Talk:Stanley Kubrick

RfC: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus N against adding any collapsible infobox to the page. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Background: The most recent infobox RfC on this talk page concluded with 70% support for some kind of infobox, but with 17% in favour of only a default-collapsed infobox, it was ultimately closed as no consensus. The closer suggested a future RfC on the inclusion of a collapsible infobox as a possible next step. This option has recently been brought up again by Willydrach in the section above where it was decided that an RfC was the next step. Let's try and have a civil RfC on this so we can establish the consensus on whether a collapsible infobox can serve as a compromise.

Question: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page?

Regards, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support If it can serve as a useful compromise, lets do it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose—collapsible infoboxes are a menace to accessibility and defeat the purpose of even having one. Either include a box or don't—don't slit the baby in half. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What I wrote above is still correct: At any rate, a collapsible infobox is not going to happen. Try raising a general proposal (that collapsible infoboxes should exist) at WP:VPR to test that. Basing an RfC in such a problematic area on the request of an obviously problematic account is most undesirable. We are all supposed to sing the civility song knowing that a single-purpose account is pulling the strings. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Curly Turkey and Johnuniq. There are two problems with these: 1. ACCESS is an issue to some; 2. There is no consensus for an IB because of the limitations of the IB, and the exact same arguments hold true even if it is collapsed. The exact same information, whether hidden or unhidden still contains what is essentially trivia when trying to understand the person behind his body of work. As per Johhnuniq, I'm also not happy that an SPA is the tail wagging the dog and trying to drive this forward. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ACCESS and MOS:DONTHIDE. ——SerialNumber54129 10:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Curley and Schro, and I suggest something to be done on repeat RFC s for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support I support a collapsible infobox because I think it's a great visual for fast facts and caters to more readers, keeps this page consistent with other biographical pages on Wikpiedia and serves as a compromise to the infobox debate. — Willydrach (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC) — Willydrach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Note WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to the "consistent with other biographical pages" statement. For the record in my travels around the 'pedia I have seen thousands of biographical articles without an infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral for now, since a draft collapsible navbox for us to examine hasn't been presented. Otherwise, I'm about evenly on the fence because a 70%-ish support rate in the previous round is nothing to sneeze at, but neither are concerns about unhelpful i-boxes on pages that don't really need them, and the opponents are pretty adamant that this page doesn't need one. The MOS:ACCESS argument doesn't really apply beyond the central article content. We use collapsibility all the time in both infoboxes and navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick (example)
File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg Stanley Kubrick, aged 21, self-portrait from 1949
Biographical data Born (1928-07-26)July 26, 1928 The Bronx, New York City, USA Died March 7, 1999(1999-03-07) (aged 70) St Albans, Hertfordshire, England Nationality American Occupation(s) Film director, producer, screenwriter, cinematographer, editor Years active 1951–1999 Spouse(s) Toba Etta Metz (1948–51; divorced) Ruth Sobotka (1954–57; divorced) Christiane Harlan (1958–99; his death) Awards Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick

SMcCandlish, Example at right for what it could look like. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll think it over. I like that it's got the vital stats, and the link to the awards page (probably the key supporting material that's in another page), and isn't stuffed with every possible bit of trivia. But I'm not sure it really adds all that much utility, given the quality of the lead. I've never been convinced that the family name-dropping in bio infoboxes is of any encyclopedic use at all, for example. It's not trivia, and is encyclopedic enough to include somewhere in the article, but it's not critical information for understanding the notability of the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because collapsible items run against various guidelines (see above). They don't save download volume because the material is still part of the browsed page, and more importantly they hamper in-page searches, thus partly defeating the point of having them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  In what way does it "hamper in-page searches"? I already pointed out that this is not against the guidelines; MOS:HIDE and MOS:ACCESS on collapsed content don't apply to navboxes and infoboxes. If want them to do so, that would be a huge consensus discussion, probably at WP:VPPOL, and would requires both massive changes to our navbox system, and retooling of quite a few infoboxes as templates, and redoing of many thousands of fill-out ones in articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  The in-page 'find' command in the vast majority of browsers will not return text from collapsed sections. ―StvnW ^talk 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - if it'll end these constant calls for an infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose—MOS:DONTHIDE does apply (If information in a…) and while WP:ACCESS doesn't directly address infoboxes, collapsible sections do pose accessibility problems. Furthermore, collapsing an entire infobox is an ineffective compromise when the intention of an infobox is to provide information at-a-glance. Either include one or don't. ―StvnW ^talk 14:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Discussion

• Oh good grief... again? SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This RfC topic was suggested all the way back in the close of the early 2017 RfC, and the idea of a 'collapsible infobox' has only continued to come up since. An RfC about a collapsible infobox has not occurred on this page as far as I know. Complaing about it isn't going to make the issue go away, but perhaps we can have a discussion about the merits or lack thereof. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish. This the 19th thread from the people who can't accept a consensus unless it agrees with their point of view. Of course the issue isn't going to go away if people keep fighting for the same small agenda over and over and over. There is even less merit in a collapsible IB than in an uncollapsed one. It was initially introduced as a compromise, but it's one that no-one likes at all and is a target for IP editors (or perhaps logged out editors) uncollapsing on a regular basis. But you just ignore that and keep pushing those buttons that will drive more people away. (And as for your rather silly instructions to me "discuss... don't complain": please don't try and tell long-standing editors how to do things: it could lead to a strong blast of more industrial language next time you try and patronise someone) - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This only affect very very few articles......the no group is small and has a very limited range of articles under their scope. The community in general has accepted the fact that a small group of articles will not have these boxes. Best move on and try to improve another article. That said admitting this has come up 19 times should be a big hint as to what our readers are looking for. --Moxy (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

19 times with either the same people pushing or those miraculous sleeper accounts that were created years ago, have a handful of edits from then, but silence for several years until they pop up to start an IB discussion. The one above kept pushing Cassianto's name into the discussion, despite him not having edited for eons. He's the same one that has been angling on the talk page of the opener for this to be opened. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That would be me. The only reason I kept mentioning Cassianto is because he commented quite a bit on this topic in the archives. Either way I'll keep personal commentary out of this one as it is the reason my last discussion was closed. If the consensus of this Rfc is still no infobox, I'll put this one to bed and get out of everyone's hair. Willydrach (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: It is no surprise that Willydrach would check the talk page archives before making his first comment on this page in the above section. In the previous section that is basically what I said that anyone should do before commenting on infobox discussions. He also wasn't 'angling' anything. I offered to help him draft the RfC in the discussion section above, it is no surprise that he came to my talk page. I've seen no evidence that Willydrach is any kind of sock, and continuing to imply that fact is some serious bad faith. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Insertcleverphrasehere, I look forward to you striking the allegation that I have implied he is a sock (in a comment three and a half weeks ago). I have not done so, and so suggest I have is UNCIVIL and disruptive, although I am used to a range of such silly tactics from IB warriors. I really don't want to move onto industrial or more base Anglo-Saxon language, but if you accuse me again of something I haven't done, I won't hesitate to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  You started with:-- 19 times with either the same people pushing or those miraculous sleeper accounts that were created years ago............That probably led to ICPH's impression and I can't fault him, though his linking of good-faith can easily come off as being patronising.

  FWIW, whilst I can understand the frustration stemming from these repeated discussions (and am of a sincere belief that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Willydrach is not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of a returning user), I am certain that both of you and ICPH are here to improve the quality of the encyclopedia and would do better than snipe at each other.

  Please move on; the enemies lie other-way....... ∯WBG^converse 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, but I HAD moved on until I was pinged about a comment from over 3 weeks ago. Unnecessary, really, really unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk)

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.

Photo

Let's please not edit war over the lede photo. --Masem (t) 16:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Masem, Of course, there doesn't seem to be any edit warring going on though. Its been changed back and forth and back again (not even 2RR and all by different people anyway).

As for rationale; the new photo is better. Just as we should use commonly recognisable names for titles, we should use commonly recognisable photos as the lead photo. As far as I know the old one was used because we didn't have any decent photos of Kubrick from when he was older that were free. Someone recently (Sept 2018) extracted this photo from the trailer for Dr Stangelove, which apparently has lapsed due to being published without a copyright notice. While the old photo of him at 21 is a great photo, and is well used later in the article for that period of his life, it fails to represent the subject as he looked later in life and isn't recognisable as Kubrick. It would be even better if we could find one of him with a beard and a bit more resolution, but we will have to wait until one surfaces. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no obvious 3RR, but I would still be extremely cautious of changing that photo; I would consider which photo is used along the same lines as whether to have an infobox or not. One thing to consider, that unlike, say, Spielberg who was very public about his image, Kubrick did not seem to be all that public, so using a "later" image that is closer to how he appeared when he was directing his best work may not be the best image. --Masem (t) 17:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent photos are good except when they are dreadful pictures (truly awful, actually). Please do not support a single-edit account in their quest to do something, anything, to poke the top-right-hand corner of this article. The self-portrait is an excellent photo and should remain. Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Well, I added the Strangelove photo to the Stanley_Kubrick#Collaboration_with_Peter_Sellers_(1962–1964) section of the article, at least we can have an older photo of him later in the article. As far as "supporting a single-edit account", I couldn't care a lick for who I'm supporting. When I see a good idea, I'll back it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Previous discussion) Opencooper (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel that Kubrick's self photograph is not a good picture to represent his life. We need a picture of him in his prime, filming and with his iconic facial hair. It should be from the post 2001 time frame, but not when he is too old. I do like the selfie, but I think it better belongs in the section describing his first experiences with photography. The top picture shouldn't be of him when he was young and awkward. HAL333 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find a better high resolution photo of him. HAL333 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

File:Stanley Kubrick while filming Barry Lyndon.png

Stanley Kubrick filming Barry Lyndon

Hope it is better HAL333 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember there was a copy of this image on the page years ago, but it was removed. I seem to think there was a copyright problem with it, but I can't be sure on that. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So should we use it (even if it is copyrighted, which I doubt, we can at-least try using it) or find a more suitable one? HAL333 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No. If it’s not free it shouldn’t be used unless it is somehow iconic or shows a different aspect of him or his work. This doesn’t, so it fails the NFCC criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

HAL333, and SchroCat (no ping has been requested, so not sure if you will see this). The 'Live Auctioneers' source where the image is from specifically states that the image is "Original 1975 publicity photo taken of Stanley Kubrick (American, 1928-1999) during the filming of ‘Barry Lyndon.’ Public domain image. Photographer unknown.". I mean, we are taking the word of that source, which isn't ideal.

Doing some sleuthing, the photo also appears in an article on Signature Reads, where it is cited as 'public domain', a Guardian article (sourced to "Corbis via Getty Images"), Plano Critico (no source given), Filmmaker Magazine (no source given), and an article on Kinky little boots (no source given).

It is also for sale on the aforementioned Getty images and for sale on Alarmy (curiously the image is mirror-reversed on Alamy). Getty cites the picture as being from "Corbis Historical" (which just means that the image was from Corbls before it merged with Getty) and that it is "Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis". This still really means nothing, as Getty has gotten into trouble before for selling public domain images. I'm not sure what "Sunset Boulevard" is, but the 'Sunset Boulevard/Corbis' label is used on a lot of film photos scattered around the internet (and 10,000 or so images on Getty), and I found a similar unanswered question on a forum post asking if it is a photo agency or archive, but no luck. I suspect that Getty managed to get their hands on a very high quality version of this photo through the archive of production stills that Coblis had, (they are selling up to 5082 x 3996 px), but nothing stops them selling access to the hi-res photo, even if it is devoid of copyright.

All in all, we have two sources claiming it is public domain, and we have some other stock image suppliers selling it. The photo is from 1975, and from what I have read, anything that is from before 1978 that doesn't have a copyright notice on it should be in the public domain, and most production stills from this time period generally were not copyrighted. That being said, I'm no expert on the subject and we generally require proof positive of the lack of copyright, rather than taking it on face value. 'Live Auctioneers' source does specifically refer to a good reason why it shouldn't have copyright though, which adds to thier credibility and that they know what they are talking about.

Dunno, what do you guys think? The image is a really good one, and would be great as main image, but not sure if what we have cuts it in terms of copyright. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I obviously support adding it, but let's see what others say. HAL333 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Anything published before 1978 without copyright notice is generally PD - do we have any indication that this image was published contemporaneously? Do we know the image's venue of first publication? It wouldn't be appropriate to use a non-free biographical image when we have free ones, so we do need to determine whether this is truly free before even discussing whether we should include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, The live auctioneers source says it was a publicity photo, that indicates that it was published contemporaneously. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 14:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Where was it published contemporaneously? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a publicity photo for Kubrick's film, Barry Lyndon. HAL333 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I can't find any information indicating where it was published, which isn't surprising given that this was in the mid 70's, very little of that is online. The best we have is a source saying that it is public domain image that was a contemporaneous publicity photo. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 15:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can prove where and when it was published, it’s deemed under copyright. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, Yeah, well, it's a problem for sure. I did another search and really just can't find anything. The photo probably is public domain, but I can't verify it 100%. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Posted new photo, from 1980. It’s from the documentary Making The Shining, which to the best of my knowledge is public domain. It features Kubrick with his iconic look, beard and all. Only thing, I messed the file name up. I can’t edit it myself as I don’t have the privileges. Would someone be able to change the name for me? Silly mistake by me, don’t edit while drunk. Ducktech89 ^(talk) 12:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ducktech89: Looks like this image has been tagged at Commons as lacking evidence of permission - what leads you to believe it is in the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

No valid copyright info leads me to believe that. The page where it’s from also states it’s a community work allowing it to be used by everyone freely.

This suggests there is a valid copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Just because they say that doesn't mean that its true. If it was originally published without a copyright licence, then it isn't copyrighted. In any case, I don't think we have proof positive. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 14:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Works published after 1978 have automatic copyright, and I see no evidence that Vivian released the film on archive.org as a free licens e. The person that uploaded it at archive.org is clearly not Viv ian, and thei r other uploads there are questionable. So this clearly cannot assumed to be a free production. --Masem (t) 17:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Masem, sorry I thought we were still talking about the other photo.. my mistake. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no 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.

---

I have not added an infobox, due to the debate there seems to be over it. I would like to say that I do support it, and that I agree with Willydrach that there seems to be no reason not to have it. I would have liked to add this to an established discussion, but they were all closed. Can someone please simply explain why there should be no infobox. Thanks (HAL333 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

Just read the other discussions. There’s literally two just up above. Rusted AutoParts 15:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read the two above discussions, which I mentioned in the above post. I was unable to find a coherent reason why there shouldn't be an infobox. HAL333 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

HAL333, Basically, personal preference by a number of editors here has blocked the inclusion of an infobox. The previous RFA on a general infobox ended with no consensus (not the one above, you can find it here). Part of the reason for this was some that wanted a collapsible infobox instead. We tried a discussion about a collapsible infobox recently (the RfC above), but there is clearly a consensus against this option. It is possible that another RfC simply asking for a normal infobox could pass (now that it is uncomplicated by voters instead voting for a collapsible infobox), but I wouldn't hold your breath. A lot of people here are just kinda sick of discussions about it, and might just oppose because they want it left well enough alone and are fine with the status quo. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not against a discussion, what I am against is repeated discussions so soon after one ended. It should be where it's revisited six months-a year after the last one. And Hal, it's not me being rude, but you could've searched "infobox" in the talk page archives. All other discussions hold the reasons why. Rusted AutoParts 17:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, I have no problem with another RfC asking whether we should have an infobox or not, but am opposed to repeated non-RfC discussions about it. While we recently had an RfC, that was for a collapsible infobox. Now that the collapsible has been ruled out, we really do need to have another RfC asking if we should have a normal one at some point. However, I am well aware of the fatigue of editors that frequent this page and would be fine with a moratorium on new discussions like this one for a few months. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

”Basically, personal preference by a number of editors here has blocked the inclusion of an infobox”. That holds little in the way of truth, but the fact you have to keep stirring the dramah pot speaks volumes. HAL333, there is no consensus to add an IB, that’s it. No-one has come up with good reasons, based in the guidelines or policies (as we are supposed to do), to include an IB. The reasons behind that are much deeper than the rather trite and silly answer given above, and if you look through the archives, or at the other threads on this page, you’ll see why. Personally I’m with RAP at being bored and tired by the constant raising of the question, particularly so soon after the last thread closed (particularly with the additional stirring when it’s not needed). - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, There really aren't any strong arguments for or against infoboxes. That is why the issue has remained and will continue to remain unresolved at a policy/guideline level. Personal preference, in the end, is the only real reason for or against an infobox. Policy doesn't give us clues one way or the other, and guidelines aren't any help either. RfCs on Infoboxes always boil down to essentially 'I don't like it' and 'I like it' !votes. Numbers are what make the decisions on infoboxes, not the strength of the arguments.

There seems to be no way to stop disruptive repetitive discussions by new editors that show up here while the article remains without an infobox. Banning the discussion won't stop new editors and IPs from coming here to ask why it doesn't have one; to them it just looks unfinished and unpolished. And permanently banning such discussions are against policy anyway. Per WP:CON, consensus is subject to change and editors are free to propose a consensus change by discussion, so long as the consensus is not so recent as to be disruptive. The most recent (non) consensus on this is from an RfC nearly 2 years ago, proposing a change of that is far from disruptive, especially given that the collapsible infobox discussion which derailed that RfC is well and surely closed at this point.

That being said, I still think we should have a break from RfCs for a while to let things cool down. I suggest a 3 month moratorium on infobox discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you are deeply wrong if you think that "Numbers are what make the decisions on infoboxes, not the strength of the arguments". See WP:NOTAVOTE. Policy and guideline will, should and (mostly) do trump any vote counting. Common sense arguments also have a major impact, which is why there is no IB here, but there are in other areas - in areas where the factoids are useful to readers and aid understanding, rather than distort it. I utterly reject your arguments about personal preference being the only reason - which is why everyone I have ever seen saying that an idiotbox is not helpful have used them on other articles where they are useful. I've seen some dross IBs that contain less than is in the first sentence, and I wonder why anyone would think them useful: the crap about 'resting place', names of non-notable wives and children, height, shoe size, inside leg measurement, all bloat boxes utterly needlessly. The key information should be in the opening sentence: the IB—in "art" biographies, at least—pointless. I have rarely seen an IB for an actor or director that is of any use for exactly that reason. This isn't personal preference: this is actually considering what an IB is, what it is for, and whether readers will actually learn anything useful outside the opening sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, And all of that is essentially your opinion, no more or less applicable by policy or guideline than anyone else's opinion on infoboxes. The fact is, there simply isn't any good policy or guideline based reason to include or exclude infoboxes, which is why I said "Numbers are what make the decisions on infoboxes, not the strength of the arguments". There simply are not any strong arguments (per any policy or guideline) to be made. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, see WP:NOTAVOTE. We don't decide by voting, which is why I have (again) taken the numbers out of the top of the page: they are misleading, as they are not the basis of decision making, it is the strength of argument. If you are struggling to get that, or disbelieve me, feel free to contact any of the admins who have closed one of they threads and ask them about the process. This is now going off at an even more tedious tangent than most IB discussions, so let's just leave it there - I really don't have the will to continue discussing the flaming things. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, Once again, please try to read what I said, rather than attacking a strawman and just saying that I don't understand NOTAVOTE. NOTAVOTE generally applies to most discussions, but there is a reason why it is not a part of policy itself; there are a few things on Wikipedia where there simply isn't any way to argue consensus; either because policy isn't clear, or where because the arguments on each side are equally strong or equally weak (here I'd argue they are equally weak). When you can't argue consensus based on policy, it invariably falls down to how many people fall on each side of the discussion.

It isn't a tangent, it is essential to understanding why infobox discussions won't go away, and why there probably won't ever be a long term solution. If you don't feel like discussing it, you can feel free to edit elsewhere, but repeating "disruptive!" Ad nauseam every time this comes up isn't helpful in the slightest. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read it, thanks. And you're still banging the same wrong drum: numbers don't make the decisions, the strength of argument does. Again, go talk to someone who has closed one of the threads and ask the rationale, rather than try and misinterpret what I am saying. As for nonsense like "repeating "disruptive!" Ad nauseam every time this comes up isn't helpful in the slightest", I have mentioned it what, two, three times? You may not find it "helpful" when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, but the fact that you are keen to stir the dramah pot every time the question is raised shows that your definition of "disruptive" and "dramah" may differ from that of others. I'm off - your comments now (and my responses to them) are fuck all to do with the improvement of the article, and more to do with some soapboxing nonsense about idiotboxes and the process and procedure behind them - life really is too short to have to talk about them yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading the first box at the top of this page shows that chatting about infoboxes would be very unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Then let us do one final RfC (since a great deal of the "Opposes" in the prior RfC were simply because it was collapsible), and then ban further discussion of the topic. HAL333 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Why should we? We’ve had a couple of them recently and the dust has hardly settled on them. (Jeez, if this was a series of attempts to remove a box, I’m sure several people would have been blocked for disruptive behaviour by now). - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Just no. At least not for several months at least. The last discussion was not even a month ago, regardless if it was catered around it being collapsible. Just please let it sit for a bit. Rusted AutoParts 23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be reasonable and not organize a RfC now. But there will be one in 2019. HAL333 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing that I will add and think it can be framed to the community is that infoboxes only really work well when there is heirarchial or sequential data that makes sense to pigeonhole data into. If we're talking a world leader, or an athlete, or a businessperson, they fall within some organizational structure and there's details that you'd not want to spell out in the lede but makes sense in the infobox. But when you get to creative people like Kubrick here, they don't fall into any heirarchial data structure. We can state birth and death, and key people he's connected to, but there's little else that would not be in the lede already in a well-written article. This articles makes a prime example where there's really no benefit of an infobox with the lede as it is. What little omitted from the lede that would fall in the infobox is too trivial to force one. --Masem (t) 00:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)\

Masem, I understand your point, but plenty of creative historical and current figures have infoboxes. Examples include; Spielberg, Picasso, Beethoven, Hitchcock, Warhol, and Michael Bay, in a seemingly endless list. An infobox can include the few that Masem mentioned and his most important works(films in this case), signature (I always have liked that), and his numerous awards. (HAL333 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

There is the argument you should avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where infoboxes are and aren't used has been a long thread of discussion not just here , but the pattern that I see where editors want to omit them is on creative persons that do not fit into a hierarchical structure. --Masem (t) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Masem If you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it will tell you that arguments like mine can be valid. According to it, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This very much pertains to my argument. Why should someone as "creative" and notable as Kubrick not have a infobox, when every Director from Spike Lee to Quentin Tarantino has them? HAL333 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make with that is that everything is a case by case, and this is presently a decision held up by the Arbitration Committee and community consensus. The Arbitration Committee has stated from a case a couple years back that the community should decide on some standards when infoboxes can and cannot be used, but until that's in place, editors should avoid causing disruption on inclusion or exclusion of infoboxes, and default to the status quo for the article in question. This one on Kubrick is probably the most challenged of the all. What others have said above is that you can review the talk page history and easily find 5-6 RFCS or similar debates about the infobox, all come out with no consensus to change from the lack of infobox, though many creative solutions (like collapsible ones) have been offered. --Masem (t) 02:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that we shouldn't change it until there is a consensus. I hope to try a final Request for Comments in the New Year, an RfC to end all RfC's. If there is no consensus, then no infobox. But I do hope we can get one for this page. HAL333 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As people from both sides of the debate have advised you to drop this for at least three months, trying to force the issue yet again would likely be seen as disruptive. We get it: you want a box. Others disagree, and (as you can see from the links at the top of the page), this has been thrashed out before without a change. Why should we have to go through the whole song and dance again just because you want one. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to keep disruptively having the discussion over and over. This isn't Groundhog Day, where you can keep forcing it until you get the answer you want. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Arb need to urgently pass something to stop consensus being continuously disputed too, it's got completely ridiculous. The recurring "no infobox?" arguments are more disruptive than people adding an infobox in my opinion. Such a waste of everybody's time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so there is something on disruptive commentary. Well, it needs to be in effect from the getgo, it's already gone way too far. It needs to extend to editors who simply can't accept consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, And wanting Arb to gag order anybody who disagrees with you isn't disruptive? WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is WP policy, Arb will never make a ruling forbidding discussions. This page is subject to discretionary sanctions, and while HAL333 has brought it up again, they aren't being disruptive, they are stating their opinion, just like everyone else that has come here over the last two years (as far as I can see HAL333 hasn't edited this page before either). If you add all the new editors that have come here in the last couple years asking for an infobox together, they easily outnumber the crew of anti-infoboxers that follow this page religiously. "Shut them up" really just seems like the worst argument you can make and totally contrary to the way WP works. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, reach consensus. And something to stop it being disputed within a two year period or something. Time is precious and seems to pass quicker the older you get. Life is too short for silly bollocks like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick (example)
File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg Stanley Kubrick, aged 21, self-portrait from 1949
Born	(1928-07-26)July 26, 1928 The Bronx, New York City, USA
Died	March 7, 1999(1999-03-07) (aged 70) St Albans, Hertfordshire, England
Nationality	American
Occupation(s)	Film director, producer, screenwriter, cinematographer, editor
Years active	1951–1999
Spouse(s)	Toba Etta Metz (1948–51; divorced) Ruth Sobotka (1954–57; divorced) Christiane Harlan (1958–99; his death)
Awards	Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick

Dr. Blofeld, No gag order is going to stop new editors coming here with their dissatisfaction (and to do so with such a long term of 2 years is contrary to WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE). In any case, there actually hasn't been an RfC on a standard infobox for almost 2 years. Realistically, the only thing that will stop these discussions would be adding an infobox to the article (I've never seen a new editor show up to an article and want to remove the infobox). I've been unimpressed by the arguments on both sides of the infobox debates for some time, but will support adding an infobox because I believe that it is the best solution to stabilising this page and reducing lost editor time. I also think it would be nice to have a link to his filmography and awards readily accessible rather than buried later in the article prose (example at right). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• (Example removed - there is already one above, and we all know what the fucking things look like - and trying to have yet ANOTHER IB discussion, despite the warnings at the top of the page is just plain disruptive) - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  SchroCat Example restored (the example several sections above will be archived soon and is also collapsible, this one is not). Complaining about disruption while swearing and deleting parts of other people's comments is not constructive in the slightest. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop pinging me, FFS. Yes, you're being disruptive. There is a large sign at the top of the page and your continual pushing on the point is breaking the line on it. Considering you've advised a three month break on discussions above, I find it unsurprising you now want to try and push the conversation towards another pointless and disruptive discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    Pinging is generally seen as a courtesy, but apparently being courteous is a disruption now too? When have I added an infobox to this page? Because that is what the box says you aren't supposed to do. Just pointing at the large sign at the top of the page and yelling "disruptive" every time the conversation comes up is exactly that; disruptive. It stops any attempt at having a conversation or building consensus.

    You do realise that most of the discussions in the last two years have essentially been someone new coming to this page saying "Hey, why isn't there an infobox, that doesn't make sense", and a handful of others yelling at them and telling them "not to be disruptive". The propensity to discuss editor behaviour rather than the topic at hand seems to me to represent disruptiveness, far more than anyone that wants to talk about the merits of an infobox.

    After the next RfC, we should have a moratorium for a year or so (precedent for one year being Talk:Genesis creation narrative). I suggested this in a few months to let things cool off, but I suspect you will show up in a few months anyway, still saying that discussing infoboxes is being "disruptive". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    • @Insertcleverphrasehere: I note, not for the first time, that you are the first person to introduce inflammatory language into these discussions when they arise (personal preference by a number of editors here has blocked the inclusion of an infobox) and needless personalization of the dispute. Perhaps you should remove this page from your watchlist so you don't feel so agitated every time it comes up? --Laser brain (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain, I am a bit confused. Your comment not for the first time, is very puzzling. Please see the discussion above about why policy and guidelines don't have anything to say about whether infoboxes should be included or not. I don't see how characterising it the way I have (as personal preference to block the inclusion of an infobox) is anything but accurate; it certainly isn't 'inflammatory'. In any case, I have nothing more to say on the subject until the next RfC is raised and have suggested dropping the subject for a number of months. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 14:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I'm quite surprised this has come back up again so soon. The consensus of the last RfC confirmed there was no way a collapsible infobox was going to happen, but I would think it would be a while before any infobox discussion would be brought back up again. As much as I would like to see another RfC on an infobox, I think we should wait a couple months until everyone calms down. When/IF you make a RfC on an infobox, if Insertcleverphrasehere or HAL333 could please ping me I will gladly put in my two cents (again). Willydrach (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem Willydrach, I will. I also have to say that I am thoroughly disgusted by the un-civility and repeated use of profanity by users like SchroCat. Why can't we have just have a polite conversation over the pros and cons of having an infobox. HAL333 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

FFS, as I've already asked people to stop pinging me, stop pinging me - you are crossing over to more disruptive trolling by your actions. There is nothing uncivil in what I have said, so don't try and play the civility card with me - better editors than you have tried and failed to play that particular game with me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@HAL333: Well given the continuity of the infobox debate and how quickly it's being brought up again I can understand it. Even though I am 100% for one, I have to respect the other side of the argument and there are many editors who are passionately against an infobox of any kind on this page. It's part of having a respectful debate. :) I will say though, considering I walked the same path you're going down-try to refrain from making personal comments. It's what got my first discussion closed. Wait until things have cooled down here and then I suggest you host a RfC which I will gladly participate in! willydrach^talk 22:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I understand your frustrated but if possible try to refrain from using inappropriate language in the future. In our first argument with each other you were able to calm me down by telling me to read things in a calmer vein and I would like to see you do so as well. Apologize for the ping, but trying to reduce the heat in here. willydrach^talk 23:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Which bit of “do not ping me” do you trolls not understand? And don’t tell me not to swear. Fuckety, fuckety fuck. There is nothing uncivil in using profanity, so cut out the requests on that front too. - SchroCat (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for closing this discussion, willydrach. I'm the admin who set the page sanction at the top, which I did when a previous page sanction against starting new infobox discussions expired. It seems a common sentiment above that at least a few months more should expire before a new infobox RfC is started, and that further informal infobox discussions shouldn't be started at all. I appeal to everybody to comply with this, both because there's obvious, and reasonable, 'infobox discussion fatigue', and because if the subject keeps coming up and causing so much fruitless back-and-forth and anger on this page, I'll set a new formal prohibition against it. At the same time, if new users turn up and ask why there isn't an infobox, I urge experienced editors of the article to please not bite them, but explain nicely that we're taking a bit of an infobox break and the history behind it. Finally, I have to say that I've never seen a comment such as the complaints above about "un-civility and repeated use of profanity", or "inappropriate language" have any good effect — so much so that I tend to read them as provocations rather than genuine attempts to improve the tone of the discussion. Everybody, please just model the kind of style you'd like to see, instead of admonishing others, as long as they're not attacking people with their use of swear-words, which SchroCat was not. Styles differ in this respect, not least geographically.

Once there has been a moratorium of a few months and then an RfC (hopefully a good one with a clear consensus), I'm planning to set a new, formal, pretty long page ban against further infobox discussion, per the infobox discretionary sanctions. Maybe a year, maybe two. Bishonen | talk 04:12, 13 December 2018 (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.

Rfc: Should an Infobox be added?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both those in favor and those opposed to an infobox suggest that their position serves readers. This is why policy on infoboxes is clear that local consensus makes the decision about whether an infobox is appropriate, or not, in any individual article. This particular article and whether to include an infobox has been subject to extensive debate. This RfC has the highest number of editors participating of the four RfCs about a possible infobox for this article. Those supporting an infobox say that it is expected by our readers, pointing to the idea that some stuff exists for a reason in other director biographies and provides those readers with a capsule set of information that meets their needs. Those against an infobox suggest that an infobox introduces elements unimportant to understanding Kubrick and his work and suggest that this kind of over simplification, to the point of harming the reader experience, is particularly acute in biographies of those in the arts and an infobox is unnecessary given the well written LEAD.

By the nature of policy, a decision about whether or not to include an infobox is an editorial decision with all participating viewpoints receiving equal weight. There is no consensus about whether to include an infobox on Stanley Kubrick and consensus is closer towards being against inclusion than in favor of it. Given the status quo of the article having no infobox, one should not be added. There is a clear consensus, however, that editors on both sides of the discussion are tired of revisiting this issue. Were Bishonen not already planning to issue a discretionary sanctions ban against new RfCs I would do so. I urge the editors of this article to decide on neutral language to explain clearly but kindly to those who come here for the first time and ask about an infobox, or who BOLDLY add one not knowing the background, why there is no infobox during the length of the prohibition on new RfCs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Background: Adding an infobox to this article has long been discussed and contested. Last year, I promised that I would make an Rfc in 2019, I waited 9 months as a sort of moratorium, and believe it is time to address the topic once again, hopefully for the last time. The last Rfc to propose adding a non-collapsible infobox was in January of 2017, which failed to determine a consensus. That was over two years ago, and a consensus may have developed in that time.

Question: Should an infobox be added to this page?

Hopefully we can have a civil and productive discussion, thanks HAL333 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey 2

• Support An infobox has been badly needed on this page for a long time. HAL333 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose will explain in discussion. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Reductive and hence inevitably unbalanced. See below for my version of the same point others have already made. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. As a reader I expect to see an infobox. The article looks incomplete without it. See below. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support The infobox seems like it would be a useful tool on this biography to provide certain details. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose an infobox on this article -- per the comments made by Gothicfilm. I am unable to discuss this further owing to restrictions, but if anyone wishes to discuss my view with me, they are welcome to email me. Cassianto^Talk 22:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussions. As to what readers "expect to see" there are a couple million articles here at wikipedia that do not have an infobox. Also, I have seen no empirical evidence of what readers do and/or do not expect to see when they read the 'pedia's articles. This sentiment is, all to often, used as a substitute for "what I want to see" and are an offshoot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarnetteD|Talk 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons I have stated previously and elsewhere, namely that an infobox contains nothing that shouldn't already be in a carefully written and informative lead. One is not needed here. Jack1956 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox - article has managed this long without one and is not needed now. They just dissuade people from actually reading the article. Dreamspy (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support infobox Though it is unlikely to gain enough support, I think that an infobox would improve the article and bring it more in line with a style that is expected from readers (regardless of whether you agree or not, these repeated discussions that are commonly brought up by new users proves that there is an expectation and that they see the non-infobox as 'something missing'). Ultimately there is no policy to hang such an argument on, so will boil down to personal preference of those users polled. I would prefer an infobox (for my more detailed thoughts, see previous discussions). I don't expect to change the minds of the anti-box-crowd (such a task has proved less than fruitful previously and no evidence suggests that such a discussion would yield different results if re-hashed). Those users are free to voice their opinion. Lets keep the discussion civil. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh... one more thing: I think that an infobox would be an ideal place to put a prominent link to Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick, something currently buried deep in the article and difficult to crowbar into the lead. See the Discussion just above this one for a good example of what an infobox might look like. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  There is absolutely no utility in labeling people who have voiced an opinion in this dispute as the "anti-infobox crowd" or anything else. I support including infoboxes where they are sensible, and if you reference my userpage you will see that they are present in my FAs. --Laser brain (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Laser brain, it is merely shorthand for “those users who don’t support an info box on this page.” — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  Then please change the label! Use all those words to describe us: "I don't expect to change the minds of those users who don't support an info box on this page" would be better - it makes it look like there is no common ground, whereas there is more than you think. I'm a big fan of IBs when they're used properly, and many (possibly most) of "my" FAs and GAs include them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox Cannot believe we're going through this again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, per reasons eloquently stated in previous discussions and above by Ssilvers. --Laser brain (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Infoboxes in bio articles, should be limited to sports figures, politicians. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  No, they should not. We have infobox templates for writers and musicians and film directors and actors and many other occupations besides just sports figures and politicians, and they are and should be used accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This is a lengthy article on a popular topic thus the likelihood is high that a considerable number of readers could benefit from a brief summation of key points in an Info-box. We should be concerned not so much with aficionados of the subject who don't need an Info-box but with newcomers to the subject who benefit from the presentation of a few pieces of information at a glance. Our concern is not with getting people to read articles. To the extent that we endeavor to require reading where reading is not necessary we make the article less useful for the broad range of people. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above reasons. Rusted AutoParts 16:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. On a random spotcheck of several other significant film directors of similar stature to Kubrick and with similarly long articles — Steven Spielberg, Bernardo Bertolucci, Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Richard Attenborough, Woody Allen, Ron Howard, Elia Kazan, Alfonso Cuarón, Roman Polanski and George Lucas — every single one of them does have an infobox, and I have never seen a credible or compelling argument as to why Kubrick is somehow uniquely unsuited to what every other film director already has. Literally the only substantive argument against an infobox here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a serious argument. The only legitimate grounds for eliding an infobox in a biographical article is if the article is an extremely short stub for which we don't have enough information yet to actually fill out an infobox at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• I support the addition of an infobox. It will help readers by making information about Kubrick accessible at a glance. Though not required by policy, infoboxes have become the norm for articles such as this one (see Orson Welles, John Ford, Francis Ford Coppola, and many more). If the article remains without one, this discussion will recur again and again, causing much agnst and tension. --Albany NY (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Let me first reiterate what I said in 2017:

  I'm sympathetic to the editors arguing that the presence of an infobox will prevent readers from reading through an article. Articles such as this one represent a significant and laudable time investment by all the people involved. We want people to read them. Absent analytics, heat maps, and usability tests we can't know for certain how our readers are reading this article. It's possible, however, to speak more generally about how people use websites. People (readers) view websites more prosaically than the people who create the websites. People visit websites in order to obtain information. A large number of people who visit this article, sadly, aren't interested in how Kubrick composed the shots in Barry Lyndon. They want to know simple things such as when and where he was born, his years of activity, his profession, and when he died. Yes, you can get that information from prose, but usability study after usability study has demonstrated that people skim instead of read, and that the eye is attracted to elements such as lists and tables. You can't force someone to read prose by removing the alternative; the prose is not diminished by providing the alternative.

  Let me now add to that: external services can pull that metadata out and display it. Do a search like "when was Elia Kazan" born and look at the result for Wikipedia; compare to a similar search for Stanley Kubrick and you'll see the difference. That's useful for people doing voice search who want information about Kubrick; asking a blind person to read the full article to get those details isn't a great solution. They'll probably just get the information somewhere else. In fact, the first result for searches such as "when was stanley kubrick born" isn't Wikipedia; it's Biography.com. Not because they have better prose--they don't---but because they expose the essential metadata. Please think on this. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  The metadata argument is a straw man, I'm afraid. It's held on Wikidata and sourced from there by the search engines. Not having an IB here does not stop those engines gathering the information. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) To answer your now deleted question: you’d have to ask one of the search companies then. The same question about Alfred Hitchcock also shows the answer from biography.com, yet there is a full IB on our article. Short answer: the presence or not if an IB does not affect the info Google gets. I'm not sure what you mean by "agf and all that rubbish" in your edit summary, but maybe its best I don't. - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support collapsible infobox – This will definitely end up as no consensus yet again, but it's worth a shot anyway. I suppose infoboxes are just easier on the eyes of readers. A collapsible infobox would serve as a fine compromise. There for those who want it, not there for those who don't. Aria1561 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Side note – If this does end up having no consensus, or a consensus against having an infobox, there should perhaps be a prohibition on opening a future infobox RfC on here. No point re-opening the discussion if it just gives the same result each time. Aria1561 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • To any proposal such as this, I would point out, as the OP does, that WP:Consensus can change. If at some future point a discussion would give a different result, but no such discussion is allowed based on the assumption that it wouldn’t… that seems kind of broken, doesn’t it? But of course, common sense should be used in judging whether consensus is likely to have changed, and one shouldn’t reopen discussion in a blind just-in-case hope. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. This seems to have been raised more times here that the number of takes Scatman Crothers (allegedly) had to do. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Admittedly I did support collapsing in 2017 however that was more of a "lets keep everyone happy" sort of !vote,
  Anyway I oppose simply because everything that's in the infobox is already in the lede and as such having one wouldn't be serving any sort of purpose, The lede is so well done that imho it doesn't need an infobox .... If readers don't want to read the lede then they're on the wrong website altogether. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I would be one of the first in line on personal preferrence that we should standardize on infoboxes, but the past situation on this page as well as the ArbCom Infobox case shows that it is a matter of talk page consensus whether a page needs an infobox or not, and several past RFCs have simply shown that consensus is against this page needing one, and nothing in this current RFC changes the matter besides potentially asking the same question again of a different set of editors. --Masem (t) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Although the framing of the discussion makes me an "oppose", it's not really that I "oppose infoboxes" so much as I "support editorial discretion to omit an infobox". I find the reasoning summarized above by Ssilvers persuasive. Many of the infobox supporters in this discussion seem to be dismissing aesthetic considerations as frivolous or purely subjective, but this is an oversimplification: aesthetics are at the heart of the presentation of information and how readers will process information. There are reasons to omit infoboxes that go far beyond mere whim or preference.
  I'm not personally opposed to the idea of collapsible infoboxes, but (in light of prior consensus) I am opposed to forcing them onto pages by vote—and if anything, I think there should be a push to introduce collapsible infoboxes to biographies that already use infoboxes, rather than introducing them to biographies that don't use infoboxes. Doing so would promote collapsible infoboxes as a viable and widely used option in their own right, rather than as a single-use method of eliminating no-infobox pages. —BLZ · talk 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support as per Bearcat. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Infoboxes are not mandatory and the article is good as is. People wanting answers for a trivia quiz will find them in the overview presented when searching for Kubrick in Google or by reading the first sentence or two of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  The first two sentences are clearly insufficient for the purposes ascribed, and the day that we tell a reader to go somewhere else for the factual information they are looking for is the day this site dies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It doesn't seem to be mandatory just because other directors and celebrities have it in their articles. The article seems good enough and is interesting enough to read.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I had hoped that there would be some new discussion or argument that would provide a reason for the consensus to change. Sadly, nothing new has been provided. So far all I see from the support !votes is 'Other articles have them' (see WP:OSE); 'I prefer it when they are there' (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), 'all readers want one' (see ) and 'the article is popular, so it should have one' (just not true). Several people have pointed out that the eye is attracted to tables and the like – including IBs. This means readers gain the impression the factoids are of more weight and importance than the rest of the text: this means they are out of proportion to the other information, which is where the importance of the subject and its notability lie. Much of the information is in the opening sentence, and the first paragraph contains more information to give context and nuance to the information, rather than the bald facts, that fail to inform, educate or inform. – SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support The info typically found in a biographical infobox is the first thing I look for when I visit an article about a person, even though it is rarely what makes that person notable. When I want that knowledge, I read the article; the allegation above that infoboxes "...discourage readers from reading the text of the article" is contrary to my experience. Vadder (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, when you think Stanley Kubrick you think "who was his first wife", and "where was he born?" before "what film did he win that award for?" and "what year did he release 2001 space odyssey?" etc. Very odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think one of the more beneficial aspects of having an infobox on this page would be the fact that we could include his awards and signature works in the infobox with more information for readers in the article. willydrach^talk 23:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"the first thing I look for when I visit an article" is not the same thing as "when you think Stanley Kubrick you think ...". Kubrick is not notable because of having been born in 1928 in Manhattan, and I wouldn't try to convince someone that he was important by reciting that fact, but when I visit someone's biography on Wikipedia, that fundamental little factoid is something I want to be prominent at the top of the page. Vadder (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Spot-checking the infoboxes listed by Bearcat found that they all provide undue prominence to irrelevant and unimportant aspects of the subject's life and, because of that, are a net negative to the encyclopedia. Just because those other articles have prominent disfigurements shouldn't be a reason to require that this article be similarly disfigured. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not "disfigurements", and I will not have my name invoked in favour of any argument to the contrary. You're free to believe whatever you want on your own time and dime, but you're not free to use my name in defense of it when I objectively disagree. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion. This again? Infoboxes are not required on pages, and there are some pages where it is clear that editors are fine without one. And if one was allowed then what next, one of those eyesore giant maps? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Maps are entirely a red herring — Stanley Kubrick is not a geographic place, so what is anybody supposed to add a map of? If we were discussing a geographic place, then a map would absolutely be expected, because our job as an encyclopedia absolutely includes showing readers where geographic places are — but we're discussing a person who is not a mappable piece of geography, so the idea that the article would be obliged to contain a map if it contained an infobox is an illogical non sequitur because a map of a person isn't even possible. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Summoned here by the bot. I went thru Category:American film directors, picking the second entry from each letter of the alphabet, and I got about 3-1 ratio of articles with infoboxes to those without. (20-6; there's no X's so I miscounted by 1 somewhere.)

The articles without infoboxes were all short -- paragraph or two (but then, almost all the articles were) except for one which is tagged for notability. Some of the infoboxes were small - one had only two entries, several had about four, altho several were longer.

So it kind of looks like common practice is to have an infobox for American film directors. The articles without infoboxes, my guess is that mostly just nobody's bothered to make one, not that one was removed or a conscious decision to not include one was made.

So I guess my question who be what, in particular, is extraordinary about Stanley Kubrik such that he should not have an infobox when three American directors in four do, and the ones who don't, it's just that nobody's bothered to make one. I can't imagine what if could be about Kubrik in particular, but maybe there's something. Maybe he was such an extraordinary contrarian or something that that having a normal format for his article would seen wrong. You tell me. What is the actual argument for singling out Kubrik. I'm not interested in "Well, I don't think any American film director should have an infobox". That ship appears to have sailed, so you might as well get on board and go worry about something else. I'm not interested in "Well, we decided before not to do this." I was summoned here because somebody isn't happy with the current situation. If the person is just being disruptive, take her to ANI. Otherwise, I assume we are going to discuss the merits of the question. I'm not interested in "Well, infoboxes are distracting generally and worthless or worse, at least as regards film directors". Again, ship, sailed. If you want run a CENT RfC on infoboxes globally, do that. Or just one on film directors as a class. It's not something that we can decide here.

Generally speaking, common practice is followed at the Wikipedia. If, over a large number of article, three articles out of four on, let's say, train stations tells, I dunno, the length of the platform, then your article should also. If the length of the platform is disputed, or not known, or changes daily, or is partly underwater so it changes with the tide, or something like that, that's maybe different. If not, put it in if you want to. If you don't want to, that's fine, but then if somebody else puts it in leave it alone. You are allowed to roll your eyes and mutter "ugh, infoboxes" to yourself. But that's all, unless you have a real argument (changes daily, partly underwater, or like that).

Same deal here, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking your argument boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, not really. I just read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and has five sections: 1) the lede, 2) section about article deletion, which has nothing to do with us here, 3) section about article creation, which has nothing to do with us here, 4) section about inherent notability, which has nothing to do with us here, and 5) section called "Precedence in usage", which actually does pretty much recommend following common practice, generally. It says "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else... For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his film pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. Generally, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project." And the lede of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally noncommital.

Since the essay you pointed to actually supports my point, my suspicion is raised is that you just don't like infoboxes for American film directors generally and are throwing out stuff to see if something sticks. That's fine, we've all done that, including me. But we shouldn't, it's not how it's supposed to work, if we're trying to be excelent about it. Herostratus (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. As I've stated in previous RfCs on this topic, an infobox would be beneficial as it would provide fast facts at a glance, complement the lede sentence, and could showcase his greatest works and awards while keeping this page consistence with other biographical pages on Wikipedia. The fact that there have been so many requests/inquiries about an infobox should be proof enough that audiences & editors alike would like to see one on this page. willydrach^talk 23:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Infoboxes are useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The opening paragraph of this article captures the key points about the subject well; I don't think they need to be repeated in an infobox. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kubrick's career is more nuanced and complex than the desire to have "fast facts" in the infobox. The article itself should supply the facts. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: to the best of my knowledge, an infobox is not a required part of an article. I personally do not have a strong opinion on infoboxes either way, but I do find the opposes comments, specifically Ssilvers, to be compelling. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I was invited and urged by Bishonen to comment here and not just on my talk page. While I support the infobox this article had in 2015 (article created in 2001, infobox added in 2005) as a quick access to key infomation, I see that restoring it would make those editors unhappy who expanded it to FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a good comment, but the thing we have to ask ourselves is whether or not an infobox would be helfpul to the audience, and if decided it is we should have one, regardless of how many editors it may offend. willydrach^talk 18:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I just read your talk page and saw that you didn't want to participate in this. Feel free to ignore my comment above and appreciate your insight. willydrach^talk 18:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Read my talk page again. The happiness of the FA writers is of higher importance than being helpful to our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a straw man and untrue. - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I wish that was true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Today is the bicentenary of Clara Schumann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support - An infobox makes the article much better for readers. All the arguments I've heard so far against infoboxes aren't concerned with how its addition would affect the reader, but how it would affect Kubrick's complex legacy and other such nonsense or how it would be a shame for the editors who put all the hard work or working the rest of the article. I hope I don't need to explain how absurd this is and the fact that opposing an addition that would make the article a better experience for the reader just so you can preserve some abstract ideals is misguided at best and frankly insane at worst. If we're not writing Wikipedia in a manner that benefits the reader, than why are we writing it at all? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it rather arrogant to presume you know what the 140,000 who visit every month all want? Where's the proof that this infobox would benefit the reader? Where were all the complaints each month about being deprived of them? It's more likely that a greater number of people simply do not care and have more important things to worry about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a bit arrogant, but to answer your question of "Where's the proof that this infobox would benefit the reader", it certainly won't hurt them, so why not have one? Hell, where's the proof that having an article about Kubrick at all benefits readers? Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that other people care about some film director? But seriously now, I genuinely don't understand why so many people here think that having an easy and elegant way of presenting some concrete information on a topic is such a personal affront. I'm going to add "you can't be sure that 140,000 people think the same as you do" to the list of weak arguments against using an infobox. I am yet to read a single valid argument against them. Show me one example where an article was made worse by adding an infobox and maybe then I can start seeing the other side of this issue. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - as a reader and also editor, I generally defer to the lead when reading an article, and the existing consensus is to exclude an infobox. I don't see any new arguments being made for inclusion that are persuasive either. However, I will say that from a reader's viewpoint, I am disappointed not to see some of the films he is notable for producing/directing not mentioned in the first or second paragraph in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, I think it would be appropriate and be considered as most important content. He is better known for producing/directing notable films like Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket, as opposed to being better known for where he was raised, what high school he attended, average grades, etc. currently in the second paragraph. That's just my 2¢ though (sorry, I'm out of dollar bills). Isaidnoway (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Lede is already long and dense, as it needs to be to summarize the article. An infobox would take up a lot of valuable space, making the lede harder to read. In the infobox space, the most valuable information is his date of birth and death, and that he was an American film director, screenwriter, and producer. All of this is covered in the first sentence of the lede. Most of the other information, like the names of his three wives and the location of his birth and death, is of tertiary importance. I do happen to like the link to Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick, but we could just hyperlink that in the third sentence which begins His films,. ---- Work permit (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. An infobox would provide key information at a glance in a table format that is more accessible for readers who do not seek to read the entire lead section. For example, an infobox would be helpful for readers who are trying to compare key data from multiple biographical articles, and for readers with limited English ability who can comprehend the data in the infobox but not the prose in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 10:59, 25 August 2019
• Oppose A lot of the comments in support of an infobox seem to be critical of the density or complexity of the lead, or the complexity of Kubrick's career requiring some 'fast facts' to be provided in an infobox. Surely if the lead isn't clear, or the article too convoluted then the answer is to rewrite the article to aid comprehension and improve clarity, rather than using an infobox as some sort of sticking plaster; a proxy to actually improving the article. Fortnum (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I personally feel that all biographies on Wikipedia should have infoboxes. The overwhelming majority of biographies on Wikipedia already have one, precisely because they are an extremely convenient source of quick facts for readers browsing the article.Eliteplus (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Mostly per Herostratus. I still remember reading about this dispute in the WallStreet Journal. Since then, I have always wanted to give my feedback about whether or not an infobox should be in this article. My initial impression is one that I still hold: visibly without an infobox in this article it looks nicer while on desktop. It's minimalistic and invokes a rough feeling reminiscent to the earlier days of Wikipedia. As Kubrick was a perfectionist, I felt this somewhat fitting (an attempt at doing something radical with articles by forgoing the traditional infobox or some jargon like that probably).
  However that is solely because the article's lack of infobox and black-and-white lead photo are contrasted against Vector's normally cluttered design. These concerns are simply not present on mobile which primarily uses the Minerva Neue skin. The effect of with or without an infobox is not noticed on mobile because the image takes up a lot more room anyways.
  I am, therefore, of the carefully crafted opinion that a collapsible infobox remains the best solution ever put forward as it maintains the sleek design on Vector/Desktop while also preventing mobile users (who would not be serviced by the collapsible function regardless) of having to scroll through the entire article or guessing which section of it contains the pertinent information they are looking for. On Desktop, this information, of course, would be only a click away (and in a location most readers are drawn to anyways; the normal location of the infobox).
  Disregarding the aforementioned opinion, I still think our mission is to deliver access to free knowledge on Wikipedia. Artistic/Stylistic design choices can never come at the expense of delivering information and content to our readers. Previous consensus ruled that a collapsible infobox was not favorable, and I am not here to try to overturn that. It's as Newslinger suggests; an infobox (of any kind) will make information more accessible to our readers than we can say with our extended prose.
  Major props to HAL333 for putting this back up for discussion at the very least. I know from my limited RFC experience that stuff like that is not always easy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

So you want an IB because it looks nice? De gustibus and all that. There are a fair few people who prefer the aesthetics of not having a box there. As for "accessible information", the first line of the lead contains "information" that is clearly "accessible". - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: There are a fair few people who prefer the aesthetics of not having a box there. Yes... I know.. because I am one of them. I could not have been more clear on that point. visibly without an infobox in this article it looks nicer while on desktop. I'm actually kind of stunned you think that I would feel otherwise since it's right there... in the first few sentences. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the aesthetics argument cuts both ways: beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc. It's not an argument that should carry any weight. - SchroCat (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support Why not? ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as per Herostratus and Bearcat. Infoboxes are helpful to readers, there seems to be a good precedent for them in comparable articles, and (for whatever it's worth) I find them visually inoffensive. Bbadjosh (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. An infobox would provide a helpful summary of this article’s information. – Anne drew 06:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Infoboxes provide an excellent way of presenting basic data about a subject. I've lost count of the number of times I've visited a page purely to get details about a person's dates or their place of birth. Having it in an infobox means such information can be accessed quickly and easily. Infoboxes don't detract from an article in any way, but they improve an article's usefulness. Of course one should be included here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly per Schrocat, whose arguments are wholly persuasive. ——SerialNumber54129 11:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an argument above that since other significant film directors such as Steven Spielberg, Bernardo Bertolucci, Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Richard Attenborough, Woody Allen, Ron Howard, Elia Kazan, Alfonso Cuarón, Roman Polanski and George Lucas all do have infoboxes, Stanley Kubrick ought to have one too. This is plainly ridiculous as those infoboxes only serve to illustrate the problem with liberal arts bio infoboxes, showcasing unimportant factoids as they do. Military service? Political party? That's from the infobox at Richard Attenborough, which is  rather wonderfully and amusingly headed "The Right Honourable The Lord Attenborough, CBE.” An astounding example of the absurdities and perversities of info boxes, which only ever serve to oversimplify, confuse, trivialise and generally ignore anything remotely relevant. Giano (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose the plague of irrelevant boxclutter that diverts attention from the text. Ghirla^-трёп- 07:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Note that infoboxes which basically mirror the lead are nigh useless, and that Google, for example, creates such boxes on its own for many topics. On those using "small mobile devices" (cellphones etc.), the infoboxes tend to replace the first page of the text for readers, discouraging them from actually reading anything else. Collect (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support The fact that this is such a heated debate is honestly perplexing to me. It seems like such a non-issue. What exactly makes Kubrick special? He's probably the biggest biographical article on this site that doesn't have an infobox. The potential downsides are incredibly negligible in comparison to just not having this discussion every few months. Y'all are some of the most stubborn people on the planet, I swear. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – And kudos to the editors who are making a stand here. Personally I would like to see an end to all infoboxes. They are ugly, pointless and generally misleading, and completely out of place in a serious encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is the only place they exist, outside of children's books.--Ykraps (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not correct. Infoboxes are also used in mainstream, professionally published reference works. There's one in Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Kubrick. --Albany NY (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - this is maybe the dumbest content dispute I have ever seen. It seems like this is a proxy dispute between people who like infoboxes and people who don’t. I find infoboxes to be generally essential for quality articles and would vote against this article’s promotion to FAC on that basis. Toa Nidhiki05 11:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Rather laughable, given the number of FAs without IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve seen worse arguments against FAs, but for me an infobox is an essential part of any biography. Not including one does a disservice to the reader. I have no interest in getting involved in what is apparently a long-running Wiki-wide conflict over the issue so this is all I’ll say. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If you tried to oppose an FA because of the lack of an IB, your !vote will not be counted by the FA co-ordinators. It is not an adequate reason to try and stop an article being promoted. Either way, it is something of a moot point: this article isn't up for FA, and it's quality isn't diminished by the lack of a box in the corner. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support An info box for a BLP like this is pretty much always a benefit. There is no actual negative to having one and can only help the reader. It would also keep this BLP inline with their peers as Bearcat and Albany NY mention above. While that is not strictly required is a good thing to have. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Kubrick ... BLP? And a pier? I’m a bit confused tbh. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Typo, wrong peer, thanks for the catch. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also the fact that Kubrick has been dead for over 20 years now so the BLP part is not true. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2

There is no downside or cost to including an infobox. All it does is make the information within the article more accessible to the reader. I experienced this a month or so ago, when I wanted to see who were Kubrick's wives, I had to spend some time looking through the article to find it. And for those who may say that an infobox is not needed for a director like Kubrick, go look at Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Quentin Tarantino. HAL333 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Not this yet again? Aside from WP:OSE, I'll weigh any argument based in policy or guideline as to why this should have an IB, but I've not seen a good one for the arts articles biographies yet, and I doubt that will change much. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"The arts articles" so not music albums, movies, books? Seems to go against project wide consensus in that regard. Can you clarify what you mean? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Partly true: I was too sweeping, it should have been "biographies". And project wide consensus is summed up in the relevant section of the MoS: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason not to have an infobox on a page like this. What harm does it cause? HAL333 20:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons, and if you read through the earlier arguments in the archives, you'll find them there. In order to turn over the consensus, you have to provide some good arguments as to why one should be added. So far, in all the myriad of discussions, I've not seen a good argument to overturn the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus to overturn, just one to create. The purpose, and benefit, of infoboxes is to allow the reader to quickly access information, instead of having to read through to find a single fact. For the reader who just wants to know a few small facts, an infobox is an invaluable tool. And to the reader who wants to read the entire article, an infobox can serve as a jumping point. An infobox does NOT harm or negatively effect the reader whatsoever. There are no downsides whatsoever. And so far, in all the myriad of discussions, I've not seen any editor explain a single drawback to having an infobox. HAL333 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"There's no consensus to overturn": yes, there is. It's the consensus not to have an IB on the page. If there wasn't such a consensus, one would have been added.

"to allow the reader to quickly access information": such as 'what was Kubrick's first Hollywood film?', or 'is it true he worked with NASA to create new lenses'? The mission of the IB to provide "data" misses the point that they don't bring knowledge or understanding of the subject, but provide selective factoids that don't provide explanation or context to a subject. Look at the example IBs in the sections above: born in the US, died in the UK. Where was he in between and for how long? Why is photographer missing from the long list of occupations - his training there was vitally important in his cinematography (as the lead explains). For the arts biographies, the IB will ALWAYS leave out the key points of the reason a person is included in an encyclopaedia. What is there is such a shallow representation of the individual that we do our readers a disservice by having it. It doesn't say what impact he had on cinema, what changes do we see in filming now that were originally introduced by him, how he was perceived by critics, his peers or audiences. It dumbs down to some mindless personal details that don't enlighten anyone, and that aren't help for anyone to understand the topic. Sure, you want to search for his wives' names, but I want to know which pets he wanted: how much dross do you need in the top right hand corner that doesn't actually inform or educate the first time reader? - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Fucking hell, again? No, for the umpteenth time, per all the good reasons given in past discussions. Why do people keep opening these discussions? --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said before. The ruling on this needs to extend to stopping these discussions recurring, at least three years before they can be reopened.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is frankly a waste of time. Existing consensus is to exclude an infobox. My reasons for opposing this latest rehash are similar to SchroCat's. Adding an infobox would add no substantive information to the biography. And indeed, I think it cheapens it to something one would find in a tabloid newspaper- 'who did he marry', 'where did he die', 'who were his lovers' etc don't help the reader gain a strong understanding of who he was. Also, Kubrick's important work in cinema doesn't translate well to an infobox- he made few films (compared to Speilberg and Hitchcock), and all of them have attained a degree of acclimation. In short, important information about the subject are better imparted through prose rather than factoids. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As SchroCat and Jip Orlando have both explained, for most creators, an infobox inevitably oversimplifies, leaves out context and part of the reason for notability (all the more a problem when there is disagreement about the evaluation of the person's career, or when the verdict has changed), and gives undue prominence to trivia such as their personal relationships. Infoboxes are intended to present data points (cladistics and endangered status of a species, medals an athlete has won, engine specifications of ships, major credits and release dates of films, and so forth); they are not intended to be nuanced, and so for all but very simple careers outside sports, politics, and other fields that can be summed up in a list, they distort and do the reader a disservice. Kubrick had a career that requires prose to explain, and that should not be overshadowed by trivia about his private life. In his case, the infobox doesn't aid the reader, it misleads by omission and false emphasis. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As a reader I expect to see an infobox. The article looks incomplete without it. The argument that an infobox oversimplifies the subject is unpersuasive. I don't expect the infobox to summarize everything, or give all the reasons for notability. Its purpose is not to provide balance. It gives what limited data it normally does and then the reader goes on to the article. I don't believe anyone is discouraged from reading the prose because they saw an infobox. Almost all other film bio pages have an infobox, and most people take them for granted - as they should. An infobox does not overshadow an article, and saying one does is creating a problem where none exists. A small faction has insistently rejected an infobox on this page, but they do not represent the majority of readers or editors. As long as there is no infobox new people will be coming to this page asking "Why is there no infobox?" They way to end this years-long debate is to give readers what they normally expect to see. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE is no basis for a change. As was instructed in the ArbCom decision of a few years ago, do you have any comments based on this article, rather than just general comments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I find the infoboxes in the examples provided by HAL333 in the discussion to be useful on those pages, and I do not see anyone distinguishing how Stanley Kubrick would be different. I am not persuaded by the argument that the infobox dissuades reading the article for anyone who actually wants to read the article. If the idea is to force people into reading the article when they only want the minimal information that an infobox would provide, then that seems inappropriate for Wikipedia. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This article was written about 4 years ago, it's not had a box since then. This is getting 140,000 views a month now, in that time probably over 6.7 million people. 99.9% + people don't think it is important enough to complain about it. If it was true that it was a vital component this page would be getting hundreds of complaints every week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually it come up a few times a month at various help desk for years.--Moxy 🍁 14:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A few times a month... but 140,000 or even 100 times?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree not that many compared to views.....but if it was a complaint about something other then a box it would have been fixed years ago. Having hundreds of readers requesting a box to no avail for years makes you wonder if we're actually here for the readers or for the writers of this isolated case.--Moxy 🍁 14:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please provided links to the "few times a month at various help desk for years" mentions. I've had the help desks on my watchlist for over a decade and I don't remember seeing a question on all of them combined more than a half dozen times and there hasn't been one for the last two or three years. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Those who want the infobox, are certainly determined :) GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, their is no logical reason against including an infobox. You "Infobox exclusionists" claim it is oversimplification and doesn't portray the deep true nature of Kubrick. An infobox isn't supposed to explain someone's personality or impact. Noobody visits an article looks at an infobox and believes that that is all there is to that figure or subject. No one has ever seen John William's Infobox and believed he has no merit as a composer because it does not state outright that he is a good composer. That's ridiculous. Infoboxes aren't meant to fully explain someone's personality or how people viewed him or her. They are simply meant to give you some basic facts, so you know what the subject's time period, occupation, and basic aspects of life are. Readers use an infobox as a jumping point to read the article or a section which piqued their interest from the infobox. Your obstinate opposition to adding an infobox does not do the reader a service, the reader doesn't realize that a few editors think its poetic and deep not to include a infobox because "Kubrick can't even be defined by an infobox, man." If anything a reader may think that Kubrick was not significant enough to merit an infobox. What do you think crosses the mind of a reader who finds infoboxes on every other notable director's page and finds it missing on Kubrick, as if he is some stub article. And if you're so hung up on "photographer" not being listed under his occupations: just ADD it. That's the magic of an infobox. HAL333 01:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

HAL333, a reminder that last December I notified you about the ArbCom sanctions regarding conduct in infobox discussions. Please avoid characterising other editors with sweeping, misleading and/or disparaging comments and focus on arguments about the purported benefits of an IB on this article. Please don't add incivility to canvassing. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat—you say "[t]here are plenty of reasons". Why shouldn't the article have an Infobox? You are saying we should "read through the earlier arguments in the archives". If there is a reason the Infobox should not be included then please just state that reason. I am assuming there is no reason to omit the Infobox. Please prove me wrong by adducing a reason the article is best without an Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 I suggest you read what I have written in this RfC. I have given reasons enough there, although there are certainly others that other people are identifying too. So far all I see from the support !votes is 'Other articles have them' (see WP:OSE); 'I prefer it when they are there' (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and 'all readers want one' (see ). As it is, there is a standing consensus not to have an IB here. Perhaps you could focus your efforts on arguments to overturn that consensus to elicidate why there should be an IB on this article in particular. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean reasons other than those stated even in this discussion? Like, a handful of votes above yours, for example? Or are you just going to demand that things are repeated at your leisure so you don't have to actually read the discussion? --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain. Well, I am certainly not going to "demand" anything. We are all volunteers trying to create the best possible article. If you care to weigh in—please do so. I am all ears, as they say. I am hoping to engage in conversation with someone who is of the conviction that this article shouldn't have an Info-box. I consider them useful. Lengthy articles benefit from the highlighting of key facts. And this is a popular article on a prominent filmmaker. It is not an obscure, scholarly, and dry article that will only receive visits from a select segment of visitors. The sheer numbers of people visiting this article ensures that there are many who would benefit from the inclusion of a well-constructed Info-box. The opposition to that baffles me. But please explain the good reasons why this article should not have an Info-box. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

What I'm expressing is the frustration that many of us feel about having to restate rationales in response to queries like this. The reasons to omit an infobox are literally enumerated several times in this discussion, but you're saying essentially "I don't see any reasons" so I'm asking, unironically, if you actually don't see them or you just don't accept them. --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the frustration you and others feel is not over the restating of rationales but the absence of rationales. It is said that the Info-box would be redundant. Of course the Info-box would be redundant. That is in the nature of Info-boxes. Let us hope we never encounter an Info-box that is not redundant. It is said that the Info-box should be absent for aesthetic reasons. There are no aesthetic reasons one way or another. We are concerned with information, not prettiness. It is an incontrovertible fact that Info-boxes have the unique capacity to present a limited number of entirely predictable areas of information—when was he born, is he still alive, etc? The aesthetics of that presentation are of secondary importance. The most important considerations I see in favor of inclusion of an Info-box are length of article and popularity of article. Obscure articles that are short in length don't need Info-boxes. Popular articles receive visitors from all walks of life. A good number of them only have a cursory interest in the subject. For them an Info-box is useful. The presence of an Info-box does not mean that the visitor is not going to read the article. An Info-box is something to be glanced at. If it serves to develop interest it can actually spur the reading of the article. The "oppose" votes are trying to reinvent the wheel. Info-boxes have utility in providing a limited number of key points in reference to a lengthy article. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"absence of rationales"? No, there are rationales - lots of them, and they are littering the votes and discussion sections. The fact you don't like the rationales or disagree with them is entirely another thing. In the case of many arts biographies they misrepresent the individual so much that it's probably safer to omit them altogether. The boxes proposed above are prime examples of drossboxes: they don't tell people why Kubrick was a great director, or what work he did (hell, they only just about manage to say he was a director!) what is left in the IB is either the fractionally useful (dates of birth, death etc), that is in the first sentence of the lead, or the trivial that isn't if interest or importance (names of wives). I've still not seen any arguments on this page that suggests why we should overturn the existing consensus – there is nothing new in any of the arguments so far. – SchroCat (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"they don't tell people why Kubrick was a great director" We can only hope they don't tell people why Kubrick was a great director. Info-boxes generally don't serve that purpose. "they only just about manage to say he was a director" But of course an Info-box would say that he was a director, would it not? You say "[i]n the case of many arts biographies they misrepresent the individual so much that it's probably safer to omit them altogether." Facts would not misrepresent unless we have preconceptions, and I prefer facts whether they are congruent with my preconceptions or not. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Facts would not misrepresent unless we have preconceptions" That's not even close to the truth. The absence of facts has the biggest ability to mislead. An the small collection of factoids misleads by not providing anything above the least meaningful information of Kubrick's life. You talk above of the IB providing the "key points": no, it doesn't. There is nothing "key" about the points, except in the general sense of the information everyone has to some extent (DoB, education, job title, etc). But the reason we have an article on him is only contained in the last entry of the box - his filmography. The rest is fluff.

You keep talking in general terms about IBs, but I'm still not seeing any arguments why, on this article we should have one. The consensus is against you, and you have to give me a reason why I should !vote to support the inclusion of one. So far no-one has put together a cogent argument as to why we should have one. If you can't do that, then there's no point in going round in circles on the pros and cons of IBs in general. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"the small collection of factoids misleads by not providing anything above the least meaningful information of Kubrick's life" No it doesn't—no one is misled by accurate information. And you don't know what is meaningful and what is not meaningful. Meaningful is a function of what a visitor wants to know. The Info-box is an adjunct to the rest of the article. The notion that anyone glances at an Info-box and is misled is incorrect. The Info-box serves the function of presenting information at a glance and it has no downside. Please stop foisting on us the notion that Info-boxes mislead. An Info-box is an unobtrusive and informative element of an article. An Info-box provides information with no associated costs. Bus stop (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not foisting anything. I am providing an opinion, just as you are - I can just as well ask you stop foistering the idea that an infobox is unobtrusive and informative.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, you keep talking in general terms about IBs, but I'm still not seeing any arguments why, on this article we should have one. The consensus is against you, and you have to give me a reason why I should !vote to support the inclusion of one. So far no-one has put together a cogent argument as to why we should have one. If you can't do that, then there's no point in going round in circles on the pros and cons of IBs in general. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

From where are you deriving that Info-boxes are misleading? We generally don't consider the providing of accurate information to be misleading. That is a novel idea. Would you care to explain that novel idea to us more fully? I'm interested in hearing more about your posited notion that Info-boxes are misleading. You go on to say "I'm still not seeing any arguments why, on this article we should have one". This is an article on a popular subject. That is my argument in a nutshell. The popularity of the subject of this article should lead us to create for this article an Info-box. Readers can glean information almost instantaneously from Info-boxes. Popular articles are visited by a wide variety of people. Some of those people only have a passing interest in the subject. If for instance they encountered a reference to Kubrick's name elsewhere they may happen upon this article with the questions in mind: Who is this person and what are they known for? Where and when were they born? Info-boxes allow information at a glance. At a popular article you are more likely to have some readers availing themselves of an Info-box. Will they go on to read the article? Maybe, maybe not, and who cares? We are not trying to shoehorn people into reading articles. Some of our visitors are going to have zero interest in spending more than 15 seconds on the page and that is OK too. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pass, as I've outlined my thoughts enough (it's fairly nuanced about the weight given to factoids out of proportion to the subject of the article), and you're either ignoring it, or I'm not phrasing it properly; either way it makes no odds. I see no arguments about this article in particular in what you've said, so you've done nothing to persuade me to !vote to overturn the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In speaking of Info-boxes you said "[i]n the case of many arts biographies they misrepresent the individual so much that it's probably safer to omit them altogether." So I'm asking you—how do Info-boxes misrepresent individuals? Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat: I have already explained myself and I will pass. As you have not provided any substantive points to overturn the consensus by demonstrating that we need an IB on this article, there is no point in continuing. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You say "I see no arguments about this article in particular". Of course not. Why would there be arguments about this article in particular? Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you want to overturn a consensus on this page, you have to argue the case for this page. This has been standard since 2013 "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". You've been asked to focus on this article, and haven't done so: I think we're probably done with this now - it's dimishing returns with each response. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat—you say "if you want to overturn a consensus on this page, you have to argue the case for this page". The argument is "for this page" but I don't think it has to be solely for this page. Articles can have some characteristics in common, such as "popularity". This article is a popular article. As a popular article it receives a lot of traffic. The filmmaker is well-known. It is highly likely people will find themselves at this article not knowing anything about the subject of this biography. Therefore an Info-box at this article conceivably serves the useful purpose of providing information at a glance to those readers with little previous knowledge of the subject. Your argument thus far is that an Info-box would "misrepresent the individual so much that it's probably safer to omit [an Info-box] altogether." Please tell me—how would the providing of accurate information in an Info-box at this article misrepresent the the subject of this biography? This article should not be deprived of the benefit of an Info-box based on the farfetched suggestion that an Info-box would 'misrepresent the the subject of the biography. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat: I have already explained myself and I will pass. As you have not provided any substantive points to overturn the consensus by demonstrating that we need an IB on this article, there is no point in continuing. We're done with this now - it's dimishing returns with each response.- SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat—you are saying "I have already explained myself" but of course you have not. Most importantly you have not even tried to bolster your claim that an Info-box at this article would misrepresent the subject of the biography. How would it do that? You are making farfetched claims. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"of course you have not", Yes, I have, but you've either ignored it or talked past it. This and this are my previous comment, and I've now !voted, which gives further clarity. You can stop badgering me now: I have no more to say to you. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You are linking to this edit in which I find "the IB will ALWAYS leave out the key points". Info-boxes only contain certain key points, not all key points, but that should not be misconstrued as misrepresentation. I think we need to distinguish between limited information on the one hand and on the other hand information that misrepresents. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• As an outside, previously uninvolved RfC participant, I have to ask - how did this infobox question become a rolling argument for the past four years? I've never seen anything like this on Wikipedia. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, same here. WTF. Didn't we have the "Infobox Wars" a few years back? Didn't infoboxes win? So I mean... huh. I mean it's not ALL THAT important? So, anyway, generally speaking , local consensus doesn't necessarily trump overall consensus. In theory, some clutch of editors at the article FOO can't decide that, in that article, to, I don't know, use ampersands instead of "and" or whatever.

Scanning the text above (there's a lot), I guess the best case for not including the infobox (given that infoboxes are a thing here) is that biographies of persons in the arts ought to be a special exception -- those articles, in particular are worse off within infoboxes. (Right? I don't think the argument is being made that only film directors, or only Americans in the arts, or some other subset, ought to be exempt.)

So then, what's needed is a broader RfC. Infoboxes for biographies of people in the arts generally, yes or no.

Absent a general rule that infoboxes should not be included in biographies of people in the arts, I just can't see singling out this one, particular, individual biography to not have an infobox. C'mon.

But... I get the vibe that this a battle in a guerilla war against infoboxes in general, or anyway against infoboxes for biographies of people in the arts. OK. I have fought guerilla wars myself. The people guarding this particular article against an infobox have the whip hand in this article since the Existing Stable Version doesn't have one (I think).

Alright. If you're being pushed back into the hills, and you find a fortress, defend it. I get it. But I mean, for infoboxes? Who cares that much? Not me. Really, whatever. It's fine either way. It is. It's a fine article either way, and let's acknowledge all the skill and effort of many editors in making it so, and not tear ourselves up about this. I don't mind if the guerillas keep a couple strong points. It doesn't matter. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It really isnt though. I use infoboxes all the time, where they're needed. If the infobox has no relevant or important info to hold or doesn't need a locator map etc I don't add one. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've already stated my views on where infoboxes are required or not required. If you believe an Rfc is needed for arts bios, have a go at it. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally arts biographies don't need them but I would never want to make a solid rule which forces editors not to include them as in some cases they might actually have more validity, think actors who had a military career etc. It should be an editorial decision for whoever makes the effort to significantly improve an article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an article on a popular subject. That means some people may be visiting the article without knowledge of the subject. They could have encountered the name in a passing reference and they want to know who the heck is "Kubrick"? The purpose of an Info-box at this article would be to provide a reader with some information at a glance. Whether they read the article or not is irrelevant and the presence or absence of an Info-box has no bearing on whether they read the article or not. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case then they'll learn nothing worthwhile about Kubrick nor his career.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not think everyone shares the same idea about what is "worthwhile" about Kubrick or his career. Learning how long he lived, that he was a director, and who he married is very worthwhile to some people. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Which the lede provides and can be seen at a quick glance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead provides information in prose, which means that it requires more than a "quick glance". That's the point of an infobox, which is never supposed to have information that is not already in the article text. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"If that's the case then they'll learn nothing worthwhile about Kubrick nor his career." Learning is incremental. The advantage of an Info-box is virtually instantaneous "learning" of details that may be criticized as being superficial to what aficionados of the subject see as important. But for some visitors to the article superficial information is adequate. They don't want to, at that moment, become intimately familiar with the life of Kubrick. The way people normally learn about a subject is by repeatedly returning to the subject, learning more about the subject on each revisitation. If an Info-box serves as a reasonable introduction to a subject—such as the artist Kubrick—it serves a purpose. I think its presence can be defended on that basis. Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to note that HAL333 is now canvassing editors who have supported the addition of an infobox in the 2017 RfC while skipping over editors who opposed. I suggest this be closed sooner than later. --Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of these rules, but since I have now distorted it, I support closing this tainted rfc. HAL333 02:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, fuck. Please don't do that. Let it run. If I'm going to ban new RFCs for two years, this needs to be a proper RFC, running for the normal time. @HAL333, Cassianto, and Laser brain: or somebody else, could one of you please even the playing field by alerting all the editors who took part in the 2017 RFC? Bishonen | talk 08:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC).

I've attempted to notify everyone from the last discussion who hasn't already commented here. I skipped one who's indef blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Laser brain. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC).

In addition to the redlink authors who have turned up, I see that there is a call to arms on Reddit for people to join in. It's odd that you never see such widespread co-ordination from peope who remove or argue against the boxes, only those who need to drum up support to get the pile-on they need. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this has turned into a circus. I'm confident that the original canvassing issues were overcome, but now there's plenty of evidence of off-wiki coordination, trolling, and socking. The sleeper accounts are just part of the picture. --Laser brain (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are sleeper accounts involved in this RfC, how do we go about making this genuine again? Is there any way or is this whole thing tainted by now?

Also I would like to note, that while canvassing on and off WikiPedia is definitely not okay, our conversations/discussions here have popped up on the internet before, mainly on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/42b6ed/infobox_not_needed_on_stanley_kubrick_article/

https://www.reddit.com/r/rant/comments/ad2ojn/the_stanley_kubrick_wikipedia_page/

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Stanley-Kubricks-Wikipedia-lack-an-infobox

https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/duplicates/b60kx9/wikipedia_editors_get_into_a_heated_months_long/

Rather interesting. willydrach^talk 18:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Offi-Wiki coordination tends to result in meat-puppets, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

History indicates page should return to its 10-year status quo

People should realize the history here. In response to canvassing accusations another editor who is so frustrated with the unpersuasive arguments against the infobox she doesn't wish to get involved again posted this (in part) on her Talk page, which does a good job of pointing certain things out. I have no relation with her or anyone else involved, but I believe this belongs in this discussion:

I refuse to participate. When asked if an article - any article - should have an infobox, I'd say "Why not?" - and no argument of those who say that it damages an article (and assume that those who want one must come from behind-the-scenes conspiracies probably run by me) has ever convinced me. |HAL333, you can of course use any of what I wrote, and I don't mind copyvio ;) - I'm just too wounded to go myself. Peace. ... Looking at Stanley Kubrick, we have a history of creation in 2001, infobox added in 2005, infobox removed in the edit just above ten years later, no edit summary, then - after a little edit-war, establishment of "consensus" not to have one, Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 7, arguments:

• It tells us absolutely nothing about his directorial career.
• Infoboxes are optional and should be the choice of those who have made contributions to the article.
• I also believe that an infobox pollutes the article.
• I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost.
• The Google version of these damned things has led to a downturn in our reader numbers.
• This article looks better without an 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.
• ... a waste of space and amateurish-looking here ...

I think that was a farce, but it forms the proclaimed "consensus" in the current RfC. The belief that the main editors decide prevails, and as long as that is accepted (and arbcom supported it, by allowing me to add infoboxes to articles I create but not to others), any RfC is also a farce. I try to ignore it. The sad arguments above are all by users that I highly respect, which makes it only harder to understand.

I commented in the RfC, as invited, saying that it is important to keep the FA writers happy. I find their arguments against an infobox strange (in 2015 and now), and the loss of the 2015 infobox is detrimentral to accessibilty, but that's not the key question, which is: "I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost." Repeat the line until you believe it. ... I'm still reading the RfC, and dislike the latest entry which seems to lack good faith: "... the same go-around with canvassing, off-Wiki co-ordination, 'redlink' users, intemperate language to bait others and all the rest of the trappings that accompany the circus ..." - I didn't see much canvassing (it's a public RfC, after all). I only participated reluctantly, and none of my friends went to that hopeless case, where an infobox was removed without even an edit summary in 2015, in the process to expand the article to FA, and then - after a little edit war ("The main editor, Dr. Blofeld, will decide about it. Good faith edit. :-)") its missing was defended with the above arguments, all "unpersuasive" indeed. I saw one red-link user. I have not seen intemperate language ("red herring and untrue" isn't intemperate, or is it?). The aspersions about off-wiki-coordination and "all the rest of the trappings" sound unfounded. - If there was an infobox war, ever, it was over long ago, but some seem not to have noticed. The socalled infoboxes arbcom case was (or: should have been) only about infobox opera which was then new and hated by some, but is now in more than 1000 articles. I care about those, and musical compositions, but I don't care if Kubrick has an infobox. You have two ways to put that article to rest, 1) with the status quo of 2015 which was removed in a bold edit, 2) (probably wiser) accepting that it IS true that the preference of the main authors is more important than the information of the readers, to keep those authors happy. A little statistic will tell how many of those who commented are those who always come when infoboxes are debated, and how many are new (and some surprised about the intensity). - Again, I don't care, not even enough to make that statistic, and I urge anybody else not to care. --Gerda Arendt (talk)

I am more motivated to return here because of what I see happening on this page than because I would prefer to see an infobox restored. I agree with everything she says above and earlier made similar points myself. I agree that the arguments of those against an infobox, most of whom I also have respect for, is very disappointing. Several of their claims are absurd, like an infobox discourages people from reading the article or that it crowds the top of the page. I've seen thousands of WP articles and never once have I found an infobox getting in the way of the lead or crowding the page. An infobox is not meant to summarize the most important things about the subject. It gives certain concrete facts like name, date and place of birth, death, and yes, marriage info. Not because they're most important, but because they're the most concrete. It's good to know when and where someone was born before diving into the disparate details of their life. There is nothing harmful or offensive about this. The infobox also gives a good capstone to the article, and like a building, a capstone makes it look complete (hopefully with a good image of the subject). If a reader is only interested in when the subject got married, well, we may prefer that they look deeper into the person's life, but we don't need to "force" them to go through the article if they don't want to. That's their business. WP is here for readers to use as they like. Plenty of people use it. I find it ridiculous to worry about the tiny number who check in only for marriage info (which is not in the lead, forcing readers to search for it). Particularly as they may well have actually read the article earlier and are now returning just to check on a particular concrete fact that normally would be in the infobox. This article had an infobox for 10 years. It should be returned to that status quo. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt is more than capable of posting here if she wishes (she seems to spend a lot of time discussing the subject she continually claims she no longer wishes to discuss), pinging various admins and arbs to try and sway their opinion. Both you and she have commented in the survey section above, so it's slightly odd to be posting this all here. Yes, we get the idea you want an IB, just as there are a roughly equal number who oppose the addition. This article has been without an IB for several years now, so why we would think of hitting a reset button to go back ten years when there is no obvious consensus for that (to clarify, the closing admin may see it differently one way or t'other, but as far as I can see there is no obvious desire). The above comments from the archives are all well and good, but (a little like factoids in IBs themselves) they are cherry picked and stripped of background, nuance and context. Similarly, cherry picked comments could be picked out from any argument (from the current discussion we have "Support An info box for a BLP like this is pretty much always a benefit", when Kubrick fails to be a BLP, having been dead for 20 years and the full comment of "Strong support Why not? ;)" - see how easy it is to take a !vote and try and cheapen the opinion behind it). As to an IB being a "capstone" to make [the article] look complete", how does that really differ from "This article looks better without an infobox" - one of the points put up to ridcule the opposition to inclusion? It doesn't: it's the flip side of the same coin - De gustibus non est disputandum and all that. I can only hope this is closed sooner rather than later to avoid the ongoing rehashing of stale arguments leading to no new consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You have responded individually to many supporters of an infobox, giving many more additional posts (with the same repeated points) here than me or probably anyone else. The infobox was here four years ago, for the preceding ten years before that. As Bearcat said above, On a random spotcheck of several other significant film directors of similar stature to Kubrick and with similarly long articles — Steven Spielberg, Bernardo Bertolucci, Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Richard Attenborough, Woody Allen, Ron Howard, Elia Kazan, Alfonso Cuarón, Roman Polanski and George Lucas — every single one of them does have an infobox, and I have never seen a credible or compelling argument as to why Kubrick is somehow uniquely unsuited to what every other film director already has. Literally the only substantive argument against an infobox here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a serious argument. You frequently demand that supporters come up with a special reason for an infobox here, but you have no special reason for arguing against it. Really just "I don't like it." But as the many readers coming here over the last four years shows, readers do like it, and they expect to see it. I believe I can safely say if there is an infobox we are not going to get new readers coming to the Talk page complaining about the infobox being in the way or crowding the lead. Let's try it and find out. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have commented a few times: picking up on bad or flawed arguments is often helpful for people. As to Bearcat's list of directors, as someone else has said "they all provide undue prominence to irrelevant and unimportant aspects of the subject's life and, because of that, are a net negative to the encyclopedia". It's a falsehood that many IB supports use that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is the rationale for opposing an IB: that's just plain wrong. There are a wide range of reasons people have given for not wanting an IB, and for the proponents of IB to dismiss everyone else's opinion in such an offhand and fabricated manner is neither collaborative or collegiate (and his comment of "Literally the only substantive argument against an infobox here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is so lacking in good faith it beggars belief). Yes, I do ask people to come up with reasons to change the status quo here (although I do not "frequently demand that supporters come up with a special reason for an infobox here" – that's a phrase which lacks any AGF). I have explained my reasoning here: "if you want to overturn a consensus on this page, you have to argue the case for this page. This has been standard since 2013 "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general"." When ArbCom say that you need to make points about a specific article rather than the use of IBs in general, I try to follow their reasoning. I'm happy to end this here, and hope Barkeep's close comes soon, because the same rehashing of stale arguments is still going no where.

Your arguments above have been answered already. For example: An infobox is not meant to summarize the most important things about the subject. It gives certain concrete facts like name, date and place of birth, death, and yes, marriage info. Not because they're most important, but because they're the most concrete. It's good to know when and where someone was born before diving into the disparate details of their life. You can read the rest in my post above. And most of the arguments on this page against infoboxes are clearly against infoboxes in general. So avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general has been breached many times by those against an infobox here. The case for this page has been given: New readers keep coming here and asking "Why is there no infobox?" It is clear readers want one. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, my arguments have not been satisfactorily addressed by anyone so far, which is why I have not been persuaded to change my !vote. Yes, you're entirely correct when you say "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general has been breached many times by those against an infobox here", but it has also been equally breached by those who are for an IB here, and that's why the same discussions keep happening with the same outcome. I don't think it's in any way clear that "New readers keep coming here and asking "Why is there no infobox?" It is clear readers want one": There have been 2,130,138 pageviews of this article over the last 12 months. How many complaints, queries, RfCs, discussions or attempted additions relating the the infobox were made over that time? Even if we're ridiculously extravagant with the claim and say 138 people mentioned it, over two million others didn't think it was "clear" that this desparately needed an IB. I'm out now - I don't think any argument I bring up will have an impact and this, like so many previous discussions, is just rehashing the same points with no hope of a return. (That's not a comment against you, by the way, just an observation on the manner of these types of discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Re "I can only hope this is closed sooner rather than later": I'm not sure whether you guys have noticed an admin is in the process of closing the RfC?[1] Bishonen | talk 08:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

We're aware. You've shown up here several times, tilted toward closing the discussion in favor of those against the infobox and then preventing any further discussion for three years. I object, as I find that to be against the spirit of WP Talk pages (which are supposed to encourage new reader participation), and it is the primary reason I returned to post here now. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

When I've "shown up here" (ohh, that sounds bad) I've tried to make sure of posting only needful and useful information in a neutral way, and now I get told I've "tilted" toward closing the discussion in favor of those against the infobox? What does that even mean — did you think I was going to close it myself? And have I somehow implied that I would only ban new RfCs for a space of time if there's consensus against an infobox? I fully intend to add the same restriction if there's consensus for an infobox and one is added to the article, because in either case people have obviously had enough at this time of rehashing the issue. I don't know where the "three years" come from either. I resent your splenetic assumption of bad faith, Gothicfilm. I really don't know why I bother sometimes. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

Yeah, I'm getting discouraged too. "Three years" has been called for several times by those against an infobox. After one you must have seen you posted But once that RFC has been closed, I intend to place a restriction for probably a couple of years against further, future, RFCs. So you didn't say "three". Only a couple of years. I say you because you said you would be the one doing it. I particularly object to anything that discourages readers from asking a question on this Talk page for a couple of years. Hopefully you won't be putting in such language in the close. You haven't directly said you would, but that is how I have taken the tenor of comments here. I suppose you'll say I was mistaken. Others have pushed that. I read posts asking for notices intended to shoo new readers away and not even inquire about an infobox. (That way the best reason for an infobox in the future is taken away.) One user wanted to post this. SchroCat commented I think I'd have to agree with the idea of some form of long-term moratorium on further discussions. Not RfCs, but discussions. Did he not mean this literally? That is what brought me here now. Not infoboxes as much as what some people are advocating because of their position. I find this to be against the spirit of WP Talk pages, and I hope you're not going there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No, obviously I did not mean that no-one is allowed to start any discussion on any subject on this talk page, but the question of the IB has been gone over several times without a change in consensus and with no new arguments being put forward by anyone. It is pointless to keep having the same discussions with the same arguments and the same outcome over and over again. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Bish. I had seen that s/he was going to close, but the post that opened this thread contained inaccuracies and a lack of good faith that I felt needed addressing. Hopefully this can be closed off shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What inaccuracies and a lack of good faith? Everything I said in opening this thread was accurate and certainly in good faith. Anyone who disagrees with the dubious opinion that infoboxes discourage readers risks getting attacked. AGF indeed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You're not the only frustrated party. When people like you show up and attempt to recap the opposition that causes you so much bewilderment, you don't even mention the key points (principal among which is that liberal arts biographies are particularly unsuited to infoboxes because they showcase trivial details like birth-death and marriage. You dismiss arguments with hand-waves toward essays. Producing a laundry-list of film director articles that have infoboxes doesn't do anything for me other that demonstrate that proper attention hasn't been paid to those articles. The moratorium on opening new discussions is to alleviate all of our exhaustion, as continuously re-opening discussions on things that have an existing consensus is disruptive. No one, including me, has argued that the moratorium should occur only if the discussion is closed in favor of the current status. --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Close?

Seriously Bus stop? WTF? Following a request at the relevant section of WP:AN, Barkeep49 (as an admin) said he would close this RfC. It is not uncommon for long discussions to be closed (as Barkeep has done here), while they weigh the arguments without additional comments coming in. Why on earth have you reverted his initial close??? - SchroCat (talk)

I'm proof reading my close now, but SchroCat is correct that my closing of the discussion was an action that should not have been reverted. I would have hoped that it could have been respected short of me using discretionary sanctions as a formal administrative action. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2019 (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.

Restrictions on opening discussions regarding infoboxes

I understand that arb need to still make this subject to consensus either way but currently anybody can bypass the ruling by opening up a new discussion. If there was at least a restriction on how frequently these discussions are allowed to take place that would at least resolve it in part. I think three years would be reasonable. I'm sick of these discussions still taking place. Would it be reasonable to pass something which means that consensus can only change after a three-year window or something? If these discussions were fruitful then there wouldn't need to be any restrictions but they never are, it's valuable time wasted every few months having to discuss it and getting nowhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Compare my comment above from December 2018, Dr. Blofeld.[2] There was no restriction against opening an infobox RFC, as HAL333 did above on 14 August. But once that RFC has been closed, I intend to place a restriction for probably a couple of years against further, future, RFCs. If anybody would like to share an opinion about how long that restriction should be, please do so below. Note, though, that this is not an invitation to a vote; I'm going to place the restriction as a discretionary sanction, per my admin discretion. But I'm very interested in getting good advice about it. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC).

Rather than a temporal restriction, I suggest some language similar to what's in place at WP:PERENNIAL, specifically the phrase about addressing past rebuttals if you're going to raise the issue again. My observation every time this comes up is that the reasons given for and against are essentially the same and there is a failure to reach consensus for adding an infobox. The language could be something like, "Attempts to add an infobox this this article have repeatedly failed to reach consensus. Please do not open additional proposals unless you have new to argue." This is admittedly subjective while a time restriction is easier to follow and I'm not interested in inviting more threads that are difficult to parse for uninvolved closers. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For sensible people yours is better, I know, Laser. But it can be gamed as well as quarreled over; a simple unsubtle stupid-sounding time restriction can't, that's what I like about it. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC).

Given the subject matter, I might recommend using this language. —BLZ · talk 16:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who's more determined. The Infobox inclusionist or the Brexit remoaners ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

They are probably the same people, GoodDay. Cassianto^Talk 08:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that Arbcom has had a say in this situation, it might be worthwhile that (presumably) after this RFC closes against the inclusion of an infobox, to ask that a motion be passed that for Kurbick's page, there should be no RFC started on wanting an infobox for at least .. 3 years? unless through an AE motion that there is a valid new reason to discuss the infobox as to along an RFC to proceed. In other words the AE would be to judge if the reason is better than "other pages have infoboxes, readers expect them, this should have one too." This would allow the (well-outside chance) case of if we standardize on infoboxes for all BIOs to include it, or something along those lines. I do agree the persistent nature of trying to argue the addition of an infobox with no change in rational to why it needs one is disruptive to a point. --Masem (t) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Er... not sure why we would need an arbcom motion, Masem. Is there something wrong with me placing a discretionary sanction, as described above,[3], or did you not notice my post? Bishonen | talk 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC).

I missed your post :P --Masem (t) 19:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To add though, I think the only part about that that I would want to see is that if you place it but you are not response to a request to remove, a consensus of uninvolved admins should be able to review the request to remove as long as there is a significantly different reason presented than what has been given so far for starting an infobox RFC. --Masem (t) 20:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a restriction would make sense. I think it would be fair to say that opposition to an infobox takes the form of "people shouldn't read the article that way." Personally, I think that is a flawed view which discards much evidence about how people consume information and how people use websites. As I said above, I sympathize with that view without sharing it. I invested a good deal of time in the prose on Superliner (railcar) and that prose is the primary reason it's a featured article. I also recognize that for many readers, God is in the details, as delivered by the infobox and other tables. That's the reality and I respect that. No policy commands that outcome, and so long as there's a significant bloc of editors who don't share that view there will never be a consensus to have an infobox here. I think Laser brain makes a sensible suggestion, but Bishonen's is more practical. I think two years is reasonable, perhaps adopting Laser brain's wording once those two years have passed. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a big difference in value of the inbox though. In rail articles like yours they actually contain a lot of data which can't be put into prose. More importantly the data actually summarises the article subject. They're obviously essential in such circumstances. But in arts biographies like this the inboxes don't summarise the article subject in any way, there is no data, and what is included has no relevance to his work as a film director so it ends up being an unwanted piece of furniture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

12,272 words (and counting) wittering on about whether or not to add a few words in a box. A dissertation of irrelevance. WP:DISINFOBOX Fortnum (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fortnum: Thank you for the summary of what's going on here, however your words would be more useful if you provided an argument either opposing or supporting the addition of one on this page in the RfC so this can be put to rest.willydrach^talk 15:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willydrach: - the argument is to be found in WP:DISINFOBOX. An infobox here will just be more needless repetition which adds nothing to to the topic. But that's already been covered in the previous 12,000 words. Endlessly. Hence my original comment Fortnum (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fortnum: I understand - but again, what I was asking is that you participate in the RfC above rather than the discussion so your opinion counts. willydrach^talk 15:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willydrach:Oh I see - sorry, I totally misunderstood what you were saying there. Yes, of course - happy to. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• An additional thing I would do , thinking about this, is that while you have linked to the past discussions above in the talk header area, I would also add in 2-4 bullet points that succinctly answers the question "Why does this page not have an infobox." This should include "Infoboxes are not required." , maybe link to DISINFORBOX, and something like "There is minimal categorical information related to Kubrick that would fit well within an infobox, so consensus has opted not to include one for sake of simplicity and visual appeal.", and any other previously established reasons. And if some type of ban against infobox RFC is added, make sure that's added there too as well as the instructions if they feel they have something new to contribute of who to talk to. That way, when IP #40,192 comes along to ask the question again, you can point to that section and hat-off the section immediately. --Masem (t) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Even the essay WP:DISINFOBOX concedes that "an infobox can be useful in certain articles". Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

DISINFOBOX isn't even correct in any non-trivial way about anything at all. The only legitimate argument that any infobox is ever a disinfobox is if the information in the infobox is actually objectively incorrect, and even then the solution is to correct the errors, not to remove the box outright. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The absence of "nuance" is not "disinformation". Yet WP:DISINFOBOX asserts that Info-boxes are "stripped of nuance". Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• There has never been a single article in the entire history of Wikipedia whose visual appeal was ever improved by the lack of an infobox. The idea that article's visual appeal is improved by not having an infobox is categorically the single most brain-dead argument in the history of brain-dead arguments, and I am already accounting for both "some people are so inherently notable that they don't need any sources" and "I am a very stable genius" when I state that. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A nicely balanced, courteous and well-thought-out contribution from Bearcat. Obviously anything I say is worthless as I am braindead. I don't regard the aesthetics of info-boxes as the point. It is whether they are helpful to our readers (remember them?) and sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. But I am braindead, it seems, so I must be wrong. Tim riley talk 13:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This article, for example, looks better without an infobox. For one thing, on infoboxes about individual people it's a bit unaesthetic to repeat the name. If a photo highlights the Stanley Kubrick article then we know who it is, and don't have to be reminded with an excess mention of the name. On other articles the main "danger" of adding an infobox is that someone will come along and slap on one of those giant maps, which throw the aesthetics all to Hell (large map to Hell included) so people can see, for example, where in North America Florida happens to exist. The use of "brain dead" language for people who don't perceive as you do is quite insulting but entertaining enough not to cause a fuss. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

People are not geographic places, so the idea that an infobox inexorably leads to a map in a biography of a person is definitely not a real or legitimate concern. As I said above the last time you invoked the threat of a map, people are not geographic places — if we were talking about a geographic place, then yes, a map would be expected, because informing the reader of where geographic places are is most certainly part of our core responsibility as an encyclopedia. (You know where Florida is already, yes. Not everybody actually does, though.) But we're not talking about a geographic place, so OMGMAPNO! is not a relevant concern. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently to Bearcat and Bus stop, this heading, which was supposed to be about restricting the opening of future threads (regardless of outcome), is another place to continue litigating their side of the debate. WP:BLUDGEON. @Masem: I support the idea of an "FAQ" of sorts so that the next poor sap who comes along to open one of these discussions has some ready answers. However, I'm not confident it will do any good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If there was a FAQ, and assuming consensus stays the course (no infobox), then in the future, any attempt to open an infobox discussion, even if in good faith, should be quickly closed and the editor pointed to the FAQ. --Masem (t) 14:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There is not general agreement that there should not be any infobox on this article. It is now more likely this will end the same as in 2017 - Result: No consensus. As such I would be against any restriction against the normal process of reopening this discussion, particularly as it is a discussion of a common element found on almost all pages of this nature. Many of the arguments against infoboxes are quite unpersuasive, as I said well above in the previous thread. I agree with many of Bearcat and Bus stop's points. DISINFOBOX is a one-sided essay that should not be pointed to as anything authoritative. Nothing backs up the idea that an infobox discourages anyone from reading an article who was inclined to do so otherwise, nor that an article is improved by the lack of one. An infobox is included at the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Kubrick. It appears they are not afraid an infobox will scare away readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Laser brain, Bishonen, I think I'd have to agree with the idea of some form of long-term moratorium on further discussions. The basic point here is that there has not been a consensus to overturn the status quo. There have been no new arguments put forward and no changes in policies or guidelines. There is little point in rehashing the same discussion over and over if it is just the same unpersuasive arguments. If there is some larger change (if the MoS changes to insist on IBs, or similar), then of course the subject should be re-opened, but without that, all that will happen is the same go-around with canvassing, off-Wiki co-ordination, 'redlink' users, intemperate language to bait others and all the rest of the trappings that accompany the circus. – SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat: See [4]: "once [the] RFC has been closed, I intend to place a restriction for probably a couple of years against further, future, RFCs". As well as discussions by any other name. That'll be a discretionary sanction per the arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to discussions about infoboxes. Gothicfilm, anybody who thinks my restriction, once I place it, is improper can then appeal it at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard. Anyway, the RfC should run for 30 days first — I'd hate to see it impeached on a technicality. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

SchroCat: you mention "intemperate language to bait others". What would be an example of that? Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have said all I intend to say on the matter. What I have said is clear enough, and you should read through the thread to find examples. Please do not ping me to this page again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just wondering if I was the one who said something "intemperate". I'm trying to be mild-mannered, low-key and all, and I think I'm just arguing logical points. I've said a lot of things. But maybe it was someone else who was being "intemperate". Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for closure

I've added a request for closure of the RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC).