View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:03 am




Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Stanley Kubrick infobox 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
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.


Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:45 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
None of this surprises. Bishonen is the Queen of the Giano Axis Of Stupidity, which has spent the last 15 years sucking up in Wikiland. They have generated good content, and been incredible "posh" pests in every other way. STILL have no idea of Giano's real identity though many educated guesses have been made.

From the book wiki:
Quote:
(Note: Bishonen has been "outed" in the past as being Andrea J. Faulds, a transgender woman from Scotland who operates the vanity website ajf.me and runs numerous sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia. Her "open" account is Ajfweb. [1][2] This cannot be verified, although it was heavily discussed by Gamergaters in the 2014-15 time period.)


I make no guarantees on any info offered in this area. This would be a good place for Tarantino to help out. Which will never happen.


Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:26 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
One of Giano's major accounts has an amazing block log.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 3AGiano_II

Also, after looking at that argument on the Kubrick talkpage, I have to comment: it's just amazing how many administrators showed up to "vote" on this stupid shit. You KNOW that insiders are heavily involved when this happens. Unquestionably the bastards canvassed for support on IRC.


Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:28 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
Quote:
One thing that I will add and think it can be framed to the community is that infoboxes only really work well when there is heirarchial or sequential data that makes sense to pigeonhole data into. If we're talking a world leader, or an athlete, or a businessperson, they fall within some organizational structure and there's details that you'd not want to spell out in the lede but makes sense in the infobox. But when you get to creative people like Kubrick here, they don't fall into any heirarchial data structure. We can state birth and death, and key people he's connected to, but there's little else that would not be in the lede already in a well-written article. This articles makes a prime example where there's really no benefit of an infobox with the lede as it is. What little omitted from the lede that would fall in the infobox is too trivial to force one. --Masem (t) 00:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)\

Masem, I understand your point, but plenty of creative historical and current figures have infoboxes. Examples include; Spielberg, Picasso, Beethoven, Hitchcock, Warhol, and Michael Bay, in a seemingly endless list. An infobox can include the few that Masem mentioned and his most important works(films in this case), signature (I always have liked that), and his numerous awards. (HAL333 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

There is the argument you should avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where infoboxes are and aren't used has been a long thread of discussion not just here , but the pattern that I see where editors want to omit them is on creative persons that do not fit into a hierarchical structure. --Masem (t) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Masem If you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it will tell you that arguments like mine can be valid. According to it, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This very much pertains to my argument. Why should someone as "creative" and notable as Kubrick not have a infobox, when every Director from Spike Lee to Quentin Tarantino has them? HAL333 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make with that is that everything is a case by case, and this is presently a decision held up by the Arbitration Committee and community consensus. The Arbitration Committee has stated from a case a couple years back that the community should decide on some standards when infoboxes can and cannot be used, but until that's in place, editors should avoid causing disruption on inclusion or exclusion of infoboxes, and default to the status quo for the article in question. This one on Kubrick is probably the most challenged of the all. What others have said above is that you can review the talk page history and easily find 5-6 RFCS or similar debates about the infobox, all come out with no consensus to change from the lack of infobox, though many creative solutions (like collapsible ones) have been offered. --Masem (t) 02:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that we shouldn't change it until there is a consensus. I hope to try a final Request for Comments in the New Year, an RfC to end all RfC's. If there is no consensus, then no infobox. But I do hope we can get one for this page. HAL333 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As people from both sides of the debate have advised you to drop this for at least three months, trying to force the issue yet again would likely be seen as disruptive. We get it: you want a box. Others disagree, and (as you can see from the links at the top of the page), this has been thrashed out before without a change. Why should we have to go through the whole song and dance again just because you want one. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to keep disruptively having the discussion over and over. This isn't Groundhog Day, where you can keep forcing it until you get the answer you want. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


FUCK YOU, MASEM. GO BACK TO DRAWING PONY CHARACTERS.
https://www.deviantart.com/masemj


Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:52 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:20 am
Posts: 280
Reply with quote
Interesting comment by Moxy, August 18:

Having hundreds of readers requesting a box to no avail for years makes you wonder if we're actually here for the readers or for the writers of this isolated case.

Yep, it's mainly about the writers. Doing away with infoboxes forces readers to read the shit Cassianto and SchroCat have written. It's an example of how unaccomplished people use Wikipedia as a platform for vanity publishing. It's also an example of what Jake referred to recently as "narcissistic supply".


Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Inboxes are ubiquitous even on artists biographies, so the default view has to be that readers accept them, and the majority of the community accepts them

This sort of logic doesn't penetrate the SchroCat/Cassianto Axis of Cuntery, who happily posit the exact opposite, like it's even up for debate before they actually present any evidence to back up their bullshit.

It's hilarious that these people also hate so called SJWs. What is more snowflakey than demanding your opinion be heard, just because you said it?

A right pair of special little flowers. Always being triggered on Wikipedia, and often about the most mind-numbingly unimportant shit.


Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:42 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
The Masem exchange is perfectly illustrative. The established Wikipedians involved in this idiocy, can rationalize anything to themselves, no matter how absurd.

Where is the ArbCom mandated RfC which would give these assholes the consensus they want and already claim exists, namely to ban infoboxes on all artist biographies, for all the reasons they keep offering in isolated cases but which would apply to all artist biographies as a set.

It hasn't happened, because they know they would lose, because in their precious little heads, the vast majority of the community are stupid, they're the only smart ones who really get it. In reality, they would lose because their arguments are beyond stupid.

So they settle for fighting these utterly pointless rearguard actions, seeing the protection of at least their WP:OWN content, as some kind of victory they can live with.

Imagine what it must be like, to be this devoid of meaning in your life?


Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:53 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Imagine what it must be like, to be this devoid of meaning in your life?

Well, you could always approach them on Facebook directly--although I suspect they would quickly get your account blocked if you asked "embarrassing questions". Dozens of WP admins have Facebooks, including a long list of old-timer "cabalniks". (I tried looking for a Neylon account and didn't see one.)

Some of the really weird people you see on that talkpage are REALLY loathe to create a FB account. Because FB demands a "real name", of course.


Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:32 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Unsurprisingly, Bishonen's gang successfully muddied the waters enough that no resolution was possible, and she therefore did as she had threatened to do, and use that farce as the pretext for shutting down any further discussion for two years.

It's hilarious these shitheels are invoking the Arb Case.

Take a look at this garbage buried in the closure.....
Quote:
By the nature of policy, a decision about whether or not to include an infobox is an editorial decision with all participating viewpoints receiving equal weight.
Sure. But only after you have done as the Arb Case demands, and removed all arguments that do not specifically address this article.

As anyone can see, there was not one argument lodged by opposers that was actually specific to this one article. He's admitted it in the closure......
Quote:
Those against an infobox suggest that an infobox introduces elements unimportant to understanding Kubrick and his work and suggest that this kind of over simplification, to the point of harming the reader experience, is particularly acute in biographies of those in the arts and an infobox is unnecessary given the well written LEAD.
Not one word of that bullshit is an argument that addresses this article specifically, it is an argument that could be applied to any arts biography with a full length lede and the subject is a complex character. Broadly speaking, that should be every arts biography.

That is the fraud of this whole farce. These individual battles have never been about the individual article, except for the reasons given by Herostratus......
Quote:
Yeah, same here. WTF. Didn't we have the "Infobox Wars" a few years back? Didn't infoboxes win? So I mean... huh. I mean it's not ALL THAT important? So, anyway, generally speaking , local consensus doesn't necessarily trump overall consensus. In theory, some clutch of editors at the article FOO can't decide that, in that article, to, I don't know, use ampersands instead of "and" or whatever.

Scanning the text above (there's a lot), I guess the best case for not including the infobox (given that infoboxes are a thing here) is that biographies of persons in the arts ought to be a special exception -- those articles, in particular are worse off within infoboxes. (Right? I don't think the argument is being made that only film directors, or only Americans in the arts, or some other subset, ought to be exempt.)
So then, what's needed is a broader RfC. Infoboxes for biographies of people in the arts generally, yes or no.

Absent a general rule that infoboxes should not be included in biographies of people in the arts, I just can't see singling out this one, particular, individual biography to not have an infobox. C'mon.
But... I get the vibe that this a battle in a guerilla war against infoboxes in general, or anyway against infoboxes for biographies of people in the arts. OK. I have fought guerilla wars myself. The people guarding this particular article against an infobox have the whip hand in this article since the Existing Stable Version doesn't have one (I think).

Alright. If you're being pushed back into the hills, and you find a fortress, defend it. I get it. But I mean, for infoboxes? Who cares that much? Not me. Really, whatever. It's fine either way. It is. It's a fine article either way, and let's acknowledge all the skill and effort of many editors in making it so, and not tear ourselves up about this. I don't mind if the guerillas keep a couple strong points. It doesn't matter. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen had no reply to that, unsurprisingly. What could she even say?


Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:22 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 9 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.