| Revision as of 23:00, 31 December 2017 editDavey2010 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,543 edits OneClickArchiver archived Kubrick and Harlan tied the knot?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:16, 27 November 2024 edit undoJip Orlando (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,700 edits →Subject-verb agreement |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
| Line 29: |
Line 31: |
|
|topic=film |
|
|topic=film |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Kubrick, Stanley|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=GA}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Screenwriters|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Screenwriters}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-priority=Top |filmbio-work-group=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chess|importance=Bottom}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=GA|filmbio-priority=Top|filmbio-work-group=yes|listas=Kubrick, Stanley}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chess|class=GA|importance=Bottom}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=GA|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hertfordshire|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hertfordshire|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=Langlit}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|collapsed=no |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Corinne Ramey |
|
|
| title = The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages’s Editors From Killing Each Other |
|
|
| org = '']'' |
|
|
| url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wikipedias-bickering-editors-go-to-war-its-supreme-court-steps-in-1525708429 |
|
|
| date = 7 May 2018 |
|
|
| accessdate = 18 August 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
| subject2 = article |
|
|
| author2 = Omer Benjakob |
|
|
| title2 = How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Misplaced Pages Articles Paint a Dark Picture |
|
|
| org2 = '']'' |
|
|
| url2 = https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-the-15-most-controversial-wikipedia-pages-of-2017-1.5730022 |
|
|
| date2 = 1 October 2018 |
|
|
| accessdate2 = 18 August 2020 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== No better/more photos? == |
|
== potential missing word == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current quote: |
|
(Full disclosure: I wanted to discuss infobox too, but seeing how it's a "sensible" subject, I'll keep to my original point of speech.)<br/> |
|
|
|
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks." |
|
Let's be honest - ] is not the appearance most people remember Kubrick by. In most film discussion forums I have been in, he is older, slightly bigger, and has a gigantic beard. A little bit more like ''']''', I find. And as it turned out when I looked at ], we have not many pictures of him with that iconic look. I do wonder, is it really that hard to find aptly-licenced photos of one of the greatest artists of the 20th century? Maybe it is, and I won't judge either way.<br/> |
|
|
|
Possibilities: |
|
If we can't find another portrait, maybe we at least can discuss it a bit and maybe find consensus on whether the picture ''should'' be replaced and with what. ] for ], ] for ], ''']''' (]) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films '''''' broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks." |
|
|
<u>or</u> |
|
|
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground '''''' are now considered landmarks." |
|
|
or something else! ] (]) 20:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I vote for the '''''' option. I think that sounds great! ] (]) 21:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
:There is no consensus to find. The ] image you link to is awful. The current one is a lot better. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024 == |
|
::I do realize the other one was awful. Had I thought it good, I would have put it in right away, ]. The current portrait is ''easily'' the best one we currently have. <u>But</u> is it the best considering what SK looked like in most of his film career? I think not. I think we need another portrait - for the lead at least, and move down the current one to a section or something - and my main concern is that <u>Kubrick generally didn't look like that</u>. Consider for instance that the lead of ] does not contains ] image, but rather a portrait showing the appearance most commonly represented with the person in question. Once again, the issue I raised is a theoretical one and maybe not instantly fixable. ] for ], ] for ], ''']''' (]) 22:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Given the dates involved, the older you want him to look the less likely you are to find an image now out of copyright - see the . If you do find one you can propose it, but you'd need appropriate documentation regarding copyright status. ] (]) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Stanley Kubrick|answered=yes}} |
|
== Came here for info, not getting it == |
|
|
|
The second sentence says "Widely considered one of the...". It should say "Widely considered as one of the..." ] (]) 05:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The use of "as" would be redundant here - the current phrasing works fine. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Barry Lyndon: Zeiss 50mm F/0.7 lens == |
|
So I was here to look up some quick info about Stanley Kubrick after a conversation with a friend, and I noticed that there's no Info Box. I am well aware that there's a conversation about it here, but we need to just consider a simple fact: Info boxes give information that the vast majority of users coming to this page are looking for. The only other thing that someone would generally come to the Stanley Kubrick page other than the quick information is his Filmography. Generally speaking, though it's nice we have all this information, unless the opening paragraph did its job then they do not care about the details, and do not care to slog through them to get the information they actually want. The alternative to an info box is a lot of Ctrl+F's, which are NOT usually available on Mobile, and so we just have a mess. I get it, aesthetics, but form follows function, you build aesthetics around the function, not the other way around. The function of Misplaced Pages is to give information to the masses, and this is going against that. I dusted off my ancient account to say this: I, the average Misplaced Pages ''user'' (not editor,) had a bad user experience. ''This page in particular failed to do the basics of what the user expects.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The source doesn't support the claim that this lens was intended for satellite photography. ] (]) 05:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
That's just my two cents. Take them or leave them, but I 100% guarantee you if you were to poll the average Misplaced Pages user (not editor, ''user'') if they do or do not want Info Boxes, they would agree that Info Boxes should stay. Do not enforce your artistic vision over the needs of the people actually using this page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024 == |
|
:If you're offering the choice, then we'll leave them. Thanks. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Stanley Kubrick|answered=yes}} |
|
::Been looking at your edits, Cassianto, it seems like you have a lot of love for the idea of your grand "artistic vision" for Misplaced Pages bios, in fact, you're so thorough in your grand misunderstanding that 41/145 comments on this talk page are by you, so let's make this clear: This isn't about art. This is about '''information''', and half of the idea of compiling information is the ability to '''''find''' information''. If you don't understand this, and let's be clear: this is a critical idea to the concept of encyclopedias, that's a massive problem and I suggest you take a break and figure it out. ] (]) 23:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Add in as source: Kubrick: An Odyssey (February 2024), by Robert P. Kolker and Nathan Abrams; Pegasus Books, Ltd.; ISBN: 978-1-63936-624-8; https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Kubrick/Robert-P-Kolker/9781639366248 ] (]) 13:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I suggest you just take a break. That's it. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Not done. What do you want this to be used as a source ''for''? ] (]) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::PD if you can't be bothered to read the article - which is where the "information" actually is - there is little that anyone can do for you. Considering that these are the first posts you have made in one has to wonder what other usernames you have used. ]|] 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==AFI== |
|
:::::I have never used another username. Again, I told you what it is, dusting this one off for this. I usually do not partake in edit arguments, but this issue is glaring. And here's the thing: Your romanticized "editor's view" of what the page should look like does not match up with what the users actually want. This is why this keeps coming up. This is why info boxes are on most other pages. This is why these features exist - it's because ''users want them''. You don't get to remove something critical to the user experience on Misplaced Pages because you don't like the aesthetics. ] (]) 23:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Stanley Kubrick|answered=yes}} |
|
|
About ''The Shining'', the article states "and the American Film Institute has ranked it as the 27th greatest thriller film of all time". I'm pretty sure it's at #29 and not #27. Also, I suggest adding "in 2001", since the ranking is from that year. And maybe include an internal link to ], for instance the text "has ranked it". --] (]) 11:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I confirmed that 29 is correct with the existing source and also made these other changes, thanks. ] (]) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks. --] (]) 19:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Subject-verb agreement == |
|
::::::Looking at your edit history you don't take part in anything. Add to that the fact that proof is sadly lacking which backs up your declarative statements about what readers do and do not want. BTW no one is forcing you to read Misplaced Pages. Please avail yourself of any of the 100s of others websites that don't offend your tender sensibilities. ]|] 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::In all of your posts, you keep saying you're looking for information and can't find it. You've repeated the IB credo in every one of them, but have yet to say what it is you're looking for and couldn't find. ] (]) 00:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Okay, so, I'm gonna say it again for you: I do not edit. I'm giving you the user opinion. Specifically I'm giving you the opinion of someone who has a degree that involved tons of work with UI/UX - you are denying people concision. The title of the thread is a reference to the ease of use of info. For example, in order to find out where he was born and ''when'' he was born, I have to go to two different paragraphs in two different sections of the article (intro and Early life.) To find out details about his family, I have to go to a third section (Personal Life) and overall it's just a big mess. You need to get yourself out of "editor mode" and actually view this from the perspective of those using the site. ] (]) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If you are that desperate for such details so quickly - it takes all sorts I suppose - there is always google. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:22, 30 December 2017 (UT·C) |
|
|
There's undoubtedly something sinister going on behind the scenes as this trolling over infoboxes is getting out of hand. {{ping|Yngvadottir}} What was the last thing arb said because they should be doing something to stop this happening.♦ ] 09:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I'm not the person to ask I'm afraid, but in any case they tend to aver they don't go by precedent (while of course they often do). In any case the current lot are lame ducks for another day or so. Two things strike me. First, the examples of information that infobox lovers can't wait to get, or are reluctant to seek in any but tabular form, always seem to be bathetic stuff like where someone was born, their citizenship, and who they had sex with; or, judging by other controversies, their nationality, religion, and what they are "best known for", such as what pigeonhole(s) their music can be put into. These are awful things to reduce a career to, let alone a life. Far from being an aesthetic issue, I believe this is an issue of fairness to both the person being thus reduced to tabloid headlines, and the reader who deserves accuracy. Second, I'm informed off-wiki that the WMF has recently announced "structured information" as one of their priorities. i.e., Wikidata rather than Misplaced Pages. So, {{U|PheonixDev}}, if you don't want to use Google as suggested above—and Google builds its own infobox where Misplaced Pages doesn't have one—then I suggest going straight to Wikidata, where there is no nuance or perspective whatsoever. ] (]) 16:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::So there is a TON of weak attempts at discrediting me, which is cool, but point still stands. Ultimately, this boils down to an extremely inflated sense of "justice for the artist." In your head, having an info box that gives quick facts about an artist simplifies their entire existence to that singular info box. Though it'd be tragic if that was the case, and I'd agree if it was, it seriously isn't. You don't stop reading at the info box, but you aren't going to do a deep search through three different sections to get '''basic''' information which is ultimately what you're arguing for. Like, I get it, you're all lovers of art, that's cool, and there's nothing wrong with that. But part of a job of editing for an encyclopedia is making sure the encyclopedia gives people an easy and organized way of accessing information, with the most basic information requiring little to no effort to be found. Period. If that is a problem, and it really does sound like it is for you, then this, unfortunately, is not the place to express that frustration. Again, and I'll repeat this for nth time - the user experience is paramount, being able to find information is more important than anything else. Misplaced Pages is a source of compiled information first and foremost. It is ''not'' a place for artistic flare that compromises that idea. Period. ] (]) 17:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I don't write for people who are after "quick facts". I write for people who are genuinely interested in the subjects that I write about. Those interested in my articles will want to read on. Those who aren't, have either visited by accident or haven't visited at all. If you want "quick facts" to cheat in quiz nights or to impress a date, I suggest you google it. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Like I said, that's really cool you write for that reason. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages is meant to consolidate information in a user-friendly and useful manner. There are other sources for more artistic writing, this really isn't one of them and never will be. ] (]) 20:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::In your opinion. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::No it's not just "in my opinion." Misplaced Pages's '''mission''' is to ''compile knowledge in a concise and clear manner.'' The entire reason for editors is that. Period. If you are not willing to accept this, then I highly recommend you cease editing immediately and find something else to do. You are clearly not in a healthy mindset to provide objective facts and uphold a uniform standard that users can rely on. I understand this means a lot to you, and you have several pages, and heck, you even go through the effort of having an inflated username with the big text and font, but this is not your job and you are doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. So I highly recommend you either take a break and review what Misplaced Pages is all about or stop entirely. ] (]) 02:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see the why this article should be an exception. ] (]) 21:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is right now. Almost all other bios have info boxes. ] (]) 02:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That doesn't make it right. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 11:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There's a lot you do that most would consider not right. I'm gonna be honest with you, man, you strike me as the kind of guy who's constantly on the wrong side of things due to nothing more but an ''extremely'' inflated sense of self. When the vast majority of bio pages have infoboxes and now you want to grind your heels and throw tantrums saying ''no everyone else in Misplaced Pages is '''wrong''''' then that's really just something you need to get checked out. ] (]) 20:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
|
| name = Stanley Kubrick |
|
|
| image = KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg |
|
|
| caption = Kubrick in 1949 |
|
|
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1928|07|26}} |
|
|
| birth_place = ], New York City, USA |
|
|
| death_date = {{Death date and age|1999|03|07|1928|07|26}} |
|
|
| death_place = ], Hertfordshire, England |
|
|
}} |
|
|
Alright, screw my dignity. I'm jumping on the Kubrick infobox war and state my opinion: ''"Of course we should have an infobox, everything else is ridiculous!"''<br/>The suggestion to the right is mine. It gives all vital information on SK ''without in any way'' decimating his life or whatever the concern is. I don't even get this point about how SK's legacy is tainted by a harmless infobox. Of course he did much more than die, marry, and carry a passport, but anyone on this article can see that. If we were to intentionally <u>hide</u> it (and yes, making it deliberately less accessible is the same as hiding), that would feel like declaring SK more or less <u>'''over-human'''</u> and not worthy of talking about in terms of demography. Consider my satire infobox below. Is that how high Misplaced Pages will think of SK? ] for ], ] for ], ''']''' (]) 01:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{-}} |
|
|
<div style="border: 1px solid #000000; width: 38%; color: #330033; padding: 2px; float: right;"> |
|
|
{{Humorous}} |
|
|
{{Infobox deity |
|
|
| type = ] |
|
|
| name = Kubrick |
|
|
| other_names = Stanley Kubrick (for unbelievers) |
|
|
| deity_of = God of film |
|
|
| image = KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg |
|
|
| caption = Kubrick as a mortal human, holding a mortal's camera |
|
|
| affiliation = ] |
|
|
| consort = none worth mentioning, Kubrick was beyond human pleasures such as sex |
|
|
| region = ] and ] occasionally, but mainly ] |
|
|
| ethnic_group = ]s |
|
|
| festivals = ] |
|
|
}}{{-}}</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic '']'' (1968) was a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only ] (for ]). |
|
*Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to ] and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 11:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::For the love of Jimbo, ]! What exactly are the points of ] that makes this discussion worthy of admin intervention, aside from your personal POV? As far as I see, all the previous discussions closed without consensus, and even if they didn't and consensus existed, is it a crime to discuss it? Or are you ] of this talk page? You've been rather blunt and arrogant as far as I can see, If you really had "nough of this fucking bullshit", just and let others more interested take the debate, be civil and ]! Heated discussion doesn't mean forbidden discussion. I can't see how we're abusing Misplaced Pages. ] for ], ] for ], '']'' (]) 13:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no debate. It's been had many, many times before, just check the archives. There's a consensus in place '''NOT''' to have an idiotbox, and by keep dragging this up every couple of weeks, is tantamount to disruption. It's best an uninvolved admin comes here and presides over the matter. If they deem the amount of diffs I've provided at AN to be ok, then so be it. The fact you state there is "no consensus" is because the consensus has not fallen on your favour. The discussion has been had, the result was that an infobox was not required. If you claim that's not enough, then I'll raise you one and say that there is a "silent consensus" in place as the box has remained off the page since the last RfC. Oh, and do not make . Do it again, and I'll have you up at ANI. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Interesting hypocrisy from someone who's been blocked a dozen or so times for personal attacks. It'd be great if I could just go around removing the personal attacks from comments you make. Looks like someone can dole out the personal attacks but can't take it themselves? ] (]) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's good to see that {{u|Jcc|your}} laborious MO of attempting to derail the thread by bringing up the irrelevancy of my block log is still alive and kicking. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Aided by ] (]) 13:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Interesting decision to highlight what's clearly a good faith attempt at deescalation. If this is a way of saying thank you to me, it's definitely a new one. ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I have nothing to thank you for. ] (]) 14:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::And it's shit like "Thank you-for adding humour to an infobox discussion! - I stopped commenting, find them a complete waste of time, but read of course, and your deity box made my day! I just read again what I said in 2013, - no need to change, I'll just add 2017." that keeps the ammo in the war flowing. ] (]) 13:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The editor finds those discussions such a "waste of time" that it was necessary for her to initiate this about them recently. ] (]) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corrected sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic '']'' (1968) were a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only ] (for ]). |
|
===Moratorium=== |
|
|
We need a freeze on these repetitive 'infobox' disucssions. ] (]) 14:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree. But perhaps the freeze may take place in hell, first, rather than here. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
I actually quite like the look of a collapsible infobox. It seems possible for a compromise of collapsible infobox to get consensus. I'm thinking of starting an RfC on that. ] (]) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I especially like it as it frames the image nicely. ] (]) 16:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why not? I reckon we should then have an RfC about what to call the next RfC. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
This entire chain of 'discussion' is probably the saddest thing I have ever seen on the internet and it is worrying to see how long it has been going on for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanation: The subject is plural: "The scientific realism and innovative special effects," so the verb should be "were" instead of "was." ] (]) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
The fact that there is a constant argument about it, day in day out, and it's effectively been a one man war with Cassianto having this page watched and just running into every single post and immediately harassing anyone and everyone who dares talk about it, leads me to think you're misunderstanding what the solution here is. ] (]) 20:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}, thank you! ] (]) 15:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*A moratorium isn't going to happen, because consensus can change. At some point people are just going to have to accept that this oddball decision to have no infobox on a prominent biography (when nearly all other bios have them) is more trouble than it is worth and creates far more disruption than it is worth. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Indeed it can, and indeed it has. Hence no infobox. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
Current quote:
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks."
Possibilities:
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks."
or
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks."
or something else! 213.120.28.36 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Current sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only Academy Award (for Best Visual Effects).
Corrected sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) were a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only Academy Award (for Best Visual Effects).
Explanation: The subject is plural: "The scientific realism and innovative special effects," so the verb should be "were" instead of "was." 71.167.230.104 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: The use of "as" would be redundant here - the current phrasing works fine. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Done