This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
Gotta say, I've never seen anyone refer to it as this. I've seen Barbieheimer plenty, however, and that isn't anywhere on the page. That's odd. 186.212.2.148 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia has become a joke. People be talking about the two movies rivaling each other, but no one, absolutely no one calling it this portmanteau of a term. This article should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.170.150 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheer the hell up, you guys are being elitist. Just because this isn't as grounded as some politician and is more on the lines of the Josh fight or Bowsette, doesn't mean it hasn't shaken people up for the better. The meme or whatever it is even helped to increase the box office for Oppenheimer anyway. Also, those two articles I mentioned are at GA class. I anticipate the day this happens to Barbenheimer as well. :3 Carlinal (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add the Animal Crossing New Horizons and Doom Eternal for comparison pls
There was also Animal Crossing and Doom Eternal meme too back in 2020.
adding BarbMinHeimer as a drop-down tab would be cool
Pikmin 4 is set to release the same day as Barbie and Oppenheimer so it'd be cool to see a small note about it on the Barbenheimer wikipedia page Celestiallide (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as much as I'd love to see Barminheimer referenced in this article, it is definitely a way less notable fad meme that wouldn't pass the twenty year test, akin to the memes from when it was revealed that sonic 3 and avatar 3 would have the same release date. maybe a single sentence footnote, if anything, can be justified. Barbenheimer is a cultural phenomenon that has broken out of the twitter comment section and into the real world, Barminheimer is an in-joke within the niche pikmin community. that's how it be sometimes. 2601:249:9301:1560:D9E3:1AA5:265D:2B54 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@MikeAllen: This seems to be controversial. I've added a {{Notability}} tag and was even thanked for it, and yet it was later removed as a WP:DRIVEBY tag. I'm hesitant to start an AfD for this because it has some fair amount of references behind it, but I see a definite problem with WP:20YT here. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to document every short-lived internet phenomenon, and this sort of thing is like flypaper for culture journalists. And so, despite the amount of references, inclusion isn't justified, in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk18:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think that what determines if barbenheimer has staying power is if this level of "same release day film tone dissonance" (SRDFTD for short) happens again in the next 5 years. this type of SRDFTD has happened in the past, but they happened so close together than no one remembers any specific example anymore. a long time has passed since the last big SRDFTD, allowing for barbenheimer to take up more space in the public and cultural consciousness. For the time being this should not be deleted since it is a notable cultural event, I know anecdotal evidence isn't credible evidence, but people I know who almost never go to the movie theater are making time in their day for a double feature. this goes beyond just memes.
if damn "Listenbourg" can get its own article, I don't see why barbenheimer can't be given a shot. I am aware of the twenty year test, my take was that barbenheimer would pass the twenty year test as long as no other "notable" SRDFTD happens within the next five years.
"same release day film tone dissonance" as a concept is/should be covered by the Counterprogramming (film distribution) page. It makes sense to me that Barbenheimer should be a couple of sentences there as an example of user response (the memes encouraging double feature) to the Counterprogramming marketing strategy.
IMHO, this article isn't well written as it opens by declaring that Barbenheimer is an example of Counterprogramming. But then as you read the article further it's made clear that the Barbenheimer memes are actually a response to Counterprogramming. Pklapperich (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...because Barbenheimer is epic is not a valid defense of this article's inclusion.
Having put time and resources into establishing this article from its pitiful state, there is merit in assessing what notability this topic might have after July 21. I also acknowledge prudence and thus the notability that this subject will have in the decades to follow. It is premature to make such an assessment at this time with a stringent and forthcoming date that could determine that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)22:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is already getting 30,000 views a day. The cats out of the bag, hung out to dry, and while not as fun as a barrel of monkeys, is as notable. Hopefully nobody will try to RfD this page so that time isn't wasted but, more importantly, an RfD tag isn't hung on top of this future feature page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Festucalex. Of course the numbers don't, but sources do, and this one is picking up enough reputable source coverage (The Guardian etc.) and making the rounds in Hollywood and elsewhere as a pop-up culture phenomenon (which can only intensify as the premier date approaches) that its notability seems established. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this much detail on two film pages would be incredibly annoying, however the details most definitely have a place on Wikipedia.
there’s several key missing sections that need to be added to name a few
For Deletion: I also agree with most of the rationale being presented here. While this is a fun trend, I think that this doesn't warrant an article because I also think that this fails WP:20YT. In regards to @Festucalex's suggestion of covering it in one sentence, I also think that it functions perfectly as the article is kind of bare as it mainly just talks about previous instances before, meaning that the Barbenheimer is in no way unprecedented and similar situations has happened before. Also, the double feature viewing and box office sections are just redundant and there for filler, imo. The analysis section is probably the best, but even then, it's simply just X person supports either movie and Nolan doesn't appreciate it. So to recap, I think it's just stretching it thin, and this can easily be condensed to a few sentences that can be fit into their respective articles and is definitely not enough content to warrant its own. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan Claiming that this qualifies for deletion due to WP:20YT seems like an impossible argument to make. The fact that it fits WP:GNG so well is already an indicator that it will remain notable. Overall we simply don't know enough to be able to make that call. Either we leave the article up, and take it down if it becomes clear that it's fallen out of notability, or we take it down now, and regardless of how notable it remains, there is no article. - callumpenguin (talk)08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callumpenguin While I admit I might've jumped the gun a bit, I still stand by my opinion that I think this article fails the 20YT, but again, I'm certainly not clairvoyant, so perhaps I could be wrong on that. However, I think that for now, it's ok to keep the article. I like the statement you said though about keeping the article up tentatively and deleting it once it's time. And @InfiniteNexus thanks Dcdiehardfan (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Excellent images, if we could get equivalent copies useable on Wikipedia
This LA Times article on Barbenheimer has several excellent illustrations, showing the fundamental incongruity of the two movies. If we could versions free to use in Wikipedia, that would an excellent addition. LouScheffer (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text under question is the caption to the double-image. Fancruft has nothing to do with it, the use of the full name (most of the Barbie characters are listed with their full names at their pages) gives respect to the character. This page has a touch of humor to it, as does this caption, but importantly, at the same time, it is accurate and functional as a link. If J. Robert Oppenheimer is identified by his full name, then so should Barbara Millicent Roberts. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the concept of keeping a bit of page-appropriate humor on an encyclopedic page, if there was only some way to alert EEng to this turmoil. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did restore the full name prior to this, but I'm inclined to agree that it's best to have "Barbie" in the caption. I don't think it's quite a FANCRUFT breach, it's just excess detail and using a less common name where we could just call her Barbie! Also, I'm not quite sure why there's a hidden comment on the page saying "please do not change this" when there's never been consensus determined to include. Should I remove? ser!(chat to me - see my edits)14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring it Ser!. Irony has much to do with it (the entire article is an ironic look at a poetic meme) and provides a bit of respect to the doll - as does the image itself in equating her with Oppenheimer. Should we change "J. Robert Oppenheimer" to "Bob Oppenheimer"? I know, it's not his proper or common name, but Barbie's full name gives credit to both the character and the person she was named after as an honoring. Give this one a break, let's allow some play when there is actually nothing wrong with using it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not making jokes here, this is Wikipedia. The purpose of the page is to be encyclopedic, regardless of if you think that the subject is humorous. It is worth reassessing why we're even including a picture in the first place. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, a touch of humor is allowed on Wikipedia if it works encyclopedically. This does. There is nothing wrong with offering a free use image of the characters which are being portrayed in these films. And to be serious as well, the full name does honor the person Barbie is named after, the daughter of the character's creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. There seems to be a myth, among people who aren't actually intellectual but aspire to be, that intellectual pursuits have to be all frowny and super-serious. Those of us in the know, know that's not true. Humor is absolutely allowed in articles as long as it doesn't interfere with the goal of informing the reader and aiding his or her understanding; in this way it's like any other aspect of presentation style. If you want to claim I'm wrong on this, please go find the policy or guideline that supports you, then get back to me. I've got all the time in the world. EEng17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus I think having the full name is fine. The article refers to an in-universe film, and "Barbara Millicent Roberts" is the full, in-universe name of Barbie. I think a good compromise would be to put Barbara "Barbie" Roberts or Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts. Best of both worlds. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not InfiniteNexus but the compromise sounds good to me, though I would have suggested Barbie (Barbara Millicent Roberts) as the phrasing. Either works though. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)15:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this good faith compromise occurs, I think the standard form would be Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts without the parenthesis. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Correction: that should be Julius Robert "Opje" Oppenheimer, since apparently that was a nickname that was actually used for him. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [adding:] I think Oppie and Opje are just different spellings for the same pronunciation. But Oppie is more parallel to Barbie so I think that's a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pronounced the same. It's too bad there isn't an Oppie doll (reminiscent of the Librarian Action Figure "with amazing shushing action!" [2]). If we could somehow work Klaus Barbie in as well, then we'd really have something. EEng18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Yes, his page says that he was nicknamed "Opje" at the University of Leiden. "Oppie" is a later-used, anglicised version of the name. If we are going with the nickname in quotes for Barbie, I am fine with having "Oppie" appear for consistency. It makes sense to use the anglicised version, as opposed to the original Dutch version. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just fine, it's absolutely essential. The cosmic collision of "Oppie" and "Barbie" would be criminal to ignore. EEng19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand. It's not a joke. It really was his nickname, used by pretty much everyone who knew him personally [3]. EEng03:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that was indeed his nickname. But it's still a joke, because we wouldn't call him Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer in normal circumstances. Yes, the injection of subtle humor is fine, but I don't like it when it's this obvious and intrusive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It feels more tonally awkward than it does clever.
There's also the fact to consider that the "Oppie" nickname is just not relevant to the 'barbenheimer' phenomenon/meme. None of the instances or descriptions of the phenomenon make use of the "Oppie" nickname, since most people don't really know about it. So it has no relevant reason to be on the article, I feel. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you don't know about it, but anyone familiar with Oppenheimer does. It would be like ignoring that Jacqueline Kennedy as Jackie. EEng13:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there could be found a source describing the 'Barbenheimer' phenomenon which makes use of the "Oppie" nickname, and which describes usage of the nickname as a part of the phenomenon, then it would make sense to retain mention of the nickname in the article. Otherwise, you would just be overstating the relevance of it to this specific subject. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of an identifying name in a caption doesn't have to be related or sourced to the exact topic but to the individual being identified. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus I think having the nickname is okay to be consistent with the Barbie name, but I don't really mind. "Oppie" is used in some sources but I agree "Oppie" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, whereas "Barbie" is. I 100% think we should keep the "Barbie" nickname, but if we want to remove "Oppie", that's fine. We shouldn't remove something just because "I don't like it" (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but I do agree it's probably not necessary to have "Oppie", other than for consistency. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who this "we" is that you say want to remove it. COMMONNAME is about article titles, and IDONTLIKEIT is about deletion. EEng13:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT; this is a case of WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. As there is no reason to use "Oppie" except for the fact that it's funny (the parallelism/consistency argument is a pretext), there needs to be a valid reason for inclusion other than "I like it". InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A nickname seems fine in a caption. As EEng mentioned, Oppenheimer's common nickname was "Oppie", and using it results in nothing more than a further descriptor. Wondering why the photos were exchanged though, the double-image with Oppenheimer on the right served better as Oppenhemimer is looking a bit towards Barbie and not turning his back to her (which is both rude in real-life and in double-images). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this METOO age, in your configuration I fear some readers may imagine that Julius is oggling Trophy Wife Barbie. EEng21:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assessment that it results in "nothing more than a further descriptor". In this case, the image caption is deliberately juxtaposing the "Oppie" nickname with the name "Barbie", which creates an implication that relating the two nicknames is one of the comparisons/juxtapositions between Barbie & Oppenheimer that makes up the content of the 'Barbenheimer' social phenomenon. Except, this does not not appear to actually be the case.
But what about the order of the images? I'm in the "Barbie on the left" column. As for "Oppie", it would make more sense if Barbie was imaged first, as the caption would then show her more familiar nickname followed by Oppenheimer's less familiar but just as real and sourced actual nickname. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real preference about the order of the images. (I guess maybe Barbie on the left, if only because the 'Barbenheimer' portmanteau puts "Barbie" before "Oppenheimer".) It's the presence of "Oppie" in the caption that's the main issue, & just switching around the order of the caption does nothing to affect the issue of it being present. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed the images back to before the "turning his back on Barbie" move (the order of the title makes sense, thanks). Using Oppie seems fine as a name (it was the man's real nickname, so not really synth). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "Oppie" was a real nickname is not the point. The name itself may be real & sourced, but the idea of displaying the nickname "Oppie" as parallel to the nickname "Barbie", as though the parallelism of the two names were a part of the content of the Barbenheimer social phenomenon, is not something that is sourced. What makes something WP:SYNTH is when pieces of reliable information are combined to create a conclusion or implication which is not itself sourced from anywhere. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some bizarrely stupid Wikipedia discussions in my day, but in its short life this particular one has rocketed to near the top of the list. There's no "conclusion or implication" here. It's just two cute names being juxtaposed for humorous effect. And before you say anything: yes, articles are allowed to make the reader smile or even laugh.Take a look at the captions on the first two images in Sacred Cod; then check out what happened the last time someone got all huffy about humor in articles. (If you want, take a few additional minutes to see if you can find the two other intentional jokes in that article.) EEng17:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear about things, I do not dislike the joke. I actually quite like the humor of paralleling "Barbie" with "Oppie". (If this discussion ends with a consensus of keeping in "Oppie", then I would not necessarily be upset.) But I also agree with the sentiment for Wikipedia that likening or disliking something on its own is not necessary an argument for or against.
And yes, it is absolutely responsible that the article about a topic which is by its nature humorous will likely carry elements of that humorous tone into the article. And indeed, it's sometime good & fine to play on that HUMOR, so long as it doesn't encroach on any issue of sourcing, research, etc.
I see an argument to be made that the humor that may be had in this article ought to come from the actual form & content of the Barbenheimer phenomenon, rather than trying to come up with our own jokes not actually present within the phenomenon. (There are many different jokes & types of humor which form the Barbenheimer phenomenon, such as, for instance, the fan-made poster that is already rightfully & reasonably included within the article. But the "Oppie" "Barbie" joke only exists here, on this article.) — Jamie Eilat (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? And who is "we" (speaketh for thyself). The names are sourced, Barbie's full name is, as mentioned above, her in-universe name (the film, please note, is in-universe), and Oppenheimer's nickname is "Oppie" which, as mentioned just above, was the working title of the book that the film is based on (Oppie became American Prometheus, as did Oppie). Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To better visualize this article, I found a well-made non-free poster created by "ThatTallGinger" on Twitter. The tweet in question received a response from the Barbie movie's official Twitter Page on July 10, 2023.
There was a non-free poster added yesterday as a very short infobox which seemed to be open to the claim of advertising. Is this the same poster? Since this page isn't about a film or a stand-alone fully realized topic, but about a concept, I don't know if non-free images are allowed (hence the double image which opens the page, both in public domain). Does the poster creator wish to offer the poster as a public domain image? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: It was the same poster. It was added without discussion or context. [4] And I doubt it will ever be available in the Public Domain since it uses copyrighted images AND since the poster in question was sold as a poster by the creator. Yoshiman6464♫🥚18:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a copyrighted image is used a bot usually will come along and sweep it away. If eventually it is used, it should not be as the first image but lower on the page (this page doesn't need an infobox, which is where the image was first placed, and is doing fine without a non-free image). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do support the use of it, especially in the "Barbie vs. Oppenheimer" section. Something along the lines of, "fanmade posters like this one have become viral on Twitter." Yoshiman6464♫🥚12:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Barbenheimer" is really uncommon. In my experience people talking about this without using the term. Per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:UNDUE I think the title should be changed to "Barbie and Oppenheimer release phenomenon", "Barbie and Oppenheimer dual release phenomenon", or something like that (feel free to suggest a new one). Hddty (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Barbie and Oppenheimer release phenomenon" returns zero Google hits, so I'd call that uncommon too. Maybe we should call it Oppie vs. Barbie, or Oppie and Barbie's Excellent Adventure. EEng08:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hddty It is not uncommon. Google "Barbenheimer". You will see a plethora of reliable sources referring to the phenomenon by the name.
I am fine with setting up a few redirects to this page if you believe it would be helpful for readers. But I do not think we should change the article name. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbenheimer is a concept, not an actual artistic or literary creation (which are italicized, such as book titles, films, artworks, etc.), so probably not. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of surprised that this article makes no mention of what directly led to this event, which is Nolan's breakup with Warner Bros. due to the HBO Max debacle and Warner's subsequent middle-finger to Universal. If this article is to exist, someone should add that info. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually improving the article and not focusing on the temporary craze of it all. That would be great encyclopedic writing. MikeAllen14:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More can be found online. I don't have time to add this now, so if anyone wishes to, there are some sources. If not, I can add some information at another time. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted a comparison between this thing and the rivalry between Oasis and Blur in the 90s, as its only source says "Contrary to the way the rivalry was initially framed, this is no replay of the hostile Blur v Oasis Britpop war of the mid-1990s."
I saw that this sentence gets removed and added again regularly. Please make sure that it doesn't get added again (or at least not without a better source than one directly contradicting the claim) once the weekend is over in the timezone where Warner Bros. International Inc employees live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoheolo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Oppenheimer delays
Recently a talk page comment under Talk:Barbenheimer#Contested deletion brought to my attention a possible delay in Oppenheimer's release. I researched this, and found it to be untrue, but I found widely published, reliable sources for this information.
I added the following text to the article:
In April 2023, the director of Cannes Film Festival, Thierry Frémaux, stated that Oppenheimer's theatrical release was set for the end of the year,[1] leading reports to claim that the film was no longer set to release on the same day as Barbie. However, it was revealed later in the month that Frémaux was mistaken on this, and that the two films were still both set for July 21.[2][3][4]
It was then reverted for being "just a rumor". I reverted this back, as I believe it should stay, but it was again reverted.
It is not breaking any of Wikipedia guidelines. I am not predicting anything or stating my opinion, so, per WP:RUMOUR, I believe the information I added can stay.
I don't want to create more arguments for this page's talk page, but I didn't think this would be controversial as it's well-sourced information.
it's not controversial, it just didn't happen, and is unlikely to happen. you write the two films were still both set for July 21. why is it useful to know that it was rumoured that the film would be delayed, though it didn't happen? Artem.G (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G It can be kept as it passes WP:RUMOUR for numerous reasons. It is verifiable, and appears in various reliable sources. It isn't just a rumour, it's something that is widely published. It's not a prediction, and it's not an opinion. It adds to the information on the comparison and double feature viewing of both films. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't revert it again, though it's not an answer to why is it needed in the article. It didn't happen, so IMO it's not useful. Artem.G (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there was evidence people were (and continue to be) significantly confused by this, that would be one thing. But apparently not. Just someone made an error. Blip on the screen of no significance whatsoever. No one will care in 5 years. In fact, no one cares now. EEng15:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng There has been active confusion and feelings about this. The sources I posted above mention this, saying about the "hubbub" caused, and the "film fans in their feelings". There are also more references that say this, such as this one, which shows posts from fans angry about the change, and this one, stating that there have been "rumblings". I don't think two extra sentences are really clogging up the article. "No one cares" seems like a bit of a stretch. I think you mean "I don't care". Strugglehouse (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng I will admit I can't find any good sources outside of this date, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. It *was* reported on by reliable sources. Just because it's not being actively reported on every day doesn't mean it shouldn't be included and that it isn't relevant. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "not being actively reported on every day" -- it's not being actively reported on any day, past the 72 hours it took for everyone to realize it was just a typo on someone's teleprompter or something. If there was any chance that someone today is still confused about the release date, we might make the effort to disabuse them. But there's no such chance and it's just deadweight to include it. Obviously it's no big deal either way, but as Saint-Expury[5] said in his well-known commentary on Wikipedia editing: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." EEng21:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng Yes, maybe it was only reported on for a short time, but it was reported on reliably. I just don't think having two extra, well-sourced sentences matters. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the photo makes Barbie look like a member of the Manson Family on benzedrine? Yes. Agree that this somehow manifests misogyny? No. Also, please get your keyboard's shift key fixed. busted. EEng20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is everything under Category:Barbie dolls in Wikimedia Commons, if anyone would want to look through it, but Strugglehouse is right that their aren't many great other options. I did quickly see an alt Malibu Barbie photo, if anyone might prefer that one for some reason.
@Jamie Eilat Thank you. As can be seen, the image on the page currently and the image in this comment are the only images in the "Barbie dolls" category that are of just the doll and nothing else. The one is this comment is worse as it has a border around it. If another image can be found, it can be uploaded, but I don't see anything wrong with the one being currently used. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlkny I have just uploaded a couple of new images to Commons.
Gosh, I was just going to suggest Trophy Wife Barbie as well! I guess great minds really do think alike. EEng21:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved it back. Take a second and look at the facial features of the "original" photo (changed out for porn star Barbie?) and Oppie. See the resemblance? If not, look again. But not too closely, the almost unconsciously seen similarity needs a bit of distance to subtly communicate. Chosen as well for the backgrounds. The "lightness" and life of the flower wallpaper vs. the overall humanity-dulling gray of the Oppenheimer image. None of the other images offer such a contrast. If the image is too distant or hippiess, maybe someone can do a crop just under her hair and see how that looks. A crop of wine-making Barbie at her waist looks like it would work too, at least the background of that one has some color with a hint of atomic-bomb blush and/or barely fairy wings thrown in. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to mention before (but apparently edit-conflicted) that Leatherface Barbie does look like she might have been in a radiation accident, so there's that subtle tie-in to Oppie as well. EEng00:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol (which I only write if I've actually laughed/laughing out loud). Would like to see a crop at the waist of pink fairy wing dagger-in-belt Barbie to see if that would work, at least it would bring the two head-shots more towards equal size. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie Eilat, I went to do a test preview look at your choice, then lol. So I left it, checked again, lol again. 2 lol in a row earned my !vote and I really couldn't take it down so left it again. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're both "looking" at a spot about four feet directly in front of them (at scale). Could be anything on God's green Earth. I'm sure that once the films are seen there are going to be hundreds of connections found between the two characters and between the films, not to mention their best friends, Midge and Leslie, to fill a good-sized section on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a "Reception" section? In a recent review of Oppenheimer, film critic Grace Randolph called Barbenheimer a bad idea. (Fragment starts roughly 4 minutes in.) According to her, seeing them on separate days allows you to think about, and savor, both. Particularly, she says that watching Oppenheimer after Barbie makes for a total killjoy situation. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:844A:B4C4:D98D:1F0A (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an early example of juxtaposing curvaceous figures with nuclear fireballs, in 1982 the Harvard Lampoon published "Nuclear Arms and Terrific Legs: The Atomic Threat to America's Cover Girls" [5]. EEng07:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up: Kotaku (the video game site) just did (approximately 6 hours before I posted this) an article about silliness in the Barbenheimer talk page and AFD discussion. Be aware that the writer may come back and update the article with new posts, so don't say anything that you'd regret if a screenshot of it went semi-viral. QuietCicada (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Kotaku is a preeminent source of information and commentary on video games and internet culture. The site has a long and distinguished history of providing accurate, well-researched, and insightful content. Kotaku's commitment to journalistic excellence is evident in its adherence to strong ethical standards, its vibrant community, and its willingness to tackle important issues.
Kotaku's reporting is renowned for its accuracy and veracity. The site's team of experienced journalists employs rigorous fact-checking procedures to ensure the accuracy of their work. Kotaku also maintains a high standard of transparency, disclosing potential conflicts of interest and other relevant information. This commitment to journalistic ethics has earned Kotaku the trust of its readers and the respect of its peers.
Kotaku's community is one of its most valuable assets. The site's users are actively engaged in discussions and debates, providing valuable insights and feedback. Kotaku's commitment to fostering a respectful and inclusive environment has created a community that is welcoming to all.
In addition to its reporting, Kotaku also produces a variety of other content, including interviews, features, and opinion pieces. These pieces offer valuable insights into the world of gaming and internet culture. Kotaku's coverage of important issues, such as diversity and representation in gaming, has helped to shape the conversation around these topics.
Kotaku is a valuable resource for anyone interested in video games or internet culture. The site's commitment to journalistic excellence, its vibrant community, and its willingness to tackle important issues make it a must-read for anyone who wants to stay informed about the latest trends in gaming and internet culture.
Thank you for considering the value of respecting Kotaku as a reputable source. I look forward to your continued support in fostering a positive and respectful environment in all our online interactions.
Gråbergs's hilarious comment reads like an enigmatic puzzle. I can't help but laugh at their cryptic warning: "As long as nobody tries to add something about this WP-article to this WP-article, I'm good." It's like deciphering a code from a eccentric genius or unlocking the secrets of a whimsical internet universe.
I'm left imagining a tinfoil-hat-wearing, tea-sipping mastermind, concocting a Wikipedia conspiracy or crafting the ultimate prank. Whatever the reason, I'm embracing the amusement and vowing not to mix these elusive WP-articles.
But could we add that Wikipedians discussed not adding mention of Kotaku noting that Wikipedians had had extensive discussions about Wikipedia's Barbenheimer article to the Barbenheimer article to the Barbenheimer article? EEng21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad, what I said was a joke. I don't mind Kotaku being up to standards on this site, it's just that it's funny that they would read this talk page and how much. And that perhaps no true gamer would frequently read about them. ;) Carlinal (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Barbie is not a "lighthearted fantasy comedy". I watched it yesterday and it is about "thoughts of death", conflicts beween different sexes, pain, anger, selfdought. So how can it be lighthearted? No way! Watch it again
Well, I understand that you had a different experience watching the Barbie movie, but I still firmly believe it falls under the category of a lighthearted fantasy comedy. The plot summary sets the stage for a whimsical and colorful world in Barbie Land, where Barbie and Ken seem to be having a delightful time.
While it's true that the characters may encounter conflicts and challenges when they enter the real world, it doesn't necessarily negate the overall lightheartedness of the film. Many comedies incorporate moments of conflict and self-doubt to create a relatable and engaging storyline.
In Barbie movies, the conflicts and obstacles are often presented in a way that is suitable for a family-friendly audience. The film tends to maintain a positive and uplifting tone, using humor and imaginative elements to navigate through serious topics while keeping the essence of a fantasy world intact.
Different viewers may interpret the movie's themes and messages in various ways, but the intention behind Barbie movies typically revolves around entertainment, inspiring creativity, and offering a fantastical escape for audiences of all ages. It's all about finding that balance between thought-provoking moments and the playful, joyous atmosphere that characterizes a lighthearted fantasy comedy.
I encourage you to re-watch the movie with the perspective of its underlying themes complementing the overall lightheartedness. You might find that the movie has more layers to enjoy, making it a delightful and engaging experience ! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you should be importing your own views of the film in the editing of this article. We are supposed to strictly report how the film is described by reliable sources. Anything else is original research. ––FormalDude(talk)15:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Barbie" is not a comedy! It is a Kafkaesque tragicomedy
Kafkaesque Literature
Franz Kafka (1883-1924) was a Czech-born German-language writer whose surreal fiction vividly expressed the anxiety, alienation, and powerlessness of the individual in the 20th century. Kafka's work is characterized by nightmarish settings in which characters are crushed by nonsensical, blind authority. Thus, the word Kafkaesque is often applied to bizarre and impersonal administrative situations where the individual feels powerless to understand or control what is happening. Bernadette1303 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we find sources and a way to incorporate the cosplay for this movie? I have never seen so much pink in my life at the movie theater. I also literally saw people dressed in Oppenheimer cosplay then take off there suits outside the theater to reveal bright barbie cosplay underneath. Seems like an important aspect of the Barbenhemer experience. Bdonan (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews
Reviews are coming in. The first 2 I saw are quite different:
"Upon release, Barbie received generally positive reviews while Oppenheimer received critical acclaim"
This sentence is wonky. The "while" suggests the two receptions are pitted against each other, but we're just regurgitating Metacritic's word salad here. What's even the difference between "generally positive reviews" and "critical acclaim". Is the reader meant to go "ah! the Barbie was given positive feedback from audiences but Oppenheim found mostly success among critics" or what? Tha answer obviously is that we're just copying verbatim Metacritic's stupid boilerplate texts; two of only a handful of boiled-down movie reception summaries.
But we don't indicate that in any way. We need to make it clear to the reader that "generally positive reviews" and "critical acclaim" isn't our editorial voice. These are two static phrases lifted directly from another site with zero explanation of what they really mean, and then they're put against another with a "while" that falsely suggests they are somehow opposing each other.
Wikipedia is reaching a new low if we surrender our movie reporting to just parroting Metacritic without any context whatsoever. CapnZapp (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The language of the article has now been changed to say that both films received critical acclaim. I'm fine with that, but then, actual sources need to be cited which say that. The Metacritic site can't be the source, because that's not what Metacritic says. ThreeOfCups (talk)
@CapnZapp: I think it would be perfectly reasonable to just say in the article that both films have been "critically acclaimed". Sure, Barbie's score on Metacritic is one point off from what that website considers "universal acclaim", but "universal acclaim" isn't the same thing as "critical acclaim" - and regardless, I don't see why we should base our description of the film's reception directly on Metacritic. Considering the Rotten Tomatoes score and what various news articles have been saying - such as this Hollywood Reporter article, which states, "Both Barbie and Oppenheimer are getting overwhelmingly positive reviews" - it would certainly be accurate to call both films "critically acclaimed". There's one editor in particular who has been removing any mention of Barbie receiving "critical acclaim" over and over from both this article and the Barbie article. That editor is insisting that we can't describe Barbie as "acclaimed" unless we have a source using exactly that word... but I don't think it should be considered original research to describe 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and "overwhelmingly positive reviews" as "critical acclaim". Oppenheimer has received somewhat better reviews than Barbie, but both films have been extremely well-reviewed, and like you said, it doesn't make sense to write about the reception of each film as though they're "pitted against each other". --Jpcase (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user that you are replying to is trying really hard to push the narrative that Barbie has received critical acclaim, when it hasn't.
Metacritic is the primary source. Keep it simple. Other sources are unnecessary, especially when they don't mention they don't even mention critical acclaim and are clearly there to pad the source count to bolster a certain narrative.
According to this tweet by Sean Longmore, he was commissioned by Layered Butter to create this poster. Layered Butter is using the image on merchandise for sale on numerous websites [6], [7], [8]. Use of this image is not only a copyright violation, it's also an advertisement for Layered Butter products.
According to the Cornell Law School Website: "In the United States, parody is protected by the First Amendment as a form of expression. However, since parodies rely heavily on the original work, parodists rely on the fair use exception to combat claims of copyright infringement."[9]
The Sean Longmore/Layered Butter poster is itself a copyrighted work. It relies on the fair use protection to combat claims of copyright infringement by the original copyright holders, such as Mattel. In other words, if Mattel tried to sue Layered Butter for damages, Mattel would probably lose. Fair use doesn't mean that anyone in the world can use a work of parody without compensating the creator. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
