2001: A Space Odyssey was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 4, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / Core / American B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "2001: A Space Odyssey". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 75–90. ISBN 0275983951.
• Redner, Gregg (2010). "Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche: Recurrence and Reactivity in the Dance of Becoming That Is 2001: A Space Odyssey". In Bartkowiak, Mathew J (ed.). Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 177–193. ISBN 0786444800.
• Stoehr, Kevin L. (2007). "2001: A Philosophical Odyssey". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 119–134. ISBN 0813124727.

I fixed the article link in the FUR for this image. But I am not entirely convinced by the rationale. The image seems to be included after a mention of it's existence, but there is no critical commentary. The FUR notes the purpose is "Illustrate most famous match cut in film history" but this is not mentioned in the article. Can this be addressed? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in WP:FILMNFI-

"Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary."

- doesn't mention free images or PD images. Does this mean free images in plot summaries are allowed?Shirtwaist (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the WP Doctor Strangelove article is any indication, then yessirree indeedy they are allowed.

BTW, I'm thinking of replacing the new Space Odyssey image in the Kubrick article with this one.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those DS stills are considered Public Domain apparently because they appeared in the original 1964 trailer. I've noticed this loophole used in a few other film articles. So, this must mean the Match-Cut images could've stayed in the plot section if they were in the original 1968 trailer, which unfortunately they weren't. Which raises the question: Why is the NFI criteria, ie: "critical commentary is supposed to be in the article near the image" and "Screenshots work best when they are used in a contextually significant manner, and the "Plot" section is just a description of the primary source" valid for non-free images, and not for identical images that are "free"? Seems a bit contradictory and arbitrary to me. I'm with you about replacing the current image for 2001 in Stanley Kubrick with the Match-Cut-- much more appropriate, IMO.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it all has to do with the legal issues around "fair use"--WickerGuy (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but legal issues are not part of the "supported by critical commentary" type of criteria which is concerned with encyclopedic matters only. I mean, how does a free image in a plot summary that is not supported by critical commentary somehow satisfy this criteria when an identical non-free image that is not supported by critical commentary does not? This makes no sense. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the criteria to both free and non-free images?Shirtwaist (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Military nature of orbiting satellites" provides some critical commentary. Maybe the screenshot could be moved to that section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, for me that would address my concerns. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep it where it is, but attach a note explaining the cut's notoriety with links to refs explaining same. This may seem unusual, but the iconic nature of this particular cut in cinema history can't be overestimated.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is located in the "Plot" section, which does not contain any critical commentary. Screenshots work best when they are used in a contextually significant manner, and the "Plot" section is just a description of the primary source. The screenshot would be better placed in the "Military nature" section because it would increase readers' understanding of the context discussed there. See Changeling (film)#Closing sequence or American Beauty (film)#Imprisonment and redemption where screenshots neighbor the relevant context. I'm not sure if just a caption saying "iconic cut" is compelling rationale for its current placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Erik. It is my understanding the critical commentary is supposed to be in the article near the image and as a caption it is not reasonable NFCC usage. I think that comes under "just for decoration". --Errant ^(chat!) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point - WP:FILMNFI is very clear on this subject. Unfortunately, the other image in the plot section should also go. On the other hand, we could make this article...the exception to the rule? Maybe?Shirtwaist (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'm in favour of such things :) but the NFCC stuff comes down from the foundation and is agreed on by local consensus - plus it deals with a legal aspect, i.e. fair use could present legal problems if done wrong. Sadly I fear you are right on the matter of the other image. I's sad, but there you go :( --Errant ^(chat!) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think both images could have a place in this article or one of the sub-articles. The Star Child screenshot in particular is also located at Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, though there could be more context there about the Star Child. There are definitely a lot more interpretations left in general! Maybe the bone screenshot could be moved to the military section and the Star Child screenshot left to the interpretations article for now? Someday, we'll have the Featured article and sub-articles all together. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep seems reasonable. BTW we also have File:2001_match_cut.jpg, which is used in match cut, I think ideally we should use one of the other (and that file seems the cleanest/nicest) in both articles and delete the other. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That other image used to be in this article, but was not accurate as to the actual sequence of frames that appear in the cut itself. Ours corrects that by showing the two frames as they would appear on the film itself. Those two frames are also printed (inverted) on the cover of Jerome Agel's book "The Making Of Kubrick's 2001". It's the other image that probably should be deleted from the "Match Cut" article in favor of ours.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood :) I replaced the match cut image and CSD'd the original. Cheers for the help! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I. J. Good was consulted but MIT AI specialist Marvin Minsky had a larger part in advising about AI and HAL , on the film. The reference is HAL's Legacy ,2001's Computer as Dream and Reality, Edited by David G. Stork, MIT Press, February 1998 , ISBN-10:0-262-69211-2 ISBN-13:978-0-262-69211-3. This is never mentioned in the main article. Especially the interview with Minsky in that book aajacksoniv (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to integrate relevant info from this source into the appropriate section, with proper citations of course. Sounds interesting!Shirtwaist (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The depiction of the HAL 9000 (Heuristically programmed Algorithmic Computer) in 2001 remains one of the film's most eerie elements. For their description of artificial intelligence, Kubrick and Clarke only had the terminology of the mid-1960s. At that time, the prevailing concept was that Artificial Intelligence (AI) was expected to be a programmed computer. Thus, the term computer, with all its implications of it being a machine, occurs repeatedly. In the last 40 years, no true AI has emerged. Today's corresponding term would be 'strong AI. Kubrick and Clarke's use of mid-1960s terminology obscures the fact that the film and novel authors constructed an AI that is unmistakably strong-that is, capable of "general intelligent action." How this would have been achieved Kubrick and Clarke left as an extrapolation. Clarke provides a little extrapolation in the novel: "Probably no one would ever know this: it did not matter. In the 1980s Minsky and Good had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically -- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be grown by a process strikingly analogous to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding." (From: A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back, 2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93.)aajacksoniv (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is true that Homo Sapiens emerged only thousands of years ago, many ancestors of same (generally referred to a 'proto-humans') go much further back, and are specifically known to have used tools which is the key motif in this film. Until 2010, the oldest known human ancestor was Homo habilis which emerged approximately 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago and yes indeed, they did use stone tools including axes and knives. Finally, of course, the film dialogue is clear the moon monolith was buried millions of years ago, and it is loosely implied this corresponds to their visits to apes.

Homo Sapiens are specifically distinguished by language, erect body posture, and so forth, not tools per se

No need to change the interval from Dawn of Man to the satellite to "thousands"--WickerGuy (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely HOPE the apes in the movie are NOT Homo Sapiens! LOL - Although, they DO resemble certain relatives of mine!Shirtwaist (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot line of Airplane II includes an obvious, extended spoof of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

• The ship computer speaks with a voice and mannerism like the homicidal HAL.
• Some of the computer lines are clear takes of HAL lines: "What are you doing, Captain?" versus "Just what do you think you are doing, Dave?" and "It must be a human error!" versus "It always turned out to be a human error."
• The computer kills crew members who are attempting to shut it down.
• Strauss' Blue Denube, a major theme music in 2001, is played in one of the spoof scenes.

Mt hikes (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Blue Danube, you are surely confusing/conflating Airplane II with 2001: A Space Travesty, two films which are superficially similar. I assure you, Strauss' BD appears nowhere in A2. Similarly, I would say that in A2 the spoof hardly qualifies as "extended". However, your other observations are correct, and have been noted in other sources.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statements in the lede of the article, which are amply documented subsequently in the body of the article do not need citations and should not be flagged with citation tags.

As for the tag in the title section, the Hughes reference for the second sentence, if memory serves, justifies both the first and second sentence of that section. This ought to be double-checked, but sometimes a citation is meant to justify two or three of the ideas preceding it, not just the last sentence.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. No need to cite info in lead which is cited elsewhere in the article.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the justification for including a separate section describing furnishings in the film? Depiction of aliens, computers, spacecraft...and furniture?? This section has no relation to the other sections mentioned because it merely lists types of chairs and silverware appearing on screen without any mention of Kubrick's motivation, thought processes, intentions, etc., that make the other sections relevant to discussion and inclusion in the article. I suggest this relatively minor info be trimmed down to a short paragraph and moved to a more appropriate location in the "Filming" section of "Production". Shirtwaist (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick's intentions for his set designs were the same as they were for his spaceship and technology designs; to create the world of the year 2001 as he envisioned it appearing. Since all of this falls back to the film's "look", the set designs should not be excluded from the section that discusses the film's other props. In respect to their impact on popular culture, the furnishings were more influential then the spacecraft. Following the film's release sales of Djinn chairs skyrocketed, and the film was used to market other "modern" furniture styles. In this way the film helped create the conceptual environment it forecast, but in the 1960's, not the 21st century. By the 1970's this style had gone out of fashion, but in a curious turn of events it has again become fashionable in the 21st century, not as contemporary, but rather as "retro". - Ken keisel (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ShWa that the lack of knowledge of SK's motivation/process is a weakness (perhaps inevitable) but I think the impact of the film's furniture on culture is noteworthy, including re the stuff I added given that the AJ line is currently using the Odyssey connection in marketing its stuff (as of about 2008). SK looked for distinctive furniture designers whose work was striking and/or rare. I wonder if there is a better title for this section. I also think the use of "undoubtably" (with ref to Djinn charis) is WP:PEACOCK and should be excised. I removed it once, but it was put back in.

Remember the "house of the future" featured prominently in Disneyland in the late 1960s. It had all this 'futuristic' furniture and modular design. Some bits of it looked kinda sorta like Odyssey. Obviously, people (futurists) were thinking about it. It disappeared sometime in the 70s. Nothing dates so much as people's idea of the future.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I note that the book Wolf at the Door which is mostly focused on Kubrick's The Shining overtly mentions the "Olivier Morgue" furniture in the Space Odyssey space station (p. 121). Clearly a subject of interest to some folk. Geoffrey Cocks mentions this in the context of red being a color of passion and violence.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KK- Whatever Kubrick's intentions were, you still need refs for everything. As far as "sales skyrocketing" and other such info, it has nothing to do with the film itself. If mentioned at all, it should be in the "Influence" section.

WG - Do you really think "furnishings" that appear only briefly in one part of the film -"TMA-1" - are as notable as the other three elements that are far more integral to the film, and are featured in all parts of the film except "Dawn Of Man"? All the material presented about "furnishings" only rises to the level of a brief mention either in the "Filming" or "Influence" sections.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everthing has been referenced, even more so than the preceeding and following paragraphs. In Jerome Angel's book he mentions an interview where Kubrick was personally selecting the glassware for the conference room while the interview was being conducted. The interviewer commented on Kubrick's fanatical control over all aspects of the film's "look". I'm digging out my copy to find the page #, but anyone familiar with the book will recall this passage.

With regard to the furnishings being notable, they are an essential part of the look of the film and have been referenced constantly since 1967. Are you trying to quantify their importance based on the number of frames they appear in? The significance of Kubrick's use of existing designs is significant for those who are interested in interior design, and they play an important role in researching the source material for the film, and Kubrick's intentions for the film's look. Ken keisel (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KK- I've read the book several times and don't see that mentioned. Need a page number to back you up or will delete it again. Their "importance" is absolutely based on how they are featured in the film. The furnishings used in the film are equivalent in importance to the clothing worn by the actors in the TMA-1 part of the film. Should we also include a section on them? Without any refs to back you up, how do you know what Kubrick's intentions were for using the furniture? He could've simply sent someone out to get "futuristic-looking chairs" for all we know. Just because interior designers think chairs are important design features doesn't raise this relatively minor aspect of production to the level of the surrounding sections.Shirtwaist (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, SW that Arne Jacobsen's cutlery definitely appears on Discovery (while Bowman and Poole are eating watching the BBC broadcast) as can be seen from photoes of it online, although I agree it is less integral to the film.

However, I think a much better title for this section if maintained seperately is "interior design" or some such, and I think it should be renamed as such.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to dig out my copy. I know it's there because it came up during a discussion on the book as an example of Kubrick's fanatical concern over every detail of the film's look. Judging from Angel's book it's clear that nothing seen in the film was just bought by some guy who thought it looked futuristic. Kubrick allowed nothing to be in the film that he didn't personally approve, but is it really necessairy to go into that much detail on why Kubrick choose one set of silverware over another? His objective seems pretty clear to me. What should be listed is the articles he did choose to include. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the section be deleted for now, while a suitable use is found to present this information in an appropriate fashion that adds to the flow of the article, instead of dropping it in where it obviously (to me) doesn't belong. The surrounding sections speak of "depiction of ..." specific aspects of the narrative, the existing material simply refs people listing what appears, and telling us lots of people bought similar items or whatever, which says absolutely NOTHING about how they are depicted in the film, or why.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think SW's best point is that the surrounding sections on aliens, computers, and space actually DO explain Kubrick's motivations [Addendum: re narrative arc of the film] in some detail, whereas this section does not. I think this does belong somewhere in the article however. I suggest the section be relocated as a third subsection of "Imagining the Future" more or less as is, with perhaps a few tweaks. In fact, maybe I'll do that now.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent solution, WG. "Imagining the future" is a much more appropriate place for this. The section needs more work though, and could use more refs from production staff, or SK himself. Most importantly, this section needs to conform to the premise of "Imagining the future" by how successful (or not) the use of this furniture was in "actually imagining the future", as the other paragraphs point out.

BTW - Do you know which page in Agel KK is referring to concerning the "glasses" thing? I've been through that damn book three times now and can't find it. In fact, I've started to go through my material looking for mentions of the furnishings, and have found zilch. I did the same a while ago looking for the origins of the "hotel room" paintings, again zilch.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that like the orbiting sattellear nuclellites, info may be sparse, and I don't have Agel handy.

BTW, in addition to Geoffrey Cocks, Alexander Walker explicitly mentions the "Olivier Morgue" chairs. So that's two major Kubrick scholars who have "furnished" us with info on the designer of the furnishings (much as Tim Dirks supplies us with a "bare-bones" explanation of the "Dawn of Man" sequence- Quick, stop me before I sink further). Oh, yes. Walker notes that they also were using the Space Odyssey connection in advertising in the late 1990s (and apparently Walker informed Kubrick of this). So it does seem to notable info to which some folk were paying attention--WickerGuy (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section already has material which reads

The Action Office introduced the office "cubicle" that would become the standard office configuration by the late 1970s, making Kubrick's choice remarkably accurate.[186]The chairs in the Moonbase conference room are also Herman Miller products, though of the "modern" style popular in the 1960s.[187] Though Kubrick's future furnished in the "modern" style did not come to pass, many of these designs have made a comeback in the 21st century. The furniture designs of Arne Jacobsen, responsible for the egg-chairs seen in the film (originally designed for the Royal Radison hotel in Copenhagen), were re-introduced on the Internet in 2008,

so I think we are off to a good start re fitting it into this section.

I still haven't found my copy of Angel's book, but I did find a similar reference on p. 168 of Piers Bizony's book, where he refers to Kubrick personally selecting the fabric for the costumes and furnishings. I'm also noticing that this secttion is quickly becoming the most reference laden section in the whole article, largely due to one individual adding citation tags, even in mid-sentence, to sentences that are already tagged at the end. If the same standards were applied to other sections this article would have hundreds of citation tags for all the unreferenced material that is contained elsewhere. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 168 is the very last page of Bizony, and only has a sketch of Kubrick beside a camera on it. There is no mention at all in Bizony of furnishings that I can find. As for the tags, see WP:verifiability, it's one of the pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. This article underwent a peer review a while ago to find out what it needed to bring it to FA status, and one of the results of that review was that the article had too many unsourced statements. Your adding an entire unsourced section to it, then complaining that it was removed, does not help this situation. I suggest that in future, you become more familiar with your sources and cite them properly (such as providing page numbers so we know what you're referencing) before adding information to WP articles. Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirtwaist- If you have Angel's book handy, look for a b&w photo of Kubrick holding up one of the conference room glasses and studying it. I believe the text was with the photo. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such photo or text in Agel, as I told you before. I suggest you remove the info and ref in question until you find a source that supports it. If you don't, I will.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever check before making threats? I ammended the passage earlier, and announced the change two paragraphs up. Suggest you read more carefully. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, which is why I told you there is nothing in Bizony about furniture on p.168 or anywhere else. This kind of bad faith editing is frowned upon by the admins, and if it continues, you will be reported to them.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're a little late, I reported you about an hour ago. I can't help it if your copy of the book is abridged. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, which edition and year is YOUR copy of Bizony(if you even have one)? You were wrong about Agel, let's see if you're wrong about Bizony, shall we?Shirtwaist (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this entry in the "Set design and furnishings " section: "Kubrick took great care selecting the furnishings seen throughout the film, to the extent that even the fabrics used for costumes and furnishings were selected personally by him", can anyone verify that that entry is supported by the ref provided - "2001 Filming the Future" by Piers Bizony (2001)? If so, please provide page number. Thanks.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't directly verify. However, Bizony's book was published in two editions. The February 2001 edition is in fact "Filled with material that came to light after the publication of the first edition in 1994, this updated edition includes interviews, new material from effects supervisor Doug Turnbull and additional illustrations."Amazon page. If Shirtwaist is using the 1994 edition and Keisel is using the 2001 edition (or vice-versa- SW cites the 2001 edition above), this could explain a bit.

Bizony's book is very rare- the cheapest copy on Amazon sells for $50 (last summer for over $100), and almost none of the University libraries in the Bay Area have it except for San Francisco State- and their copy is the 1994 edition, (almost all local college/University libraries carry copies of Agel and numerous other books on Space Odyssey). I have consulted Agel several times, but have not even once laid my eyes on a copy of Bizony.

I suggest you gentlemen check out the edition you are consulting. I strongly suspect two different editions are being used. Keisel, you could even scan the pages in question, upload the image to your Google photoes account and provide a link on the talk page. If you don't have such an account, my User page has an "e-mail this user feature" activated though it does not allow attachments. I'll reply, and then you can send it with attachment, and I'll upload it with a link here.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My copy is the 2000 edition, with 168 pages - 165 numbered, and 3 end pages unnumbered. I'm looking into those Amazon copies as we speak. The Amazon ad says that version has 176 pages, but responses from sellers say they are 168 pages long. Failing any proof from keisel, we'll have to wait and see. Keisel's credibility wasn't helped by him using Agel as a source for something that does not appear in Agel - suggests he doesn't check his material before he posts it, nor does he provide page numbers. Shirtwaist (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The insert with several dozen pages of photoes in Agel has no printed page numbering. The numbered pages skip from something in the 70s or 80s to something in the triple digits. Only by manually counting can you ascertain a page number for one of the photoes (which I was careful to do re the bomb-labeled photo.)--WickerGuy (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing Bizony, but you're right, the page numbering in Agel sucks. That's why I went to the trouble of using stickers on those pages to make referencing them in citations easier. However, KK was indeed mistaken about Agel concerning the supposed photo and text. Not only was he incorrect, his own statements prove he wasn't even referring to the book when he made those edits! Very dishonest. Therefore, my reverts were indeed justified.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's I suppose remotely possible your copy of Agel is missing a page, but I'd rather bet on the Punto Banco tables at the San Pablo Casino.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirtwaist, Excellent catch on my own personal flub on the Jacobsen furniture. I was misled by subtly worded self-promotional advertising material. You are quite right. Cutlery in the only Jacobsen stuff in the film, which his ads cleverly dance around. However, I think Keisel may be right that the mid-sentence citation tag might be excessive, if the source at the end supports the statement. I have in the past two weeks removed a couple of citation tags from other articles in which the citation in the following sentence clearly supported the assertion being made. Addendum: Also, I don't think it's appropriate to describe Keisel as engaging in "bad faith" editing. WP:Wikilove all, please.

Keisel, this article was recently rejected for "Good article" status, so things are a bit heated here. Bear with us.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keisel's adding unsourced material and using sources improperly didn't begin with this article. Looking at his talk page, it dates back to 2008, the most recent example of which occurred in the Saving Private Ryan article. He has also been involved in numerous edit wars. He's been warned repeatedly from admins and other editors about this behavior, apparently to no avail. Would you call that "good faith" editing?

The mid-sentence cite tag may have been premature, I'll double check keisel's book source to make sure. He was obviously unfamiliar with Agel when he used him improperly. Keeping this in mind, we'll have to check his other sources carefully to make sure he isn't misusing them as well.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2011

(UTC)

My copy is 192 pages. Here's how it reads;

1st Hardback Edition Aurum Press ISBN 1 85410 3652 1994 Printed in France

At the top of page 168 it reads "Kubrick isn't too concerned with the exact defination of his own role, either. Though nominally the director, he will happily,-indeed insistantly-throw himself into every aspect of production. He will edit the footage, adapt the soundtrack, select the music, pull focus on the camera, light a set, and choose the fabric for the actor's costumes." My concern at this point is Shirtwaist initial comment at the beginning of this discussion, "He could've simply sent someone out to get "futuristic-looking chairs" for all we know. Just because interior designers think chairs are important design features doesn't raise this relatively minor aspect of production to the level of the surrounding sections." Every book I've ever read on Kubrick (and I've read a lot of them) indicates that Shirtwaist comment would have been extremely out of character for him. Since Shirtwaist seems to have taken it upon himself to interject his POV into this article, I am of the opinion that he does not have a very good grasp of what kind of person Kubrick was, or he would never have reacted to the content of my contribution with such hostility. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey chill, gentlemen.

KK, I don't think SW is trying to interject his POV- he's trying to prevent other folks from putting in theirs. KK, you are correct about Kubrick's character, but SW wants to limit us to what can be clearly established rather than what can be extrapolated or reasonably guessed from SK's character. A good guess is still a guess. Frankly if this is the Bizoni citation, it doesn't amount at all to a reasonable citation. I'd like to see the source of the photo of Kubrick holding the glasses. Of course, it's very likely Kubrick chose the chairs with care, but we still need to know specifics. For example, I was recently surprised to learn that while Kubrick did the sound & music editing on Odyssey and Clockwork Orange, he did not do it on The Shining since he hired an editor whom he felt understood Kubrick's methods & intentions extremely well, and could be trusted to emulate the kind of effect Kubrick wanted quite accurately.

SW, I wouldn't call KK's edit-patterns "bad faith" but perhaps extremely stubborn. I still don't see evidence that KK is being deliberately disruptive (which I think "bad faith" implies)- he just doesn't quite get WP's standards of verification. While we see them as rigorous, he sees them as rigid and restrictive.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me get a few things clear here, and I'll be as calm as possible. First - My revert of the sentence "Kubrick took great care selecting the furnishings seen throughout the film, to the extent that even the fabrics used for costumes and furnishings were selected personally by him" was clearly justified for Agel, and it was also justified for Bizony (except for the mention of "costume fabrics") as we now see. By reading what he was actually referring to in Bizony, KK clearly misused the source. There is absolutely NOTHING in that part of Bizony (chapter 8) about "furnishings", therefore KK's removal of the cite tag, and reinstating the faulty sentence and ref without correcting his mistake is the very definition of disruption. We already know about his clear misuse of Agel, not to mention dropping an entire unsourced section into the wrong place in the article in the first place. So what does KK do then? He reports ME for edit warring for checking his sources for him, adding a legit cite tag, and making reverts that were absolutely JUSTIFIED! The result of which is that he gets the article edit blocked for 24 hours. This all fits in quite well with KK's previous history of disruption on other WP pages, but if nobody here sees them as an indication of "bad faith" editing, so be it. Thank you so much Ken. Don't take it personally if I go through every one of your sources to make sure you're not egregiously misusing them as well. I still remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a blog.Shirtwaist (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think KK has failed to engage in consensus building, and has been overly stubborn on one point, and has initially entered stuff unsourced and subsequently misused his sources. Yes, he did violate trust by that last point, and most certainly should have known better to source his initial addition. The poor article location choice I think is more a case of amateurism. I was trying to credit him for his apparent sincerity, as so many people do to the films of Ed Wood. (I myself got in an edit-war a while back that got an article locked for a week {neither of us reported the other, but I was caught violating WP:3RR- I can't remember if he also did}, but when the other guy got caught as a sock-puppet with repeated vandalism, I kinda emerged as the the victor in a sort of default kinda way.) Had you gotten there first, the remedy would have been to file a report at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (See WP:DDE). I checked his history much later than you did.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like in KK's edit-war on Saving Private Ryan, they kept half his stuff and moved it to a different section. 'Bout the same as here, actually.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WG. Didn't mean to chew your ear off. Re: your last point- yes, but you'll notice that the edit war was started and perpetuated by KK!. I'm just sayin'.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally abandoning any attempt to work on this page

At this point it is clear that there are a couple of users associated with this arricle who have their own perspective on what this film is about, and have no intention on expanding the scope of the article to introduce new material. My reference was first removed as not being present in the text, then when I documented that it did indeed exist it was removed again. As such I am abandoning any further attempts to add new material to this article. I have been an editor on wikipedia since 2005, and I have never experienced a more hostile environment in an article. I would also note that such a hostile reaction to adding material that was totally missing, but important to the scope of this article, is exidence that this article has a long way to go before it can reflect the scope and quality of the subject matter. I do not want my name associated with this article in any way. I will also point out that when an article is submitted for "good article" status one of the first things they look at is the "discussion" page. If you plan on trying again you have your work cut out for you. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. Encyclopedic, relevant, reliably sourced and well-written contributions that work to improve the article are always accepted. Disruptive editing, and adding unsourced, incorrect, or irrelevant information is not. Thank you for your contributions to the article - the properly sourced ones that belong in it, that is. But please keep this in mind: "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. If you do not want your writing to be edited, then do not submit it here." Shirtwaist (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the attitude you have displayed on this article violates most of the rules stated at the head of this page, namely "Be polite", "Assume good faith", "Avoid personal attacks", and "Be welcoming". I use for example your comment "OK, which edition and year is YOUR copy of Bizony(if you even have one)?", "Don't take it personally if I go through every one of your sources to make sure you're not egregiously misusing them as well.", and "Re: your last point- yes, but you'll notice that the edit war was started and perpetuated by KK!." Your approach to editors on this article is callus and arrogent, and you are perhaps the most impolite editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Your suggestion that I engaged in an edit war on the "Saving Private Ryan" article is a gross overstatement ment to enflame this discussion, and continue a personal attack YOU started. If you read the article discussion you will see that the discussion was between myself and two editors who believed that no one would be interested in which P-51 Mustangs and pilots were used in the filming. Once I explaned to them that warbird enthusiasts do indeed follow such information with interest their objection ended. Your depiction of the issue, carried over to this page, was an attempt to misuse that discussion to your own gain, and is typical of the manner you have enployed in editing this article. I would alos point to your insistance that the section I created be title "Furnishings of the future" instead of simply "Set design and furnishings" as a perfect example of how this article has been edited from an "unencyclopedic" POV that you encourage, and indeed, insist upon, regardless of the suggestions of others. This article has a long way to go before it can be expected to cover all the topics the film touchs upon. Based on your reaction to the introduction of the topic of set furnishings, "What exactly is the justification for including a separate section describing furnishings in the film?", I'd say this article is destined to suffer from your attitude for a long time to come. That's why I want no part of it. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr, Keisel, since User:Shirtwaist and I seem to have played the bad-cop/good-cop role in policing your edits, allow me to say that while most of what is bugging you is on his end, I am solely responsible for specifically bringing up "Ryan" which perhaps may be better identified as a "mild skirmish" rather than a war. User:Shirtwaist has a 20/20-plus vision whose superb eagle eye occasionally takes on the aspect of a more vulturous bird of prey. While the heated tone of (more than one) persons is a legitimate issue to raise, I am concerned with a separate issue which is that you seem to seriously misunderstand and therefore misrepresent our specific reasons for wanting to modify your edits (which I went to some effort to actually salvage, BTW). I am always especially concerned with people who after getting reprimanded seem to misunderstand and misrepresent the reasons (justified or not). You state "I will also point out that when an article is submitted for "good article" status one of the first things they look at is the "discussion" page." Actually, BEFORE they look at that, they look for unsourced statements (of the kind you added!!!), and THEN the main reason for checking the "discussion" page is to check for still ongoing edit-wars in order to check the article's STABILITY, which after the declaration of retreat that you made would actually cause editors (I would surmise) to conclude the article is really quite stable.

Although I generally had a higher opinion of the value of the info you were adding, I think that when User:Shirtwaist said it seemed "like trivia", he wasn't commenting just on the info itself, but also the fact that it read like a disconnected bullet list of items, without context or flow re the surrounding discussion. This kind of material is supposed to be mentioned in the context of broader aspects of the production and critical perception. I attempted to salvage your material by both providing a bit of context (re current advertising of Mourgue furniture) and critic Alex Walker's comment on things Kubrick said about Mourgue's furniture, both of which helped justify inclusion of your material. And I further helped salvage your material by moving it to a different section of the article. User:Shirtwaist then had continued problems with questionable citations. When you finally produced the Bizoni passage that you claimed to support the sentence in question, the citation was as phoney as a three-dollar bill. (You went from a sweeping generalization to a specific conclusion which is somewhat likely but not even close to overtly affirmed beyond reasonable doubt by your source.) User:Shirtwaist's assertion about "For all we know Kubrick may..." is a rhetorical-hypothetical statement illustrating our rules of evidence, not intended as a probable statement about Kubrick's actions.

Whatever exaggerations of heated language may have been made, the legitimate point behind User:Shirtwaist's examination of your history is that you have clearly been "cited for not citing" (to coin a phrase) on several occasions in the past. That you did so again here reflects a stubborn inability to 'get' the rules of the road by which WP is run. I don't think the rule WP:Please do not bite the newcomers means we are allowed to bite long-time editors, but it looks like by this time you should have known better.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my experience that there are two fundamentally different kinds of editors on wikipedia. One is the "expanders", who introduce new material to an article. The other is the "excluders", who remove material from articles. Editing an article as broad as this one does require the efforts of far more than one person, and that goes for adding references too. In my case I noticed that this article totally lacked any mention of the furniture that has become famous in their own right for their appearance in the film, and that have been brought up repeatedly in the past in connection with descriptions of the film's sets. By adding content to the article about this subject, along with the best references I could come up with at the time, I had hoped to introduce the other editors to the missing material. I always hope that other editors will pick up where I leave off with additional references, just as you did (and "thank you", BTW). On the other hand, you have people like User:Shirtwaist who fall under the category of "excluders". For whatever reason, the addition of new material to an article is cause to begin looking for any reason that they can find to eliminate it. In User:Shirtwaist's case, that reason was flawed references. If User:Shirtwaist really cared about this article he would have begun looking for additional references, just as you did. Instead he began attacking the validity of the topic being included in the article at all ("What exactly is the justification for including a separate section describing furnishings in the film?") Even after other editors began adding there own references, and trying to explain to him the importance of this previously overlooked topic he continued to oppose its presence in the article. This, along with impolite and threatening comments like "OK, which edition and year is YOUR copy of Bizony(if you even have one)?", and "Don't take it personally if I go through every one of your sources to make sure you're not egregiously misusing them as well.", is where I have a problem with User:Shirtwaist. I've found over the years that often the best way to introduce new material to an old article, and get good references, is to just introduce the material with the best references you have available, and trust that others will step in and help. It usually works out well for everyone. In my experience though, users like User:Shirtwaist have an aversion to change in general, and their over-the-top reaction to change in an article is part of a larger issue that goes beyond the scope of wikipedia. As for your comments about the placement of the information, you will note that I have never commented on the location of the information in the article. I initially placed it where I thought it should best be located, and when the suggestion was made to move it I remained silent, preferring to let you guys move it to wherever you felt it best belonged. As for User:Shirtwaist's assertion about "For all we know Kubrick may..." as a rhetorical-hypothetical statement, I couldn't disagree with you more. Based on his comments I have no doubt that he believes Kubrick had done just that. - Ken keisel (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, I don't believe that for a second. That was a hypothetical statement based in logic, re: if there is no source for a given fact, one or more other possibilities may exist that refute that fact(however unlikely they may seem).

What the heck are you whining about anyway? Virtually all the stuff you posted is STILL THERE! You are subject to exactly the same rules as anyone else. When you post unsourced statements, expect that they may be edited or deleted entirely, as yours was. When you supplied sources, the material was left up, and discussion was started in talk to determine consensus. Consensus was reached, and the material remained up, but was moved to a more appropriate place. Some of your sources were found to be clearly misrepresented by you, and are in the process of being examined, and corrected if need be. Your continued wailing and moaning about imagined mistreatment which you brought upon yourself is not doing anything to improve your character as perceived by others. I suggest you stop complaining, and start making contributions that both improve this article, and WP in general while conforming to the rules we all have to abide by.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP overall over the past 2 to 3 years has been getting a lot tighter about the inclusion of "rough draft" material. Generally, enforcement everywhere is stricter than it was in say summer of 2007 when I joined up. Lots of material that lay unchallenged for years is now being challenged in a broad stable-cleaning move. A solution I would have liked here would have been to move your initial contribution verbatim to the Talk page and we could have massaged it there. It's happened in a couple of other articles I've seen, and an approach I think WP editors ought to avail themselves of more frequently. It's water under the bridge at this point (and a tsunami at that!). I am convinced your final remark about SW is almost certainly entirely wrong. Often in debate, a very bad experience with one editor gets projected on another. There is malicious editing and there is sloppy editing. The rule to "Assume good faith" seems sometimes to more breached than observed. I was glad to know about the furniture, and think User:Shirtwaist was entirely correct in observing it had no bearing on the narrative arc of the movie in the way that the depiction of aliens, computers, and space travel did. All institutions have inclusion/exclusion debates. Even beekeepers debate about the placement of queen excluders and includers in their hives.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be reliably sourced (the site cited has an editorial staff comparable to a magazine). It is WP:UNDUE weight, though, for it to have its own sentence. I'd recommend just adding in the reference to the previous sentence, and listing "such as SimEarth, Spore, and eve online." EVE online is currently more popular than SimEarth, and I'd believe more so than Spore currently is (I don't know whether or not Spore had a higher peak, but none of my friends are still talking about it). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IPC. How, precisely, does it add to the understanding of the subject of this article? Yworo (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Well, we're talking popular culture, and more people are aware of Eve Online than SimEarth or Spore. Would we be better off replacing the SimEarth mention? Then it would still only be two mentions. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, the behaviour on SimEarth and Spore actually appears in this movie, making the reference more than a mention. The behaviour in Eve Online does not occur in the movie. It's neither a homage to nor parody of this film. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an homage. The section we're speaking about is "Parody and homages - 2001 has been the frequent subject of both parody and homage, sometimes extensively and other times briefly, employing both its distinctive music and iconic imagery." Doesn't it stick to it? 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't intervene anymore on this. I just wanted to add back a data that had been deleted due to a lack of source (check the history). I did find a source and added it (but not on my first edit, which was wrong, I totally admit). To me, there was no matter to disagree, and it wasn't supposed to be fighty. I provided a source since I saw the data removed was marked as unsourced, now do as you want. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to think that since this is an Easter egg in the video game, that makes it far less notable. Also in the other video games mentioned, the monolith is promoting human evolution- here we get merely "it's full of stars". Yes, it IS an homage!!! The relevant section of WP:IPC is

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? 2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference? 3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia.

I think the answer to all three is probably no. But it was kinda interesting.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked those same questions and got no answer. I'm sure the answer to all three is "no". Yworo (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "it's full of stars" be an homage to 2010? That phrase is not in 2001. I also think this gets three "no" answers.Shirtwaist (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be strictly speaking an homage to the novel and film 2010 and the novel 2001 (the phrase is there) and the Odyssey universe in general, inaugurated by the film 2001. I don't think the game designers were thinking mainly in terms of which Wikipedia article their work would be possibly mentioned in. But we all agree it isn't really worth mentioning.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could any of the longer-term editors of this article tell me if there's ever been a sockpuppet problem on this article? When it was suggested that 93.19.187.248 create an account he replied "It's my choice not to. I had one years ago, and I don't want one anymore, since I hate being involved in such stupid conflicts and being part of a community." In my past experience, every IP which has made a statement like this (about having an account and not wanting to use it anymore) has turned out to be a banned user. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, feel free to even ask an admin to check for sockpuppets on me, you're going to be heavily disappointed. To anyone interested, I gave my opinion about this here. To me, this user looks like a narrowminded maniac, and it looks like I'm not alone to think this. As stated on the latter link, I'm out of this, I wasted enough time for this crap. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial first impressions of these various links make Yworo look fairly calm cool and collected (at least most of the time) with IP-laddy being more than a bit feisty. Someone awarded Yworo a Socratic barnstar a while back.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socks haven't been a problem here, as far as I can tell. The only way to determine such a thing, other than WP:checkuser, is by looking at edit histories, and comparing patterns of dialog, spelling, etc. in talk pages. Personally, it amazes me that WP still allows people to edit without registering. The overwhelming majority of vandalism and other nuisances are cause by IP's. Requiring registration for editing would drastically cut down on the nonsense, I think. And yes, a statement like the one from the IP above is a bit fishy. Why conceal a legitimate previous registered name that is no longer used? Also, being registered in no way increases or decreases "stupid conflicts" for good faith editors, does not in itself negatively effect your anonymity in any way, and you're already "part of a community" when you edit here whether you're registered or not. In fact, a big motivator to register is that your IP is not exposed, which means people can't search your IP and find your location! If anything, that increases your anonymity! Shirtwaist (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response certainly sounds like someone who has extensive experience socking and evading detection. I can't help but notice that you avoid doing the one thing that could easily clear you - pointing to your old username which is not blocked or banned. Is it my imagination, or is the sound of quacking growing louder? Yworo (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give a dog a bad name and hang it, heh? I already said that I consider this matter to be over. And I don't care what you think about it, since you proved to be of bad faith and that you're clearly trying to evade and hide your responsibilities and misbehaving by trying to charge me with insinuations, even though an admin warned you about your bad behaviour (warning that you swiftly removed from your page, of course).

And who do you think you are? I don't owe you anything and my identity(ies) is none of your concern. Stop being a manipulative paranoid, and get some maturity and a sense of responsibility and self-reflection.

Or keep insinuating whatever you want if it make you feel more comfortable, either way, I'm definitively off that insane and meaningless issue. Have a good day. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you don't have to be experienced in something to understand how it works. You only have to be educated. I can explain you how a software is coded, though I don't know how to code myself. But that was probably either a very naive insinuation, or a purposely slanderous one. So, whatever. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadda, yadda, yadda. What a blowhard you are, o great anonymous one. The consensus of other editors is that your proposed addition was crap. I was right, and you edit warred to put a crap link in the article. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Yworo (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You act and acted through all this like an insultive, bored and narrowminded immature, and anyone can and will see of this by reading it all. For your information, in the end, I don't care about this ridiculous modification, I only wanted to add back something that got deleted due to a lack of source, I added it back with a source, then you gone barking mad and personal for no reason but a personal anger, despite my efforts to be civil and to speak on a honest ground. That was the actual issue, and in the end, I feel sorry for you to be like that.

Whatever, the right persons have been notified of your case and acknowledged your misbehaves. So I'm fine. Keep trolling and being antipathetic if it help you feeling better. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you smell like a rose? Sure you do! I didn't start the incivility, you did. And removing something that doesn't meet our editorial requirements isn't in any way abusive, underhanded, immature, paranoid, manipulative, or any of the other things you've accused me of... Though running to AN/I is... oh, wait—it was you who did that, wasn't it? It's pretty obvious to all which one of us is off our rocker, and it's not me. All this over an easter egg in a computer game. Caring so much about that seems pretty immature! Are you even in high school yet? Yworo (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get the point of all this, obviously. What got removed got removed because it lacked source in the first place. Aren't you able to read through the edit history? Because it was obvious and easy to check. And even though you've been warned by an administrator about all your recent abuses, you're still parading like if nothing happened. You remain blind to anything you don't like.

You may be of an astounding, consciously bad faith, as I first thought, but I think that you're just a psychorigid person, actually. At first I was confused by your attitude. Now that I've took a step back, I just find it both funny and sad.

Whatever, you won't ever acknowledge any bit of responsibility, nor question your own acts, nor try to loosen your rock-made point of view. But since anyone is free to check the history anyway, I don't care how you try to turn this, you'll only convince yourself, eventually. Again, I just feel sorry for you now.

That will be my last comment about this. Since this started, you didn't do anything but going agressive and suspicious toward me while bluntly rejecting or ignoring anything contradicting you, so it's going nowhere, and this discussion page' purpose isn't to serve as a support to your little crusade of anger and know-it-right against me. Have fun being right and holding the Truth, o great lord, for I am kneeling to your wikipedian magnificent superiority. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a slight confusion in that the new material was first rejected due to lacking a source, then rejected more or less due to lack of notability (WP:NOTABLE) in part due to the nature of the source (I think? Correct me if I am wrong). So the grounds for the rejection did slightly shift, and this seems to be why 93.19.187.248 is slightly miffed. Nonetheless, the game's film reference really is sufficiently marginal and fleeting as to not really merit mention here. Everyone here (some much moreso than others) seems to getting over-excited. Mr. IP, the legit point here is that this is an "easter egg" on a video game, and you seem to have too much of your ego invested in it. The rest, let's model the civility we want others to maintain. [1]--WickerGuy (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this will be kinda long, but I like to make myself clear. Actually this is how it happened, I checked my past modifications with this IP, and I saw that what I added got deleted, by curiosity I ran through the history and saw that it first got flagged as unsourced, and then deleted a couple months later because no source had been added. Then I added it back claiming that finding a perennial source was a hard job for such matter. That was dumb and I totally admit it, I may find over-sourcing a pain for WP, but well, I accept the rule. I then searched for a source, and that's where the guy got mad and closed himself to any argument or middle-ground, while scorning me and my data. So, whatever he's gonna say, it was a sourcing issue, only he won't ever recognize it now, it's now an ego blockage (did you speak about my ego? ;) ).

So, that guy only came with his own, personal views about what should be in or not, interpretating the rules the way he wanted them to be. For example, the data totally have a legitimacy to be under Parodies and homages on this very article, but that guy won't ever accept it, even though... there's already video games listed there, and since I played these as well (yup, even Sim Earth, I grew up with DOS games), I can tell you too that it can be considered as marginal too. And anyway, what are the criterias to consider it marginal or not? What is an homage then? So, why these and not the other? No-one knows but that guy. But I think he should seriously search up in a dictionary for the signification of an homage, because under his personal criterias, most of the data under that section should be deleted. Which show how idiot is his claim.

Finally, to make it clear, I don't care at all about this fucking, ridiculous, meaningless data. I'm just amazed by the attitude that the guy had toward me, and that's why I reacted, because it's just so wrong. It looks like he's heavily participating to WP, I don't know about the quality of his work, but the guy seriously have an attitude issue, his behaviour with me was just shocking and not normal. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This guy" may have been over-zealous and/or intemperate (edit-summary "remove crap" is a bit jarring), but the evidence really does indicate that the monolith-reference is more integral to the overall scheme and arc to those other two video-games as well as being a stronger reference, and the monolith-reference in this game is much more peripheral/marginal. I suggest you breathe deep, bite the bullet, think blue ocean thoughts and let bygones go. Also, please don't take this as a personal attack - this is a mere suggestion- but your command of English grammar and syntax could use some improving.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add something about his insane bad faith, the guy first deleted the data on 27 january 2011 with that reason: rm uncited. He removed it, consciously, because it was flagged as unsourced. When I added it back unsourced, he removed it arguing: see WP:IPC, needs third-party source or isn't worth mentioning. Ok, so at this point it was still a source issue to him. Then I added a source, and he then deleted it again, arguing: not a reliable source, stop adding useless trivia. Not reliable, still a source issue, but oh, here we can see starting a shift in his motive (and also his non-neutral POV, which is his true motive, he just didn't wanted the data to be in, he probably wasn't in the mood or didn't like my style).

Then, that's just so hilarious to read the excuses he gave lately to justify his actions. It shifted totally from a source issue to an inclusion criteria problem to allow him not to change his attitude. Ta-da. That's hypocrisy at its finest. And the guy had been warned by an admin about his over-extensive use of WP rules. But he just ignored it, it seem.

(The previous lines were wrote while you were adding yours) Well, it's an homage nonetheless. I checked by curiosity the other homages listed, check them, some are exactly in the same case. That's why I dropped the question, what is an homage? Anyway, don't worry, I'm ok and seeing it all blue, I'm writing a lot because I like to explain things calmly and the right way, not because I'm mad. I really don't care about this, only as a very honest person trying to be fair and open-minded, I just don't like such people. And I sure can guess my grammar and syntax aren't perfect, I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if you got troubles understanding me right. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee dude, until it is sourced, it's impossible to tell the significance. Once you finally found what others consider a good source (and I still don't), it was crystal clear that it was insignificant. End of story. Nothing dishonest about it. I never ever said that if it was sourced, it would be a good addition! You're assuming way too much. My only real mistake here was that I when I originally removed it on December 31, I should have said I was removing it because it was both unsourced and insignificant, but the former was sufficient to remove it so I didn't bother to give all my reasons. It's certainly not something to go flinging accusations and name-calling over. Sheeesh! Yworo (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem lie precisely in that it's your opinion about what is significant, and what's not. To me, it was as significant as most other data included on both articles. As I said to WickerGuy, I invite you to check the other homages, some are of the same nature. It's all about the signification of an homage.

Anyway, as I already said, I don't care about its inclusion, really. I didn't fought for that at all, but because I felt treated in a very abusive way. And abusive you were, seriously. I didn't mean to offense you in any way, but I felt offended by your manners, for multiple reasons that I already stated. I may have dropped it instantly and acknowledged that it didn't belong in if we had at least a discussion about it, but you did simply behave an offensive, wrong and un-wikipedian way. Whatever, I don't want to fight or even talk anymore about it, I'm fed up with it and I stated everything I had to state. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. Wikipedia is changing and the tolerance for trivia is much reduced. I was absolutely sure that I was representing the current consensus on the matter, and the input from other editors has supported that. It is true that Wikipedia used to have a much higher tolerance for long lists of insignificant trivia, but the consensus on that has changed. If you'd continued to use your account and involve yourself in community discussions over the last year or so, I think you'd have had a better sense for what's currently considered acceptable. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still miss the point, read again my last comment, the real issue wasn't at all about the inclusion of that data, but about your behaviour. That's what an admin pointed too by the way. Not that I'm waiting for an answer or an apology, I just want to make it clear to you. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I did anything wrong. I didn't technically break 3RR, despite misinformed opinions to the contrary. You did clearly break 3RR, and then you went running to the wrong venue to tattle. Admins are just people, they aren't always right. If I hadn't bothered to respond to your AN/I complaint, I'd not even have gotten those misinformed comments that I did get. I should have just ignored you and followed up on the 3RR complaint to ensure that you got blocked for your violation of 3RR. Yworo (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to back up Yworo that a shift in motivation does not necessarily indicate hypocrisy or thinking by arbitrary whim, but can genuinely be a sign of just having done further reflection.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied three references for the previously unreferenced technology section and removed the tag, but it really needs seven. References are still required to establish
1) the advent of international phone dialing in the 70s,
2) the development of personal in-flight entertainment,
3) the advent of "glass cockpits" (found some stuff at aviation.edu, but they seem to be offline), and
4) the advent of voice-controlled computing (usually referred to these days as speech-activated computing). There's plenty of sites showing the last exists but they are mostly promotional of companies that make speech-recognition software which is not preferable--WickerGuy (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got everything except the personal in-flight entertainment.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only found one source here that mentions the first seat-back screens, but that was on Virgin in the 90's - no mention of Airvision Company. The WP article on in-flight entertainment had one source for the first personal IFE, but the link [2] was dead so I replaced it with cite tags. Lots of other sources out there, but they all refer back to the WP IFE page. Good work on all the other sources BTW, WG.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found that dead link too- almost copied it here, but tried to test it. Even though the sources from AT&T and NASA are self-promotional, I think they are sufficiently reputable firms as to satisfy WP:RELIABLE. The chances of AT&T fibbing about the year that international dialing was introduced (albeit by they themselves) is virtually nil, I think. Same for the NASA source. --WickerGuy (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care a whole lot about this issue, but think this is worth asking. In the most recent edit here, Shirtwaist modified "2001: A Space Odyssey has also been referenced in several video games such as in SimEarth and Spore" to read "2001: A Space Odyssey has also been referenced in the video games SimEarth and Spore" with the edit-comment 'rm "such as"-only two games are sourced'.

This seems to raise the issue of whether the sources are there mainly to establish notability or are also there for verifiability, or if the latter is satisfied by examination of the games themselves even if notability fails.

From semi-reliable sources that fall short of WP's strictest standards but which I conditionally trust, one can easily ascertain the Space Odyssey has been referenced in over two dozen video games including four variants of Metal Gear Solid which includes a character whose favorite movie is Space Odyssey.

It seems to me wiki-safe (a word I just coined) to say SpOd has been referenced in "several video games, notably..." ["notably" perhaps better than 'such as'] without mentioning the others that have achieved less prominent mention, just to flag we at WP are aware of other games, but consider these two the ones worth mentioning by name.

Thoughts??--WickerGuy (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong(and I sometimes am--hard to believe, I know;}) but don't "notability" concerns only relate to articles as a whole, while "undue weight" refers to article content? It seems to me that the current entry about video games does not qualify as "undue weight". However, saying "several games" without providing either a single source that says "several games reference 2001", or providing multiple sources that each refer to one game that does that, would seem to be a clear violation of verifiability, and OR as well. I think the only reason the sources are there is to satisfy verifiability isn't it?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not consistent on this. I leave it to Bertrand Russell, commentator on the liar paradox, to decide if you both wrong and right or neither wrong nor right. You have however, avoided the wrath of physicist Wolfgang Pauli who coined the notorious phrase "Not even wrong"

On the one hand WP:NOTABLE states "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article.". On the other hand Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content states "When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format." with their phrase "non-notable entries" (italics added-WG) containing a Wikilink to WP:NOTABLE!!!!!

At any rate, I am thinking mainly of the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content section, which says "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged" and "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable [no wikilink here-WG] if..." and in particular I stress the statement "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference." (italics added-WG). They stress that in this instance, there is a danger of interpretation of the reference being WP:OR.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That reference to WP:NOTABLE in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content is surprising, considering this entry in the former: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."(emphasis is WP's) I think that ref to WP:NOTABLE in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content should be questioned, actually.

Upon reading this entry that follows the one you're talking about: "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged", it seems to support the removal of "such as", wouldn't it? I'm thinking of a reader coming upon the statement "2001 is referenced in several games, such as ..." and saying "Several games? I only see two here!" I read the above WP statement as trying to avoid such occurences. Am I wrong here?Shirtwaist (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would at the very least replace "such as..." (which I think I wrote to begin with) with "notably...". But I prefer to convey the impression we are being selective re what is worth mentioning, rather than convey the impression the scope of our knowledge is short-changed. (I have very little investment in this, but think it worth raising.)--WickerGuy (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the missing link between proto-apes and hominids, but the missing link "History of InFlight Entertainment" recently deleted from the "In-Flight Entertainment" article. And, yes, you're right- there's no reason to believe video games preceded movies on airplane flights.

The wayback machine archives most (though not all) pages deleted from the Internet. Here is the link [3]--WickerGuy (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I wonder what happened to the "WAEA" website? Did they change names or what? What's the WP policy on using old archived websites? I'm guessing not good.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure WP doesn't have a policy. The "Internet Archive" aka "WayBack machine" archives a high percentage of what used to be online. I would presume it's entirely based on the reliability of the original source.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker's quote goes: "They (djinn chairs) resemble Rorschach "blots" against the pristine purity of the rest of the lobby. It's more than a fashion statement...Their designer's name, Morgue(sic), has a baleful ring, considering the living tomb that the spaceship will become—a coincidence not lost on Kubrick".

WG - isn't he confusing the space station with Discovery in that quote? The space station doesn't become a "living tomb" - Discovery does. It seems like we would be needlessly confusing the reader to have that in the section, wouldn't it? There must be a better quote we can use?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Walker is asserting that the sets in the space station foreshadow the subsequent fate of the space ship. I don't think he is confused- just assuming the reader is familiar with the plot, and assumes that the events on the ship are a further continuation of (generic) mankind's journey even though different personnel are involved. Perhaps some framing clarification or paraphrase would be good.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. Rather than me reading not enough into it, you might be reading too much into it. He's only talking about the lobby in the "space hotel" in relation to the chairs. If he meant to say Mourgue's name hinted at the fate of "Discovery", wouldn't he say "the other spaceship"? There are several "spaceships" in the film. After all, it was Walker who described the bone-to-satellite cut as a "bone-to-spacecraft" transition. I'm not sure he was very clear on the difference between a "spaceship" and a "space station" either. I'd be more comfortable with the quote ending at "...the rest of the lobby". The rest of the quote doesn't really have anything to do with "Imagining the future" anyway, and looks to me like speculation in his part. It may have a place in an article about the chairs, or Mourgue, but not here.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the film, there are at most three space ships as opposed to eight spacecraft- 11 if you count the EVA pods for voyaging outside Discovery. The space ships would be the two vehicles carrying Floyd and Discovery. Neither the space station nor the orbiting satellites are properly spaceships.

Spacecraft is the widest most generic category. It is manned or unmanned and may be either capable of travel or be orbiting the earth as a satellite. A spaceship is always manned (or personed especially if flown by Mae Jamison) and is generally capable of at-command guided travel in a way that a space station or satellite is not. A space station is usually used for refueling, or for servicing or assembling satellites.

Floyd's transit craft would be most commonly referred to as a space plane or [lunar lander/lunar carrier], but could be considered space ships as Arthur Clarke occasionally does. A space plane is an aircraft designed to fly up to extreme altitudes beyond the atmosphere and back to the Earth's surface, and a [lunar lander/lunar carrier] is designed for trips back and forth between the moon and a spacecraft and/or space station.

Arthur Clarke does actually refer to Aries 1B as a both a "lunar carrier" and spaceship (the latter on p. 64 in old Signet paperback from 1968 p. 73 of Roc paperback 2000.) and refers to the PanAm more than once as a "ship" (one instance is on p. 47 in Signet paperback from '68 p. 49 of Roc paperback 2000) (though he never specifies it is PanAm- that's movie only).

To the main point, if Walker claims that Kubrick himself saw a connection, it is certainly worth mentioning, and goes beyond "speculation on his part", though you may be right that it is misplaced. However, Walker would not at all say "the other spaceship" as the Space Station V is not in any standard usage a "spaceship". However, if he calls the match cut bone to spacecraft, that's perfectly correct.

I'm getting some of this info from my two (non-consecutive) years as an intern at NASA/Ames in Mountain View, some from friends in Aerospace, and some from looking it up.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Walker thought the "space hotel" (he never calls it a space station) was a kind of spaceship, he might very well say "the other spaceship", but that would be speculation on our part as well about what Walker knew. At any rate, if you insist on leaving the entire quote in place, I think that "[Discovery]" should be removed as being an interpretation of the quote. Since Walker made no clear distinction between the "space hotel" and any other spaceship in that quote, it's not at all clear that that's the "spaceship" he meant.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker says "space hotel" because in the space station there is a window into a cubicle that says "Hilton: Space Station 5" (26:58 on the DVD that includes the 3+ minute overture) right around the place that you first see the red Mourgue chairs (28:50 ) implying this is a kind of hotel lobby. I don't know if the hotel is just part of the space station, or the whole thing. (In Clarke's novel, the space station has a US section and a Soviet section.) Down the hall from the Hilton cubicle is a Howard Johnson's right after the picture phone (on Hilton property? Don't know). When you later see the Russian scientists, you again see the cubicle with the Hilton window (29:27) and the red Mourgue chairs in front of that cubicle.

But the only place that turns into a death trap (or "living tomb" as Walker puts it) in the movie is Discovery. This isn't The Shining. Hilton Space Station 5 has no winter caretaker with writer's block, and an ax to grind (pardon the expression). And there are no deaths on the PanAm space plane or lunar lander either. By the sheer process of elimination, the average reader can infer Walker means Discovery. The objection of yours I agree with is the second part of this quote might thematically be out of place in this section.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look? This discussion reminds me of the times my dad would talk about his work on the Apollo Command Module design team at North American. When I called it a 'spaceship', he always said "Nobody calls it a 'spaceship', it's called a spacecraft!"Shirtwaist (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Wonder if the entire Walker quote might eventually go into a section on usage of color in the film. (A couple of paragraphs later, he mentions that the Star Gate sequence is the only part which uses a full pallette, while the red of the Djinn chairs is echoed on Discovery in HAL's central control room where he gets disconnected). On terms, I am essentially a layman who has worked with the pros- Clarke moved to Sri Lanka in 1956- could even he be out of touch with terminology? I just checked Fred Ordway's essay on working on the film- he refers to only Discovery and nothing else as a space ship- everything else is craft.

My father Van A. Harvey was a religious studies professor (or entirely agnostic persuasion) who was a huge classical music buff, which may explain why I spend more time thinking about this movie's philosophical motifs- the musical references to Nietzsche, the possible references(??) to medieval astrology- than I do to the details of space travel, in spite of my 2 years at NASA.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the terminology.

I would be myself reluctant to describe any space vehicle that is either very small, or made for specialized use (launch weapons or a space observatory with telescope), or carried by a larger one (such as the film's EVA pods or the Apollo Command Module) as a spaceship. I would also myself not so describe any space vehicle designed for an extremely limited region of space such as the lunar landar even though Clarke does actually call that a ship. I remain quite positive that space craft is the generic term that includes everything, exactly as is the term watercraft includes both small boats and large ships.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic understanding of the difference between a heuristic and an algorithm (re HAL being Heuristic ALgorithmic computer) can be found not just in computer science dictionaries, but in general dictionaries such as World English Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, and The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, see [4] for the latter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary!! I have supplied a citation for the requested "citation needed" tag for the section of this article that explains the difference, but under protest.

Honestly, technical vocab that is easily referenced in standard dictionaries should not really require a citation. As I wrote in the edit-summary (using there a lot of CAPS), "WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary". This is the silliest request for a citation I have encountered since I was asked to cite that the masks in Eyes Wide Shut were Venetian masks, something known to everyone who has attended Mardi Gras, worked in theatre costume design, and the entire population of Italy and France!!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also The American Heritage® Science Dictionary--WickerGuy (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:NOT or wp:not#dict does it say cites are not required or helpful in this case? I'm pretty sure WP:VERIFY doesn't exempt explanations of "heuristic" or "algorithmic" from cites when used this way in an article.Mytvc15 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a citation could be helpful as a place to look for a deeper and more thorough explanation of a topic (which actually the dictionaries would not provide, but the book I cited would). BTW, you could even have strengthened your case further by appealing to Wikipedia:DICTIONARY. However, relatively basic foundational material that can be accessed in standard wide-ranging reference works such as The American Heritage® Science Dictionary should not IMO actually require a citation. I wish there was a template one could put in such as "citation useful" such as requesting a cite for further information. I am venting a bit, since I saw two other cite requests in the past month that were far more ridiculous. Do you need a cite for the year a TV series was canceled? I think not. Nor should a cite be required for very basic biographical material on a fellow who is hyperlinked to the WP article on him. A hyperlink to the WP article on algorithm here would be useful, but WP does not have an article on "heuristic" only on "metaheuristic" which is a bit more specialized and narrow. "Heuristic" redirects to "metaheuristic" on WP but should not do so, since "heuristic" is a broader concept.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true as User:Shirtwaist states in his edit summary that 'http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-life-of-cubicles says Herman Miller was first "cubicle"'.

And also states that Miller "sold the first office cubicle, the Action Office, in 1968 (sic)."

However, the book George Nelson: The Design of Modern Design. by Abercrombie (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-01142-5.) does indeed state that comparable prototypes (with paneled partitions) also designed by Miller appeared much earlier than 1968- 1964 for a Medical Clinic in Indiana (p. 216) and 1963 at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (p. 217)(Both have photoes). The Wikipedia article cubicle cites Abercrombie on both of these without(!!) page numbers. I submit them here.

I'm not sure what accounts for the the discrepancy except perhaps these earlier models were done on commission rather than sold on the open market. (That is of course entirely speculation.)

Workplaces in the 1960 Billy Wilder/Jack Lemmon film The Apartment certainly look like proto-cubicles to me and are described as cubicles in Tim Dirk's summary of the film [5].

An old medieval word for a rule to adhere to is "rubric", so let's thank User:Shirtwaist for following Wikipedia's rubrics on Kubrick and cubicles.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like a "Kubrick cubicle rubric" to tie your tongue in knots;)

The "Herman Miller Office"(Pina) book talks about Robert Propst and George Nelson's "Action Office 1" series which was introduced in 1964. Apparently it had several problems, and was a bit of a flop, although Nelson (but not Propst?) won the Alcoa Award for it. Herman Miller tried again, but Nelson was dropped from the project and Propst alone came up with "Action Office 2" in 1968. This latter series is what I think New Atlantis is talking about when they say cubicles were introduced in 1968. It may be that some examples of Action Office 1 did make it into the marketplace after 1964, and might be where the examples in the book you mentioned (and those in "Play Time"[1967]) came from(not sure how long AO-1 products were sold for though). But even AO-1 couldn't be the source for what appears in "The Apartment". Do you have screenshots from the film that show them?

I should point out, though, that no cubicles appear in 2001, just the (modified) desk and chair. I also noticed that the moonbase conference room chairs, referenced in the article as being "Herman Miller products" - citing "1000 Chairs" by Fiell - are definitely NOT in Fiell or Pina, and I can't find them in any other online source either. And as I said, there is no mention at all of Kubrick or 2001 in Pina, and only very minor mention in Fiell( a tiny blurb). This is yet more fallout from Ken Keisel's clear misrepresentation of his sources, and will have to be corrected. I see another editor recently fixed (rightly) another improper use of Fiell. I guess KK picked books at random that looked like they might support his entries, hoping nobody would check them. He sure didn't. Why anyone would challenge a fact-finding Pitt Bull like me at this point is beyond me;}...jkShirtwaist (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some minor points. I would have said that the glass office of the Hilton Hotel in Space Station V is a tad proto-cubicle-like (though it has a glass wall) as might the briefly seen private areas of astronauts in the centrifuge on Discovery- more details to come. Unless, you are knowing conflating an identification with feisty dogs and Brad Pitt, it is actually pit bull.

Nope. Not really Cubicles proper in The Apartment- just a lot of desks. Memory plays tricks. See [6] and same photo at [7]. Jack Lemmon in work area at [8]. Well if Tim Dirk can make that mistake, so can I.

Good work.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone reading this knows where the moonbase conference room chairs came from, here they are. Please let us know! Oh, and just for giggles, this is the "House Of Tomorrow" WG spoke of a while back. Shirtwaist (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said "Nothing dates so quickly as people's ideas of the future".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this pic of Kubrick and Clarke in Kubrick's NY apartment (where supposedly much of the original script was written) deserves a place in the "Writing" section. It's from Daniel Richter's book "Moonwatcher's Memoir", and not only serves to illustrate the two men's appearance at the time, but also the physical location referenced in the article(if it isn't, it will be) where a lot of the writing was done. I don't foresee any serious WP:NFC#UUI problems - it's encyclopedic, descriptive, low res, etc. Opinions?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. A few notes.

Clarke gave a lot of advice to Peter Hyams on the screenplay of the sequel 2010 but they corresponded entirely by e-mail (in 1983, yep). Clarke never left Sri Lanka. No need to mention that here though.

The book "Artificial Gravity" by Gilles Clément has an actual diagram of the alleged interior design of Discovery (pod bay and centrifuge) on p. 64 that might be of interest.

Re your previous note- I'm personally just as interested in the furniture in Discovery as that on Clavius. In a wide shot (Poole's jogging), you can see all five astronauts have a personal area, which Gilles Clément oddly calls "cubicles" though I'm not sure how appropriate that is.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Delta aka User:Δ (presumably no relation to Clockwork Orange's Mr. Deltoid) is quite correct about the "page" parameter. You are supposed to use either pages or page, one or the other depending on your citation requiring just one page or more than one. This means I have misused the template for the past several months. Fortunately, if both parameters are filled in, the first one "page" overrides the second, so no harm done on public displays.

Very importantly, for a change Delta just wiped out the "pages" parameter instead of correcting it to "page=" with the total number of pages, which he previously did. His earlier strategy made things worse, because if their are two "page=" parameters, the second parameter (which still contained the total page count) is what is displayed onscreen. So his current strategy (just wipe out "pages=") keeps the public display correct while his earlier strategy (change "pages=" to a second "page=") made things worse as it caused the page citations to be displayed wrongly (as the total page-count.).

Why the template software goes for displaying the first param if there is "page=" and "pages=", but the second param if there are two "page=", I don't know. I'm not a template programmer. But the wrong stuff I was doing kept the public display of the footnote correct, while the first of Delta's two fixes actually messed it up for this reason.

And, of course, we want to keep the mdash's for good display purposes.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real mdash character as in '—' may be acceptable, but the double hyphen '--' (ndash not mdash) is not.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the ref section, I don't see anything amiss with the page numbers. You might want to check. I also misinterpreted the purpose of "page, pages"-ya learn something new everyday!

Don't know why he bothered to "correct" the m-dashes though. I think the various bots automatically correct plain '—'s with "—" anyway, don't they? I think "—" and other templates are needed for readability for certain browsers or something. And putting "978" in front of ISBN numbers is allowed, but hardly necessary.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nafnosseb, but the refs you provided don't establish significance by reliable secondary sources. As WP:IPC says -

"Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."

For one thing, I don't think IMDb is a reliable source for almost anything and should never be used for anything other than an external link, and the other two - the Big Bang fansite and wiki - hardly establish significance either; the Wiki-Big Bang page only mentions "Thus Spake Zarathustra", and the fansite doesn't mention anything about 2001 at all. But I'm open to arguments for re-inclusion of the entry with those particular refs.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. It's actually clear if you watch the video that it's a 2001 ref (and kinda funny), but again the idea is to supply a secondary source that establishes the (cultural) notability of the ref. This will probably be hard to find given how recent the episode is, and how many 2001 refs in pop culture there are by now. Hence we have here Earlier comic references by prominent film makers. The TV series "The Big Bang" is jammed with sci-fi references to everything from Space Odyssey to The Terminator. Is the public's perception of SpOd changed by this episode? A shorter quote from the WP:IPC

"However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."

SW, I've taken the liberty of reformatting your longer quote. Happy Easter, post-Passover, or celebration of the goddess Ēostre, or whatever you celebrate.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WG. Looks much better. I hate to give the impression of being a deletionist to people like Nafnosseb, but I don't think we want the article to fill up with what amounts to insignificant cruft either. And is it Festivus time again? Happy Festivus!!!Shirtwaist (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to Festivus, that's around December 23rd. But maybe that's just the solar calendar version. You'll have to check meta:Deletionism and meta::Deletionist to see if you really fit the bill.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's really two or three issues in the Parodies and Homages section. There is the WP rule that we need a secondary source to establish cultural significance.

But also, is the reference to "Space Odyssey" (or whatever) an extended homage (a film sequence or scene) or just a "in passing" momentary allusion? In the latter case, it is almost always of marginal significance, and "Space Odyssey" in not a main focus of the reference. If a computer that is a main character of a film like WALL-E or Eagle Eye has HAL-like characteristics, we have an homage! The computer in Woody Allen's Sleeper is on screen for only about 10 minutes, but is voiced by 2001's HAL-voice Douglas Rain, and it's a crucial ten minutes. Allen is making a statement about the impact of 2001.

The recently deleted Big Bang Theory material is from a show cluttered with multiple jokey references to science-fiction, Space Odyssey, Terminator movies, Alien movies, etc., so I think doesn't count here.

The only passing allusion to 2001 I could imagine mentioning here is the appearance of the Space Odyssey soundtrack album in the front of the record rack in Stanley Kubrick's next film A Clockwork Orange, significant only because SK did it himself, and even that I'm not raring to add.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the IMDb source, besides being unreliable and therefore failing WP:RS, is incorrect when it says "As the stereo plays "Also Sprach Zarathustra", the guys act like the apes finding the monolith." - the actors appear to be reacting to the drum beats more than anything else, it's hard to say, and would require interpretation on the part of the viewer to determine "significance". This source also illustrates perfectly why this type of reference should be kept out of WP articles; the list includes HUNDREDS of similar trivial references to '2001', and is the very definition of insignificant "cruft". Lists like that one, which includes the BBT ref in question, are why WP would suffer if they were allowed to be included in its articles.

I've found this advice from WP:IPC to be especially helpful in deciding whether or not PC refs should be included in "In Popular Culture" sections:

"When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

• Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
• Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
• Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?
  
  If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content."

Presumably "Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?" does not include someone trying to add it to Wikipedia. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! - no. But does it include the audience laughing at it?;}Shirtwaist (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futurama

We already have something in the "Legacy" section of the "Stanley Kubrick" article that Groening's The Simpsons contains literally dozens of references to multiple Stanley Kubrick movies, for which we have both a secondary source (you can actually find more than one secondary source) and the awareness that Kubrick knew that the Simpson's was referencing him a great deal, and that Kubrick is generally a huge fave of Simpsons creater Matt Groening, and the admiration was mutual (Kubrick liked Groening's work as well). Groening is also the creator of Futurama (which premiered about the time of Kubrick's death), so by one degree of separation that is a bit notable. However, Futurama has referenced Odyssey in at least 5 or 6 separate episodes so no one single ref really stands out. Also (as has Groening's The Simpsons) Futurama has also referenced other Kubrick films as well, including Strangelove and Clockwork Orange. I would be inclined to:

1) Definitely note in the "Stanley Kubrick" article that Groening continued his ongoing homage to SK in "Futurama" (just one sentence).

2) Maybe if can be sourced note here that Futurama has on multiple times parodied Space Odyssey (no details on any particular one- no one instance stands out) with the easily documented note that Kubrick and Groening admired each others work and that Groening generally does a lot of Kubrick homage (both easily documented).--WickerGuy (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Kubrick was both a great fan of The Simpsons and in friendly contact with the show's producers" in "Leaving Springfield"? If so, where?Shirtwaist (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lifted that from the article Stanley Kubrick but I suspect whoever put it in took too literally a toungue-in-cheek satirical piece from "The Guardian" Stanley and Bart... another Kubrick legend, so let's ditch it. Mucho Gracias--WickerGuy (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. It would make an interesting detail, and I was hoping it was documented somewhere. I'll check sources on the Matt Groening page.Shirtwaist (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly plausible. Kubrick was a fan of both Woody Allen and Steve Martin and had some nominal contact with them. (SK was notably jealous of Allen's ability to make a film per year.) In fact, Steve Martin was an early choice for the role of Bill Harford, eventually played by Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut. IMO in some ways, Martin may have been a better choice, although Cruise projects the right combination of cockiness and naivete required by the role.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo

Apparently Kubrick's oldest daughter (actually his only stepdaughter), Katherina Kubrick, had an extensive presence on the online bulletin board alt.kubrick.net and confirmed her Dad's enjoyment of the Simpsons. SK ordered tapes of the show from the producers. Currently, I only have this from second-hand sources, but if we can find the original, that's fine. It's true that WP normally doesn't go with bulletin boards, but it's widely confirmed that this is the real KK, not some kind of Alan Conway figure masquerading as Katherina Kubrick. I suspect the material in the article Stanley Kubrick may have been placed on the basis of the KK interview at alt.kubrick.net but without citation.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's alt.movies.kubrick NOT alt.kubrick.net. It's not online anymore, and I don't know if it's archived or not, so we only have second-hand accounts that KK talked there about SK's love of Simpsons. Hardly any of the second-hand sources really qualify as WP:Reliable although I'm inclined to believe them. Still searching.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently alt.movies.kubrick has since become a Google group and the old stuff (pre-Google) is archived there. According to one posting there, Michael Herr's published book memoir of working with Kubrick on Full Metal Jacket confirms he was a Simpson's fan, so that would be the best source, but need to confirm with the Herr book. Yes, it's on p. 47.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be a killjoy, but that Google group posting only appears in another poster's post. The original post by "Katharina", whoever that is, can't even be accessed, let alone the poster's identity verified. An extremely tenuous claim to "reliability" don't you think? I think we should be consistent on where we set the bar on RS, and this falls far short, IMHO.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really kind of 50/50- stretching the WP rules but not to breaking point. It's widely documented that the real Katharina Kubrick was quite active on the bulletin alt.movies.kubrick. In fact Christiane Kubrick (SK's wife/widow) has confirmed on HER website (the old one [9] not the new one [10]) that the bulletin board poster and amk is the real Katharina Kubrick. (Naturally, since there was that infamous case of Alan Conway impersonating Stanley K. in the '90s.) Hence, the likelihood that this is a post from the real KK is fairly high. On the other hand, if that stuff happened at the Director's Guild award dinner, it's likely that another (and better) source can verify it. (The claim that SK ordered tapes of the Simpson's to watch would be harder to verify, and might be verifiable from KK's posting on amk alone. It's been repeated on various Simpson's bulletin boards with attribution there to KK's posting on amk, but that's TWO bulletin boards- one bulletin board quoting another one, which is a real stretch, even more than a reposting/quote on the same bulletin board.) Alas, when Google groups took over alt.movies.kubrick they didn't transfer absolutely everything.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, not only do we have to assume "Katharina" is the Katharina Kubrick, we also have to assume "Teenage Runaway" isn't making up/editing/interpreting this supposedly "archived" post. When dealing with posters on message boards, I always assume everyone is lying about everything, including their true identity, unless I see irrefutable proof otherwise. From WP:USERG:

"self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated...Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

How does this a.m.k post avoid the same scrutiny we give IMDb posts or any other public forum posting? WP:RS doesn't consider likelihoods of veracity of sources as far as I know.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welll, you got a point there, unless I just try to appeal to WP:IGNORE. WP allows Imdb stuff generated by credentialed staff, but not by users, and blogs are only allowed by WP if they are hosted by professional news outlets (such as the New York Times) and even then reader replies are banned as a source. Finally "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and as far as I know Katharina Kubrick may be an established expert on her father but unlike her uncle, Jan Harlan, she has not published anything about her Dad in a reliable 3rd-party publication. It should also be conceded that even if the post is authentic the reposter is reposting her post out of context, since the Director's Guild event honoring Kubrick was posthumous and therefore does NOT constitute evidence that SK saw the Simpsons, though we do have Michael Herr's testimony for that. I repeat, I still think that given that in light of the Alan Conway fiasco, Christiane Kubrick went to some length to publicly confirm her daughter really & truly was posting on alt.movies.kubrick, it's very likely this is real, but it may still fail WP's standards of credibility.

(BTW, I think you should say you PREsume everyone is lying, not ASsume). I haven't found any other source to confirm this. I could write Katharina Kubrick and ask her to post some message to this effect on her personal website (her e-mail is public), but beyond that or getting another source or getting you to agree to WP:IGNORE (can I convert the Pope to Islam?), this material may need to go.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'll stick to being Pope -- less praying, snazzier headgear! I hate assuming - it usually makes an 'ASS' out of some guy named 'UME'.

WP:IGNORE is fine...if it results in improvements to WP, which using this kind of source clearly would not. But it would be fantastic to contact KK in any case. If you do, ask her if it's possible for her or her mother, whichever controls pics owned by the estate, to give permission to use that pic of SK and ACC I recently proposed for inclusion in the article. Having it in Wiki Commons would be great.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the estate of Kubrick is largely controlled by Katharina's uncle and Christiane's brother Jan Harlan who was the executive producer of every Kubrick film from Barry Lyndon to the end, including Spielberg's completion of Kubrick's unfinished A. I.. Jan Harlan also produced several (though not all) of the special features on Kubrick DVDs that came out in 2007, and was both producer and director of the 2001 (the YEAR 2001) documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures. It is possible that the estate is legally controlled by SK's widow Christiane, and she just has her brother do all this work, just as he was working for SK while alive. But let's see first what KK says about posting a verification of the bulletin post- it would have to be on her website, rather than in a personal communication to me or anyone- her website is mostly on her painting (both she and her mother are painters- the paintings in the Harford's apartment in Eyes Wide Shut are all either by Christiane of Katherina)- she may not want to put stuff about her Dad on it.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Jan Harlan post anywhere? If we could get hold of him and get him to contribute, I'd be in hog heaven!Shirtwaist (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although both mother and daughter Christiane K & Katharina K (actually Katharina Kubrick Hobbs) each have their own personal website (mainly to promote their own paintings and services as painting teachers), CK's brother Jan Harlan has no personal website of his own. You could possibly get his contact info by joining Imdb Pro, but I think the best route is to contact KK(H), as she both has a posting history and had published her e-mail. Maybe I'll draft an e-mail in the next day or two. For the record SK's youngest daughter, Vivian Kubrick, has no official website [you'd think she would- she collaborated on 4 of her Dad's films as music composer ("Jacket"), making-of-documentary director ("Shining"), and as cameo actress (Odyssey, Lyndon, Shining, & Jacket)-she was going to do the score for "Eyes.." and a making-of documentary for "Jacket" but neither came to be.], and Vivian has been estranged from her family for the past 12 years (due to her Scientology involvement). SK's middle daughter, Anya, died a couple of years ago or so.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had issues with some miscreant or other repeatedly removing the word "epic" from the opening sentence, and by gum, by golly, the word "epic" is in the film poster! "An epic drama of adventure and exploration"!! If that's not vindication, I don't know what is.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The description on the poster is POVvy. Our leading is (supposed to be) neutral. --Damiens.rf 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Epic" is not necessarily a value judgment, but can be a descriptive word. It is a genre of literature. You can also make something sound appealing by calling it "epic". Compare "romance" and "romantic". The one is descriptive of a genre- the other is a value judgment to plug your movie/novel/play. The word "Epic" can go either way. It is the judgment of several editors here, the this film does indeed fall into the formal literary category of epic. The above post was meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek. But I really did just notice it.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Epic" is a legitimate genre description, not a subjective evaluation. It's commonly used in movie lead sentences in WP. See Epic film, in which 2001 is mentioned as an example of an "epic science-fiction" film.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an image failing, at least, WP:NFCC#10. --Damiens.rf 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit warring on this same image for years, please stop. Dreadstar ☥ 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You description of the situation is obviously failed. No consensus was reached to use this non-free image on this article. Bear in mind that duplicating text across the encyclopedia in order to justify the proliferation of non-free content is not in line the this project's ultimate goals. This file's use on this page requires additional reviews.

Editors are here warned to to add that non-free image back to this article without building a strong (site-wide) consensus beforehand. I'll not hesitate in enforcing or non-free content policy. --Damiens.rf 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]