Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Archival of ongoing discussion??

Why was the ongoing discussion - the straw poll - archived Serial_Number_54129? Hentheden (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting until the arbitration decision (which I haven't looked at) could be built around whether or not to have an infobox. Hentheden (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank for this. Althouhgh oddly, I didn't get your ping—lucky I'm watching the page! Take care, —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But that doesn't answer the question: if only so that I understand the rules about archiving (which I confess I don't), why did you archive the discussion above Serial_Number_54129? Hentheden (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

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

---

Considering that nobody has as of yet objected to an infobox on the straw poll, and nobody is discussing anything, I think we have consensus. I'll add an infobox. Hentheden (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Two of those editors are basically SPA's. Also you agreed above to wait for the outcome of the ARBCOM case. Add to that the fact that you claim that you could "care less" so waiting is still the way to handle this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh. I didn't realise everyone was so pickly on this. Fine. Hentheden (talk) 13:31, 25 March 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.

Post Arb-com case: Infobox, yes or no?

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.

---

Ok, so the Arbcom case is closed, and other than reaffirming that we should all be civil and act in good faith (and that consensus can change), it doesn't have any bearing on infoboxes on this page. Considering this, does anyone have any objections to the adding of an infobox to this page, or do we have consensus? Hentheden (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection, but keep it simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection to a simple infobox. Would stop all the pointless bickering on this page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Simple IBs are, if anything worse, than useless. They would exacerbate the "pointless bickering" by failing to address even less points of note than a "normal" one. As a solution to satisfy none but enrage all, it's a killer though. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick
File:KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg Stanley Kubrick, aged 21, in 1949
Born	(1928-07-26)July 26, 1928 The Bronx, New York City
Died	March 7, 1999(1999-03-07) (aged 70) St Albans, Hertfordshire, England
Occupations	Film director Producer Screenwriter Cinematographer Editor
Works	Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick

Different people may mean different things by "simple". How is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Jeez... not this yet again... Oppose the addition of an IB. Skimming through the thread above from not that long ago (where there was no consensus for change), no one put forward any good reasons to change the situation, and the consensus from some time ago for non-inclusion still stands. The now (thankfully) archived "poll" means absolutely nothing: little on WP is decided by a simple vote, and it is discussions based on policy and guidelines that hold sway, not IDONTLIKEIT voting. This constant pushing for IBs is disruptive and distasteful, and with all the millions of articles that actually need improving, it seems odd that this subject still seems to be the focus of constant driving for too little effect, except to create more heat than light. – SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat. Please don't be hyperbolic. As an artistic choice only, an infobox decision cannot be determined by policy or guideline. That is the primary issue that leads to so much discussion on them. Whether the infobox is added actually is decided primarily by IDONTLIKEIT voting (or if you prefer ILIKEIT voting). \The main issue that leads to constant disruption is the fact that you can never get IP's and new editors arriving at this page to accept the reasons why there is no infobox without explaining it to each and every one of them and then arguing with them. Frankly it is just weird and inconsistent with most other articles, so they just want to help to fix it. Given that the only thing that is hurt by adding the infobox is the feelings of a few editors that JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I think that I'll support any infobox discussion simply to end the repeated discussions that result from not having one. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no hyperbole in what I've said. The inclusion of an IB is in no way "an artistic choice only", and if you look through previous threads you'll see that people give a range of reasons, which go far beyond such a simplistic and misleading a statement. I'm glad that you think POV pushing by people simply to get an IB just to achieve a 'one size fits all' approach is an endless process that will continue, despite any valid and very real reasons to the contrary. That is all too obvious to anyone who has observed this behaviour by socks, IPs (read into that logged out editors), IB warriors and the occasional flashmob to keep pushing. If such behaviour of going round article after article to remove the IBs was undertaken with such vigour and using such tactics, I can guarantee that overly heavy-handed action would have been taken against anyone who takes a more flexible approach. Voting to include an IB to stop pushing by disruptive editors from ongoing pushing their IDONTLIKEIT view... not an approach I'd take, but each to their own, I guess. – SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you assuming that every new editor and IP that comes along is a sock? Seriously? Why are new editors not allowed to have an opinion on infoboxes? You keep saying "their IDONTLIKEIT view", but as far as I can see, your only argument for not including an infobox is the same. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Are you assuming that every new editor and IP that comes along is a sock?" No. "You keep saying "their IDONTLIKEIT view", but as far as I can see, your only argument for not including an infobox is the same." Then you have not read in the previous threads what I have actually written, because that is a gross misrepresentation of my opinion, so please don't try and play the 'bad faith' game with me. – SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Then what might I ask... is your policy or guideline based argument? (links or just copy here please, I'm not going to spend an hour digging through old threads for your name). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep my input into IB discussions to a minimum, but as you've already told me what my opinion is, I thought you would have bothered to read through? As you haven't, I'm not sure why you think it's based on IDONTLIKEIT. As I've said above, go through what I've written previously and you'll find my reasons. I'm de-watching this now, as I don't think anything constructive will come out of this, but plus ca change as far as IB discussions are concerned. – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You opposed the infobox and said that it should be decided "based on policy and guidelines that hold sway, not IDONTLIKEIT voting". The only other reason you gave boils down to 'maintain the status quo because it is the status quo'. I read through all the old discussions in the archives of this page a couple months ago and I haven't seen any policy or guideline based reason for including or excluding an infobox, at least for an article like this one. I'm happy to be pointed wrong, but as far as I can see, it is mostly/entirely an editorial decision and therefore essentially can't be chosen by any other method than a vote of personal preference (i.e. IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT). Arbcom has similar views, having found no reason in our polices or guidelines to fall on one side or the other. My argument is simple: it is less disruptive to have an infobox than to not have one, simply because new editors will keep showing up in discussions on this page if there is not an infobox (and they have as good a reason as anyone else because there is no good reason to have/not have an infobox other than the personal preference of a group of editors). The consistency argument for an infobox that is often made isn't based in policy or guideline, as articles are not required to be consistent with each other's formatting. However, most high quality/high profile articles do have an infobox, which naturally leads to new editor questions about why there isn't one (and new editors or visitors to this page are naturally dissatisfied with the answer that they eventually get: "some guys at the beginning decided that it looked bad and we haven't been able to get a consensus to change it so it just stays that way because it is the status quo"). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "some guys at the beginning decided". In the beginning, indeed, this article had no infobox, but then from 2006 to 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought it was a long term thing, though this just confirms my hypothesis that having an infobox is less disruptive than not having one (the repeated discussions in the archive and edit warring on the article don't start until Blofield unilaterally cuts the infobox, and it was stable for a long time previously). In any case, the situation is still the fact that the most recent discussion was closed as 'no consensus' (despite 70% of the !votes being in favour of an infobox of some kind, I might add). The most recent discussion close actually suggested opening another RfC at some point to discuss a collapsible infobox which I would agree might work as a reasonable compromise that might reduce the amount of disruption. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, as I find an infobox adds no value to this article. The information presented is readily available in the lead and anything more is too complex to condense into infobox parameters. The infobox creates a non-ideal visual presentation as well, and will be a magnet for those wishing to introduce unsourced parameters. I do find it curious when random IPs and new editors find their way into these discussions. I don't think suspicions of socking are that novel, since the topic of infoboxes (and editors' behavior around the same) has been discussed on external sites known for recruiting trolls to come disrupt our site. @Insertcleverphrasehere: I find your repeated requests for "policy or guideline" arguments to be weak. Have you considered that it might just be common courtesy to at least consider the editorial choices of the principal editors of a page, similar to what we do for citation style? There's a difference between what we're allowed to do and what we should do. --Laser brain (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the first person to bring up "policy or guideline" arguments, and I'm not "repeatedly requesting" them; I don't believe they exist one way or the other (which I thought I made quite clear in my comments above). Considering the editorial choices of the principal authors over others runs completely contrary to the concept that no one WP:OWNS the article and I wouldn't consider my editorial choices any more valid than anyone else's on an article I was the principal author on either. What is your opinion on a default-collapsed IB? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You've asked more than once for a policy or guidelines argument, so that is the definition of "repeated". I don't accept or buy the WP:OWN argument that's often presented against editors who have content-based arguments for keeping them out. So, instead of being pedantic, perhaps come up with some content-based arguments of your own. --Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• On another note, I'm not sure what point there is with the 'support' and 'oppose' !voting here, nothing in particular is being proposed (yet), I was under the understanding that this was a discussion, please don't try to turn it into an RfC. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• So, you're claiming that someone writing "Infobox, yes or no?" in the section heading isn't proposing anything? That's a bit disingenuous. My answer to the question/proposal is no. Oppose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the OPs original question is well and truly answered. Yes there are objections, no there is not consensus to add. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:40, 2 April 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.

Existing consensus hidden message (archive 7 vs archive 9)

There is a hidden message in the text of the article near where an infobox would be added that reads <!-- Per consensus at [[Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 7]], do not add an infobox to this article. -->.

I tried to change this to: <!-- Per the lack of consensus at [[Talk:Stanley_Kubrick/Archive_9#RfC:_Should_an_infobox_be_added_to_this_page?]], do not add an infobox to this article without consensus at the talk page. --> but was reverted by SchroCat with the message: "There was no change to the consensus established way back, and the votes mean nothing. The consensus still stands."

This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what WP:NOCONSENSUS means. The RfC contained at archive 9 clearly closed with a result of no consensus to change the current state of the article. This means that we stick with the status quo of no infobox, but this does not mean that the consensus reached back in archive 7 somehow still stands. Linking to that discussion and not the much more recent RfC is very misleading. We can say that there is no consensus to add an infobox, but we cannot say that there is an existing consensus for no infobox. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not ping me to this thread again. To clarify why I reverted: there has been no discussion that has overturned the stated consensus held in archive 7. All subsequent discussions have ended as no agreement to overturn that consensus. Consensus 7 still stands, despite any semantic acrobatics to try and twist it to something else. – SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I won't ping you, but discussions that end in 'no consensus' don't 'fail to overturn the previous consensus', they establish a new situation where there is no consensus (and then WP:NOCONSENSUS kicks in and advises us to stick with the status quo). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Insertcleverphrasehere. Your wording is a more accurate reflection of the current state of affairs and is what should be used.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text explicitly deprecates "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit, so we shouldn't be completely forbidding the edit. There is also the argument about whether a later discussion that ends in "no consensus" replaces the "consensus against" of an earlier debate. Could we compromise by softening the wording in that hidden comment and also avoiding the use of the word "consensus" in this particular case? I've just offered my idea for replacement wording. I won't replace it if anyone chooses to revert, but I do think it's more MOS-compliant and reduces some of the risk of meta-conflict over it. As an aside, I prefer a full url to a wiki-link in a hidden comment because my browser allows me to highlight it and go to the page via a right-click; I understand that not every browser has that functionality. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That damn infobox

I have this article on my watchlist for I-don't-know-the-reason, and every edit war so far seems to revolve around that damn infobox. Obviously consensus hasn't been reached. My opinion is: meh. Meh, leaning towards including an infobox, but still: meh. Since talk page isn't going to resolve this, how about going to DRN or that third-party-invitation noticeboard? byteflush _Talk 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

​ DRN has nothing to say. There is no policy reason to have or not have an infobox, as such it is editor preference and choice. Essentially it can only ever be decided by a head count, which will always leave a large contingent unhappy. DRN or third party will waste a bunch of time telling you the same thing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered taking it off your watchlist? I only ask as then you wouldn't need to think of a reason to keep it on there. Cassianto^Talk 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Good god this is still being debated? Rusted AutoParts 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure ArbCom are all aware and will be delivering DS alerts. Frankly, I think there's more of a chance that Elvis might deliver my milk in the morning. Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing is for sure: I never get tired of hearing about it every 30 days. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Ok, fine, I guess you're right. Didn't think of it that way. Nevermind then. byteflush _Talk 22:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Press-box BRD

Today i added a Wall Street Journal article on this talkpage. I disagree with the removal here [1]. IMO, this is press looking at what sometimes happens on WP, nothing wrong with including it. They get some stuff wrong, but that's par for the course. Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't. And I'd kindly ask you to use some common sense. I find it highly inappropriate and the headline of the WSJ very offensive. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly normal newspaper headline to me. It also seems common sense to me to add the article to this page and the other one [2] in a press-box. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason it seems "fairly normal" to you is because you've had nothing to do with this case and the headline is not about you. Frankly, I don't like any of these people, least of all the confounded troublemakers who start all these discussions. Not only is it describing me and others as wanting to kill each other, which I find highly offensive, but I refute the idea of the editor of the WSJ blowing smoke up the committee's backside while making out that those subject to this case are trouble makers. Cassianto^Talk 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue with the info box also ultimately has zero relevance to Kubrick himself. Rusted AutoParts 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make this about infoboxes as I won't be able to continue. Cassianto^Talk 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As RAP points out the WSJ article has nothing to do with Kubrick. It only uses previous discussions on this talk page as a pretext for writing about ARBCOM. Thus it does not belong in this article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I have zero interest anymore in the infobox/no infobox debate. Just saying, what editors on Wikipedia decide to do with his article has no impact on Kubricks life or career. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But like the template says, it mentions it. Oh well, consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct, to me it's an interesting article that reasonably fits on this talkpage. Perhaps this thread will give WSJ or Haaretz material for another article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s becoming more apparent this is just baiting for an argument. I’m out. Rusted AutoParts 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how I can prove to you that that is not my intent (it is not), so I won't try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

...by not posting on this subject again and leaving the talk page as is? Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

...It's a thought. We'll see what my common sense tells me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly keep your snark to yourself. Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's nice of you say "kindly". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Heck, I ain't subscribing to the Wall Street Journal, to read that story. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see the particular relevance of the piece; I mean, if it was about Kubrick, then knock yerselves out. But basically, it's about the ArbCo., and the Kubrick article is just a vehicle to get themselves there. Suggestion: Stick it on WT:ARBCOM perhaps. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 20:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll Proposition 2

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.

---

Returning to this page after some time, I'm seeing plenty of familiar users and a renewal of a discussion that has already been had many times over in this thread. It seems that exactly the same arguments have been made (by both sides of the argument) over and over. I will not summarize them here, as I do not wish to misrepresent any specific side on the issue, though I would highly recommend users refer to older threads to fully understand the arguments and context. My understanding is that the constant renewal of the discussion happens largely because of the abnormality of the lack of infobox.

That being said, I would like to recommend a second straw poll to help reveal some sort of consensus on this subject. Hentheden proposed this in the past, though arbitration on the matter effectively nullified the results of their poll. With this arbitration concluded, I would like to propose a new straw poll. I remind editors that this is not a substitute for discussion, but rather a way to gain a better understanding of consensus on the matter. I encourage other editors to continue the discussion and sign the straw poll with their opinion. SiliconRed (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:STRAWPOLL: polling is not a substitute for discussion

Should this page include an infobox?

Yes

1. SiliconRed (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

2. Hentheden (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No

1. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

2. Tkbrett (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous to start this up again, the last long discussion finished last month!Smeat75 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agrreed. Alex Shih closed the last "poll", Laser brain made some relevant points recently too. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 21:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think so, so be it. Though if there is anything I've learned in monitoring this page, it's that there never really has been consensus drawn decidedly one way or another. The page remains infobox-less because whenever one is added it is nearly instantly reverted, but there is no clear rule to dictate that. There must be a way to close this discussion decidedly one way or another so it doesn't open up again every month or so. SiliconRed (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain's point that the argument should be brought up for the sake of argument and entertainment doesn't convince me that this discussion should continue indefinitely. It's frustrating to see the lack of interest in securing closure on this issue. SiliconRed (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason this keeps coming up though is that random editors keep adding one to the page or talking about it on the talk page because this article (unlike most others in this topic) is missing one. The solution should be to compromise and add a simple, small and clean infobox, a compromise between not having one and having a huge one Hentheden (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Previous debate

1. The discussion on August-September 2015 at Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 7 #No Infobox attracted at least 20 editors commenting on whether to have an infobox or not. There were 12 firm oppositions to an infobox and 5 supports for one. Both sides brought forward multiple arguments, but the weight of opinion was clearly against having an infobox.
2. The discussions on December 2016 - January 2017 at Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 9 #Lack of infobox and Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 9 #RfC: Should an infobox be added to this page? produced at least 38 editors commentating at length. Of those 20 unconditionally supported an infobox, 11 opposed an infobox, and 7 supported an infobox if it were collapsed. The discussion was wide-ranging and robust, including a threaded discussion section. The RfC was closed as "no consensus".
3. In December 2017 - January 2018 there was extensive, but rambling and eventually inconclusive, discussion in Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 10 #Came here for info, not getting it, followed by another request in January 2018, and by a straw poll in March 2018. Both of the latter were cut short, possibly because of burn-out over the Arbitration case, which was open for almost two months (Feb-Mar)

I suggest that we should give the issue a rest for a while. You all know my views on having an infobox, but I also have sympathy with the regular editors of the article who must be exhausted by now. If the arguments for having an infobox are strong, they will be just as strong in a few months. There's no deadline and folks could use the time to re-read the previous debates and try to understand the other side's views. I'll also suggest that editors may wish to peruse (and maybe even contribute to) an unfinished essay I've been working on at User:RexxS/Infobox factors. I hope it proves useful. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RexxS's summary of the historial debate seems accurate. Consensus can change. But I'd ask, as a gesture of good faith toward people's sanity if nothing else, that we give this a rest for at least 90 days. Nothing is going to burn down if this article doesn't have an infobox (and I acknowledge that nothing is going to burn down if it does) and I feel like there is an incredible amount of negative energy around it right now. @SiliconRed: I don't know what you're talking about above when you mentioned my name. I made some comments to ArbCom that those parties who are against an infobox here are mentally exhausted by the non-stop proposals. Can we take a break and have a well-formed RFC later that doesn't degenerate into a "rambling and eventually inconclusive discussion"? --Laser brain (talk) 01:37, 9 May 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.

Planning a page restriction

I'm considering placing a page restriction here concerning infoboxes and discussion about them. I'm not sure whether page restrictions per the infobox discretionary sanctions have been done before — those ds are pretty new altogether — so I've asked for input at WP:AE, where you can read about my proposed restriction and also comment. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC).

Support. Good idea, thank you Bishonen for trying to help.Smeat75 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support We might as well use it. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support, if the gods allow me to do so, that is. By far the most productive thing any administrator has done in this whole dispute. Puts ArbCom to shame. Cassianto^Talk 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. Seems to be a solid solution to cease these continuous discussions and arguments. Thank you Bishonen. SiliconRed (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support – GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. I don't understand the desperation to add an infobox, nor the desperation to keep one off the page. Probably for the best to let people cool down. Tkbrett 16:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - Obviously, and about time. Thanks Bishonen. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - While I would generally support stopping 'strawpolls' and such, the last RfC suggested a future RfC concerning a collapsible infobox, and that still has yet to happen. Yes to a moratorium on smaller discussions, no to stopping a full RfC that was suggested in the last one. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to those above, this isn't something that's put up for a vote. Discretionary sanctions are placed by uninvolved admins at their.. well.. discretion. If you have a reasoned argument for why the ArbCom remedies for infoboxes don't apply here, you should comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Laser brain (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly something in aware of at least; indicating a particular course of action had a degree of consensus (or otherwise) is very much in line with WP:NOTVOTE. I agree that those !voting "Oppose" are wholly wasting their time though-telling an admin you disagree with their prospective course of action when it clearly has a groundswell of support is the Wikipedia equivalent of pishing into a strong wind. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Support If I were the principal author of a page, I'd stick an infobox on it if there an appropriate one for the subject. Yet knowing the context surrounding the adding and removal of infoboxes here, I can only see such activity as purely disruptive, in a sense merely trying to stir another argument, or trying to get certain so-and-sos blocked, as they cannot speak about infoboxes. talk to !dave 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing inline citations

The last two paragraphs of the "Hollywood success (1956–1961)" end with endnotes, but no inline citations. I assume this is an oversight that whoever contributed these bits can fix easily.

Also, the article's missing an infobox. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The citations are in the footnotes, which is an acceptable place for them to be. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I wonder if, somewhere, there is a parallel universe in which your comment won't be seen as plain old trolling :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox restrictions enabled, see top of page

Encouraged by the positive discussion here, and also here on WP:AE, I've put this page under discretionary sanctions with regard to infoboxes, please see the new template at the top of the page. The restriction is mandatory, not optional, so I hope to see everybody abide by it. After four months have passed, we will hopefully be ready to start talking about infoboxes again. Or not. Meanwhile, if people break the restriction it's most likely because they haven't seen it — it's shouty enough, but there's a lot of stuff at the top of the page, some of it more interesting, some less. So please, everybody, don't drag those that miss the restriction template immediately to WP:AE, but tell them politely about it and ask them to self-revert. For stubborn cases, WP:AE is in fact the right venue, or drop me a line if I'm around. If anybody disapproves strongly of the restriction, WP:AE is also the place where it can be appealed. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC).