with his bushy parka. ~ HAL333 23:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with MarnetteD and HAL333. If only we could get the image back where Kubrick was filming Barry Lyndon. It was cited as Public Domain, not having a copyright notice on it, but someone nominated for deletion because it was on Getty. It's a real shame. It's a great picture, and would be perfect lede image material. This one would be my choice if it were Public Domain or under some other free license. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A rather new upload at commons here c:File:Stanley Kubrick 1971.jpg actually may be good, but as devil's advocate, I do ask how affirmed it would be a PD photo. --Masem (t) 01:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a great photo, and that is what I would suggest using. Unfortunately, I do feel it's gonna suffer the same fate as this one. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Brandt Luke Zorn, you're probably the most copyright-competent editor I've met here. Would it be possible to dredge up a PD photo of Kubrick? If you don't have the time or energy, no worries. :) ~ HAL333 18:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for the ping on this! Fun challenge. I have good news and bad news. The bad news is I think the following two images are copyrighted:

• Stanley Kubrick 1971.jpg (currently at Commons) is likely to be copyrighted; we don't have definitive proof that it isn't copyrighted, so we have to assume it is. See my deletion nomination at Commons for more details.
• Stanley Kubrick - WB promo.jpg (uploaded locally) is definitely copyrighted. The source at RR Auction is clearly a reprint; note the use of halftone printing (the dots) and the message "Film opens _____ at the _____ Theatre." A high-resolution scan of the original publicity photo can be seen at Heritage Auctions, and it bears a valid copyright notice: "Copyright © by Warner Bros. Inc., 1971."

The good news is I found and uploaded a set of photos that are public domain, including (to my surprise) the 1975 Barry Lyndon photograph that StrangeloveFan101 mentioned above. In fact, all of the Barry Lyndon publicity photos suffered from a very rare defect of omitting the year from the copyright notice, which would have been a highly uncharacteristic mistake for a major film distributor at that time, yet is undeniable when looking at any original prints from multiple sources online (e.g., Heritage Auctions, or another posting from Heritage Auctions). Crucially, however, only the black & white version of the Kubrick–Lyndon photo is provably public domain, but not the color version that had been previously uploaded to (and deleted from) Wikipedia; the latter presumably is presumably copyrighted, the difference being that we can prove that the b&w was published prior to 1978 but the full-color photo was almost certainly published some time later.

• 
  Kubrick '57, Paths of Glory
• 
  Kubrick '60, with Tony Curtis, Spartacus
• 
  Kubrick '63, Dr. Strangelove
• 
  Kubrick '75, Barry Lyndon

In my opinion, the 1975 portrait is clearly the way to go. Maybe a tighter crop. The Paths of Glory photo is cool too, and very "directorial"—plus heck, he's practically doing "The Kubrick Stare"—but it's not top of the article worthy. There are other PD Kubrick photos out there; here's another decent Paths of Glory photo and another decent Barry Lyndon photo. Any other PD pics of Kubrick are most likely from 1963 or earlier, or from Barry Lyndon. —BLZ · talk 07:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Brandt Luke Zorn, I'd give you a hug if I could! These are terrific, brilliant, and valuable finds for Wikipedia and Commons. I especially love how you were able to determine the Barry Lyndon set photo as Public Domain (even if it is black and white. In my opinion, it has a certain character you can't get from a color image.), and how you found a photo (the one for Paths of Glory) of him giving his iconic Kubrick Stare. I was in a terrible mood, but when I saw this in my notifications, I snapped out of it. Thank you for your help! I for one appreciate it!

Also, I agree, the Barry Lyndon photo should be the lede image. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You've blown me away again Brandt Luke Zorn. Thank you so much! And, yes the 1975 image is the way to go for the lead image. The others would work great in the body. ~ HAL333 20:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Kudos on finding these Brandt Luke Zorn. I would lean towards the 75 pic as well. IMO it represents SK in between the young phenom and the old master. Would any of the others be appropriate in the body of the article? I ask because I do like the Strangelove photo as well. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Using the photos Brandt Luke Zorn uploaded, I quickly made a sandbox showing an idea of how we could use the newly found PD photos of Kubrick. I replaced the lede 1949 image with the one from 75, put the 49 one in the LOOK section, replaced the PoG screenshot with the production photo, put the Kubrick/Curtis photo next the Spartacus section, replaced the image of Kubrick in the trailer for Dr. Strangelove with the production still, and moved the trailer shot into the Cultural impact section. I also removed the Spartacus poster, but that might not be a good idea. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the work StrangeloveFan101. It looks good to me. I'm okay with the removal of the Spartacus poster. I don't think Kubrick designed it and there are no posters in this article for his other films. Readers interested in it can always click on the link for the films article. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 20:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, MarnetteD. And about the poster, you're right, it wasn't something by Kubrick. According to the Spartacus article, the poster used was done by artist Reynold Brown. That being said, I agree with the notion that it shouldn't be in Kubrick's article. Especially now that there's a still photo from the production. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is excellent work, StrangeloveFan101. Kudos to BLZ for finally obtaining a photo of Kubrick's iconic bearded look that is fit for the lead. — Goszei (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Needs a beard. ...perfect image above.Moxy- 02:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

yup! the '75 image is perfect—blindlynx (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

there seems to be clear consensus to change the picture here i went ahead and changed it to teh 75 one—blindlynx (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Blindlynx please read the entirety of this thread. There is more than just one pic being discussed. Although anyone could perform the edit that there is consensus for I think StrangeloveFan101 should do the honors since they have done the work in their sandbox. MarnetteD|Talk 21:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, piling on, yes I think the bearded Barry pic is probably the way to go for lead image; like to see the Paths of Glory and Dr Strangelove ones in the main body too (I think we could then lose the trailer shot from Strangelove that's in the main body ATM). Not against including the Spartacus one too but the other three are definites AFAIC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll put the photos in where I placed them in the sandbox. However, I do believe we should keep the Strangelove trailer screenshot in the article, because it is a nice shot of Kubrick (even though he doesn't have his beard). I think it could be somewhere like the Cultural impact section. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll of course bow to consensus on that one -- the fact that he looks almost happy certainly gives it novelty value... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

It's September 2021, and you know what that means: according to the top of the page, the ban on infobox discussions is officially over. Forgive me if this is the wrong place to bring it up. I would like to express my views on the matter wherever appropriate. Fragglestomp (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No. You don't get to "express your views" here, or anywhere, they are not welcome. After looking at your first edit from March, it's clear you're a returning sock, here solely to disrupt this article. Not sure why you weren't blocked as such at the time. While any good faith editor is allowed to raise the issue again (keeping in mind that just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea), you can't, because I'm blocking you. I would strongly suggest we not allow new accounts to start this up again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I would 100% support an infobox. Looking back at past debate I have found nothing but petty reasoning for there not to be one. Quite why some users are so angry about the possibility of an infobox when almost all other articles about prominent film directors on Wikipedia have one is absurd. --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I also support an infobox, and it's about time we move past petty squabbling and pathetic non-reasoning on why there shouldn't be one. Plenty of things on Wikipedia are optional, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Editors who say that readers should "read the article" for details instead of looking at the infobox want to decide how readers read articles instead of giving them free will. Let the reader decide how they read the articles they click on. Acalycine (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You both need to read WP:NPA. Your posts are heavy on invective and light on policy based reasons for changing the current consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no policy supporting the current consensus, this is precisely my point. I don't see how it's a personal attack when it's targeted towards groups of unnamed individuals - it's about time somebody stood up to these people. The people strangling Mr Kubrick's page for absolutely no good reason are the ones making a personal attack, a personal attack on Mr Kubrick's memory and legacy. Acalycine (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: Even if you don't name specific editors but make the type of language of personal attacked towards unnamed individuals of whom we can readily deduce what editors you are talking about, that is still a personal attack. Especially on this page (Kubrick) and in the area of when some bios get infoboxes, there are very well known proponents and opponents, so one should assume that if you make a personal attack but vague towards one group or the other, other editors will know who you are talking about. And as a neutral obverser at this point, I will point out there's also no policy mandating infoboxes either, that was the crux of every past RFC related to infoboxes. It is a completely valid consensus to omit one under policy. --Masem (t) 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't memorise the usernames of "well known proponents" of infobox policy since I'm not obsessed with these disgustingly tedious arguments, so I really can't see how I'm alluding to specific editors. Any attempts to "readily deduce" names from what I said is totally fabricated. These people have been spitting on the grave of Mr Kubrick for years, so "FWIW", I'm not going to hold back any contempt for them. This "valid consensus" is based on nothing. Editors should have to justify why they want to hold back content from articles, not merely force their stupid will through "consensus" on unwitting Wikipedia readers who want accessible websites. Acalycine (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're aware there's a long-standing consensus to omit the infobox, that means we expect you to have versed yourself in the talk page archives to understand the reasons why they have opted for omission and to that, to know who those users are. If you are simply stating that you reject this consensus without having spent the time to understand how it came to be, that's not a helpful argument to your point because that shows no way to challenge the valid points raised on those that have argued in favor of omission of the infobox, and similar rehashing the infobox argument for purposes of rehashing (see WP:DEADHORSE). If this discussion is going to be open again, it should not just be because the moratorium on having any discussion has passed, but also that new arguments have been raised to differ from past arguments, or otherwise to show that consensus changed since last time. Otherwise, what you're arguing is just poking at the problem without a really good reason. --Masem (t) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course I have read the discussions. I've been aware of these non-arguments for years, especially on other pages. I can be aware of the consensus and the non-reasons without memorising editors personally and investigating who they are so I can 'make personal attacks'. This isn't the gotcha you think it is - I never stated that I "reject this consensus without having spent the time to understand how it came to be", so don't put words in my mouth. Why don't the arguments of the opposing side have to be novel, like you're demanding the supporting side be? You're implicitly (and explicitly - "valid points") supporting the opposing side here - I thought you were a neutral observer. Acalycine (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely support an infobox for this article. Since infoboxes are of standard use for these articles, the page looks incomplete without one to the average reader. Wikipedia is made for the readers, and not everyone who comes to Wikipedia is here to read exhaustively and would prefer to get some quick, easy-to-read, basic facts about someone. For those readers, the infobox is of very good use. For those who doubt the merits of this argument, just look at other infobox discussions and you'll see that many of us do find great value in infoboxes. The infobox also features info that isn’t in the lead; for example, if a reader wants to find out how old Kubrick was when he died, it would be much faster to read it in an infobox than to have to do the math by looking at his dates in the lead. The "infoboxes are bad" arguments basically amount to "if I don’t like the way it looks, then it can't be of use to anyone". The infobox might not be able to provide an airtight summarization of the subject, but it still provides a quick and easy list of basic facts about the subject and is of demonstrable use to many readers, much like our "in a nutshell" templates. Songwaters (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Any good faith editors like Songwaters or Acalycine are welcome to start an actual discussion on this subject if they feel it would be of use; it's after Sept. 2021, and they are obviously not trolls with throw-away accounts stirring up trouble. However, Songwaters did it exactly right, and Acalycine did it exactly wrong. If I were to ever close a discussion about infoboxes (I won't, just saying if I were), I would completely ignore arguments based on comments about "pathetic non-reasoning" and "pathetic petty dictators", and might even consider page-banning them from the discussion. I think admins need to come down hard on comments like Acalycine's, if the discussion is to stay on track. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"Pathetic non-reasoning" perfectly describes the lack of foundation that editors have who are opposed to an infobox have. It's not irrelevant at all, so I don't see why you have to pearl clutch and tone police over me describing a viewpoint as pathetic. I'll remove the "petty dictators" line if you want, but it does describe this viewpoint perfectly. Acalycine (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Stanley Kubrick page should be allowed to have an infobox. My big question is, what is so special about Stanley Kubrick that makes his page in particular need to not have an infobox? I sifted through the previous discussions on archive pages 7 and 9, and found no suitable answer. If that question can't be answered to my satisfaction, I must advocate an infobox. Thanks. Infernape612 (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the conversation appears to be starting up again, I'd like to speak out in favor of the infobox as well. As Songwaters discussed, many Wikipedia readers are seeking to quickly look up and verify facts, rather than read entire articles; in my experience, this is a sizable audience, and an audience that simply isn't served by a page without an infobox. I'm sympathetic to the arguments that infoboxes can be reductive on biographies in the arts, but I feel that it's also very possible for them to be done in a tasteful and effective manner; I'd like to highlight Alfred Hitchcock's infobox as one that I feel is done well, and that I think could be an effective model for us to follow should we decide in favor of including one. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not reverse this edit. I personally like this infobox and in itself it is absurd that they have removed the usual one for a mere whim. The greats of the cinema in Wikipedia have their infobox and what I suggest does not alter what the capricious ones propose.--2800:484:7390:3C90:F880:7F37:990C:ADB3 (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no argument, outside of the purely aesthetical, for the lack of an infobox. Functionally, objectively - the article is better at conveying certain types of information with the infobox in place - which is why infoboxes were created, and why they continue to be used. It somewhat baffles me that this is a point of contention, but perhaps we can get at least one good thing done in this (so far) pretty rotten year. It's about time for the infobox. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong agree The lack of an infobox here is and has been largely arbitrary and aesthetic. William Shakespeare has an infobox, as do Alfred Hitchcock and Jesus Christ. Is Kubrick somehow more susceptible to the insidious "unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance" than these other "liberal arts" figures? That Kubrick should be excluded from what is obviously a sitewide standard seems to be mostly built on the idea that he's too "nuanced" or complex a figure — or, worse, that this article is just so well written that it should be exempted. One argument displays regard for Kubrick that just isn't objective, and the second shows a kind of self-regard that I think is antithetical to the goal of the Wikipedia project. -Depressed Marvin (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)