Stanley Kubrick infobox
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:45 pm
If you think it absurd that the Wikipedia biography for Stanley Kubrick doesn't have an infobox, this his your last chance to register your incredulity. Since it is one of Queen Bishonen's coterie who feels most passionately about the issue, because he wrote the article, she is gearing up to impose a three year ban on any future proposals after this one, using her sole personal discretion, as Queen of Wikipedia. Nice help if you can get it.
Luckily I don't need to coach anyone on how to vote, simply say "Support, per Herostratus", since he has quite effectively summed up the main problem with this farce. Technically, this is supposed to only be about arguments you can make specifically for or against an infobox for Kubric, all other arguments are meant to be dismissed. But as you can see, virtually everyone doesn't get that, and those that do, don't really have a Kubric specific argument, only a vague idea they shouldn't be used for artists, and this guy is an artist, so he should not have one.
All they can say about Kubric specifically was that he was a complex man who did many things that defies simplification into box form, and while there is some truth to that, a lot of this is down to their desire to build a shrine to the man. It is inarguable that there are enough simple basic facts about Kubrick, even an agreed upon best/seminal work, matched by his Awards success (which apparently can't even be said of Spielberg, and he has a box), that a box would be useful to some readers. And that is all that is required.
The Kubrick specific arguments that a box somehow degrades the article, are even more bogus, and hint at their true objection. They simply think it would spoil the page, and they want people to read the text they have lovingly crafted, and supposedly the introduction does everything an infobox could. That last part being a classic example of them forgetting they are not meant to be making generic arguments, least of all ones that are irrelevant (the entire point of an infobox is to duplicate the lede)
Most importantly of all, do not under any circumstances waste your time engaging with the other side, even though it is inevitable they will try to harangue you. They have made up their minds, and despite it being obvious their arguments are bogus, borne of a toxic mix of ownership, proxy warfare and IDON'TLIKEIT, they're not for changing. Perpetuating the farce that this is actually a debate where facts and opinions are up for discussion and a neutral and impartial Administrator will come along and weigh them properly, and this can legitimately be cited as the true consensus for three whole years, is part of Bishonen's plan.
Luckily I don't need to coach anyone on how to vote, simply say "Support, per Herostratus", since he has quite effectively summed up the main problem with this farce. Technically, this is supposed to only be about arguments you can make specifically for or against an infobox for Kubric, all other arguments are meant to be dismissed. But as you can see, virtually everyone doesn't get that, and those that do, don't really have a Kubric specific argument, only a vague idea they shouldn't be used for artists, and this guy is an artist, so he should not have one.
All they can say about Kubric specifically was that he was a complex man who did many things that defies simplification into box form, and while there is some truth to that, a lot of this is down to their desire to build a shrine to the man. It is inarguable that there are enough simple basic facts about Kubrick, even an agreed upon best/seminal work, matched by his Awards success (which apparently can't even be said of Spielberg, and he has a box), that a box would be useful to some readers. And that is all that is required.
The Kubrick specific arguments that a box somehow degrades the article, are even more bogus, and hint at their true objection. They simply think it would spoil the page, and they want people to read the text they have lovingly crafted, and supposedly the introduction does everything an infobox could. That last part being a classic example of them forgetting they are not meant to be making generic arguments, least of all ones that are irrelevant (the entire point of an infobox is to duplicate the lede)
Most importantly of all, do not under any circumstances waste your time engaging with the other side, even though it is inevitable they will try to harangue you. They have made up their minds, and despite it being obvious their arguments are bogus, borne of a toxic mix of ownership, proxy warfare and IDON'TLIKEIT, they're not for changing. Perpetuating the farce that this is actually a debate where facts and opinions are up for discussion and a neutral and impartial Administrator will come along and weigh them properly, and this can legitimately be cited as the true consensus for three whole years, is part of Bishonen's plan.