Jump to content

Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jrgilb (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 24 December 2015 (→‎No Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleStanley 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 12, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 15, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
April 24, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
August 24, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article


Files with issues which may not pass PR

  • File:InfantKubrick.jpg Taken from someone's Twitter feed-we have no idea whether the person has permission to publish it nor whether this is the first publication of it (at Twitter) or not.
  • File:Hayden-Asphalt.jpg Nothing re: uploaded back-from Dr. Macro. There's no proof of where the photo came from, proof of dating or proof it is truly in the public domain.

Chris, could we ask you to take a look at this before the article goes to PR? Thanks! We hope (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: I'll take your word for it, I was never keen on the main image anyway. I've removed all of the above. Is the Dr Strangelove trailer really OK though? I thought it was a British film?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't catch the Strangelove one--I'd pull it out-forgot it was a British film. I think Chris should take a look at these, though, as I think they may need to go for DR. We hope (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strangelove though like Kubrick's other films were mostly American financed I think, that's why the AFI claims them to be American. It might be OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It premiered on the same day in both the US and UK. We hope (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-PR

Hi, Dr. Blofeld was kind enough to alert me to the upcoming PR. As I expect to be travelling soon I probably won't have time to participate in PR but couldn't resist having a quick look now; brief comments:

  • I understand length might be considered an issue but, without reading every word, if doesn't feel overly detailed, and the various sections seem justifiable.
  • Subsection header "An innovative, ground-breaking filmmaker" -- entirely true IMO but might be considered editorialising unless it's a quote from someone and you show it as such.
I've changed to "ground-breaking cinema" as I feel the films are such landmarks in cinematic history that they need something along those lines to reflect it. I'll try to find a source for both 2001 and Clockwork being ground-breaking to support it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter Sellers again agreed to work with Kubrick, and ended up playing four different roles" -- started four but finished up playing only three, so I think recasting or a footnote is needed.
Yup, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the film, Kubrick employed the new style of micropolyphony" -- well, Kubrick employed Ligeti's music, which employed the new style of micropolyphony; as it reads now, looks like Kubrick wrote the music himself.
  • You mention his notorious (supposed) fear of flying and it made me wonder if he drove cars or not -- I don't happen to know but if he didn't it might be worth a mention.
  • Harv error on FN135.
Seems to have been fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have pretty well all the main references that come to my mind -- there's also Stanley Kubrick: A Film Odyssey by Gene D. Philips (1975; I have the 1977 paperback edition) which seems to have benefitted from Kubrick's direct input, but you may not need it (LoBrutto, for one, employs it).

Sorry I can't go through prose or image licensing but if I find any spare time I'll be happy to stop by again. Best of luck with it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Entirely happy for these comments to be moved to the PR and acknowledged there, once it's under way -- or I can do so if pinged. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian Rose, that's most appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Infobox

Again, an infobox for the sake of adding one. It adds nothing of value to the article and it looks far better without one.

  • Support Infoboxes are optional and should be the choice of those who have made contributions to the article. Have just reverted as it was not only an infobox which was added. The editor also re-added a photo which was removed from the article because of copyright concerns. We hope (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katastasi, you are at 3RR as you have reverted to your chosen version three times. We hope (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Just for the record, I, as an editor, also believe that an infobox pollutes the article, but I insisted on including it because it facilitates and centers birth and life data that would otherwise take more time for a common web user to locate. Dr. Blofeld, I've read your encyclopedia problems page and I understand your argument. I see that you employed an extreme amount of work on this and many other pages, and thus I won't try to change it anymore, and I apologize for my behavior here. Idem for We hope. Thanks. I'm not there. Message me! 12:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum However, in order to keep consistency with articles that have an infobox and to please editors that find necessity in the presence of one, I ask that Blofeld, We hope and others consider my reverted edit, which featured the compromise previously done in Peter Sellers with a collapsible infobox. After all, many types of readers (including non-Wikipedians) have different tastes regarding this. Thank you. I'm not there. Message me! 14:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd prefer an infobox to a collapsible one as it looks even emptier and useless by default than if you could see it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of infobox. As with all other infobox discussions, I would like to see the consensus for adding one in the first place. If there isn't one, which I suspect is the case, why do people like Katastasi and Light show think an infobox is a default position to be in? CassiantoTalk 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no infobox While I personally would like to see one (even if it doesn't fairly capture his directorial career, I still appreciate the quick capture of the personal's life), I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost (this was proven out in a Arbcom case, wasn't it? If not, it still follows from things like DATERET). As long as the typical biographical metadata is still present in a manner that is captured appropriately, the infobox is not required. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I always appreciate it when a major contributor decides that a biography is best served without an infobox. It's a rare case but a welcome one. As in this case, the career may be so complex or so finely nuanced that it cannot be reduced to infobox points without losing value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)
  • Support infobox - having an infobox make the article look complete and is a quick overview of the main points. so widely used that even Google has them. don't want to lose our readers who will go somewhere else for this quick data.Moxy (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no infobox The Google version of these damned things has led to a downturn in our reader numbers, so it's a rather questionable stance to encourage them further. A well-written lead, as we have here, provides all the relevant data, and without stripping out the context. I don't think we need to be in the realms of the truly ridiculous to expect visitors of a text-based encyclopaedia to actually read a few lines of text to get the gist of a very full and busy life. Aside from that, the IBs look to my eye as truly amateurish (I note the other language variants of Wikipedia largely eschew the flaming things altogether – and more power to their elbow!) – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support infobox This is preposterous. An infobox doesn't reduce the quality of the article. It's NOT supposed to describe the entire career of an accomplished filmmaker! It's supposed to give a quick rundown of biographical points (i.e. notable works, occupation, marriage, etc.) And nobody who is actually interested in Kubrick is gonna flash throw the infobox and leave, they're gonna read the article. But why not include the infobox? It's not like we're editing for ourselves to read and get proud later (because it looks better without one), it's supposed to be helpful! That's why it's an encyclopedia in the first place. It's here to serve readers in the Internet, not Wikipedia editors that have some grudge against infoboxes. And I bet most readers like it. (P.S.: This article ALWAYS had an infobox until Dr. Blofeld decided to remove it this year. I agree with Moxy, it looks complete with an infobox) 201.43.50.230 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing preposterous in either including or omitting an IB. As I pointed out above, many of the other language wikis don't bother with IBs, and that doesn't make them any less worthy than us, or make their articles any better or worse than those on en.wiki. Funnily enough, the text of a lead serves readers much better than a group of miscellaneous and random "facts" – SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Addendum: just to correct the IP: this article has not "always" had an IB: it certainly didn't for the first hundred sits (the first page of the history). It may have had one for a while, but it's not right to say it's "always" had one. – SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "facts" in quotes? And they're not miscellaneous, again, they're general facts on the person's life. Just because it doesn't detail the person's career doesn't mean it shouldn't be there for visual aid. My point is, why NOT included it? It's a good resource. It exists for a reason. And most articles have it. Check out Ingmar Bergman, Andrei Tarkovsky and Alfred Hitchcock, they all have infoboxes and all of them are filmmakers of cinematic contribution that is comparable to that of Kubrick 201.43.50.230 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I get around to those the infoboxes will disappear too. What exactly does Alfred Hitchcock's infobox tell us about him as a director? Useless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is no basis for downgrading this article. All the relevant and useful information on the individual is held in the lead, without being stripped of intelligence, context or nuance. IdiotBoxes have their place for the dumbed down areas of life, but "facts" without context are meaningless dross and no more. – SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't hate them at all: I'm a big fan of them, when they are used properly Most of the articles I have started have IBs, most of those I have taken to GA have IBs, and a high proportion of FAs and FLs that I have done also have them, but only when there is a benefit to the article, and not as a default starting position. Sadly there is a knee-jerk reaction by many that says all articles have to have them, without even thinking about why, what they are good for, etc. – SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support infobox, users expect that they can glance to the right of an article and be greeted with a brief summary of the important details of the subject's life. They shouldn't be forced to read the entire opening section just to find a piece of basic objective information. This isn't a good precedent to set. —Flax5 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue Flax5 is that it DOES NOT give a summary of the important details of the subject's life. It tells us nothing about his career as a director, which is the subject of the article. And if our readers bother to visit the article they're not going to learn anything about him by the infobox. Read the lede and they'll get a summary. We're an encyclopedia, not google.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a segue there, as I'm not basing my support for the removal on other articles that don't have them. I am interested in whether this article should have one, not whether others do or don't. – SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no infobox — This article looks better without an infobox as it will encourage readers to know more about the person. Kubrick is certainly someone who needs to be read about in detail rather than just Birthday and Birthplace, Day of death and Place of death and marriage. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No infobox - the problems with the one here are :
  • Dates of birth and death - already in the first sentence
  • Cause of death - not of principal importance
  • 'Occupation - in the first sentence, "filmmaker and other stuff"
  • Years active - 1951 is not referred to in the lead, the body lists several films before Flying Padre hence this claim fails WP:V
  • Spouses - not of principal importance
All that said, I refuse to edit war or revert over this as it is lame to do so. Also I would note those supporting the infobox appear to be doing so out of a general principle (yes, a good infobox is absolutely fine and welcome and several articles I've worked on extensively have them) rather than this specific case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No infobox: there is no need for an info box in this article; it does not convey any significant information not already included in the first few sentences. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No infobox It's funny that there are specific infoboxes for comedians, politicians, athletes, writers, philosophers, but film directors get the generic Infobox person. Doesn't give any film-specific information. 200.162.36.235 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no infobox. Useful for many articles, but a waste of space and amateurish-looking here. Tim riley talk 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No infobox -- Piling on, I think I've used infoboxes in all but two of the scores of GA-or-higher-level articles I've put together, as I find them useful for a snapshot of statistics related to things like battles, military units, hardware, and so on. I don't think that an artistic career can really be defined by statistics, so don't believe an infobox adds anything to an article like this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No infobox Really no need for one. It doesn't give out any useful information and it would just be a waste of space here. Everything is already in the first few sentences of the lead anyway. JAGUAR  16:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is nonsense. No one owns an article. Infoboxes are standard and they provide a better overview for the person than anything else. These 'support for no infobox' opinions are meaningless. There is nothing 'unprofessional' about how Wikipedia uses infoboxes. Bringem Young (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, infoboxes are not "standard", arb ruled The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. You can't honestly with a straight face think the infobox gives a better overview of the person than the lede itself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support infobox: Agreed, it's not very necessary, but it doesn't make the article look unprofessional at all (especially a great one such as this) and a lot of readers like it. Not putting it would be quite selfish, since Wikipedia exists to please readers, I'd say. 201.6.147.202 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The thread has been silent for a week, now and I imagine that most who wish to contribute have done so. Of 18 contributions, 12 are against an infobox for this article, 5 think there should be one, and one contributor is both for and against. There is no consensus for a box here; I believe the issue should be considered as closed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The missing Infobox sticks out like a sore thumb. Wikipedia has a quasi-democratic governance structure. However, art is not a democracy, including the art of Wiki articles. Kubrick was a great artist and obviously would never have put up with this democracy nonsense. I like and expect the Infobox. For example, when and to whom was he ever married? Did he have children? I dislike digging through this verbose tome (and tomb) to find out. This is not a New Yorker article, a movie review or a Kubrick script. It's a Wiki article. Btw, Spielberg's infobox is short, sweet and it looks great. Without an infobox, this article looks and is unfinished. The omission of the infobox in this article is mainly one or more editors just making some obscure point. I want one. ('I want a window!' Can you guess the movie?) Jrgilb (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

Is everyone satisfacted with the lede image? As with previous versions of Rod Steiger, this lead image (which is actually from a trailer of Dr Strangelove) is quite low-res and I think it doesn't really capture Kubrick's likeness so well. I'd opt for this one, as a suggestion:

File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg
Stanley Kubrick

, since it's a higher resolution and centers the image of Kubrick's face. Even though it derives from another image already in use in the article, I still think it looks much more presentable than the current one (and I don't think the repeated image is a problem, since there's a similar case in Carl Sagan, in which the lead image is cropped from one used later in a section). Any thoughts? Cheers. Katastasi and his talk page. 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd stop fussing about the main images... That particular image was used on one of his biographies [1] plus it's a video where people can see Kubrick's film. I disagree that the one of him at just 21 is a better likeness, he looks less recognisable clean shaven and so fresh faced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why "fussing"? I was merely stating an opinion, that's all. I just prefer this one, but I see where you're coming from with the trailer. I never really fussed about this image really. I guess the "images" in plural means you're refering to a comment I left on Cary Grant, and you admitted that the previous one was better there. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 08:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork Orange

Doubt there's a reliable published source to confirm, but it's quite wrong to say as the article does that A Clockwork Orange was 'completely unavailable legally in the UK till after Kubrick's death' once he withdrew it due to the death threats. It was unavailable for public exhibition, but it could be shown privately, and university film clubs counted as private, even though they put films on in lecture halls for the general student population (the small ticket price was held to include temporary club membership), so it was often shown and widely seen on campuses during the 1970s. This put it on a par with most films whose theatrical first run had expired, except that it wasn't shown on television and wasn't sold on home video in the '80s and '90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamba Tendal (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Kubrick&oldid=696586635"