Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Steadicam photo

The photo showing Kubrick and Brown at work with the steadicam, File:Steadicam-sm.jpg, was removed by User:Werieth as not having any supporting critical commentary. However, there are about seventeen mentions to the steadicam, with entire paragraphs discussing it and its significance to Kubrick's films. I'm assuming that the image was removed in error without the editor having taken the time to find or read the supporting text. --Light show (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You could mention the steadycam 1000 times and it wouldn't be critical commentary. We dont need a non-free image of Kubrick and the inventor to know the two worked together at some point. There is nothing in the image itself that text alone cannot replace, and it serves little more than eye candy. Werieth (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It also shows Brown working with the Steadicam itself. Its use is discussed in the article and it is a rare image that benefits readers. It should be restored. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The usage of that file is useful, however our requirement for usage of non-free media is far more strict than that. Werieth (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2013

Please add David Barckhoff - Director to the section of "Film Director's influenced by Kubrick". "I owe my directing and acting style to Stanley Kubrick. I try to incorporate his style of directing movies and his unique way of relating to actors on set during numerous film takes just as he did". Reference quote as told to book author Jill Vanderwood for her book on "Hollywood celebrities and how they overcame the fear of public speaking". Book is being published end of Sept. 2013. quote also on my internet movie database biography.

NAVYMEDIC610 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide book info with publisher, page numbers, quotes, etc. after the book is released. Any links would also be helpful. --Light show (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: directors mentioned in that section are "leading directors" and pretty much all of them are household names. Barckhoff's only directorial credits on IMDb are two episodes of a TV minseries, for which he served as "second assistant director: second unit". He has no Wikipedia article and it's doubtful that one would even meet the notability criteria. --Stfg (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Plus, end Sept 2013 has passed, and no book by Jill Vanderwood with a title like that is listed on Google Books. --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2013

Typo: Under the sub-heading "writing and staging scenes" in the last sentence. "cinematograpy" should be "cinematography".

Hudsonmd (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Light show (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Kubrick/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

At 99715 characters of readable prose, this seems to be overly detailed, but I will take a look at this and see what advice I can give. I will take a look at policies and guidelines such as WP:SIZE, WP:SS, WP:CFORK. Of the 16717 WP:GAs as of February 1, 2013 only 5 were this long and less than 1% (164 to be exact) were longer than 61 KB of readable prose according to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. I am very likely to pursue scaling this back to a size that is not in the top 1%. However, I will take a closer look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• • As of April 19, 2014, there were 19873 GAs and only 8 of them were this long. Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) are longer than 60KB. Thus, if you wish to proceed with this GA keep in mind that I will hope to do for this what I did for Clint Eastwood, which was guide it from well over 90KB to around 60KB.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• P.S. to the best of my recollection, the longest WP:GAs I have passed are Chevrolet Volt (currently 85535 characters of readable prose, but 57858 when I passed it), Clint Eastwood (70000/60703) and Missouri River (64685/54953). BTW Eastwood was 93327 when the review began.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• By my count the article has 10 {{citation needed}} templates. That is about 1 per 10KB prose, which is very close to quickfail standards for me. However, due to the importance of the topic, I will not QF the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• One of the first things that I notice is that the Career section is 41336 characters of readable prose. However 14 or 15 of the 18 subsections should all lead with {{main}} tags. I think we should examine the content in this section since anything here should also be included in a dedicated article. Since I want to cut about 40% overall, we should cut this section heavily and probably an above average amount because not all sections will have logical places to send forked content. I understand that since you are use to seeing so much here it may seem odd to do, but let's try to reduce this section by over 50% to under 20KB. It is very easy to do this without WP losing any content because every film has its own article where the removed content can be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM - even in the lead. No need for so much copyrighted material as most can be re-written to summarised the copy and pasted quotes. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. -- Moxy (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I am FAILing this. The nominator have been quite active in recent days but has shown not interest in teding to any of these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick; Part One: Kubrick and Apollo

Dear Stanley Kubrick wiki editors,

Have any of you seen the above mentioned documentary? It may be of interest to his article, if anyone cares to view it and contribute:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1992167/

MerlynDanielMali (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings.

I have watched at least part of it. IMO, Weidner is a few cards short of a deck. Just my opinion, but I think it is widely shared. It is one of those home-made youtube style movies that manages to be both wacky and not very interesting all at the same time. I think there is a brief mention of Kubrick conspiracy theories on this page, but I don't think it deserves undue weight here. There is more discussion of it on the moon landing hoax page as well as at

Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film): Hoaxes and conspiracy theory

Puddytang (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In the popular media, any producer who can somehow get the word "Secret" into the title, gets their film moved (pushed) up the ladder. Print media, especially tabloids, thrive on uncovering so-called "secrets," even trivial ones. Some producers, assuming that maybe the word "secret" isn't enough to promote their film to us average folk, will embellish the title, and throw in "hidden secrets," (as opposed to unhidden secrets?) In any case, it doesn't matter what wiki editors think, since their opinions are not usable. Only published reliably sourced neutral commentary could be added. --Light show (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotefarm

With around 60 quotations here, the article is creaking and looks like it was written by a 12-year-old who has just learned ctrl-C, ctrl-V. We are definitely in WP:QUOTEFARM territory. I have not looked at just how it got so bad (it wasn't always like this) but does anybody fancy helping to trim it back to something like an encyclopedia article? --John (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

While I think it's good to tighten many of the quotes into paraphrases, my only concern so far is that dequoting for sake of dequoting only, without considering color, variety, prose and authenticity, could ultimately bleach the article into dry choppy sentencing. Taking one paragraph as an example which, IMHO, has some of those problems:

Before

• A friend of Kubrick's family notes that although his father was a prominent doctor, "Stanley and his mom were such regular people.
• They had no airs about them."
• As a boy, he was considered "bookish" and generally uninterested in activities in his Bronx neighborhood.
• According to a friend, "When we were teenagers hanging around the Bronx, he was just another bright, neurotic, talented guy—just another guy trying to get into a game with my softball club and mess around with girls."
• Many of his friends from his "close-knit neighborhood" would become involved with his early films, including writing music scores and scripts.

Revised

• A friend of Kubrick's family notes that although his father was a prominent doctor, Stanley and his mother were unpretentious.
• As a boy, he was considered "bookish" and generally uninterested in activities in his Bronx neighborhood.
• According to a friend, Kubrick was one of a group of talented people as a teenager.
• Many of his friends from his "close-knit neighborhood" became involved with his early films, including writing music scores and scripts.

--Light show (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"color, variety, prose and authenticity" - we're an encyclopedia, the aspects of "color" and "variety" should only be there to keep the writing engaging, but not to try to put Kubrick on a pedestal, where it would be more appropriate for a biographical book. Quotes should only be used where paraphrasing is not possible to summarize the thoughts provided. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As Masem says, we are an encyclopedia. We should not use quotes unless absolutely necessary. --John (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to go by suggested guidelines for using quotations:

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called 'quotes'—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. . . . Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit.

Naturally, we're all for improving articles. But at least support dequoting with relevant guidelines. Using a thesaurus is kid stuff, unless it improves readability consciously. And there's no guideline that supports your rule: We should not use quotes unless absolutely necessary.

In any case, what any of this has to do with "putting Kubrick on a pedestal," or why a WP bio can't have some of the same aspects of biographical books, is another issue, should you want to discuss them. --Light show (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Read all the way down that page, or click on this link. --John (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously kidding, since none of the quotes used would remotely be plagiarism by any definition. One thing that's very clear from many of your dequotes, and the reason some of the paragraphs are now becoming choppy is that you're removing important transition words connecting one thought with a previous one. I'll add necessary ones back and assume you'll understand why when reading the context. --Light show (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue with using too many quotes when what can be said can be summarized in simpler or paraphrased language is that it immediately gives the intent of favoritism for the person. We can talk about how important Kubrick's work in films was with a bit more dispassionate approaches; we want to be impartial in saying how important he was. Take for example the last current quote I see on the page, which is about director Refn talking about comparisons to Kubrick's work. The quote is "Of course if you put violence with classical music, people think it's obvious that's Clockwork Orange, because Kubrick used it very well and you always look at it as a reference. There are similarities between my Bronson and the Alex character from Clockwork Orange. There is kind of anti-authoritarian popculture iconish quality, but I stole every single thing from Kenneth Anger. Bronson is a mixture of [Anger's] Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome (1954) and Scorpio Rising (1964)." That can be stated, same reference, but w/o the quote, as "Refn commented that his character of Bronson was often compared to Alex from a Clockwork Orange due to similarities in style, but asserted that the character was really taken from Kenneth Anger's works..." There's quotes where the quotes are simply not needed. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure when or who added that one, but it's way too long and convoluted and clearly worth trimming. --Light show (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

How Kubrick phrased his thoughts is of much more interest and value to me than the paraphrasing of someone else trying to re-word them just for the sake of avoiding using quotes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

it does depend; there definitely are cases where Kubrick's own language is important; but we don't need full blockquotes for mundane recollections. Take, for example, this quote under Directing: "When Peter was called to the set he would usually arrive walking very slowly and staring morosely ... As work progressed, he would begin to respond to something or other in the scene, his mood would visibly brighten and we would begin to have fun. ... [At times] Peter reached ... a state of comic ecstasy.[102]:135" The better way is simply to say "Kubrick noted that Peter would start days of filming in a lethargic manner, but as days progressed he would brighten up and at times achieve "a state of comic escstasy"." Still quote but not quotefarming the article. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another good "bad example" that was just readded [1] - "Spartacus is the only film on which I did not have absolute control," he later said. absolutely does not need the quote. Kubrick stated that Spartacus was the only film he did not have absolute control over. does exactly the same job. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your earlier example promoting "in a lethargic manner" is your words. I would much rather see how Kubrick actually described the situation. And in several instances I get more from reading between the words, but I need the words to do that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but still, you can even inject a partial quote from the above, instead of the full one. in that specific example, the "state of comic ecstasy" is extremely valuable as quote material for Kubrick in describing Sellers' acting, it's just getting the framing for it. The whole quote is not needed. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That example is reasonable if there was some benefit to a third-person statement vs. a first-person one. Almost the same number of words, but hearing Kubrick speak is better, IMO. A string of bone-dry declarative statements is never as good as hearing people in their own words, within reason. --Light show (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He's stating a fact, not opining about something. There is zero need to use a quote for something like that. And yes, we are supposed to write more bone dry than this currently is. We can still make that type of text engaging. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry guys but it isn't tenable to have 60 quotes in an article. It isn't what we do. You are welcome to set up your own quote collection or contribute to Wikiquote, but here we try to summarise. --John (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That is rather condescending. The quotes have a purpose in context. The three quotes I restored were justified. I gave good reasons for them which you ignored. Instead of following WP:BRD you just reverted them back with your banal and in at least one case off-the-mark summaries, like calling one "surprise" when that quite missed the point. Your text is not engaging and in some cases badly written.

How can you replace

Today, many film critics and moviemakers regard it "as the most significant Hollywood breakthrough since Citizen Kane (1941), with some, such as Spielberg, calling it his generation's "big bang"

with

Today, many film critics and moviemakers regard it as the most significant Hollywood film of its generation, with some, such as Spielberg, calling it his generation's "big bang".

Why take out Citizen Kane? Did you even notice you're now repeating generation twice in the same sentence? You come rolling in here to enforce your view of how to correct WP articles, and you put in that kind of sloppiness. The quote you took out was not talking about a generation, but was using one frequently cited historically important film often used in film scholarship as a marker. But you lost that meaning.

You also restored one co-writer to the filmography I had taken out in a separate edit, even though as I said Kubrick had co-writers on nine of his films. Why name only this one here? The fact you put that back with no comment indicates you are using rollback with no discrimination.

As Light show said -

I prefer to go by suggested guidelines for using quotations:

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called 'quotes'—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. . . . Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit.

You are going against WP:BRD. The three quotes I restored should have been left in absent discussion. You do not have consensus for this, as only one other editor agreed with dequoting in this thread, saying we are supposed to write more bone dry than this currently is. We can still make that type of text engaging.. Even if I agreed with that, you did not meet the second point there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no limit to quotes and I don't think anyone is saying "You can only have X quotations in this", but there are quotes being used for zero reason when they are simply iterating a fact or straight-forward opinion that can be easily restated in plaintext. There's certainly quotes or parts of quotes that should be kept, no doubt, when we have Kubrick's own thoughts or other people opining on Kubrick in non-standard but eloquent phrases that we can't restart without WP:NOR re-interpretation, just that there's a good number that can be restarted with ease. Consider the quotes a sugar topping on a dessert - in moderation it makes the article so much better, but too much and you'll get sick of it fast. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He does name a quote limit. My thing is they should be better chosen and summaries better written, if necessary. And as I said, the three quotes I restored should have been left in absent discussion. Citizen Kane should be restored as well. - Gothicfilm (talk)

Not really, he said , effectively "the 60 used in this article are overkill". I agree that CK should be put back but that doesn't needed to be quoted since it's a straightforward statement of opinion. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote farm

Why are there so many overly-long and pointless quotes in here? A few well-chosen ones are all well and good, but we seem to have ones better selected to the respective film articles, rather than a biography. WW has gine to revert mode, rather than try and see other people's point of view, so I invite all comers to express their opinions of the excessive use use of overly-long quotes throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

During the editing of the article a few years ago, a number of editors, including myself, added quotes. There was discussion about some of the quotes and many were deleted or trimmed. The consensus was established that the balance of current quotes to the article is fine as all are directly relevant to the sections and context. For instance, User:Gothicfilm noted, "How Kubrick phrased his thoughts is of much more interest and value to me than the paraphrasing of someone else trying to re-word them just for the sake of avoiding using quotes." For User:WickerGuy, the article's major editor, the key question was "are the quotes appropriately contextualized and well integrated into the rest of the article?" -- Light show (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"How Kubrick phrased his thoughts is of much more interest and value to me than the paraphrasing of someone else trying to re-word them just for the sake of avoiding using quotes" would be fine if this was a biographical book on Kubrick but we're a encyclopedia and meant to be a lot more sterile on purpose. I've pointed how before many of the quotes are extraneous to capture the fact they are saying. Only if the wording cannot be easily paraphrased should the quote be used. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What a standard to shoot for. Let's be a lot more sterile on purpose. That kind of thinking is why I left this article, after putting in a fair amount of time on it off and on several months ago. There are many articles that include quotes that could have been paraphrased - and I've seen some that I thought were unnecessary. But the three quotes I tried to restore here last May were of value, as can be seen in the discussion well above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's how we write all of WP, per WP:NPOV. Excessive quoting is a sign of bias, at least where quotes are phrases where the factual information can be extracted easily. No one is saying all quotes need to go, but there's clearly quotes being used for no reason beyond it's Kubrick's own words but without any special language that paraphrasing can't capture. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Since that kind of opinion must be objective, I'd like to bring this up at the Quotations talk page. Do you prefer I quote you or can I paraphrase this and your previous opinions? --Light show (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if you quote or paraphrase, but I'm speaking from WP's very objective stance - there's a certain style of language we use in writing WP to appeal to the largest user base, which in this case we take as "people that have never heard of Kubrick before but must learn about him". Quotes can be helpful to capture Kubrick's thoughts and what others thought about him in ways that we cannot paraphrase, but there are also cases where using a quote for something otherwise mundane that can be easily paraphrased without losing content or meaning is a problem. But there are points where you don't need the full 30-40 word quote to bring out a couple words that are unique: for example, the sentence: Taub had his own darkroom where he and the young Kubrick would spend many hours perusing over photographs and watching the chemicals "magically make images on photographic paper" is a good use of a partial quote that helps to understand why Kubrick got into film, but doesn't bog down the language with a full quote. That type of trimming is good and a benefit. On the other hand, with He adds, "The scenes look like European paintings of the 1700s and 1800s", and such paintings are considered art in the American popular mind. the quote is completely pointless as it can be summarized w/o losing meaning. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, such a detailed critic's opinion that scenes looked like "1700s and 1800s" European paintings, could easily get tagged with "cite needed" notice. As long as the quote is in context, it's more accurate and honest to use a direct quote rather than some unknown editor's commentary. --Light show (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the citation that follows the quote includes that quote, that citation can stay without the quote. That's still 100% verified information there. And no, in this specific case, the quote is using no "flowery" language that we can misrepresent - "1700s and 1800s European paintings" is just that, no ifs, ands, or buts. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to go by suggested guidelines for using quotations, which says nothing about a preference for sterility or dryness:

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called 'quotes'—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. . . . Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit. --Light show (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

QUOTEFARM is part of the same essay, so there's clearly a need to balance. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with John's comment of "written by a 12-year-old": it's not good practice to stuff an article to bursting point with so many quotes. It's just a lazy way to fill a page, rather than taking the time to think it through and paraphrase appropriately. – SchroCat (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Condensing

I have 4 or 5 books on Kubrick which I got through the grant and will be steadily going through each one and adding content either to this or his films. The problem is that this is already 185kb and although quite good in part is rather too long and not quite as focused as it should be. I feel that we need sister articles examining the various aspects of his work in detail and to begin condensing this main article. I think the first priority for this is to split into separate articles and begin condensing down. Nobody needs a personal life section that long for instance.I might be adding a fair bit of material which at some point can be reworked and split into different articles. It's very tough to write a fully comprehensive well written article on somebody as complex as Kubrick. This article should essentially though be a biography and a neat summary loosely outlining his major themes with sub articles covering them in detail. We'll see how it progresses anyway but I hope nobody gets offended by me doing what really needs to be done on this. I'll try to retain all material at least partly here and in sub articles. A raw effort is needed I think. so if I cock up sourcing or whatever please assist me during the transition! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember - each of his films are clearly notable. Detailed discussion of his directing style specific to each film (not the broad overview, that's needed on its own) and each film's history should be left to the film's page, summarizing each with about 2 para-worth of content to place the film in context. For example, reading the Dr. Strangelove section, that's excessive on detail that is not specifically aimed at describing Kubrick, the person (for example, why do we need to know about the War Room set on Kubrick's page?). Of course, we are treating the movie timeline as his personal timeline as well, so details that reflect changes or happenings in his personal life should be brought up here, such as his moving to England for filming Lolita. The issue with excessive blockquoting is also leading to size issues here too, another reason to trim down and make sure this is focused on the biographical aspects and not so much about individual films. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And to note: in terms of what counts towards SIZE (prose only, no refs, tables, captions, etc.), this is at 125kb. It's large, as 100 kb is the recommended max, but I would avoid trying to split just it's there. I think if you fixed up the movie section to be more on the bio side as a starting point, that's going to help make it come to reasonable size.

User:Dr. Blofeld, this sounds like an excellent plan. Moving material that is not specifically biographical to other articles should improve them, as well as improving the focus of this article. What is "the grant" that you refer to at the beginning of your message? Reify-tech (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest guys. The grant I got through WMUK here. To date I've done Althorp which is now at GAN from barely more than a stub. I have five books on Kubrick. I've begun going through the complete films book first. I've already added a fair bit to earlier life from it and some to his themes. Beautiful book, highly recommended for any Kubrick buff like myself. Yes, Kubrick was one of those rare directors who focused on quality rather than quantity and has few enough in which I think covering each one by section is appropriate. Every film of his for me was a masterpiece, even his first one, even if amateurish. However, I think we really need to be well researched and really concise in the coverage of each one and only stick to the most important points. As you say we don't want to really be over 100kb of prose at the end and we want to avoid unnecessary detail like in Dr Strangelove section and keep it focused. This is going to take some time but gradually I'll be adding material to this and his film articles. It might grow very big before we can cut it down again to ensure it is really comprehensive and well-written. Over time though I think we can much improve this and at least get it to GA. For me it's near enough to being the crown jewels of cinema, so let's do a good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And yet another idea - even after condensing if the article is still far too large, then I would suggest: Directing style of Stanley Kubrick as the possible split article, since that itself is probably a notable topic on its own in addition to the life of Kubrick. I would try to avoid this if you can, and I think you can, but this to me would the most acceptable, non-controversial split. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Themes of Stanley Kubrick etc. As I say now I've split the MASSIVE personal life section and the other and condensed down into something reasonable I do't think we need to worry too much about the size for the time being, although going through and condensing some of the info on his films and improving the flow of the directing section by removing or paraphrasing some quotes in part is recommended. I might do that tomorrow. The main focus now I think is quality of information and I think I can start working towards that from the books I have. Let's not split into Cinematic style of Stanley Kubrick etc yet anyway until it's really developed and we can then split and condense. I'm hoping to replace a lot of the existing sources we have and update it as we go along. Way too many quotes in the style section too, we need to be more selective and try to improve focus and flow. Some may be more important than others but some I think can be paraphrased or removed. Obviously we don't want to lose anything valuable though. I have a fair few quotes from my books which I'll be adding which I think are of better quality than some of the existing ones, so some might be replaced. I'm sure gradually it'll sort itself out as it is improved and not end up too much like a quote farm! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is long and can be improved. However, some of the rationales for condensing it, beyond the word count, seem incorrect and somewhat worrisome. Worrisome, because the only other time an editor mentioned their having books on hand as a reason for wanting to edit an article, see Peter Sellers Talk, it devolved into a battleground: ( I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it.) Since Kubrick and Peter Sellers worked together on a few films, it's worth comparing the two articles, IMO.

Regarding size, Sellers' is about a third shorter, but according to those who reviewed the final article, it became ”incomprehensible”. And pointing out such problems was no easy task. But size, IMO, is not as important by far as an article's organization and readability. Taking Masem's reference to Dr. Strangelove, for example, which Sellers starred in, a comparison between the Sellers' article commentary with Kubrick's, some might understand my opinion.

Size was also used as a rationale in Sellers for deleting his infobox, without discussion, which opened up a new front in the ongoing battle. In any case, comparing the TOC of Kubrick with Sellers, it shows a dramatic difference. Where Kubrick's article is a biography, only a portion of Sellers' is, with technique and his legacy not part of it. Where Kubrick has separate "Personal life" section, with easy-to-find details about his marriages, family, and residence, Sellers' has none, which makes finding similar information difficult.

Another major difference is that for Kubrick's article, the sections devoted to his films focus primarily on Kubrick, including his motives, opinions, problems, philosophy, etc. about that particular film. Reading Seller's section for that film, finding such personal details is extremely difficult. As the article was being rewritten by some other editors, I pointed out what appeared to be a hodge-podge of often disconnected dry factoids which undermined readability and explained little about Sellers' thinking or his personal desires as an actor. Even the few personal opinions Sellers did give about his career, were moved to a nearly-hidden notes section without explanation.

I think it would be best to first discuss major edits, certainly splits, before making them. However, in all honesty, after my experience on Sellers, despite it's GA/FA designation, I fear the worst. Sorry guys. --Light show (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very sad don't you think? This has very little to do with Peter Sellers. And SchroCat or Cassinanto aren't going to be editing this one anyway, at least not actively. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think trying to compare Sellers to Kubrick, from the standpoint of an encyclopedic article, is apples to oranges, specifically that trying to summarize the life work of an actor from that of a director. They receive different focuses in the literature, and thus the approach to how they are built will be different. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kubrick's TOC structure would work for many actors, the one difference might be instead of "Directing techniques," for instance, it could be "Acting techniques," or "artistry," if that's known. Directors and actors all work on the same things, films, except from different sides of the camera. --Light show (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, first it will depend on director. For example, I doubt Michael Bay will have anything comparable to the amount of detail that Kubrick has had. But that said, directing a film is a much more extensive and broad job than just acting (this is not to trivialize the importance of actors to the result, though). There is a lot more study on how the world's best directors approach their films, compared to how the world's best actors approach their roles. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that you are likely to add many footnotes referring to the same set of reference books, I suggest that you consider using Template:RP to add page references. In its basic form, it extremely easy to add to a footnote. See also the articles on Arnold Orville Beckman and Frank Oppenheimer for examples of how it is used. Reify-tech (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer sfn myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Progress on this will be slow over the next few weeks unless the weather suddenly turns miserable. It's very difficult editing a major article like this during this hot weather with a 28 inch monitor which gets hot as well! I prefer to work on an article like this on a cold rainy day when I can wear a nice cosy jumper and feel more comfortable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

By another very strange coincidence, and referring again to the Peter Sellers article, with its discussions, a problem I already see here is potentially overloading it with trivia. The first problem a recent peer review noted was the article's size along with being "overly detailed." Therefore, reading some new edits, most of these details are also trivia, ie. On 19 July 1949 he photographed movie star Montgomery Clift eating his cereal . . . . If the article is already potentially maxed out in size, such trivia is of little help and may do the article great harm.

On Sellers' FA review, I wasn't joking when I said, It's ready to keel over with the dead weight of factoidal obesity [and] in its present state it resembles a beached whale, done in by trivia blubber. I assume that was one of reasons that readers who rated the article felt it was "incomprehensible." IMO, there is no simpler way to undermine the readability of a bio than by flooding it with useless trivia, and the fact that Sellers was a FA has not changed that opinion. --Light show (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. Being assigned to photograph a big movie star like Monty Clift was a major progression in his career. All of the Kubrick books discuss the "Glamor Boy in Baggy Pants" photos in fair detail and wouldn't write about it if it was trivial. Can't you just keep your opinions to yourself and forget your petty vendetta over the Sellers out of this until it is written and condensed??♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, this article doesn't explain what's necessary about that. It reads as trivia "Oh, he took a photo of a famous person eating cereal". If there is importance to that, you need to give it context - was the photo something that helped his career due to the interesting subject? If this was just some event and you can't say more about it, then it does read as trivia.

A part of the problem with this article remains that there is signifiant weight given to talking about each of the films with production details that should be on the film pages, and not here. Not that we dont talk about his films, but should be in very broad terms on Kubrick's role as a director in the spotlight, and not the little details about production that would be better suited for the film page. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea is to write it in detail and then condense down at a later date. The very best articles are usually very comprehensive and have been cut down from something larger. The material I'm writing can be used in the films or sister articles of this and can be condensed down to the most important points once written. If you have experience as a writer you should know this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly yes, no question, but we're also talking about a live version that anyone can read. Perhaps it might be better for doing the type of "mass expansion then trimming) that you are talking about in userspace, even dropping a link to that page here so others interested can help, but once cleaned up, to move back into mainspace (and there are plenty of admins that would be glad to help with the necessary history merge). It's when the changes are left "live" for a long time that can be a problem. If you were planning on an intense one-two day period of editing and trimming, that's reasonably but this appears to be process that might take several months (I'm discounting the weather problems that have limited your editing). --MASEM (t) 21:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For this to be the best possible article I'll need to go through each book I have and extract information and once done it can be filed down to the most important points and some content moved into film articles or whatever. But it's going to take time and the article will likely get pretty huge during the process and some info will be added which might be better in the film article no his biography. But either way I still need to get the material onto here and find the best way to use the resources that I have. If this doesn't get too many changes, perhaps I should work on it in my sandbox. I'd like to overhaul a lot of the bloated sources and quote farms for a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, you are clearly overloading article sections with trivia along with quotes. The goal is to remove trivia and needless quotes. Now that Schrocat is joining your team, the problems noted with the Sellers article are now even more relevant. Rather than flood the sections with trivia that needs to be trimmed out, how about adding your section edits to Talk:Stanley Kubrick/sandbox2, first. The idea of first adding minutia and then deciding what should be kept in, will not work, so kindly do your drafts in the sandbox. --Light show (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Drop the bad faith Lightshow. I certainly don't intend to work on any article you are connected with, as I don't want a repeat of the stupidity of 1,001 RfCs just because you don't like something that improves the article. My passing edits here were just to remove a couple of pointlessly long and out-of-place quotations that should never have been there in the first place. As to where edits are made, it is not up to you to tell other editors where they should be editing. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not clearly overloading sections with trivia. The article needs to be researched and written first before you can condense it. Clearly you know bugger all about writing articles, otherwise you'd know that you generally write them first and then condense and copyedit, filing it down. The best you've ever managed is C class. That the Peter Sellers article reached featured article status and was supported by a wealth of top editors here and was approved by the delegates illustrates in itself you are clueless about biographical content and what is required. The strength of wikipedia has always been that we're NOT PAPER and more detailed and comprehensive articles than you might see in Britannica or a typical encyclopedia is encouraged on here. I am aware that some of the details I've added will need to be moved to the film articles and filed down later when it is fully condensed and copyedited but in order to write the best possible article you really need to do this and then file away at the material. I need to get the material onto here first and then decide how to disperse it. One man's trivia is another man's vital information, and I'd thought actually that I'd already improved on a lot of vital information on his earlier life in what I've done so far and that the earlier life is now the strongest part of the article. That you are complaining even at this very early stage says a lot about your mentality and lack of experience with decent article writing not to mention a disgusting lack of good faith that somebody is bothering to improve such an important article. Keep your Sellers vendetta out of this. I shan't be editing the mainspace article to avoid having you leaving snarky comments on everything that is added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, while the strategy of "include as much as possible and then pare down" is a correct approach to writing a good summary article for an encyclopedia, having done it myself, I do think that if you are adding these details on the "live" version of the article, you need to be a bit more selective to start, in contrast to if you were doing this in a sandbox article (or you need to be doing such revisions and trimming over a relatively short period - a few hours or a day or so - so that the article isn't out of shape for very long). I am not making comments on the quality of what is being added, kept, or removed, just that the way WP works, you shouldn't data-dump information into an article with good intentions to come back at a later time to clean that up, you just need to be more selective to a degree to start , or do some of those edits outside of mainspace. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've noted obvious problems with your initial edits in Talk:Stanley Kubrick/sandbox2. More to come. --Light show (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If Blofeld's doing in the sandbox, let him the time and patience to do his editors. Those edits aren't going to hurt this article. I will presume when the sandbox is ready, Blofeld will ask for comments, and then reviewing the changes makes sense, but arguably until then, it's far too early. (I will note that when the sandbox is ready to be moved back in I can help do the history merge appropriately). --MASEM (t) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the sandbox, looking at just his few edits, they have already done damage to the article. Added to what I consider the "demolition" of Sellers' article, the similarity between Blofeld's editing style to this article with Schrocat's to Sellers, is beyond coincidence. Can someone state categorically that it is only a coincidence? --Light show (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes and you know why? Because they're both the work of quality writers who know how to write biographies. That's why they're similar, aside from the fact I made some sizable editions to the Sellers article myself. You don't seem to understand comprehension in writing articles on wikipedia and why certain content in necessary. You're bloody clueless how to write biographies as evidenced by your mass of haphazardly constructed quote farms which disrupt the flow and concision so you're not worth the light of day in listening to with your "concerns". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so obnoxious to others, WikiWatcher. "Demolition", my arse: you really do have no idea how to develop and grow an article. Your efforts in development are poor, from what I've seen, and you have absolutely no idea what a decent article actually is: your constant mewling and puking about the Sellers article is utterly laughable, when it stands there as an FA, agreed upon by the community to be one of the best articles written, and all you can do is moan and complain. If you ever manage to do anything decent in terms of article development, peopl may start taking you seriously, but your ongoing sniping, whining and carping about improvements over "your" articles show just how low your standards actually are. Which brings me to... - SchroCat (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Since 95% of all of your many talk replies here and elsewhere, when I've noted issues, have been filled with PAs and uncivil remarks, your comment is typical. Let me know if you need examples and how many. --Light show (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You want me to give evidence of your ongoing and misplaced knee-zero bitchiness about the Sellers article? How you consider this to be better than the current version? Your incivility about the work of others leaves a huge amount to be desired: your obsession with the Sellers article is typical, unwarranted and unwelcome. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There's zero reason to be considered with an in-progress, sandbox draft of an article as we are not expecting readers to see it. Zero damage. You're assuming very bad faith on the parts of Blofeld and Schrocat here. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I was only referring to the edits already made, not future ones, and clarified in Talk:Stanley Kubrick/sandbox2. --Light show (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL @ Talk:Stanley Kubrick/sandbox2. The major problems with the article are mostly your doing not mine. It is actually amusing to think that you're the one criticising me for excessive trivia when it is you who mostly wrote an article, a third of which are unnecessary quotes! A whopping 163kb quote farm. I wouldn't even know where to begin with writing down what is wrong with this article. What part about writing for comprehension and then cutting at a later point don't you get? That you've begun a detailed critique even at this every early stage ieven before I've done the full research and cutting illustrates you have nothing but bad intentions towards this. You ought to be banned indefinitely for your long track record of trolling here. I'm ignoring you from now on, you're a pathetic incompetent little boy who has nothing better to do than troll wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld 08:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Golly gee, doc, that sounds an awful lot like what mister Shrocat says about writing like a 12-year old below. --Light show (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc? --Light show (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I know how to change a light bulb at least, clearly you don't as you haven't shown any light in years on here. Rather dim, actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Blitz edits w/o consensus

The article has been very stable for a long time, and the two primary editors have made improvements to it over many months years ago. However, a new editor to the article has recently made about 50 major changes over a 24-hour period, summarily deleting thousands of valuable words without discussion. Some subsequent edits by the user were examined by me on a sandbox page, and IMO, the revised material has been made into a hodge-podge of choppy, brief sentences, filled with trivia. This makes it much less readable. I request that no further blitz editing methods be used, that incremental major edits be made so other editors can review or modify changes. This is essential when large bodies of text are removed. Any support for this suggestion would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless they are edit warring, the editing approach is completely within WP:BOLD. Further your addressing of specific points is the proper way to request changes (ignoring all other issues going on elsewhere, which I don't have to get into), and avoids edit warring. There is no requirement to lock down the page when there is no edit warring going on. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO, only an experienced editor is capable of making 50 major changes to an important, stable, article in just 24 hours. Yet that same experience would imply the editor would want to avoid edit warring, a major waste of time. It's much simpler to just comment before making 50 major edits. Per editing policies, Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. . . the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. . . Be helpful: explain your changes. The editor we're discussing deleted thousands of words over a few minutes, all with summary statements of "trim." They added hundreds of words without any summary statement at all. That seems way beyond "bold" for an "experienced" editor working on an important and stable article. --Light show (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. Can't you leave people alone? As long as the edits are constructive, anybody can edit an article at any time they wish, and without your express permission. This article is very, very bloated and I dare say there will be a lot more trimming by the time the years out. If you don't like it, then take it off your watchlist. Cassianto^talk 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling BS right now:

• Dr. Blofeld is an experienced editor. Maybe not to this article, but clearly in films. They know what they are doing.
• They identified above #Condensing on May 30 they were going to start working to improve the article, so the fact he did not have any exactly edit summary is predicated that they made this announcement there. All of his changes (save for clearly adding one quote and some minor edits to fix on May 20) all started on May 30th, timed with this. And yes, you participated in this thread, so you can't claim ignorance. (Also the fact you do not name Blofeld directly makes it looks like you are trying to pander to different eyes)

This seems like carrying on the same point that is being made about you at ANI. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines say to talk about edits, not editors. So much for you accusing me of creating a "battlefield atmosphere". I responded to Blofeld's suggestions back then: I think it would be best to first discuss major edits, certainly splits, before making them. --Light show (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You came in off the bat attacking him. Additionally, Blofeld did talk about it, extensively. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I said to him back then, with actual edit samples in a sandbox, that many of his edits were trivia. You agreed with some: "It reads as trivia." He knew the problems and the request to both avoid trivia and discuss major edits. Stating a new editor to the article made 50 major edits in 24 hours without discussion or the courtesy of summary statements is a "fact," not an "attack." I reiterated the earlier issues. Now the same editors I complained about at the ANI are at it again. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are they bad or nonconstructive edits? No. Did they introduce anything absolutely against content policy? No. They are not bad edits. Discussing them as you have outlined in the sandbox page is the right next step to do, instead of trying to attack the editor (after the history of your past conflicts with them is clear). --MASEM (t) 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting why things have to be discussed with you (Light show) first. I agree, large, controversial edits like structure, infobox removal/adding, pictures etc should be brought to the talk page; but these were not controversial edits. They were edits by someone who was acting in good faith doing what we all do day in, day out; editing the encyclopaedia for the benefit of others. Just because they conducted 50 edits, doesn't make them controversial. If anything, it makes them determined. Sure, if the edits were shocking, then reverting would have been the correct way to deal with it per BRD, but as far as I can see, they weren't. Cassianto^talk 21:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem. You have it backwards. I was one of the two primary editors on Sellers before the team came along. Same with Kubrick. They budded in on a Chaplin talk page while I'm discussing content with another editor, with the typical uncivility. There are 4.5 million articles in WP. Why do the same 3 editors keep following me around and create such a disruptive editing atmosphere? At one point, during a discussion, Schrocat threatened to next have his group take on rewriting Polanski, just to "have some fun." What's with these guys? --Light show (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When you was a primary editor on Sellers, the article was shit (not a reflection on you before you say it). Chaplin was written by Loeba, who I have worked with many, many times, and TrueHeartSuzie, both of whom approached me to conduct the Chaplin GAN. You are deluded if you think we follow you around. We just happen to like the same genre of entertainer. Stranger things have happend, like why the admins are not closing the ANI in our favour. Cassianto^talk 22:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Utter tripe, Lightshow. I sincerely wish you weren't involved in some of the articles that we both share an interest in, but there we go. To correct a further untruth of yours: I did not "threaten" anything. Cassianto and I discussed the possibility of moving onto Polanski after Sellers. We rejected it because of your involvement in the article, and the fact that we had absolutely no wish to have to go through the same nonsense all over again. The comment about fun is because I enjoy editing Wikipedia: I have fun doing it, and in 99% of the time the interaction with others is part of that fun. You are part of that 1% who have managed to remove the enjoyment for me. As for Chaplin, you managed to make the lives of both Loeba and TrueHeartSusie3 so miserable that both are on Wikibreaks: I am sure that if they were still editing, they would gladly sign up for the Sellers block, and probably request an interaction ban with them as well! – SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I read it as a threat, as it was said during one your outbursts, and was totally unrelated and out of the blue to what we were discussing. As for Chaplin, my edits have been minimal, mostly adding images. Naturally, I read comments, and when an editor makes an observation I agree with, I told him he was mostly right, IMO, with an explanation. If Loeba and THS felt like an outsider was entering their domain, I guess that would explain their hostile replies, even when I'm responding to some other editor. And wah-lah, out of the blue, you join in with gratuitous insults: More bad faith silliness from LightShow? Can't you and the group just self-impose an IBAN? If you agree, I'll agree. Whenever we interact there's always more heat that light. --Light show (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Light show, none of us really take you seriously. You can go on and on and take swipes at it but this article is going to be overhauled whether you like it or not. It's funny that you think this article had degraded. I've had 3 or 4 emails from highly respected contributors on here informing me that already the version I'm developing is far superior, and I've barely got started or done the serious trimming and copyediting (even of the sections I've written which will be condensed once the info is extracted from the books). Nobody takes you seriously; it's clear to everybody you're a classic troll, and it makes me wonder at times why Cass and Schro even bother replying to you. Fortunately some of us can look beyond the nonsense at the bigger picture, and what you say pales into insignificance in relation to the overall benefit a top article on this cinematic legend will have to the general public. You made your mind up even before I'd really begun that this was doomed as a failure anyway!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

General comments on history

Re: a comment by an editor above: When you was(sic) a primary editor on Sellers, the article was shit (not a reflection on you before you say it). Chaplin was written by Loeba. In fact, Loeba was also an active editor on Kubrick, and during its revision a few years ago, both she, WickerGuy, and even casual visitors made comments and suggestions in a collaborative manner:

Some snippets from Loeba, Yes I agree with Wikiwatcher (10/2011), That's a great idea wikiwatcher! (10/2011), Great work on the article . . . (10/2011), Quick comment: I just wanted to say it's great to see lots of activity going in to improve the article! I'm not able to help right now but it's great that some editors are being so proactive. (11/2011), , I think it would be great to inlude a summary of his character, and transfer some of the stuff from the personal life page here. It's a shame not to have any mention of that on his page (12/2012), noting that one editor recently deleted that exact valuable material from the article, w/o discussion.

A visiting IP commented on the talk page with the title Great article! (5/2012) The primary editor of the article wrote on my talk page, your work on the Kubrick article is overall much appreciated.--WickerGuy (8/2011) and Particularly good work on Stanley Kubrick's personal life, (3/2012). And although the reader ratings (1-5) have been removed from WP, accept my recollection at will, the article went from an average rating of 2.5 (below average) to 4.5 after revisions. No reply or response by the earlier editors is either requested or desired, as only an IBAN is preferred. --Light show (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoring some deleted text

Some of the cut material should be restored and key facts put back into relevant sections. Among those will be a deleted Personal characteristics sub-section, which included personality traits valuable for the bio. Currently, his main Personal life section begins with a cut paragraph from that previous section which focuses on his apparent reclusiveness, but now without context. --Light show (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're wasting your time, any work done on this article while it is in my sandbox will eventually be overidden anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually think for a man like Kubrick we'd be better off having detailed sub articles on the various stages of his career and articles examining his directorial techniques etc and a relatively simplified main entry for him outlining his life and career. If there's enough material it would be great to have entries like Filming of 2001:A Space Odyssey. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The article since the blitz needs some major repairs, as noted above. Suggest keeping the article intact until fixed. --Light show (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Early life of Stanley Kubrick will contain lots of details and cutting to the bare minimum for this is the way to go. Best to wait until I've gone through all my books and material and write them in detail and then split and write a highly condensed/concise entry. I'm beginning on the Baxter biography tomorrow. If you could hold off cutting it now Lightshow at a later date we can sort out the splits and trimming of "excessive details".... A lot of the content throughout is useful, just superfluous to a main entry on him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The last time I kindly waited for an editor to read their books and revise an article, it got totally ruined. Nor are PAs a good way to ask for collaboration. Is this your only user name, BTW? I asked once before but never got a response. --Light show (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will only be making edits that clearly need them. --Light show (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you started working with other editors instead of bringing your vendetta up at every opportunity Light show I wouldn't resort to "PAs". You've made up your mind however great it would be that anything I write will make it worse so there's no point in arguing with you. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's quite amusing Light show that you think by removing all this content now I've resumed again in my sandbox is going to put me off editing it or get me angry. You can restore the article to its 2011 state at the moment for all I care. My sandbox article will be replacing this one eventually and I can assure you that you won't be taking chunks out of it after I've done so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's more amusing now, recalling how your team, you, took such offense at any implication of ownership, after editing the unnameable bio. Yet you now take offense even before doing so, proudly announcing and "assuring" us that whatever you decide to do will become sacrosanct and absolute. --Light show (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with an improved version!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

By "improved," I assume you mean another bio made equally "incomprehensible and heavily biased" as the other one, now in the cellar. --Light show (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Which article was that Light show?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean there are actaully others, similarly judged? --Light show (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this broken record still tiresomely being played? – SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's better than another broken bio. --Light show (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You've been up at ANI because of this, and if you carry along the same road here, you'll end up back at ANI again. Sellers is not broken, and only you seem to think it is. The PR and FAC processes showed that you have no idea about quality standards, and the ANI that barred you from the page reinforced that view, and the view that you are a disruptive element on the talk page. I am not prepared to have yet another conversation on the merits of Sellers here: if you want to have that conversation, go to the Sellers talk pager and start it there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Per your recent reverts, your style of editing and habitual PAs are oddly exactly like Dr. Blofeld's and Cass's, something I mentioned at the ANI with links, but to apparently knowing yawns. --Light show (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably because no-one thought there was a problem, or what point you were trying to make. For example, I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that comment: if you have something to say, then say it. If not, then either constructively discuss the Kubrick page or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Per your recent reverts, your style of editing and habitual PAs are oddly exactly like Dr. Blofeld's and Cass's," What does that tell you that three seasoned content contributors with their heads screwed on edit in the same way and treat one individual the same way? It's no coincidence. I've given you many chances Light show to become a decent person and collaborate with me but everything always turns into "boo hoo" tears about the Sellers article. It's pathetic. If you learned some basic editing skills and how to write a good article and show some respect and good faith towards your fellow contributors it might be reciprocated. You edit in ways which are contrary to guidelines on here, hell you were even banned recently over your copyright abuse. I could have supported your banning but I didn't. BTW as for me bloating articles, to date I've chopped 70kb from the original article you endorsed months back and it's already far more informative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You finally said something we all agree on: It's no coincidence. --Light show (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what are you trying to say, our three accounts are all sock accounts and we're all the same person?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Light show, I suggest you prepare yourself for a huge dollop of disappointment then in that case as Dr. B's edits in his sandbox are already far more superior than the current article, and I for one cannot wait until it is moved over into the main space. Your suggestion that we are all of the same person is laughable. Still, nothing that we are not used to from the inane ramblings of a man who knows fuck all about how to write a decent biography. Cassianto^talk 10:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a Sellers discussion but seems as lightshow is insistent that we're a destructive force responsible for it being "totally ruined", out of curiosity I restored Light show's earlier article revision to User:Dr. Blofeld/Peter Sellers. Surely there's some kind of joke. It's an absolute shambles!!! If this is your idea of a great article light show then it would probably be best you were banned period. You certainly have little credibility in judging this if you can say with a straight face that';s a superior article to the current one. I cannot believe the fuss you've caused over that!! That's concrete proof for me that your "concerns" are not worth the "light" of day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a crock of shit. Light show, you should be embarrassed! Cassianto^talk 18:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The primary editor of the article, User:Malljaja, didn't think so. He wrote me, "You added a lot of valuable detail and also some good sources that the article needs—very well done." --Light show (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind that I think Light show has done properly is trim out production details not related to Kubrick's life or directorial skill on the individual films as those are details best suited on the respective film's pages. I have no comment immediately on the other changes. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, he didn't do it properly. He removed some material which was highly important actually and had to be reverted. As you said previously, I know what I'm doing. I had begun working on the main article with the intention to cut out what I though was better suited to the film articles afterwards but could see it would be best working on it in my sandbox. Some production details, especially related to financing and major filmmaking process like with 2001 are certainly relevant, I'll try to make it a careful balance. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

• An ANI has been posted regarding the above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tag_team_uncivility_by_User:Dr._Blofeld.2C_User:Cassianto_and_User:SchroCat. As the previous ANI announcement for some of the above editors was immediately removed from their appropriate talk pages, I'm posting the notice here. --Light show (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Time for informal peer review?

Given the ANI decision, and the poor timing of this thread, I think we can close until the article has reached a level where it needs to be reviewed - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Per above discussions, the article has undergone some major changes over the past few months. One editor claims they have a new revision of the article in their sandbox, which may replace much of the current article. In light of those pending changes, and the fact that many editors have made changes recently, I'm hoping that editors can make some suggestions on how to improve the current article. Besides myself, User:WickerGuy, User:Loeba, User:Gothicfilm and others, worked on overhauling the article a few years ago, and it has remained pretty stable since then. One reader suggested material from the article could be added to the film articles, since some of the sections cover Kubrick's behind-the-scenes decisions and methods not included there. But overall, an informal peer review would help at this point, even for only sections, with things to consider being: article structure, readability, comprehensiveness, level of detail, use of quotes, balance, etc. Any feedback is appreciated. --Light show (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC) What on earth is the point? The current version is not representative of anything (even more so since you gutted it), and no-one is claiming that it should be seen as any sort of standard. It is, at present, a mess that is,neither the previous "stable" version you are trying to defend, not Blofeld's version, which is elsewhere, and still a work in progress. Considering the impending outcome of the ANI thread, this seems a little desperate. – SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I've barely begun writing it yet! A peer review will be the step to take after I'm convinced it's as good as I can make it, which is a long long way off yet. I would rather work on it in the main space but I have a fair bit of work before it's even ready to do that, although anything would be an improvement to the current.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been relatively inactive on WP for about a year, but I believe the article should be in what was considered a stable version. Circa 2009-12 many changes were made to make this more of a portrait of Kubrick the man rather than a survey of his film-work- changes I initially resisted, but eventually came around to seeing the wisdom of. (It entailed gutting a lot of my previous work on the article, but so be it.) Just my 2 cents.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm gradually working on a copy in User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Update

I've updated with the more balanced/condensed version but I still have an enormous amount of work to do on this. I still have two biographies and a Themes book to plough through. I don't work well in sandboxes, so hopefully I can now get more done in the article space. If I've lost anything that has been corrected or added since I began working on it in my sandbox apologies for that anyway. This may get long again as I do the building work so bare with me, but it'll definitely be more resourceful and balanced once done and condensed more!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hughes

The Robert Hughes quote comes from: "The Décor of Tomorrow's Hell" Review in Time December 27 1971. Debouch (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for posting here to clear things up. I was relying on the reference that was already attached to that sentence. Now there is a slight possibility that it was used in both but I will trust your research. Please feel free to change it back to the edit you made earlier today. MarnetteD|Talk 01:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems I forgot two things. Please make sure to add the info you found as a new ref and I forgot to Debouch ping you so you would see this without digging through your watchlist. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 01:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Debouch (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Four roles for Sellers? Texan Pilot?

Peter Sellers agreed to play four roles in the film; "an RAF captain on secondment to Burpelson Air Force Base as adjutant to Sterling Hayden's crazed General Ripper; the inept President of the United States; his sinister German security adviser; and the Texan pilot of the rogue B52 bomber".[88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.125.140 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's more detail in the article on the film -- see Dr. Strangelove#Peter Sellers's multiple roles. Essentially, the pilot character was dropped from the final film. It would be a digression from the Kubrick bio to include that here, but maybe this should be trimmed to just indicate Sellers was signed to multiple roles and leave it at that. TJRC (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Kubrick/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing this! I should complete this review by tomorrow at the latest. JAGUAR  14:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed readable prose from 111 to 94 kb. We could still probably lose 10-15 kb but that can be done during the PR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for cutting text is that when you are discussing the specific films as part of his directorial history, you are getting far too much into the detail of the films when these films pages should already have these details. There are details to bring forward here that specifically relate to Kubrick in his career, and commentary on him as a director, but I'm seeing a lot of very film-centric, little Kubrick-centric material in these areas. Even some of the free images in these areas are a bit out of place (like the ape suit from 2001), where better suited on the films. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, to really understand Kubrick's life and career you really need resourceful information about his productions. He was the films, they go hand in hand. It makes the article much more interesting and balanced to read other than saying "In 1962 he directed xxx. He used the xx technique, which xxx said looked crap". In 1964... Where I agree to a limited extent is that in the coverage of some of his films they do seem more like balanced film overviews rather than purely from Kubrick's perspective, so that perhaps needs to be tweaked and readdressed in places. I think the coverage of his directing and techniques is adequate. For every one of his films there's decent info about him as a director, the background with his scriptwriters and agreements, research, directing techniques and relevant background information behind the productions which I think is a decent balance. The summaries of the plots or whatever are very basic. Only 2001 is longer, but that's necessary I think. Perhaps for some of the films like 2001 especially there ought to be a bit more technical directorial info and analysis of his techniques in favour of production info, but I didn't come across much material like that in my biographies of him which I haven't already covered. If I did I excluded it for a reason, because it would read too excessively if I ventured into real detail about it. Anyway none of this is that important at GA level, I'll see what the others have to say at the PR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If this article wasn't already pushing the size issue, I would totally agree that more would be interesting, but we are at size, so it becomes a matter of how to either trimming down or moving things to different articles. And since each film he did is highly praised and critically commented on to make interesting articles there, it should not be an issue to let the films speak for themselves. I'm not saying that all the film sections should be reduced to "In year A he produced Y, in year B he produced Z", but lets keep in mind that while he was a key visionary and the director on most of those films, a lot of the stuff that is in this article that is being praised about those films is not a direct result of his directing or creative choices. (Eg the ape suit). What definitely should be kept it commentary on how any of the films reflected on Kubrick as the person and director, but the details of production are weighting this down. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: After this review you're welcome to offer some potential sources to improve coverage of his directing by film before this heads off to FAC. In some cases we might replace some general production info with analysis into his methods, but generally I don't think it reads excessively despite the length as Ian Rose said. It's very difficult writing a "perfect" article on somebody like Kubrick, and I believe overall there's a decent balance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate that Kubrick's career is one of great interest, that has sparked a lot of discussion and commentary, so I don't expect that the information we have on him and his works will be thin. The difficulty is the nature of WP's aim to deliver information in a digital format that works across a variety of devices/net connections, the primary reason WP:SIZE exists, and why we encourage summary-style writing. Hence why knowing the film article exists so that more details on those can be fleshed out there. Of course, in considering summary style, another option that would be open for a person like Kubrick is to have a separate "filmography" article (though I don't know if I would call it that), using the film career section (which as I read it is more factual/biographical as opposed to commentary on Kubrick as a director which is described later in the article) as the basis and letting that flesh out more; you'd want to then provide a 3-5 paragraph summary on that in this article. You'd still be covering the director aspects in this main bio article, and you'd still have space to include more information on both pages without worrying about SIZE for some time. But that does affect the GA/PR/FA process obviously, so I'm just leaving those on the table as opinions to consider. There's nothing "required" to be fixed here , but if length is concern, here are a few options to fix that. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. I have a lot less pressure on me now so I'll begin writing up the review tomorrow. JAGUAR  20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• "and are noted for their unique cinematography and set design, attention to detail and realism, dark humor, and the evocative use of music" - this would sound better without the extra "and"

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• " This followed by two collaborations with Kirk Douglas, the war picture Paths of Glory (1957) and the historical epic Spartacus (1960)" - this would read better as This was followed by two collaborations with Kirk Douglas; the war picture Paths of Glory (1957) and the historical epic Spartacus (1960) (with a semi-colon)

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "His reputation in Hollywood grew as a fine filmmaker, and he was approached by Marlon Brando" - what is 'fine' referring to here?

@Jaguar: I believe "fine" refers to this sentence — "Paths of Glory became his first significant commercial success, and established Kubrick as an up-and-coming young filmmaker. Critics praised the film's unsentimental, spare, and unvarnished combat scenes and its raw, black-and-white cinematography." I have removed the "fine" word. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "His home at Childwickbury Manor in Hertfordshire, just north of London, which he shared with his wife Christiane" - I would remove "just north of London" as it seems a bit irrelevant and shortens the sentence

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Body

• The first sentence of the Early life section is too long to read comfortably. "Stanley Kubrick was born on July 26, 1928, in Lying-In Hospital at 307 2nd Avenue in The Bronx, New York City, the" - I would put a full stop between here

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The two would indulge in numerous photographic "assignments", crawling the streets looking for interesting subjects to capture" - sounds a bit informal

I have changed "assignments" to "projects" if that's alright. Do suggest any other alternative words. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "having taken a photo to Helen O'Brian, head of the photographic department, who purchased it without hesitation for £25 on the spot" - if he was in America at this time, should this be in dollars?

Added a footnote regarding the conversion. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Kubrick shared a love of film with school pal Alexander Singer" - friend

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• " During the course of the film one of the soldiers becomes enchanted with a beautiful girl in the woods and binds her to a tree, noted for its close-ups of the face of the actress" - this doesn't work. "Enchanted" sounds like it's from a fantasy and the sentence structure isn't great. I would use "infatuated" instead of "enchanted" and would also rephrase the latter half of the sentence

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Kubrick began shooting footage on Times Square" - in Times Square

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The film met with limited commercial success and barely made any money over the $75,000 that United Artists had paid for it" - did United Artists pay for the film itself or was $75,000 the actual budget?

 Done It's the budget. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "While playing chess on Washington Square" - again, perhaps this should be changed to in Washington Square

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Marlon Brando rang up Kubrick" - informal, contacted Kubrick would sound more like it

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "One of the scenes is so striking in film in which the viewer moves through space, with a vibrant mix of lighting" - I'm not sure if this makes sense to me. "Striking" sounds like an opinion, and at first I thought this was a quote!

 Done rephrased. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Kubrick spent extensive hours editing, often working seven days a week, and more and more hours a day as he got closer to deadlines" - no need for repetition

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "During the production of Paths of Glory in Munich in early 1957, Kubrick met and romanced the German actress Christiane Harlan, who played a small though memorable role" - in which film? Was it Paths for Glory?

 Done Yep, it was in POG. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "about 48 km (30 mi) north of London" - imperial should be first

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "entitled 'Stanley Kubrick: Taming Light'" - this should be in double quotes

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• " that were stored in Kubrick's home-workplace in the U.K" - 'UK' shouldn't be in initials

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links, and all of the references are correctly formatted (so I don't have to worry about date formats either)! I expect the sources to be scrutinised in a future peer review, but I think the references comply per the GA criteria.

On hold

Well, that took me almost two hours to review! It's an excellent article, though I think there might be some length issues (perhaps WP:LEADLENGTH should be taken in mind), I think that can be a concern for a future FA review. In the mean time, it meets the GA criteria and I'm waiting for Ssven to finish addressing the last few concerns. Well done by the way! JAGUAR  13:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thanks for the review, Jaguar! I'm privileged to be a part of this. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them, Ssven! OK this meets the GA criteria now. Honestly I think all other concerns such as length are secondary and can be dealt with in the future peer review. For now though, this is a very deserving Good Article and would like to thank everyone who helped bring this notable article up to GA. JAGUAR  19:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Files with issues which may not pass PR

• File:Stanley Kubrick - WB promo.jpg no back shown at link, No dating shown on front.

• File:InfantKubrick.jpg Taken from someone's Twitter feed-we have no idea whether the person has permission to publish it nor whether this is the first publication of it (at Twitter) or not.

• File:Hayden-Asphalt.jpg Nothing re: uploaded back-from Dr. Macro. There's no proof of where the photo came from, proof of dating or proof it is truly in the public domain.

• File:Kubrick - Douglas - Spartacus - 1960.JPG Link shows no photo. It says this is a print mage from the original negative. No back was ever posted to eBay, it appears. Nothing to prove who issued it, dating, or whether it really is PD.

• File:Malcolm McDowell - 1977.jpg This photo is from Voyage of the Damned, a British film.

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-PR

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

• I understand length might be considered an issue but, without reading every word, if doesn't feel overly detailed, and the various sections seem justifiable.
• Subsection header "An innovative, ground-breaking filmmaker" -- entirely true IMO but might be considered editorialising unless it's a quote from someone and you show it as such.

I've changed to "ground-breaking cinema" as I feel the films are such landmarks in cinematic history that they need something along those lines to reflect it. I'll try to find a source for both 2001 and Clockwork being ground-breaking to support it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Peter Sellers again agreed to work with Kubrick, and ended up playing four different roles" -- started four but finished up playing only three, so I think recasting or a footnote is needed.

Yup, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• "In the film, Kubrick employed the new style of micropolyphony" -- well, Kubrick employed Ligeti's music, which employed the new style of micropolyphony; as it reads now, looks like Kubrick wrote the music himself.
• You mention his notorious (supposed) fear of flying and it made me wonder if he drove cars or not -- I don't happen to know but if he didn't it might be worth a mention.
• Harv error on FN135.

Seems to have been fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to have pretty well all the main references that come to my mind -- there's also Stanley Kubrick: A Film Odyssey by Gene D. Philips (1975; I have the 1977 paperback edition) which seems to have benefitted from Kubrick's direct input, but you may not need it (LoBrutto, for one, employs it).

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

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

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