Stanley Kubrick has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 15, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed April 24, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed August 24, 2015 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Screenwriters Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). Chess GA‑class Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Hertfordshire GA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WP1.0

I quote the article: 'Kubrick married Harlan in 1958, and the couple remained together 40 years, until his death in 1999.'

Also, Kubrick is listed as a spouse on Christiane Kubrick's wiki page. And this is discussed at the Personal_life_of_Stanley_Kubrick page.

I have good reason to doubt that they ever actually married. Firstly, I read here that Stanley Kubrick married Christiane in 1958. Okay, then I wonder, when Kubrick’s divorce from his second wife, Ruth Sobotka, became final? The answer given here is that 'They divorced in 1957'. I'm real curious about the reference given for this: 'Santas, Constantine (2011). The Epic Films of David Lean.' I think that the book title suggests a detailed study of the five epic films of David Lean. I think there must be a typo there, eh? So we have no reference for this info, but we do have the wiki entry on Ruth Sobotka, which has this to say:

'they married in January 1955; separated in 1958, and divorced in 1961.'

ooops. Now, how come I don't think that Kubrick and Christiane Harlan ever married? I won't bother with that, because 'why bother with that' is a better question. I'll settle for the more modest point that repeating something that you heard doesn't make it true, along with the logical point that we don't really know, at the very least, *when* Stanley and Christiane might have gotten married. Anything about a wedding reception? Where? When? I guess that doesn't prove they *didn't* marry, but where is the burden of proof? Whose word are we trusting here, anyways? Maybe I'm a trusting guy, but how did this rumor even get started? DanLanglois (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure: I wanted to discuss infobox too, but seeing how it's a "sensible" subject, I'll keep to my original point of speech.)
Let's be honest - the current picture is not the appearance most people remember Kubrick by. In most film discussion forums I have been in, he is older, slightly bigger, and has a gigantic beard. A little bit more like this, I find. And as it turned out when I looked at Commons:Category:Stanley Kubrick, we have not many pictures of him with that iconic look. I do wonder, is it really that hard to find aptly-licenced photos of one of the greatest artists of the 20th century? Maybe it is, and I won't judge either way.
If we can't find another portrait, maybe we at least can discuss it a bit and maybe find consensus on whether the picture should be replaced and with what. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to find. The File:Kubriku.jpg image you link to is awful. The current one is a lot better. Cassianto^Talk 22:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize the other one was awful. Had I thought it good, I would have put it in right away, doing it by the book. The current portrait is easily the best one we currently have. But is it the best considering what SK looked like in most of his film career? I think not. I think we need another portrait - for the lead at least, and move down the current one to a section or something - and my main concern is that Kubrick generally didn't look like that. Consider for instance that the lead of Adolf Hitler does not contains this image, but rather a portrait showing the appearance most commonly represented with the person in question. Once again, the issue I raised is a theoretical one and maybe not instantly fixable. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 22:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dates involved, the older you want him to look the less likely you are to find an image now out of copyright - see the copyright term chart. If you do find one you can propose it, but you'd need appropriate documentation regarding copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I was here to look up some quick info about Stanley Kubrick after a conversation with a friend, and I noticed that there's no Info Box. I am well aware that there's a conversation about it here, but we need to just consider a simple fact: Info boxes give information that the vast majority of users coming to this page are looking for. The only other thing that someone would generally come to the Stanley Kubrick page other than the quick information is his Filmography. Generally speaking, though it's nice we have all this information, unless the opening paragraph did its job then they do not care about the details, and do not care to slog through them to get the information they actually want. The alternative to an info box is a lot of Ctrl+F's, which are NOT usually available on Mobile, and so we just have a mess. I get it, aesthetics, but form follows function, you build aesthetics around the function, not the other way around. The function of Wikipedia is to give information to the masses, and this is going against that. I dusted off my ancient account to say this: I, the average Wikipedia user (not editor,) had a bad user experience. This page in particular failed to do the basics of what the user expects.

That's just my two cents. Take them or leave them, but I 100% guarantee you if you were to poll the average Wikipedia user (not editor, user) if they do or do not want Info Boxes, they would agree that Info Boxes should stay. Do not enforce your artistic vision over the needs of the people actually using this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PheonixDev (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're offering the choice, then we'll leave them. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been looking at your edits, Cassianto, it seems like you have a lot of love for the idea of your grand "artistic vision" for Wikipedia bios, in fact, you're so thorough in your grand misunderstanding that 41/145 comments on this talk page are by you, so let's make this clear: This isn't about art. This is about information, and half of the idea of compiling information is the ability to find information. If you don't understand this, and let's be clear: this is a critical idea to the concept of encyclopedias, that's a massive problem and I suggest you take a break and figure it out. PheonixDev (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you just take a break. That's it. Cassianto^Talk 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PD if you can't be bothered to read the article - which is where the "information" actually is - there is little that anyone can do for you. Considering that these are the first posts you have made in over two years one has to wonder what other usernames you have used. MarnetteD|Talk 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used another username. Again, I told you what it is, dusting this one off for this. I usually do not partake in edit arguments, but this issue is glaring. And here's the thing: Your romanticized "editor's view" of what the page should look like does not match up with what the users actually want. This is why this keeps coming up. This is why info boxes are on most other pages. This is why these features exist - it's because users want them. You don't get to remove something critical to the user experience on Wikipedia because you don't like the aesthetics. PheonixDev (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit history you don't take part in anything. Add to that the fact that proof is sadly lacking which backs up your declarative statements about what readers do and do not want. BTW no one is forcing you to read Wikipedia. Please avail yourself of any of the 100s of others websites that don't offend your tender sensibilities. MarnetteD|Talk 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In all of your posts, you keep saying you're looking for information and can't find it. You've repeated the IB credo in every one of them, but have yet to say what it is you're looking for and couldn't find. We hope (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, I'm gonna say it again for you: I do not edit. I'm giving you the user opinion. Specifically I'm giving you the opinion of someone who has a degree that involved tons of work with UI/UX - you are denying people concision. The title of the thread is a reference to the ease of use of info. For example, in order to find out where he was born and when he was born, I have to go to two different paragraphs in two different sections of the article (intro and Early life.) To find out details about his family, I have to go to a third section (Personal Life) and overall it's just a big mess. You need to get yourself out of "editor mode" and actually view this from the perspective of those using the site. PheonixDev (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are that desperate for such details so quickly - it takes all sorts I suppose - there is always google. Cassianto^Talk 08:22, 30 December 2017 (UT·C)

There's undoubtedly something sinister going on behind the scenes as this trolling over infoboxes is getting out of hand. @Yngvadottir: What was the last thing arb said because they should be doing something to stop this happening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person to ask I'm afraid, but in any case they tend to aver they don't go by precedent (while of course they often do). In any case the current lot are lame ducks for another day or so. Two things strike me. First, the examples of information that infobox lovers can't wait to get, or are reluctant to seek in any but tabular form, always seem to be bathetic stuff like where someone was born, their citizenship, and who they had sex with; or, judging by other controversies, their nationality, religion, and what they are "best known for", such as what pigeonhole(s) their music can be put into. These are awful things to reduce a career to, let alone a life. Far from being an aesthetic issue, I believe this is an issue of fairness to both the person being thus reduced to tabloid headlines, and the reader who deserves accuracy. Second, I'm informed off-wiki that the WMF has recently announced "structured information" as one of their priorities. i.e., Wikidata rather than Wikipedia. So, PheonixDev, if you don't want to use Google as suggested above—and Google builds its own infobox where Wikipedia doesn't have one—then I suggest going straight to Wikidata, where there is no nuance or perspective whatsoever. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a TON of weak attempts at discrediting me, which is cool, but point still stands. Ultimately, this boils down to an extremely inflated sense of "justice for the artist." In your head, having an info box that gives quick facts about an artist simplifies their entire existence to that singular info box. Though it'd be tragic if that was the case, and I'd agree if it was, it seriously isn't. You don't stop reading at the info box, but you aren't going to do a deep search through three different sections to get basic information which is ultimately what you're arguing for. Like, I get it, you're all lovers of art, that's cool, and there's nothing wrong with that. But part of a job of editing for an encyclopedia is making sure the encyclopedia gives people an easy and organized way of accessing information, with the most basic information requiring little to no effort to be found. Period. If that is a problem, and it really does sound like it is for you, then this, unfortunately, is not the place to express that frustration. Again, and I'll repeat this for nth time - the user experience is paramount, being able to find information is more important than anything else. Wikipedia is a source of compiled information first and foremost. It is not a place for artistic flare that compromises that idea. Period. PheonixDev (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't write for people who are after "quick facts". I write for people who are genuinely interested in the subjects that I write about. Those interested in my articles will want to read on. Those who aren't, have either visited by accident or haven't visited at all. If you want "quick facts" to cheat in quiz nights or to impress a date, I suggest you google it. Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that's really cool you write for that reason. Unfortunately Wikipedia is meant to consolidate information in a user-friendly and useful manner. There are other sources for more artistic writing, this really isn't one of them and never will be. PheonixDev (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just "in my opinion." Wikipedia's mission is to compile knowledge in a concise and clear manner. The entire reason for editors is that. Period. If you are not willing to accept this, then I highly recommend you cease editing immediately and find something else to do. You are clearly not in a healthy mindset to provide objective facts and uphold a uniform standard that users can rely on. I understand this means a lot to you, and you have several pages, and heck, you even go through the effort of having an inflated username with the big text and font, but this is not your job and you are doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. So I highly recommend you either take a break and review what Wikipedia is all about or stop entirely. PheonixDev (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the why this article should be an exception. Ambo100 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is right now. Almost all other bios have info boxes. PheonixDev (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it right. Cassianto^Talk 11:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot you do that most would consider not right. I'm gonna be honest with you, man, you strike me as the kind of guy who's constantly on the wrong side of things due to nothing more but an extremely inflated sense of self. When the vast majority of bio pages have infoboxes and now you want to grind your heels and throw tantrums saying no everyone else in Wikipedia is wrong then that's really just something you need to get checked out. PheonixDev (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, screw my dignity. I'm jumping on the Kubrick infobox war and state my opinion: "Of course we should have an infobox, everything else is ridiculous!"
The suggestion to the right is mine. It gives all vital information on SK without in any way decimating his life or whatever the concern is. I don't even get this point about how SK's legacy is tainted by a harmless infobox. Of course he did much more than die, marry, and carry a passport, but anyone on this article can see that. If we were to intentionally hide it (and yes, making it deliberately less accessible is the same as hiding), that would feel like declaring SK more or less over-human and not worthy of talking about in terms of demography. Consider my satire infobox below. Is that how high Wikipedia will think of SK? Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 01:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to WP:AN and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived. Cassianto^Talk 11:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of Jimbo, Cassianto! What exactly are the points of WP:TPG that makes this discussion worthy of admin intervention, aside from your personal POV? As far as I see, all the previous discussions closed without consensus, and even if they didn't and consensus existed, is it a crime to discuss it? Or are you claiming ownership of this talk page? You've been rather blunt and arrogant as far as I can see, If you really had "[e]nough of this fucking bullshit", just unwatch and let others more interested take the debate, be civil and let it go! Heated discussion doesn't mean forbidden discussion. I can't see how we're abusing Wikipedia. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate. It's been had many, many times before, just check the archives. There's a consensus in place NOT to have an idiotbox, and by keep dragging this up every couple of weeks, is tantamount to disruption. It's best an uninvolved admin comes here and presides over the matter. If they deem the amount of diffs I've provided at AN to be ok, then so be it. The fact you state there is "no consensus" is because the consensus has not fallen on your favour. The discussion has been had, the result was that an infobox was not required. If you claim that's not enough, then I'll raise you one and say that there is a "silent consensus" in place as the box has remained off the page since the last RfC. Oh, and do not make condescending remarks like this. Do it again, and I'll have you up at ANI. Cassianto^Talk 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting hypocrisy from someone who's been blocked a dozen or so times for personal attacks. It'd be great if I could just go around removing the personal attacks from comments you make. Looks like someone can dole out the personal attacks but can't take it themselves? jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that your laborious MO of attempting to derail the thread by bringing up the irrelevancy of my block log is still alive and kicking. Cassianto^Talk 16:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aided by Mother's little helper We hope (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting decision to highlight what's clearly a good faith attempt at deescalation. If this is a way of saying thank you to me, it's definitely a new one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to thank you for. We hope (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's shit like this "Thank you-for adding humour to an infobox discussion! - I stopped commenting, find them a complete waste of time, but read of course, and your deity box made my day! I just read again what I said in 2013, - no need to change, I'll just add 2017." that keeps the ammo in the war flowing. We hope (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor finds those discussions such a "waste of time" that it was necessary for her to initiate this discourse about them recently. We hope (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium

We need a freeze on these repetitive 'infobox' disucssions. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But perhaps the freeze may take place in hell, first, rather than here. Cassianto^Talk 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like the look of a collapsible infobox. It seems possible for a compromise of collapsible infobox to get consensus. I'm thinking of starting an RfC on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I especially like it as it frames the image nicely. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I reckon we should then have an RfC about what to call the next RfC. Cassianto^Talk 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This entire chain of 'discussion' is probably the saddest thing I have ever seen on the internet and it is worrying to see how long it has been going on for.

The fact that there is a constant argument about it, day in day out, and it's effectively been a one man war with Cassianto having this page watched and just running into every single post and immediately harassing anyone and everyone who dares talk about it, leads me to think you're misunderstanding what the solution here is. PheonixDev (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A moratorium isn't going to happen, because consensus can change. At some point people are just going to have to accept that this oddball decision to have no infobox on a prominent biography (when nearly all other bios have them) is more trouble than it is worth and creates far more disruption than it is worth. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it can, and indeed it has. Hence no infobox. Cassianto^Talk 23:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]