Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 12

This 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Rfc: Should an Infobox be added?

Latest comment: 4 years ago173 comments61 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Question: Should an infobox be added to this page?

Hopefully we can have a civil and productive discussion, thanks HAL 333 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey 2

Support An infobox has been badly needed on this page for a long time. HAL 333 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose will explain in discussion. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Reductive and hence inevitably unbalanced. See below for my version of the same point others have already made. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. As a reader I expect to see an infobox. The article looks incomplete without it. See below. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Support The infobox seems like it would be a useful tool on this biography to provide certain details. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose an infobox on this article -- per the comments made by Gothicfilm. I am unable to discuss this further owing to restrictions, but if anyone wishes to discuss my view with me, they are welcome to email me. Cassianto^Talk 22:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per previous discussions. As to what readers "expect to see" there are a couple million articles here at wikipedia that do not have an infobox. Also, I have seen no empirical evidence of what readers do and/or do not expect to see when they read the 'pedia's articles. This sentiment is, all to often, used as a substitute for "what I want to see" and are an offshoot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarnetteD|Talk 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons I have stated previously and elsewhere, namely that an infobox contains nothing that shouldn't already be in a carefully written and informative lead. One is not needed here. Jack1956 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose infobox - article has managed this long without one and is not needed now. They just dissuade people from actually reading the article. Dreamspy (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Support infobox Though it is unlikely to gain enough support, I think that an infobox would improve the article and bring it more in line with a style that is expected from readers (regardless of whether you agree or not, these repeated discussions that are commonly brought up by new users proves that there is an expectation and that they see the non-infobox as 'something missing'). Ultimately there is no policy to hang such an argument on, so will boil down to personal preference of those users polled. I would prefer an infobox (for my more detailed thoughts, see previous discussions). I don't expect to change the minds of the anti-box-crowd (such a task has proved less than fruitful previously and no evidence suggests that such a discussion would yield different results if re-hashed). Those users are free to voice their opinion. Lets keep the discussion civil. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh... one more thing: I think that an infobox would be an ideal place to put a prominent link to Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick, something currently buried deep in the article and difficult to crowbar into the lead. See the Discussion just above this one for a good example of what an infobox might look like. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely no utility in labeling people who have voiced an opinion in this dispute as the "anti-infobox crowd" or anything else. I support including infoboxes where they are sensible, and if you reference my userpage you will see that they are present in my FAs. --Laser brain (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Laser brain, it is merely shorthand for “those users who don’t support an info box on this page.” — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Then please change the label! Use all those words to describe us: "I don't expect to change the minds of those users who don't support an info box on this page" would be better - it makes it look like there is no common ground, whereas there is more than you think. I'm a big fan of IBs when they're used properly, and many (possibly most) of "my" FAs and GAs include them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose infobox Cannot believe we're going through this again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose strongly, per reasons eloquently stated in previous discussions and above by Ssilvers. --Laser brain (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Infoboxes in bio articles, should be limited to sports figures, politicians. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
No, they should not. We have infobox templates for writers and musicians and film directors and actors and many other occupations besides just sports figures and politicians, and they are and should be used accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. This is a lengthy article on a popular topic thus the likelihood is high that a considerable number of readers could benefit from a brief summation of key points in an Info-box. We should be concerned not so much with aficionados of the subject who don't need an Info-box but with newcomers to the subject who benefit from the presentation of a few pieces of information at a glance. Our concern is not with getting people to read articles. To the extent that we endeavor to require reading where reading is not necessary we make the article less useful for the broad range of people. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Per above reasons. Rusted AutoParts 16:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. On a random spotcheck of several other significant film directors of similar stature to Kubrick and with similarly long articles — Steven Spielberg, Bernardo Bertolucci, Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Richard Attenborough, Woody Allen, Ron Howard, Elia Kazan, Alfonso Cuarón, Roman Polanski and George Lucas — every single one of them does have an infobox, and I have never seen a credible or compelling argument as to why Kubrick is somehow uniquely unsuited to what every other film director already has. Literally the only substantive argument against an infobox here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a serious argument. The only legitimate grounds for eliding an infobox in a biographical article is if the article is an extremely short stub for which we don't have enough information yet to actually fill out an infobox at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I support the addition of an infobox. It will help readers by making information about Kubrick accessible at a glance. Though not required by policy, infoboxes have become the norm for articles such as this one (see Orson Welles, John Ford, Francis Ford Coppola, and many more). If the article remains without one, this discussion will recur again and again, causing much agnst and tension. --Albany NY (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Let me first reiterate what I said in 2017:
I'm sympathetic to the editors arguing that the presence of an infobox will prevent readers from reading through an article. Articles such as this one represent a significant and laudable time investment by all the people involved. We want people to read them. Absent analytics, heat maps, and usability tests we can't know for certain how our readers are reading this article. It's possible, however, to speak more generally about how people use websites. People (readers) view websites more prosaically than the people who create the websites. People visit websites in order to obtain information. A large number of people who visit this article, sadly, aren't interested in how Kubrick composed the shots in Barry Lyndon. They want to know simple things such as when and where he was born, his years of activity, his profession, and when he died. Yes, you can get that information from prose, but usability study after usability study has demonstrated that people skim instead of read, and that the eye is attracted to elements such as lists and tables. You can't force someone to read prose by removing the alternative; the prose is not diminished by providing the alternative.
Let me now add to that: external services can pull that metadata out and display it. Do a search like "when was Elia Kazan" born and look at the result for Wikipedia; compare to a similar search for Stanley Kubrick and you'll see the difference. That's useful for people doing voice search who want information about Kubrick; asking a blind person to read the full article to get those details isn't a great solution. They'll probably just get the information somewhere else. In fact, the first result for searches such as "when was stanley kubrick born" isn't Wikipedia; it's Biography.com. Not because they have better prose--they don't---but because they expose the essential metadata. Please think on this. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The metadata argument is a straw man, I'm afraid. It's held on Wikidata and sourced from there by the search engines. Not having an IB here does not stop those engines gathering the information. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To answer your now deleted question: you’d have to ask one of the search companies then. The same question about Alfred Hitchcock also shows the answer from biography.com, yet there is a full IB on our article. Short answer: the presence or not if an IB does not affect the info Google gets. I'm not sure what you mean by "agf and all that rubbish" in your edit summary, but maybe its best I don't. - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Support collapsible infobox – This will definitely end up as no consensus yet again, but it's worth a shot anyway. I suppose infoboxes are just easier on the eyes of readers. A collapsible infobox would serve as a fine compromise. There for those who want it, not there for those who don't. Aria1561 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Side note – If this does end up having no consensus, or a consensus against having an infobox, there should perhaps be a prohibition on opening a future infobox RfC on here. No point re-opening the discussion if it just gives the same result each time. Aria1561 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  - To any proposal such as this, I would point out, as the OP does, that WP:Consensus can change. If at some future point a discussion would give a different result, but no such discussion is allowed based on the assumption that it wouldn’t… that seems kind of broken, doesn’t it? But of course, common sense should be used in judging whether consensus is likely to have changed, and one shouldn’t reopen discussion in a blind just-in-case hope. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per all the above. This seems to have been raised more times here that the number of takes Scatman Crothers (allegedly) had to do. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Admittedly I did support collapsing in 2017 however that was more of a "lets keep everyone happy" sort of !vote,
Anyway I oppose simply because everything that's in the infobox is already in the lede and as such having one wouldn't be serving any sort of purpose, The lede is so well done that imho it doesn't need an infobox .... If readers don't want to read the lede then they're on the wrong website altogether. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I would be one of the first in line on personal preferrence that we should standardize on infoboxes, but the past situation on this page as well as the ArbCom Infobox case shows that it is a matter of talk page consensus whether a page needs an infobox or not, and several past RFCs have simply shown that consensus is against this page needing one, and nothing in this current RFC changes the matter besides potentially asking the same question again of a different set of editors. --Masem (t) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – Although the framing of the discussion makes me an "oppose", it's not really that I "oppose infoboxes" so much as I "support editorial discretion to omit an infobox". I find the reasoning summarized above by Ssilvers persuasive. Many of the infobox supporters in this discussion seem to be dismissing aesthetic considerations as frivolous or purely subjective, but this is an oversimplification: aesthetics are at the heart of the presentation of information and how readers will process information. There are reasons to omit infoboxes that go far beyond mere whim or preference.
I'm not personally opposed to the idea of collapsible infoboxes, but (in light of prior consensus) I am opposed to forcing them onto pages by vote—and if anything, I think there should be a push to introduce collapsible infoboxes to biographies that already use infoboxes, rather than introducing them to biographies that don't use infoboxes. Doing so would promote collapsible infoboxes as a viable and widely used option in their own right, rather than as a single-use method of eliminating no-infobox pages. —BLZ · talk 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Strong support as per Bearcat. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Infoboxes are not mandatory and the article is good as is. People wanting answers for a trivia quiz will find them in the overview presented when searching for Kubrick in Google or by reading the first sentence or two of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The first two sentences are clearly insufficient for the purposes ascribed, and the day that we tell a reader to go somewhere else for the factual information they are looking for is the day this site dies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose It doesn't seem to be mandatory just because other directors and celebrities have it in their articles. The article seems good enough and is interesting enough to read. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I had hoped that there would be some new discussion or argument that would provide a reason for the consensus to change. Sadly, nothing new has been provided. So far all I see from the support !votes is 'Other articles have them' (see WP:OSE); 'I prefer it when they are there' (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), 'all readers want one' (see ^{[citation needed]}) and 'the article is popular, so it should have one' (just not true). Several people have pointed out that the eye is attracted to tables and the like – including IBs. This means readers gain the impression the factoids are of more weight and importance than the rest of the text: this means they are out of proportion to the other information, which is where the importance of the subject and its notability lie. Much of the information is in the opening sentence, and the first paragraph contains more information to give context and nuance to the information, rather than the bald facts, that fail to inform, educate or inform. – SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Support The info typically found in a biographical infobox is the first thing I look for when I visit an article about a person, even though it is rarely what makes that person notable. When I want that knowledge, I read the article; the allegation above that infoboxes "...discourage readers from reading the text of the article" is contrary to my experience. Vadder (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion 2

There is no downside or cost to including an infobox. All it does is make the information within the article more accessible to the reader. I experienced this a month or so ago, when I wanted to see who were Kubrick's wives, I had to spend some time looking through the article to find it. And for those who may say that an infobox is not needed for a director like Kubrick, go look at Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Quentin Tarantino. HAL 333 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is no reason not to have an infobox on a page like this. What harm does it cause? HAL 333 20:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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

There's no consensus to overturn, just one to create. The purpose, and benefit, of infoboxes is to allow the reader to quickly access information, instead of having to read through to find a single fact. For the reader who just wants to know a few small facts, an infobox is an invaluable tool. And to the reader who wants to read the entire article, an infobox can serve as a jumping point. An infobox does NOT harm or negatively effect the reader whatsoever. There are no downsides whatsoever. And so far, in all the myriad of discussions, I've not seen any editor explain a single drawback to having an infobox. HAL 333 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, their is no logical reason against including an infobox. You "Infobox exclusionists" claim it is oversimplification and doesn't portray the deep true nature of Kubrick. An infobox isn't supposed to explain someone's personality or impact. Noobody visits an article looks at an infobox and believes that that is all there is to that figure or subject. No one has ever seen John William's Infobox and believed he has no merit as a composer because it does not state outright that he is a good composer. That's ridiculous. Infoboxes aren't meant to fully explain someone's personality or how people viewed him or her. They are simply meant to give you some basic facts, so you know what the subject's time period, occupation, and basic aspects of life are. Readers use an infobox as a jumping point to read the article or a section which piqued their interest from the infobox. Your obstinate opposition to adding an infobox does not do the reader a service, the reader doesn't realize that a few editors think its poetic and deep not to include a infobox because "Kubrick can't even be defined by an infobox, man." If anything a reader may think that Kubrick was not significant enough to merit an infobox. What do you think crosses the mind of a reader who finds infoboxes on every other notable director's page and finds it missing on Kubrick, as if he is some stub article. And if you're so hung up on "photographer" not being listed under his occupations: just ADD it. That's the magic of an infobox. HAL 333 01:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

I was not aware of these rules, but since I have now distorted it, I support closing this tainted rfc. HAL 333 02:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I refuse to participate. When asked if an article - any article - should have an infobox, I'd say "Why not?" - and no argument of those who say that it damages an article (and assume that those who want one must come from behind-the-scenes conspiracies probably run by me) has ever convinced me. |HAL333, you can of course use any of what I wrote, and I don't mind copyvio ;) - I'm just too wounded to go myself. Peace. ... Looking at Stanley Kubrick, we have a history of creation in 2001, infobox added in 2005, infobox removed in the edit just above ten years later, no edit summary, then - after a little edit-war, establishment of "consensus" not to have one, Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 7, arguments:
It tells us absolutely nothing about his directorial career.

Infoboxes are optional and should be the choice of those who have made contributions to the article.

I also believe that an infobox pollutes the article.

I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost.

The Google version of these damned things has led to a downturn in our reader numbers.

This article looks better without an infobox.

There is no need for an info box in this article; it does not convey any significant information not already included in the first few sentences.

... a waste of space and amateurish-looking here ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no existing consensus here, and this cannot end with an unanswered claim like this. You said I "don't even mention the key points". I did repeatedly. Here's the principal one again regarding liberal arts biographies: An infobox is not meant to summarize the most important things about the subject. It gives certain concrete facts like name, date and place of birth, death, and yes, marriage info. Not because they're most important, but because they're the most concrete. It's good to know when and where someone was born before diving into the disparate details of their life. There is nothing harmful about this. The infobox also gives a good capstone to the article, and like a building, a capstone makes it look complete (hopefully with a good image of the subject). If a reader is only interested in when the subject got married, well, we may prefer that they look deeper into the person's life, but we don't need to "force" them to go through the article if they don't want to. That's their business. WP is here for readers to use as they like. Don't worry about the tiny number who check in only for marriage info (which is not in the lead, forcing readers to search for it). Particularly as they may well have actually read the article earlier and are now returning just to check on a particular concrete fact that normally would be in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Close?

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

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

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