Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Stanley Kubrick. 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Information
As a reader of wikipedia, I might see Stanley Kubricks name in a different article. If I click on him to find out who he is, there are specific key phrases which should be included in the first paragraph to trigger memory, most importantly would be 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. It is a waste of time to delve into this deeper, especially when using an either overhauled or dying system. Thus I feel it is important to lead with these facts in a sentence such as this,
Stanley Kubrick was an American film director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer, editor, and photographer, known for 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining. Part of the late 1960s New Hollywood film-making wave, Kubrick's films are considered by film historian Michel Ciment
- He made 13 feature length films. You could easily state that he is "known" for 12 of them. The 3 you have chosen are strictly WP:POV on your part. BTW he was not making films in the US by the late 60s (or even the early 60s since most of Lolita was filmed in the UK) so he could hardly have been part of the "New Hollywood". MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Infobox
I support an infobox. The reason being I feel having an infobox gives the wikipedia pages more consistency. When some pages have an infobox and others don't it feels that wikipedia is just a haphazzard random bunch of pages sewn together with no coherency. When you go to a wikipedia biographical page you typically see an infobox so not seeing one seems out of place. 58.161.3.165 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's nice for you. CassiantoTalk 15:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Why can't this article have an infobox?
The notice at the start of the edit page just says that "it had limited use and that the article looks more professional in appearance without it", but I disagree. Is there a real reason why there shouldn't be an infobox, besides the fact that one particular user didn't want one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar8734 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's incorrect to say it's a decision by "one particular user" - see Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 7. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd like to know too. The beginning of the article looks like a brick of information to sort through. With an infobox it would at least slim things out in my unprofessional opinion. ---- MF14 03:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be an infobox for the purposes of consistency? Wikipedia would seem awfully unorganised if other articles were to take on this approach. Imagine if half the articles about persons had infoboxes, while the other half did not. Such articles would look like some sort of stitched-together Frankenstein's monster if viewed collectively. For the purposes of simple consistency, despite infoboxes being optional, Kubrick's page should have one. –Matthew - (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Until or unless WP gets an editor-in-chief, it won't always be consistent, but will be shaped by consensus among its volunteer editors. At this stage the consensus seems to be that this article would not benefit from an infobox, per the talk archive Phil mentions above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be an infobox for the purposes of consistency? Wikipedia would seem awfully unorganised if other articles were to take on this approach. Imagine if half the articles about persons had infoboxes, while the other half did not. Such articles would look like some sort of stitched-together Frankenstein's monster if viewed collectively. For the purposes of simple consistency, despite infoboxes being optional, Kubrick's page should have one. –Matthew - (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding support for infobox. The reason given that the article looks "less professional" without one is perplexing - in fact, most people expect Wikipedia pages for people to have an infobox, so not having one here makes this article seem incomplete. Finding key information about the person requires perusing the entire article, which is outright silly. Gardaud (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps another discussion about whether or not the article should have an infobox should be opened. –Matthew - (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should go and do something more constructive with your time? CassiantoTalk 00:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm an occasional editor, spending most of my time reading and only editing whenever I find errors or vandalism. I came to this article to find his place of birth and death which wasn't immediately evident without searching the article for it. An infobox would make like so much easier for users who only want the bare facts, especially when you consider the lead and info boxes are what people read the most! I find it odd that such a well known biography lacks an infobox, which I thought was the standard. I've never come across an instance where one was opposed (apart from a language article which had more to do with a user owning an article). I am open to what other people think therefore support the reopening of the debate, whilst throwing my support for an infobox! Uamaol (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I also oppose adding an infobox to this article. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". In this case, (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (4) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (5) It would distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- This doesn't address the issue that I faced in looking for his birth place. I would have to scroll down through the enormous lead to the early life section, which would be nightmarish for users with smaller screen sizes. The lead is way too big and needs condensing, much of the content being out of the scope of the factoids-like fashion which you make reference to. On your first point, irrelevant information can be removed if a consensus is found, that is what talk pages are for. Infoboxes are there to give straight to the point factoids about the individual so they don't have to sift through hundreds, if not thousands of words to find simple information. On your second point, it can be argued with that logic that the lead itself is redundant as it often has the same content or reads roughly the same as the bio or history section of an article. Thirdly, I notice there are no references in the lead, but on the matter of such errors, surely enough, at least in my experience of updating organisations, it's much easier to update something which is simplified and streamlined than something which would require a partial, if not full rewrite. Whilst there probably won't be a huger amount of new information on Kubrick come about soon, I am still sticking with my point that the article lacks the factoid existence meaning the user has to sift through massive chunky paragraphs to find simple information which can be condensed and found easier by them in an infobox. Fourthly, the point of distracting users is the fault of the design of the Wiki platform and not infoboxes. IF the foundation insists on having the infobox in the same editing area as the lead, then by that logic, the infobox is completely innocent. Lastly #5. Some users, me included, are not too great on writing content. I personally can write short formal sounding letters and longish responses, but I really struggle with writing paragraphs of text informative text. Infoboxes on the other hand I have found are a much easier way of contributing as a lot of the information I know where to find and can easily add, the syntax being pretty simple. If a user is struggling with such they could ask another user by leaving a message on the talk page. If anyone needs help with an infobox, I would be glad to help them. Adding an infobox is in some ways improving an article. There are still many places, organisations and musicians without infoboxes which would really benefit from such in my opinion. Uamaol (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it's factoids you want, try IMDb. This is an encyclopedia and all encyclopedias rely on prose, not idiotboxes. CassiantoTalk 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- That wasn't very civil. Anyway, a veteran Wikipedian should know very well how unreliable IMDB is. Encylopædias are there to inform, most users of this encyclopædia don't hang around long. They come here, find what they need, then leave. Wikipedia is the most widely known encylopædia (bar maybe Encylopædia Britannica). It has become known as the authority on the web. Insulting users that only want the bare essentials by calling them idiotic is not only an attack on civility, but is also pretty narrow minded! But is there any point in me even making that point? Uamaol (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- IMDb is indeed unreliable but get this, so is Wikipedia. The Britannica do not use idiotboxes and that, as you also correctly point out, is an encyclopaedia. So you either want factoids and go to IMDb, or you want an encyclopedia, in which case you stay here. It's really not that difficult. CassiantoTalk 23:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Its no use. The regulars will only continue to plug their ears and cite WP:DISINFOBOX until the opposition gives up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.126 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a brave comment; try logging in and we might take your comments more seriously. CassiantoTalk 23:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- We? Are you multiple people? I hope not as that would be against WP:NOSHARING. What difference does it make if they are an IP or registered user? I know many constructive IP users. Is there even an ounce of civility in you? I recommend having a read of WP:ESDONTS. Uamaol (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't take IP comments very seriously when it's obviously a knowledgeable user who logged out to make a troll comment. So now you have your "we". --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- AGF please. I don't see how a simple observation is trolling. Anyone who's followed the infobox wars knows what the inevitable outcome is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.170 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hit the nail on the head there! Uamaol (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- How was that comment trolly? The user might be on a different device or have a dynamic IP. I think the IP user has contributed positively to the conversation and unlike certain users, clearly have some civility. Before making unfounded accusations I suggest you have a read of WP:CIVIL && WP:AGF. Uamaol (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- LoL, telling an established editor and one of our best administrators to "have a read of WP:CIVIL && [sic] WP:AGF", thinking that no one around here hasn't heard of either of these is hilarious! Here's one for both you and the IP: WP:DTS. CassiantoTalk 06:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- AGF please. I don't see how a simple observation is trolling. Anyone who's followed the infobox wars knows what the inevitable outcome is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.170 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't take IP comments very seriously when it's obviously a knowledgeable user who logged out to make a troll comment. So now you have your "we". --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- We? Are you multiple people? I hope not as that would be against WP:NOSHARING. What difference does it make if they are an IP or registered user? I know many constructive IP users. Is there even an ounce of civility in you? I recommend having a read of WP:ESDONTS. Uamaol (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a brave comment; try logging in and we might take your comments more seriously. CassiantoTalk 23:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- That wasn't very civil. Anyway, a veteran Wikipedian should know very well how unreliable IMDB is. Encylopædias are there to inform, most users of this encyclopædia don't hang around long. They come here, find what they need, then leave. Wikipedia is the most widely known encylopædia (bar maybe Encylopædia Britannica). It has become known as the authority on the web. Insulting users that only want the bare essentials by calling them idiotic is not only an attack on civility, but is also pretty narrow minded! But is there any point in me even making that point? Uamaol (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it's factoids you want, try IMDb. This is an encyclopedia and all encyclopedias rely on prose, not idiotboxes. CassiantoTalk 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- This doesn't address the issue that I faced in looking for his birth place. I would have to scroll down through the enormous lead to the early life section, which would be nightmarish for users with smaller screen sizes. The lead is way too big and needs condensing, much of the content being out of the scope of the factoids-like fashion which you make reference to. On your first point, irrelevant information can be removed if a consensus is found, that is what talk pages are for. Infoboxes are there to give straight to the point factoids about the individual so they don't have to sift through hundreds, if not thousands of words to find simple information. On your second point, it can be argued with that logic that the lead itself is redundant as it often has the same content or reads roughly the same as the bio or history section of an article. Thirdly, I notice there are no references in the lead, but on the matter of such errors, surely enough, at least in my experience of updating organisations, it's much easier to update something which is simplified and streamlined than something which would require a partial, if not full rewrite. Whilst there probably won't be a huger amount of new information on Kubrick come about soon, I am still sticking with my point that the article lacks the factoid existence meaning the user has to sift through massive chunky paragraphs to find simple information which can be condensed and found easier by them in an infobox. Fourthly, the point of distracting users is the fault of the design of the Wiki platform and not infoboxes. IF the foundation insists on having the infobox in the same editing area as the lead, then by that logic, the infobox is completely innocent. Lastly #5. Some users, me included, are not too great on writing content. I personally can write short formal sounding letters and longish responses, but I really struggle with writing paragraphs of text informative text. Infoboxes on the other hand I have found are a much easier way of contributing as a lot of the information I know where to find and can easily add, the syntax being pretty simple. If a user is struggling with such they could ask another user by leaving a message on the talk page. If anyone needs help with an infobox, I would be glad to help them. Adding an infobox is in some ways improving an article. There are still many places, organisations and musicians without infoboxes which would really benefit from such in my opinion. Uamaol (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I also oppose adding an infobox to this article. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". In this case, (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (4) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (5) It would distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed to death here, and as far as I see, nothing has changed. CassiantoTalk 19:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I support adding an infobox, for the reasons stated above. Consensus can change, as we all know. I suggest a collapsible infobox (a la Frank Sinatra) be added as a reasonable compromise solution. Editors and readers who believe it improves the article can expand it, and others can keep it collapsed. --Albany NY (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose adding an infobox for the same reasons as before: there is no need for an info box in this article; it does not convey any significant information not already included in the first few sentences. As I was the idiot person who suggested the collapsed IB on Sinatra, I know from experience that it does not serve as a compromise for long. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes in Bio articles are alright, if it's a sport figure, monarch, politician etc. But, Kubrick isn't any of those things, so I'd oppose one here. GoodDay (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Better photo?
Do we not have any photos of Kubrick that were made later in life (i.e., how he would have looked "now" when the Wikipedia article was written if Wikipedia existed while he was alive) or when he was making the films he is most famous for, between 1960 and 1980? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If we did we could be using it of course, not one of him barely out of nappies :--)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. But also that this article has so many portrait photos of random people loosely related to Kubrick, and only two photos that actually portray our subject, both from 1949, when I don't get the impression anyone had ever heard of him. Heck, this article has more pictures that clearly portray Kirk Douglas than Kubrick (Kubrick is essentially a grainy background figure in one of the two of him), and those images of Kubrick we do have don't really look like how he looked at the height of his career. If you do a Google Image Search of "Stanley Kubrick", only four out of the first fifty are of him as a youngster -- three of them are from Wikipedia, and one is the cover of a book specifically about Kubrick's early career. I can't imagine any biography of Kubrick includes two photos of him as a young photographer and doesn't balance them out with like thirty photos of the heavier-set bearded guy who made famous movies. Of course copyright means we can't include like thirty photos just for that reason, but still. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me, I've thought the same thing. But that's the way copyright is on wikipedia. We want an image of him looking like the bearded chess grandmaster/genius of old, not looking like a guitarist from the Beatles ;-) But there currently is no decent freely useable image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, since he is deceased, you can consider (but it's not automatic) the use of a non-free image from late in his life but you would need to have in-prose text to support its inclusion, such as being an iconic shot of his on a set, or if there was discussion of his older appearance, etc, to justify this alongside the existing free images. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did but if you google him none of the photos are really all that good of him really. He was a very private person.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe we could find a production still like this one whose copyright was not renewed. Opencooper (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that one's not ideal, since Kubrick's face is not especially visible (Douglas/Spartacus is more obvious), but I think basically the more photos we could include of our subject at differents stages in his career the better, so its inclusion would be an improvement, IMO. The only potential danger of including as many PD photos as possible is that they might make another photo redundant and take away a fair use rationale, but in this case neither of the photos of Kubrick currently in the article are fair use.
- Another, loosely related, concern is that with the present dearth of photos clearly depicting our subject, peripheral figures like Spielberg and Ligeti are better portrayed in this article than Kubrick himself. Copyright is obviously not a concern for those photos and we can use them as we please, but it does create a somewhat awkward imbalance. The Spielberg one was also taken more than a decade after Kubrick's death, so it's not technically like we are illustrating Kubrick's relationship to another filmmaker with a photo of that filmmaker as Kubrick knew him, if you get me. Spielberg is also more famous than Kubrick, so it's probably unnecessary to show readers of an article on Kubrick what Speilberg looks like.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, since he is deceased, you can consider (but it's not automatic) the use of a non-free image from late in his life but you would need to have in-prose text to support its inclusion, such as being an iconic shot of his on a set, or if there was discussion of his older appearance, etc, to justify this alongside the existing free images. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me, I've thought the same thing. But that's the way copyright is on wikipedia. We want an image of him looking like the bearded chess grandmaster/genius of old, not looking like a guitarist from the Beatles ;-) But there currently is no decent freely useable image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
"Despite the resulting notoriety among actors"
Despite the resulting notoriety among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new ground in cinematography.
This sentence bugs me. Did it originally say "broke new ground in X, Y and Z" and X and Y were removed at some point? There doesn't seem to be a contradiction between "notoriety among actors" and "breaking new ground in cinematography", so the "despite" seems to be in error.
(FTR, I came across this because I was combing through the intro trying to see where a paragraph-break could be inserted or to find something to cut, since I agree with MF14's unprofessional opinion a few sections up that at present the intro looks abit intimidating.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying. Perhaps the original thought was something like this: "Despite the aforementioned difficulties (as the sentence prior notes his sometimes difficult interactions with actors) his films, nonetheless, were highly appreciated for their cinematography, blah, blah, blah." That seems reasonable to assume in my mind. I would encourage you to do an edit if you feel otherwise. That's the great thing about Wikipedia - we all can contribute in a meaningful way to improve articles.THX1136 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Stanley Kubrick. 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Sellers mention and currency
In the open of the article Peter Sellers is mentioned in connection with Lolita and Dr. Strangelove. It seems somewhat out of place to specifically highlight any actor in any of Kubrick's films. Thoughts?
Also, in the mention of the sale of a photo by Kubrick, the denomination is in English pounds as opposed to American dollars. Should this be in the American denomination as the transaction took place in the US?THX1136 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick had a very well documented relationship. Both were landmark films. I think mentioning him is perfectly appropriate. Kubrick lived in the UK for over half his life. We should go with whatever the source says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Again help desk questions wasting our time
Again we are trying to explain to our readers why the norm is not here. Sure you guys are doing right by our readers here?
- Wikipedia:Help desk#Missing information ..........--Moxy (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anything good is going to come of dragging this whole tedious argument up again, for either side of the argument. With well over 4 million other articles that could do with improvement, I would suggest that your energies are best suited elsewhere. CassiantoTalk 19:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- You got it 100%....waste of time dealing with it. To bad it keeps coming up....if only we could help our readers with the problem. Moxy (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- If we are agreed that it is a waste of time, then why do you keep involving yourself? CassiantoTalk 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- You got it 100%....waste of time dealing with it. To bad it keeps coming up....if only we could help our readers with the problem. Moxy (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care about the wars your in over this all over. But those here should be aware of what are readers are looking for when they read the article. Just as the last time I metioned this month's and months ago...same scenario.....simply FYI. Moxy (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- "I don't care about the wars your [sic] in over this all over." -- Yes you do or you wouldn't be bothering me, again. CassiantoTalk 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care about the wars your in over this all over. But those here should be aware of what are readers are looking for when they read the article. Just as the last time I metioned this month's and months ago...same scenario.....simply FYI. Moxy (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I was not aware this article was yours... nor was I aware you were here. Believe it or not there's many other articles that you're not aware of that the same topic comes up. Moxy (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be impertinent; the article was improved to its current state by Ssven2 and Dr. Blofeld, so if anyone can lay claim to it more than anyone, it's them. CassiantoTalk 22:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I was not aware this article was yours... nor was I aware you were here. Believe it or not there's many other articles that you're not aware of that the same topic comes up. Moxy (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK then the FYI is for them. Have a good day and think of our readers always. Moxy (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
On the lead section
I edited the lead section a while ago, but the edits were reverted. The changes I had made were there for the following reasons. "His films, most of which" is preferable to "His films, which are typically" because the director is deceased; the "Creative differences" sentence is moved to start a new paragraph because the previous paragraph was too large; "and skillful use of music" was deleted because it verges on POV and because his "evocative use of music" is already noted in the first paragraph; and the final sentence is added to tell readers which works of his are the most renowned. I would like an explanation of why none of these were improvements. AndrewOne (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I've reworded it slightly to "meticulous attention to detail and use of music". You don't write leads with five paragraphs and one tiny sentence paragraph. I suggest you read the MOS guidelines and how to write a good lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- AndrewOne, I don't agree with any of your changes. In some cases you diverge from proper style, in some cases you are introducing awkward writing, and in some cases you are making the writing sterile and boring under the guise of removing what you perceive to be POV. Kubrick is indeed noted for his mastery of incorporating music into film—"skillful use of music" is actually putting it mildly. --Laser brain (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- If there is something I am misunderstanding about this policy, please inform me of it. The sentence is indeed a biased statement, because it assumes as fact that Kubrick's use of music was skillful when it is a critical consensus, not a fact, that his use of music was skillful. In the section of the NPOV guidelines concerning the description of aesthetic opinions, it is noted, "Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language." This is the same reason I could not write that "Bach is noted for his brilliant use of counterpoint" or that "Godard is noted for his masterful use of jump cuts". AndrewOne (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your point is eluding me. If the preponderance of reliable sources used in an article note that Kubrick's use of music is skillful, that's what should be reflected in the article. Saying someone is good at something is not "biased" if our sources say they are good at that thing. We may be talking past each other because I really don't understand what your issue is. --Laser brain (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point he's making is that it's a fact the he made such-a-number of films, but the quality of his skills is not a fact, but an assessment. He is considered skillful, but that's not the kind of thing that could be determined by empirical means. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my point. Additionally, in response to Dr. Blofeld, I know of no binding rule against a lead section ending with a paragraph of one sentence. Certainly some sentences can be more summative than others. The closing paragraphs of the lead sections for Pablo Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, and George Eliot are all comprised of single sentences, for example, and none of these endings are to my mind awkward. AndrewOne (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point he's making is that it's a fact the he made such-a-number of films, but the quality of his skills is not a fact, but an assessment. He is considered skillful, but that's not the kind of thing that could be determined by empirical means. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your point is eluding me. If the preponderance of reliable sources used in an article note that Kubrick's use of music is skillful, that's what should be reflected in the article. Saying someone is good at something is not "biased" if our sources say they are good at that thing. We may be talking past each other because I really don't understand what your issue is. --Laser brain (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Links to film titles in picture captions
I see that the first few pictures in the body of article (Fear and Desire, Paths of Glory, Spartacus) don't link to the film in the caption, but later down they do (Lolita, 2001, Clockwork Orange), before not linking again (Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, etc). Should they all be linked, or none of them? Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- All. More useful to readers. — JFG talk 16:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Birth name Terrence Nezman?
Refs such as this. I'm sure it's an "alternative fact" lacking any actual factitude, but where would such a rumour have come from? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- That is just a blatant lie then, not an "alternative fact". However it appears that such as early as June 2004, and possibly as early as 1 February 2002 it was on the internet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)