Talk:Russell Crowe's jockstrap

Non-free image

Like in Princess Leia's bikini, would one be allowed in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I don't think it's comparable. The image for the bikini is FU because it requires the bikini to be worn by Fisher in character as Leia to illustrate the article in a meaningful way. The jockstrap does not have to be worn by Crowe. In fact, I am pretty certain dozens of people have made pictures of it while at Blockbusters, we just need to find one of them and ask them to release it under a free license. Regards SoWhy 10:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point, my friend. You are saying that, with the bikini, no freebie will become available because the subject is dead, right? I might write to nearby businesses or something in the area to see if anyone has a pic from Blockbusters. If taken indoors, and considering it is a piece of art, like a doll or something, do you think it would be copyrighted? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: With the bikini, the actress had to be in character which was copyrighted. Similar reasoning applies to the images used for Doctor Who (e. g. at Thirteenth Doctor). The clothes themselves are probably not copyrighted but the ensemble as worn by the actor in character is. As for the other question, I don't really know, maybe ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? Regards SoWhy 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Finding an image

If someone wants to find people who may have a photo, please consider searching Facebook for the following and asking them:

• Former Blockbuster owner Alan Payne lives near Austin, Texas, related to Border Entertainment
• Former Blockbuster general manager is Kevin Daymude, probably still in Alaska

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why split out?

Hi. I came across this article and my immediate thought was "if this subject deserves any coverage on the English Wikipedia, it should be part of the Cinderella Man article." Looking a bit closer here, the page history indicates that this subject was already covered in that article and was split out into a separate article. Why is this? I can see a case for having dedicated articles for ruby slippers, for example, but this jockstrap does not seem significant enough to be a standalone article. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Good question, MZMcBride. My rationale for making a standalone was this: Since it could also justifiably go into a Russell Crowe#Legacy section, a Last Week Tonight With John Oliver section, a Cinderella Man section, and even slightly a Blockbuster Video section, why not make it a standalone to be easily accessed by all four using {{main|}}. If only at Cinderella Man, then it feels like overly attached to that article. The item mostly abandoned its connection to that movie. What is it mostly connected to? This item has taken on a life, a path, a new strain of bacterium, all its own. It has its own provenance, if you will. Furthermore, its provenance is not over. We don't know where it is now, and that information will likely become known, further expanding the article. If the content, even now, were to only be in Cinderella Man, it would constitute a third of that article, unbalancing it. Finally, it easily passes GNG. Who knows, maybe someday the new strain of bacterium will pass GNG too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

One more bit of rationale: It appears in these categories now:

Category:Undergarments

Category:Memorabilia

Category:Individual garments

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it fits solely in the article for Cinderella Man since the object has gained much prominence outside the film and thus would have to be covered in the Last Week Tonight and the Blockbuster Video articles as well. If a subject does not squarely fit into one article, it seems ill-advised to force it when there is clearly sufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. Whether such an item should really have received so much coverage is another question of course. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2018

Russell Crowe's jockstrap → Cinderella Man jockstrap – It does not appear that this jockstrap was ever actually owned by Russell Crowe; he wore it for one film role, and it is the appearance of the item in the film that gave rise to its significance. I think this is comparable to Princess Leia's bikini, except that since Crowe played a real person, James J. Braddock, and the real Braddock never owned this jockstrap either, the better point of reference is the film itself. bd2412 T 17:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not sure why you think it was not owned by Crowe, as it was clearly sold by him at an auction. Also, the notability of this item has nothing to do with the film, but everything to do with the actor (and the fact that Last Week Tonight decided to make this into a thing). --Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see what you mean, but it is still only notable because it appeared in the movie. Russell Crowe has plenty of articles of clothing or sports equipment that we don't create articles on. bd2412 T 02:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• What is the WP:COMMONNAME of the jockstrap in question?--67.68.28.220 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)