This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also agree that the addition of an infobox would be an improvement. Even if Stanley Kubrick were "too nuanced or complex a figure", the inclusion of some basic, non-disputed data (e.g., birth date and death date) in an infobox hardly seems to interfere with conveying that complexity. And if there is an aesthetic reason to forego the infobox, it's not clear why it would apply more to Kubrick's article than to the countless figures whose pages include one. I'm not sure there's much to say that hasn't already been discussed, but if this comes up for another vote, I would support an infobox's inclusion. Infomagister (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with the arguments for an infobox above, especially the statement of Depressed Marvin. Per Infomagister, the infobox should only contain facts that work on their own (e.g., birth, death, family) and not things that might require context for understanding (e.g., genres worked in, style, accolades, views, etc.). Kubrick is indeed a complex person, and readers must unavoidably expect to have to work a little to understand him. But his basic biographical data is not complex. He was born, had a stepchild and two children, and died. Put those things in an infobox. Vadder (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another consideration is that the lead is simply to long for readers to be able to easily identify basic biographical information, where as an infobox would present it in a very accessible way—blindlynx (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose an infobox for this bios, as it's not about an athlete, a politician or a monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Post-close discussion

• I'm just so deeply disappointed in Songwaters right now. I just don't understand why it seems like everyone is intent on making sure this one discussion, historically an open wound on WP, is always as complicated and stressful as possible. Everything was going fine this time... until the very first comment. From previous weeks of discussion, it seemed reasonably clear (at least to this uninvolved observer) that an infobox was likely to pass this time, so there was no need for gamesmanship, and it was still self-sabotaged in the very first post. No matter what we do about the RFC, I'm going to partial-block Songwaters from this talk page and from the article for one year for selectively canvassing in a discussion that really needed thoughtfulness, wisdom, discretion and tact. Unless someone objects with a good reason not to really soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam Again, I am deeply sorry for what I did; I really should not have pinged anyone. What I did was objectively wrong and messed up everything. I hope everyone accepts my apology. Songwaters (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is a case of "don't bite the newcomer". Sure, this wasn't ideal, but I don't think Songwaters had a lot of experience with RfCs. They had no bad intent. ~ HAL333 19:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: They closed the RFC, and they seem to be backing off. That should be fine for now, and I don't think Songwaters will cause future disruption after this obvious blunder. I'm just surprised that I was the first one to notice the canvassing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Songwaters seems to understand the problem and took the recommendations to close. No need to murder and dismember them now. Should not freakout and missuse admin tools.Moxy- 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, even more snark. I just don't see how it was an obvious "blunder". It looks more intentional. They say as much above. I mean, I know blocks aren't punitive and all, but are there no consequences? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

A damaged reputation is consequence enough in this case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I’d be more inclined to chalk this up to overzealousness as opposed to malicious so the admonishments already here should suffice. Rusted AutoParts 20:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also be interested in hearing from people what the best way forward is. All but one of the solutions below have significant disadvantages, and the one that doesn't no one is going to accept.
  1. Another RFC right away?
  2. Another RFC in X months? (and if so, what is X?)
  3. Whether, in any future RFC, everyone who has ever participated in an infobox discussion at this article should be pinged?
  4. Or no one should be pinged?
  5. I could flip a coin, and if it's heads there's an infobox that can never be removed, and tails means no infobox (or infobox discussion) ever again? (This, by the way, is the best solution, because it really doesn't matter as much as people seem to believe it does, and this would at least rip the bandaid clean off.)
  6. In other words, what do people suggest, process-wise, to make the next RFC not be dysfunctional? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think a good three months at the very most to let people get through the holiday season without this silliness to go through (seems many are fine with just a month though). Then, we should probably do a mass talk-page message around January (or November in all likelihood) with the stakes being no further discussions for at least 4 years if consensus doesn't change or get reached (and a year if it does change). The list of people messaged would be all non-blocked or unbanned editors who have participated in any of the previous discussions (except if they have retired or have 'nobots' on their talk page).

  The reason behind the disparity between the outcomes and for long until the next discussion should be is because so far, pro-Infobox has not gained consensus in the last 3 (almost 4 now) years since WP:ARBINFOBOX2 was accepted as a case. If something changes in the next four years that would fundamentally make the planned-for RFC irrelevant (like changes in the technology behind infoboxes or something wacky happens like a federal law gets passed requiring infoboxes for every article), then I'm sure it could be fixed on appeal to WP:AN or WP:ARCA.

  Format-wise, it should have only 2 options: Infobox or No Infobox. There should be a survey section and a discussion section. If things get too spicy, I'm sure some people like me will be there to ((hat)) infringing comments rather than to actually participate by weighing in on the actual matter.

  For the record, I only participated in that previous RFC for the novelty of it. I stopped caring whether this page has an infobox or not since that time. I'm only here because I was pinged earlier. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on holding another RfC for at least a month. I think it would take at least that long for the damage I caused to wear off. Songwaters (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In these non monarch/politician/athlete bios, we should've appllied my compromise - a collapsed infobox. But, it was a compromise that was eventually rejected at Frank Sinatra, so... GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I say we wait a few weeks to a month to let tensions simmer down. When the RfC is reopened, we should ping every single person who has participated in an IB discussion on this page. We want as broad participation as possible - otherwise people will come around after the fact and complain on the talk page. ~ HAL333 19:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• • From a neutral perspective: I don't think there's a reason to delay beyond a few days here, given that the only fault was a bad user solitication; we're past the Sept 21 date so pandora's box has been opened. But key to any new RFC is that it must be immediately advertised at the usual CENT/VPP, and likely at WT:INFOBOX and WP:WPBIO , since the infobox on Kurbirk's page is probably the epicenter of the issue around infoboxes on bio pages, period. (There may be more places). A factor not introduced above is that the RFC should be introduced by a neutral party in this "fight" (I would offer myself, but I'll let others throw their hat in too), that has no opinion on the infobox but only want to make sure that this matter is dealt with without disruption. And following on principle from last time, regardless of which was that RFC closes, that would de facto put a kibitz on any discussion related to including or excluding the infobox (depending on the RFC close) for at least another 2 years, upholding WP:CCC. Even a no consensus close would leave the current situation - purposeful omission of the box - as the status quo for that time. --Masem (t) 16:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Damn, I didn't get a chance to support no infobox. PS - Don't block the lad. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• If need be hold RFCs on this issue every 50 years. What's gonna change in a few months or even a few years ?, obviously we'll gain new eyes but it'll be the same old arguments with the same old opposes. Repeated disuccsions on this are just a time waste and a time sink. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support next RfC in 50 years. 2071 Wikipedia should be in holograph and surround-you by then and the Kubrick clone could make his own pitch for no infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• For what little it's worth, I would have opposed adding an infobox. Unable to opine on the issue raised here of what is to be done when. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I see no reason not to recreate the RfC as soon as possible. Both in terms of structure and timing it was fine, it was simply poisoned by some selective pinging. As long as we are careful to avoid any WP:CANVASSING this time around it should be fine. Frankly I don't think this version needed to be closed, as someone new to this debate (though I did read some older convos before !voting) I don't see why we couldn't just ping the "missing" people and continue along. BSMRD (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think my being canvassed made a difference. I was already active in the discussion above and check this talk page regularly. I would have made it to any RFC. I don't object to a multi-year cooling off after a finding of definite consensus in either direction. I do object to a long prohibition on discussion if the result is "no consensus". I also think the question should be framed in more detail than just "Infobox or No Infobox". I know that many objections come from opposing the concept, but surely some objections come from knowing an infobox can accumulate factoids that, devoid of the context of the article, might underinform. If I could look into a crystal ball and see that the October 2022 version of the Stanley Kubrick infobox was going to contain fields for politics, occupation, known for, notable works, awards, or honors (all of which are to be found in famous filmmakers' infoboxes right now) I would likely oppose one myself. Maybe we can start off this infobox, surely the most contentious on the wiki right now, with a consensus on what it would include. Vadder (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll open an RFC on the topic, sometime this week. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't. Pretty much everyone who has weighed in on the matter has said to wait at least a few weeks (if not a month or longer). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  No prob. I'll wait, as it's no biggy. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should be ultra-cautious and wait a month or so. We have to get the next RfC right. And I don't see any need for pinging if its advertised in the proper places.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If we can enforce vaccine mandates then I guess we can enforce infoboxes too.... † Encyclopædius 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why there's a need/want to wait weeks/months for another RFC. No point sitting around doing nothing given there's clear interest in having another discussion. What use is delaying? I'm in favour of having one very soon. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • To paraphrase Kubrick's Jack Torrance: "You've had your whole f*cking life to think the infobox over. What good's a few weeks gonna do you now? ~ HAL333 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The infobox on this page has been debated for years. A few more months isn't a big deal, especially if it will make the discussion seem more fair to some. I think the suggestion of waiting until January is a good one. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• I will open an RFC on this topic, sometime in November. I won't be pinging anybody about it, so yas better keep this article on your watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen How much longer does this farce have to go on? † Encyclopædius 11:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't say, Encyclopædius. After the disagreeable experience of trying to manage the Great Stanley Kubrick Infobox Wars of 2018—19, I think it's some other uninvolved admin's turn. Perhaps you might ask for such an admin at WP:AN or WP:AE? Unless Floquenbeam has an appetite for the grief? To any admin who takes it on, and who may want to take advantage of the discretionary sanctions for infobox discussions: compare this WP:AE discussion which I initiated in 2018, and which I believe supplies encouragement to any admin to add renewed infobox restrictions on Stanley Kubrick and its talkpage, if needed. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC).

I have no desire to manage a discussion, but I think from the last few weeks discussion here, it's reasonable to say that there's a rough consensus for:

1. It is OK to have another RFC on an infobox here.
2. The false start from a week ago means it would be best to wait a month after that was closed (i.e. after 11/11). This is the compromise between the options of right away, a few days, 1 month, January, and never, all suggested above.
3. Notifying previous participants in infobox discussions is allowed, but not required. However, if any notifications are made, they should be made to everyone, and the notifier should bend over backwards to not violate WP:CANVAS. That seems a fairly massive undertaking, but it's fine to do that, either by the opener of the new RFC, or anyone else.
4. Someone suggested this be widely advertised on WP:CENT, WP:AN etc. There's no harm in widely advertising this in a neutral way in the usual places. I suspect that people who tend to manage WP:CENT are going to remove it as not widely important, but I could be wrong. I suspect if it's done at WP:AN then the same thing might happen. But normal, neutral announcement is fine.

In addition to my reading of consensus above, I have 2 further personal opinions that might prove useful, but they're not binding on anyone:

1. I would really suggest that care be taken to formulate the RFC well. A poorly worded RFC would make this drag on even more. People may want to workshop the RFC wording here beforehand. For example: there is a 3rd option, a collapsed infobox, that I've seen elsewhere (can't recall where, unfortunately). People need to decide if that option should be presented in the RFC, or if the RFC should just be a yes/no on any infobox of any kind, and a collapsible one only discussed if the RFC decides to include an infobox of some kind. I do not feel that this decision should be up to whoever starts the RFC first.
2. If someone does step forward to manage the discussion, they should take full advantage of Bish's suggestion on discretionary sanctions, and should probably make it clear early on they'll keep the discussion focused on benefits/costs of infoboxes, not the motivations of other editors, using partial blocks from this page liberally if needed. Not to throw anyone under the bus, but I know User:Beeblebrox has in the past tried to manage big controversial RFC's. Not sure if he's still in that business, or interested, but worth a ping.

Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I.... don't think I am interested in managing this myself, but I never pass up an opportunity to plug my essay on how to run RFCs. It specifically addresses different approaches that can be used in long-running intractable disputes like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that there's nobody who is going to keep opening RFCs requesting no infobox, and only ever going to be RFCs opened by overzealous IB enthusiasts at every given opportunity, it's kind of inevitable it'll end up with an infobox eventually like all the others. This would stop this minute if I had my way with an infobox added, end of issue. There's millions of articles badly needing editing and cleanup, a redundant ibox on a film director article is the last thing to be worried about.. I have the coding to block seeing iboxes anyway, and I opted not to use it because iboxes are useful in a lot of articles with actual data. † Encyclopædius 16:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam that the discussion should be kept "focused on benefits/costs of infoboxes, not the motivations of other editors". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with those above who suspect an infobox is likely to be approved this time round, especially as two of the most vocal and entrenched contributors in the contra position have ceased editing. I would go a step beyond Floquenbeam's suggestion to ignore editorial motivation and focus on the costs and benefits of infoboxes, and focus specifically on
  1. the costs and benefits of an infobox in this article, without debating their use in other liberal arts articles or complex liberal arts type biographies, as this article in particular is in a class of its own regarding contention surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox
  2. which infobox parameters would be beneficial to this article, as presumably no one wants to welcome genre warring, disruption surrounding Kubrick's nationality, politics, occupation, etc, or bloat regarding influences / influenced, honours received, lenses used, etc

I don't believe that a binary "should this article include an infobox" will be a good only step in the conversation. Does the WP:ARBINFOBOX2 remedy allow administrators to require consensus for any parameter to be included in an infobox? Or require consensus for the changing of any value of any parameter in an infobox? Is either of those ideas something we could enforce in the wording of the RFC? Another novel idea would be a specific template like ((InfoboxKubrick)) which incorporates only parameters that editors here have agreed will be both uncontentious and beneficial in an infobox, and is semiprotected, rather than trying to force the subject into an infobox he doesn't quite fit. Folly Mox (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no need to overcomplicate the matter. "Should there be an infobox?" worked for the similarly controversial Frank Sinatra and Ian Fleming infobox RfCs, and there was no shootout about the parameters afterwards. ~ HAL333 22:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll be presenting three options, when I open up the RFC next month. The options will be - A) Have it, B) Don't have it or C) Have it, but collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, GoodDay. ~ HAL333 03:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, just wanted to notify anyone who might be interested that I've nominated the 1949 self-portrait of Kubrick with a Leica camera for deletion at Commons. This image was the former lead image. The discussion can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/Stanley Kubrick self-portrait for Look.

To comply with the Commons policy on canvassing, I want to not only ensure transparency by noting that I am the nominator, but also to establish my genuine interest in a nonpartisan, neutral discussion. I have no personal stake in deleting that image, and I'm certainly not asking people to dogpile in support of a deletion. In fact, I'm hoping someone on here might be able to help determine the original source. It's a nice image and ideally, if we can determine that is in the public domain, I would hope to keep it. I am seeking more information/input and would be thrilled and relieved to be proven wrong.

The problem is that the photograph does not appear to be in the Library of Congress's online Look collection, as claimed by the source information provided on Commons. It's possible that the photograph may be held in the uncatalogued portion of the collection, which would only be available on-site (if at all), but we don't have enough information to determine whether that is the case because the "reproduction number" given in the source at Commons is bogus. If you have access to a copy of the book Stanley Kubrick – Drama and Shadows: Photographs 1945–1950 on Phaidon Press, ISBN 0-7148-4438-1, you may be especially able to help as it appears the photograph was reproduced there, quite possibly for the first time. Any credits from that book would be exceptionally helpful.

In the meantime, I uploaded Stanley Kubrick (1949 portrait by Phillip Harrington - cropped).jpg as a viable replacement for purposes of depicting a portrait of the artist as a young photographer. This photo also shows Stanley in 1949 holding a camera on assignment for Look, but unlike the "mirror selfie", this image can be easily found in the Library of Congress. —BLZ · talk 20:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

There is strong consensus for option A, that the article should have an uncollapsed infobox. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

---

It's quite straight forward really. Should the article

• A - Have an infobox
• B - Not have an infobox
• C - Have a collapsed infobox
  

GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• A - Have an infobox. An infobox is an effective way to present information about Kubrick that doesn't lend itself naturally to being presented in prose form in the lead (e.g. his overall years of activity). It also makes the article useful to a broader audience: infoboxes are an easy way to check on brief, verifiable pieces of information, and they're often used by people who can't or won't read a full-length article for various reasons. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox. The lead is simply to long for readers to be able to easily find basic biographic information, an infobox would present this information in an accessible way—blindlynx (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox. Per MDT above. The missing infobox makes the article appear incomplete. MB 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox. Not all of Wikipedia's readers are here to read exhaustively, and an infobox would very well serve readers who want to quickly and conveniently look up basic info. The infobox also features info that isn't in the lead; for example, if a reader wants to find out how old Kubrick was when he died, it would be much faster to read it in an infobox than to have to do the math by looking at his dates in the lead. Arguments against infoboxes generally amount to "if I don’t like the way it looks, then it can't be of use to anyone". The infobox might not be able to provide an airtight summarization of the subject, but it still provides a quick and easy list of basic facts about the subject and is of demonstrable use to many readers, much like our "in a nutshell" templates. Songwaters (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox per all the above. It's a useful and common way of presenting simple and basic information to the reader without making them read through large amounts of text to find it. As many, many articles have infoboxes, readers are already accustomed to them and, as MB said, its absence here makes the article look incomplete. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Agree with MDT above. An infobox is useful for different readers to quickly see certain information where they expect to see it. It also can feature information that is not in the lede such as spouses and marriage dates if editors agree to include that. Including it makes the article more useful to more people. Mousymouse (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• A Copying my vote from the last RfC. Kubrick is not so special as to be unsummarizable, infoboxes are excellent tools for delivering quick and concise biographical information. If editors are concerned about listing genres or influences and the like they can be excluded just as they are at many other filmmakers pages, but there is absolutely no reason not to have an infobox listing basic biographical details such as date of birth and death, spouses, children, etc. If Hitchcock and Spielberg can have an infobox, so can Kubrick. BSMRD (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• B - Infoboxes are best used for politicians (office holders: presidents, popes, monarch, etc), athletes & coaches. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox. It's a very easy way to see the basic life facts of a person without trawling through a million words. Zedriodor (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Supporting the infobox. Especially because the lead is extremely long, it would be an effective way to present basic biographical and career-related facts. Coolcactus04 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - I support an infobox. They are useful, they don't detract from the article, I honestly see no good reason against them. Aesthetics of the article? I honestly believe infoboxes offer more aesthetics, not less. Discouraging people from reading the article? If an infobox prevents people from reading the article, they weren't going to read it anyway. And if they got the information they were looking for in the infobox, isn't that a good thing? Why are we gatekeeping knowledge and information? If you would like, we can have a future debate/RfC about what information to include in the infobox, but there absolutely should be an infobox to begin with. Also, everything MDT and BSMRD above said. Fieari (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox, per BSMRD above. Kubrick as an artist can not be summarized in a small box, but Kubrick as a human being who was born, had a family, and died can be summarized. This article would be improved if it displayed that information in an infobox. Vadder (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox. BSMRD puts it quite well. Infernape612 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• B – No infobox please. Properly explained by User:Utgard Loki oh so many moons erstwhile. Nutez (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Wikipedia is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers."
  — User:Utgard Loki 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  the 'proper explanation' referenced above—blindlynx (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am wondering why you think that not reading the entire article to find a bit of information you are looking for is a bad thing. Isn't the point to find the information? Isn't the point to offer the information to be found? Fieari (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  To respond to what you linked: throw away the box metaphor, and come back to reality. Whose authority is it on how a particular person reads Wikipedia? Yours, or the people you call "non-readers"? Not everybody HAS to read the whole article - this is an individual's decision. Not everybody NEEDS to, either, since information is used by different people for different reasons. This is common sense, something lacking in these discussions. Acalycine (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  This is not IMDB. You also don't need to respond to every solitary B !vote. Your case has already been made, ad nauseam. Please read WP:PEPPER before continuing in the same vein. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't about responding to every B vote, this is about understanding the position. As a reminder, these aren't votes... wikipedia is not a democracy in that sense. These are "not-votes", or statements of argument used to build consensus. We do not understand your position, so I and Acalvcine are asking you to clarify why not reading the entire article to find information is a bad thing. Acalvcine may have been a bit more forceful and slightly less polite in his question, and I'd like to apologize on his behalf for that, but the purpose is the same. Could you please clarify your argument? Fieari (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  If I was "forceful" and "slightly less polite", it was directed at a discussion from over a decade ago, not any individual on the page. This wasn't WP:PEPPER, I simply asked one clarifying question, like in Example B on WP:PEPPER - however, I'll move the less substantative question from the other survey response and await your response. Acalycine (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Fieari: You don't need to patronizingly remind me that these aren't votes... I am perfectly aware of that, which is why I wrote B !vote. My point is that Infoboxes provide an unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio, with lots of irrelevant minutia that is vying for the reader's attention. They also ruin the beautiful composition of portrait and text in the lede, by squashing the text to the left with an ugly grey rectangle. You could also consult previous anti-infobox statements by seasoned editors like User:SchroCat, Cassianto, et.al, who regrettably seem to have left the project, maybe because of arduous discussions like these, I don't know. Nutez (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• A - as per our research data on how people read articles and navigate Wikipedia. Which parts of an article do readers read "A main finding was that readers tended to look first at the table of contents, then at the article's infobox" - "study found that although the lead and the infobox contain only 17% and 4% of the links of an article, they receive 32% and 18% of clicks, respectively".Moxy- 06:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - to anybody with common sense and a reader-centred vision of Wikipedia, accessible information is a no-brainer. Add the infobox for God's sake. Gatekeeping information is the opposite of what this website is meant to be. Acalycine (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• A. An infobox would be useful for summarizing basic info about the subject and I haven't seen a good argument to omit one. – Anne drew 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - They are helpful. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• A or C - Per my previous comments on this page in previous discussions. Infoboxes are now the norm, and it is what our readers expect from a polished article. Some info is also useful to have at a glance without having to read through the entire lead for it. I don't really care if it is collapsed or not, though I think that accessibility should be investigated. If accessability is an issue for option C (perhaps on mobile, screen readers, etc) then A should be preffered. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - I support the inclusion of an infobox for the reasons I'd mentioned in earlier discussion. An infobox can conveniently display non-disputed biographical data without over-simplifying Kubrick's artistic legacy. It isn't clear why an aesthetic argument against the infobox would apply more to Kubrick's page than to other filmmakers' pages. If anything, the absence of an infobox where one normally would be makes the article appear unfinished. Infomagister (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - A clear positive for our readers. Yes, all that info is scattered through the article, but having an info box makes that info much more accessible. It also helps to display accurate information to Google search results. Both a net positive. While I understand the visual reasons behind it,as it currently stands it's more jarring to not have one. So a net positive to everyone involved with zero negative. PackMecEng (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Not to be contentious, but I find not having an infobox on Kubrick, possibly the most celebrated film director of all time, to be pretentious. Holidayruin (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Per the many reasons given above. I've yet to see a compelling argument for the exclusion of an infobox. I must agree with the above user that "pretentious" is the best way to describe it. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• A – As a mobile user, having an infobox makes the much easier to digest both at a glance and when reading through the entire article. Link20XX (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - The infobox seems like it would be a useful tool on this biography to provide certain details in an easily accessible way. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• A but I would add with the caveat that the only fields to be populated are the ones demonstrated in the collapsed version below (7 main fields or similar subset of what's possible), and only to include other fields by further consensus. My understanding of the long-running issue on the infobox here was, in part, that there are a lot of fields in the default infobox for biographies that would draw editors to add just because its possible to do so. This can happen frequently on other articles, leading to a type of 'infobox kuzdo' if not watched. There certainly may be other fields that the infobox for biographies can support for Kubrick, but I don't think, in lieu of the past discussions, those are as necessary as to the long-standing arguments for having an infobox with the basic biographical data (birth, death, occupation(s), years active, notable works, and spouce/children). I'd also add the caveat that the infobox should not be edited to add to this without consensus discussion - I think there was major concern about what "occupations" would be listed, with features more could be added or some removed because of how much stuff Kubrick did and hard to define. By "locking down" the infobox from drive-by changes, that should help address the past concerns of those that argued against use of an infobox here. (and the DS relating to infoboxes from ArbCom would still apply in this case). --Masem (t) 20:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - I would say Wikipedia should favour inclusion generally, especially when applied to its technical features rather than content itself, if no sufficient argument exists against such exclusion. Outside of what I can describe in no other terms than as an (particularly odd) expression of elitism as to WP's readership, I am yet to see that argument or even be convinced that argument exists in any theoretical space. It should not be our business (at this point in time) to shape how people read articles. We should rather conform to readers' expectations of how an article looks and what that article contains. There is no sufficient cause for non-uniformity presented. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• A – Per Songwaters, Vadder, and PackMecEng. For the benefit of our readership, and to ground Kubrick as a human being. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• A per my previous arguments. ~ HAL333 23:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - Have an infobox. A Kubrick is not a quantum particle with new data redefining what a Kubrick is and what it means in the fabric of reality. Kubrick is a man. In fact - he's deceased. He's not in hiding or missing or some such. Infobox data is trivial to write up for him as it is for most human beings. For example - there should be a row in the box for his daughter and a link to her page. She too does not create quantum complexities. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• B In honour of SchroCat and Cassianto, two of the Greats who have moulded our present discussion with theirs now past. Vale. ——Serial 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't plan on contributing to this discussion, but I will be individually alerting participants about the DS regime (if they aren't already). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Look, I am not going to try and repeat myself. As I already told another user, not every comment needs a reply (especially more than one). Let's keep everything nice and simple while trying to stay as on subject as possible. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, I'm not going to explain my position to anyone, again. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• It would probably be helpful to describe or point to an example of what a "collapsible infobox" would be, given that while parts of infobox can be collapsed, not the whole thing under WP:COLLAPSE. --Masem (t) 15:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Frank Sinatra would've been an example. But the last RFC there, removed that compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem: Here's an old revision of the Frank Sinatra article that had a collapsed infobox. Per WP:COLLAPSE: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text (or are purely supplementary, e.g., several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). ... A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details." I interpret this as allowing pre-collapse of formally "redundant" biographical data that would be found in an infobox and that can be found elsewhere in the article.

Here's a mockup of how a collapsible infobox could look as applied to Stanley Kubrick:

Stanley Kubrick Kubrick filming Barry Lyndon c. 1973–74 Biographical data Born Stanley Kubrick (1928-07-26)July 26, 1928 Manhattan, New York City, U.S. Died March 7, 1999(1999-03-07) (aged 70) Childwickbury Manor, England Occupations Film director producer cinematographer editor screenwriter photographer Years active 1945–1999 Notable work Paths of Glory (1957) Dr. Strangelove (1964) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) A Clockwork Orange (1971) The Shining (1980) Spouses Toba Metz ​ ​ (m. 1948; div. 1951)​ Ruth Sobotka ​ ​ (m. 1955; div. 1957)​ Christiane Kubrick ​ ​ (m. 1958⁠–⁠1999)​ Children 2, including Vivian Kubrick Signature Stanley Kubrick (/ˈkuːbrɪk/; July 26, 1928 – March 7, 1999) lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia cinematography deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum Childwickbury Manor. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, Kirk Douglas orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In Peter Sellers semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus. Aliquam vehicula sem ut pede. Cras purus lectus, A Clockwork Orange (1971), egestas eu, vehicula at, imperdiet sed, nibh. Morbi consectetuer luctus felis. Donec vitae nisi. Aliquam tincidunt feugiat elit. Duis sed elit ut turpis ullamcorper feugiat. Praesent pretium, mauris sed fermentum hendrerit, nulla lorem iaculis magna, pulvinar scelerisque urna tellus a justo. Suspendisse pulvinar massa in metus. Duis quis quam. Proin justo. Curabitur ac sapien. Nam erat Eyes Wide Shut (1999). Praesent ut quam.

• —blz 2049 · talk 20:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Though irrelevant to the infobox topic. Why is the above example content in non-english? GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: It's lorem ipsum text. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Just making sure it would adhering to that. To that end, I don't know if there had been any type of formal review of the Sinatra box with COLLAPSE. If C were being considered as a major option I'd definitely get the MOS people to review if the example were following expectations (for FA maintenance purposes) but since C doesn't see to have a lot of support, it likely isn't necessary right now. --Masem (t) 14:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Just chiming in with one thing in the discussion, I did vote for A in the survey above. I understand the infobox posted here is just an example and not final. But I do understand the issue of putting the "Notable work" parameter in the particular instance of Kubrick, as this example does. Kubrick is indeed the incredibly rare director whose every single work from 1957 onwards (10 total films!) can absolutely be considered "notable". Let me put it like this: I think if any other director made any of those ten films, those works would be included in their "Notable works" infobox parameter. I think the parameter should be excluded, because I definitely foresee editing wars over that contentious parameter again, and Wikipedia might end up in this situation again. Holidayruin (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• GoodDay: so I understand your position, can you put an actual reason as to why you oppose the infobox, instead of giving an arbitrary rule for why infoboxes only apply to some types of articles? Thank you. Acalycine (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Acalycine:, world leaders require infoboxes for showing when they held office & what office they held. Sports figures require infoboxes to show which team they coach or play for. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're consciously writing in a loose way, but if I may wax pedantic: world leaders (or sports figures) do not require infoboxes to show that information. An infobox can be (but, unfortunately, isn't always) a useful way to summarize the information. When they held office & what office they held can and should be included in the article body, where it is supported by reference citations. Infoboxes are optional and additional. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  My position on where to & not to use infoboxes, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  This doesn't really answer my question if I'm honest - I asked why this list of categories where infoboxes are needed excludes film directors, but you've told me reasons for why you've included other categories in this list. World leaders also "require" infoboxes for their date of birth, and country of birth, and many other things - for the convenience of the reader. Acalycine (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Kubrick never held any office, so we don't need his dates of service. Kubrick wasn't a team coach, so we don't need to show the teams he's coached or his coaching stats. Kubrick was never an athlete, so he doesn't require showing sports stats. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Infoboxes are not only used for coaches and world leaders, so not a persuasive argument for discluding an infobox. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's been said now. Moving on. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Here we have a classic example of the mob attempting to badger a lone witness into group submission, for simply committing the heinous crime of "daring to have a different opinion". Still, I fully expect an admin to come along any minute and quickly jump on this bullying behaviour, in the same way as I expect Elvis to fly past on the back of a pink unicorn whilst gently strumming a gold guitar. 2A02:C7F:7640:1100:8A5:73D0:8C4B:E408 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Hi Mick :). EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I'm feeling called out because I made a reply to a (single) "B" vote above. Are you suggesting that opinions should not be responded to? Are infobox RfCs an exception to the policy that RfCs are not a vote, but a discussion? Is a request to begin a discussion bullying? This is not a rhetorical question: I'm honestly asking. I can see an argument that a request to discuss from the majority side could look like bullying... but I don't think it is. When one person says "<statement> is not a valid argument" and another person says "<statement> is a valid argument" I think its reasonable to expect discussion to determine why there is disagreement on the facts. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC) A lone witness? There are two editors who've chosen the 'B' option. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussion per this and this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all. I'm un-retiring solely for the purpose of participating in this debate. I retired for lots of reasons, scrambling my password, but seeing how poorly this debate was handled was the last straw for me, with Administrators effectively vacating their roles, IMHO. Hence my return, and why I shall not be voting or swaying anyone by revealing my preference. I simply wanted two things to be considered in this RfC, namely, agreeing a draft infobox first, and the question of making it a trial period. I'm sure you will understand that these things would be wise suggestions were they coming from someone who might be supporting or opposing an infobox, were they in possession of the memory of how badly this issue has been handeled before. Who knows, if this turns out to be a pleasant and life affirming experience, or at the very least doesn't prove to be a complete waste of my time, I might even reconsider my retirement. FromChrissenden (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Trial period? Should including an infobox be the consensus of this RfC, should that be for a trial period only? Say, six months. I had been suggested one of the reasons not to have one, was that it would be edit warred over as people argued over what it should and should not contain, and would otherwise be subjected to vandalism beyond the normal levels, wasting editors time, because of who Kubric was and becuase of how well known this issue is as a sore point for the Wikipedia community. If the trial period shows the infobox doesn't attract these issues, it can stay, but if not, then the RfC should be re-run with this added knowledge of the present day reality of having an infobox on this article. Yes. A six month trial period is eminently wise, given the history of this issue. FromChrissenden (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC) No. If we find ourselves in a situation where the infobox is added and it does turn out to lead to edit warring or vandalism, I think it'd be fair to hold an RfC about getting rid of it, but in my view there's no need to preemptively prepare for that. Committing to a trial period essentially forces us all to re-litigate the issue at a certain future point, regardless of whether it proves to be necessary or not. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC) No. We should not have to revisit an issue through a set schedule simply because it's contentious. We should simply allow time and the actions of the community to determine whether we need to revisit it. Songwaters (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Agree a launch version first? For the same reasons as a trial period (but to be considered as a separate issue), is it wise to agree the version of an infobox here first, before it is inserted into the article as a result of this RfC? If editors for example, can't agree what a draft version should be, it might show the objections against one were valid (or vice versa!). Yes. Drafting a consensus backed infobox before adding it to the article is eminently wise, given the history of this issue. FromChrissenden (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Yes. Given the contentious history of this article and whether it should have an infobox, I think that - if we go ahead with adding an infobox - we should make sure it's done right the first time, and avoid hastily pushing something to mainspace. As for the content of any possible draft - I think BLZ 2049's mockup (shown in one of the collapsed parts of the discussion above) would be a good starting point for drafting the box. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC) No. There will undoubtedly be disagreements about what to include in the infobox, but in my view, that is no reason to decide not to have an infobox at all. I highly doubt there will be much contention on whether the infobox should contain basic info like date of birth, date of death, and years active. If consensus is established for an infobox, we shouldn't delay the addition of one. Songwaters (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC) For the benefit of others: Stanley Kubrick Kubrick filming Barry Lyndon c. 1973–74 Born Stanley Kubrick (1928-07-26)July 26, 1928 Manhattan, New York City, U.S. Died March 7, 1999(1999-03-07) (aged 70) Childwickbury Manor, England Occupations Film director producer cinematographer editor screenwriter photographer Years active 1945–1999 Notable work Paths of Glory (1957) Dr. Strangelove (1964) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) A Clockwork Orange (1971) The Shining (1980) Spouses Toba Metz ​ ​ (m. 1948; div. 1951)​ Ruth Sobotka ​ ​ (m. 1955; div. 1957)​ Christiane Kubrick ​ ​ (m. 1958⁠–⁠1999)​ Children 2, including Vivian Kubrick Signature I guess we shall say this is the proposed draft, should this proposal succeed and nobody comes up with a better one before the green light is given on an actual box going in (not to preempt the main RfC, but that's clearly where its headed. FromChrissenden (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2021 (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.

Well Kubrick, it was inevitable. Eventually, all bio articles will be fitted with an infobox. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank goodness; every bio needs one. AnyGuy (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Even Sibelius? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Especially him. AnyGuy (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You could say so on the talk. (It was reverted on his birthday, citing a discussion with few participants, and mostly users who didn't contribute much to the article.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I am shocked it took this long to get him one. Jesus, Plato, Isaac Newton, and William Shakespeare all get one, but Kubrick is supposed to be somehow "above" having one? Ridiculous. So glad common sense (albeit eventually) won out. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. Totally ridiculous situation that reveals some of the most goofy gatekeeping on this site. Glad it's put to rest. -- Primium (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)