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]
The name "Oppenbarbie" is cited to reliable sources. The same sources mention "Barbieheimer", so I have added that as well. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:07, 14 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]
@68.198.170.150 You are simply incorrect. Read the article. It is cited to many reliable sources. People are calling it these terms. It's not a joke. Just because it's a term more shared online, doesn't mean it's not true. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a joke, it wouldn't matter. If enough reliable sources report on said joke because it is widely talked about, it's noteworthy. Cortador (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador Agreed. There are other articles on fads, memes, and internet phenomena - enough to make List of Internet phenomena - so if this is well sourced, which it is, it should 100% remain. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:21, 2 August 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.
I can't find any reliable sources comparing Barbenheimer to ACNH/DE, comparing the two in the article would constitute WP:OR. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the closest pop culture parallel and a likely inspiration for Barbenheimer. 67.241.190.3 (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
This one (from the LA Times article) is ineligible for copyright. The one with the screenshots is non-free. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really having this discussion? "Barbara Millicent Roberts" is clearly and 100% WP:FANCRUFT and does not belong in this article. This is like insisting on writing "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101" instead of Terminator (character) or "Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)" instead of Birds of Prey (2020 film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:14, 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. EEng 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is we are writing from a neutral point of view. It's different for "intellectuals" who are writing independent pieces from their own perspective, but Wikipedia is a community effort that documents information alone. This brings any contributions intended for humour into question. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here and elsewhere in this thread you keep saying "NPOV NPOV NPOV" like it's some all-purpose talisman you can invoke to support anything you say. NPOV has nothing to do with this, since there are no "points of view" that need representing. EEng 15:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is focused on a phenomenon concerning a pair of films. Not the background of the characters or even the films themselves, just the phenomenon. So how does that daughter have anything to do with it? GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that this article documents a parody, but we are still on Wikipedia, so we take our coverage seriously! Our job is to describe what the phenomenon is, not write an article that entertains it. "Bobby" is an informal nickname for the subject in question, whereas "Barbie" is an official brand name and character name. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here again you link to WP:NPOV, this time behind the text not write an article the entertains it. WTF? What in NPOV has to do with entertainment? And a phenomenon, not being sentient, can't be entertained. EEng 15:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the caption. "Bobby" is not used. His nickname was "Oppie", and that was the working title of the book which was then made into the 2023 film. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn Small spoiler for the film, but the "Oppie" nickname is used throughout it by various characters. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbie is rarely referred to in the public conscience by her full name, so if you ask me it's redundant to use such. I think the caption should read "Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer," as this addresses each figure by their most widely-used name. It's important to recognise the difference between the two main characters; Barbie is a fictional character targeted towards children, whereas Oppenheimer was a historical figure and a much more formal figure at that. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, for those of you who for some reason or another need the article's tone to reflect the meme, may I argue that the difference in the way we address the figures (Barbie referred to by a nickname/brand name and Oppenheimer addressed more formally) reflects the difference in tone between the two films just about well enough. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please point on the doll where Barbie hurt you. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate if you could clarify what you mean by that. Your apparent mockery implies to me that you're not willing to take my opinion seriously enough to engage with it or even argue against it. In that case scenario, why are you even replying to me? As for EEng, I'm using Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to support my view that using language implying engagement with the phenomenon is not encyclopedic. I apologize if that bothers you, but the focus of your response should address the claim I'm making. Instead of attempting to support any view that challenges mine, you only address one aspect of my writing that you don't find normal. GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GOLDIEM J, that was a brief way of saying that if you had read this entire section before taking up a crusade against the use of Barbie's full in-universe name you would, possibly, not have bothered. If you did read it and jumped in with both feet anyway that comes close to edging up to the edge of trolling, because the use of the full names including nicknames has been well discussed. See, my brief comment said all of that but in less words. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RK, do you have any idea what using language implying engagement with the phenomenon is not encyclopedic means, or how it intersects NPOV? EEng 00:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'm not a wikilawyer and haven't memorized NPOV, so I'd be interested in a fuller explanation from GOLDIEM J. If it's about using the Oppie nickname in the caption, the nickname reflects the title of the book - its working title - that Oppenheimer was based upon. I would think that if GOLDIEM J had read the entire section before contesting a post somewhere in the middle they may (or may not) have realized that including the nickname works well on several levels, including a purely encyclopedic one. But GOLDIEM J, yes, I may have overdone the too-clever-by-5% comment, it was said Gutfeld-style and I guess I thought that you would have realized that this talk page allows for humor and/or irony and answered in-kind. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 27 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]
An extremely good point, that the film is in-universe (where the individual's name is Barbara Millicent Roberts). Thanks. InfiniteNexus, does this make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 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]
If we go with Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts can we also go with Julius Robert "Bob" Oppenheimer, for parallelism? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike (sort of) [1]. EEng 17:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was called Oppie. No kidding. EEng 18:06, 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. EEng 18:21, 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. EEng 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the biggest fan of the "Oppie" joke, but the rest is fine with me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:03, 15 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]. EEng 03:19, 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. EEng 13:34, 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. EEng 13:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng Apologies if I have made a mistake on the Wikipedia guidelines links I have given. My general point and opinion still stands, though. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:42, 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. EEng 21:42, 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.
It's an implication created without a source to back it. (One might even argue it as bordering on WP:SYNTH) — Jamie Eilat (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.) EEng 17:32, 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]
I believe you're overthinking this. EEng 21:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors need to take Wikipedia seriously per WP:NPOV, especially WP:IMPARTIAL. We don't engage in disputes, we describe disputes. Similarly, we don't engage in jokey shit, we describe jokey shit. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 18 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]
And we definitely DO engage in jokey shit. EEng 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero justification for the photo captions at the top of the article to refer to these subjects by names other than those by which they are commonly known, and/or their Wikipeidia article titles. NO ONE commonly knows what the doll's "full name" is, nor is it used in the film, nor do the opening lines of their Wikipedia articles even mention "Oppie" or "Millicent Roberts", so why should they be casually referred to as such in the caption of a photo, without any contextual relevance to the article or photo, nor explanation? None of the fallacies offered above justify this stupidity. Among them:
"it is accurate and functional as a link."
Non sequitur. Whether a bit of text is formatted as a wikilink has no bearing on what text is used for it. Wikilinks to the Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer articles are easily composed as such, as they are in the hundreds of articles across Wikipedia that link to them (Barbie, Oppenheimer). I sampled dozens of them, and none of refer to them in the silly manner in which the caption at the top of this article currently refers to them.
"the entire article is an ironic look at a poetic meme."
No it isn't. It's an encyclopedia article, which on Wikpedia, means that it needs to be written in a neutral, journalistic, formal tone. Seriously, you have racked up 242,215 edits since 2007, and you don't know this?
"Should we change "J. Robert Oppenheimer" to "Bob Oppenheimer"?"
If that's the name by which he is most commonly known, then yes, it can indeed be changed on that basis, much as in the case of Bob Menendez, Bob Odenkirk, etc. Seriously, you've never come across a Wikipedia article for a subject whose full first name is Robert, but who is more commonly known as "Bob", and whose Wikipedia article title reflects this??? If so, then may I refer you to this page?
"Wrong, a touch of humor is allowed on Wikipedia."
No it isn't. In the 18 years I've been editing Wikipedia, it has never been in the pratice of including "page appropriate humor" or "jokey shit" in its articles. Quite the opposite, it has always strived for its content to exhibit a formal tone, per WP:TONE. But if you can cite a policy or guideline that supports this claim of yours, and/or explain how this jibes withe WP:TONE, by all means, let's hear it.
"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."
Your pretentiousness aside, there is no such assumption on my part. The inappropriateness of humor here is derived from Wikpedia policies and guidelines, which, as aformentioned, do not permit editors to exhibit informality when composing the site's articles, and how the members of the editing community here are required to adhere to those standards, and not any pompous blovations on your part about supposed "intellectualism", or the assumptions you fabricate and attribute to others. Nightscream (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear oh dear, I certainly seem to have touched a nerve there. You imply humor equates to informality; it doesn't. (See my post this date, way below here.) EEng 08:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream I wouldn't necessarily count the full names of the subjects as "jokes". They're just their full names. The "Oppie" nickname is used many, many times throughout the Oppenheimer film. I will admit that Barbie's full name is not referenced in the Barbie film, but her full first name ("Barbara") is. I would argue that, while the doll is "Barbie", the fictional character, is "Barbara Millicent Roberts". I would also argue that, in the film, Margot Robbie is playing the character, therefore should be able to go by the character's full name.
Even if you do consider these a "joke", there's definitely nothing wrong with a bit of a joke in an article. See WP:HUMOR#Humor_in_articles. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strugglehouse: I wouldn't necessarily count the full names of the subjects as "jokes".
The other editors I quoted have indicated otherwise, which is why I responded to this to debunk it. Also, if they're not jokes, then why employ the made-up claim that humor is allowed on Wikipedia? Why do you yourself make that claim if we're not talking about jokes? We're not talking about jokes, but I'm going to argue for them anyway? How does this make sense?
Strugglehouse: The "Oppie" nickname is used many, many times throughout the Oppenheimer film...
It doesn't matter. How a subject should be casually referred to in the text of a Wikipedia article is not predicated on "whether it's used in a film". It's predicated on how that subject is commonly referred to, as explained by MOS:FULLNAME. What part of this do you dispute? Even the opening line of the lede section does not permit pseudonyms, unless it is the name by which that subject is most commonly known (which is obviously not the case with Oppenheimer), and even then, only if the nickname is not a common hypocorisms like "Oppie", as explicitly indicated MOS:HYPOCORISM. Were you unaware of this? Why are you arguing "it's used in the film", when that isn't the criterion by which Wikipedia decides such things?
Strugglehouse: See WP:HUMOR#Humor in articles.
Humor in articles isn't a policy, guideline, or consensus. It's an essay.
By contrast, WP:TONE is part of the Manual of Styleguideline, and part of Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL, which is itself part of the WP:NPOV, which is not only a core policy, but one of the five pillars. I asked you guys flat-out above how this made-up nonsense about humor being "allowed" on Wikipedia jibes with WP:TONE, and not suprisingly, you haven't answered that. Your only response is to repeat the original falsehood, while citing an essay. Now why is that?
I'll ask you again: How does your assertion that humor is allowed in Wikipedia articles jibe with WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE?
To ask another, related question: Can you point to a well-developed Wikipedia article, one that has been vetted by the rest of the community, like say, a featured article, and show how it incorporates humor as a legitimate element permitted by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream I don't think the full names are jokes. Others have said this too. I mentioned about the names being used in the films because I was disputing a claim you made - "nor is it used in the film".
This article talks about the characters and their films. These names are not jokes, they are the characters full names and nicknames, and they are used in the films. A few editors or readers may find the full names/nicknames funny, but that doesn't mean they're jokes. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strugglehouse: "I don't think the full names are jokes."
You already said that. And I responded to it. So I don't know why you're saying this again, not once, but three times in your message above.
Strugglehouse: "I was disputing a claim you made - "nor is it used in the film".
Nice bit of quote mining you did there. Now why am I not suprised that you resorted to this tactic?
Care to be reminded what the entire relevant statement by me was? Here, I'll remind you:
"...what the doll's 'full name' is, nor is it used in the film..."
And of course, my statement was correct, her full name is not used in the film.
Strugglehouse: "This article talks about the characters and their films."
First of all, no it isn't. It's about the Internet phenomenon that began circulating on social media that was related to the simultaneous release of the two films. It is not primarily about the films themselves, or their content, and to whatever limited extent that content is referenced in passing, it does not do so in an in-universe manner, since Wikipedia requires articles that are primarily about such characters to refer to them primarily in an out-universe manner, as I assume you already know.
Second, irrespective of what the article is about, what matter is what this particular discussion is about, and not merely what the articles are about. This discussion is about how to refer to the subjects in a caption to the images at the top of the article, which on Wikipedia, is governed by policies and guidelines that pertain to that narrow scope of discussion, and not generalized non-sequiturs like "it's in the film", as I stated above in some detail, complete with links to those relevant policies. Again, do you agree or do you disagree that the policies and guidelines I cited above are what govern how subjects are referred to in articles, yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you again chickened out of answering my questions about WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE, so I'll ask you one more time:
1. How does your assertion that humor is allowed in Wikipedia articles jibe with WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE?
2. Can you point to a well-developed Wikipedia article, one that has been vetted by the rest of the community, like say, a featured article, and show how humor is in that article? Yes or no?
Am I going to get answers to these two questions, or are you going to again retreat into silence because you know that this refutes your made-up claim about humor being supposedly "allowed" in articles, and aren't honest enough to admit this? Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream You picked up on the fact that I mentioned that it isn't a joke, but still asked me to justify allowing humour.
I am sorry that I made a mistake in linking that essay, but I don't think I really need to justify humour. Maybe it isn't allowed, that's fine. We don't need humour, we're just putting two people's names on an article that references the people. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have mentioned that it's not a joke, but more than one of the other editors above say that it is. My question was directed at all who argue that this is "allowed" on Wikipedia.
I also asked you if you agreed that how such material is presented is governed by this site's policies and guidelines, which I cited and linked above, including ones that have nothing to do with the humor issue, yet you didn't respond to that either. Now why is that? Nightscream (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream Nope, I don't think that two people's full names breaks the formal tone Wikipedia. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it did.
You are again selectively referencing my statements. In this case, you're referencing WP:TONE, which pertained to the humor issue (which I already acknowledged you did not advocate), but ignoring the policies/guidelines I cited regarding how names are presented. Nightscream (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream You mentioned MOS:FULLNAME, which says that upon first mention, a person's full name should be used. So why can't we use the full names of the subjects on the article? Strugglehouse (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we couldn't.
Why don't you trying reading what I actually did say, instead of ignoring it? Nightscream (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're really worked up about this, Nightscream, so I'm sorry that I'm only now noticing that you've revived a discussion dormant for 10 days. In answer to your challenges above:
1. How does your assertion that humor is allowed in Wikipedia articles jibe with WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE? – I'm guessing that you cited these two because of their references to "formal tone" and "businesslike manner", and I'm further guessing that you think humor in articles is inconsistent with those criteria. Well, hmmmm, let's see... I can't imagine you'll cavil that judicial opinions are formal and businesslike, so with that in mind I refer you to Hori, Bons Mots, Buffoonery, and the Bench: The Role of Humor in Judicial Opinions[4]. One of my favorite exemplars, BTW, is Gash v. Lautsenhezer, penned by the late, great Michael Musmanno[5]. The plaintiff, Gash, is having a very, very bad day:
The car skidded across the road and then, hitting the left berm, tilted, toppled and fell 15 feet into a gully at the bottom of the embankment. Through the gully ran a creek, the water carrying on its surface particles of ice.At the end of his tumultuous journey Gash found himself lying on what he at first thought was the floor of the car but which turned out to be the inside of the roof, the car having completely capsized in its precipitous descent. Taking inventory of his situation, amid the broken glass and wreckage of his car, Gash concluded that despite the calamity he might have suffered he had sustained only an injury to his right leg. However, another possible calamity now obtruded. The car was wedged in the gully in such a fashion that neither door (it was a two-door car) could be opened and the creek was flowing through it, with its particles of ice.Gash could hear automobiles passing on the highway above, but despite his continued blowing of the horn of his car, he could attract no one to heed his plight. As his perilous state continued and augmented in gravity, something quite extraordinary happened. He felt a sudden jolt and his car spun around in the creek, releasing him from the imprisoning wreck and icy jailor. He looked to see what had occurred and found that another car had come to join him in the creek. It was because of this almost miraculous and certainly fortuitous visitation that possibly his life was saved, even though in the succoring process he sustained another injury, this time to his back.As a result of this second injury he sued William A. Lautsenhezer, the man who, willingly or unwillingly, had provided the means for extricating Gash from the watery trap which might eventually have cost him his life. But we are here not concerned with the morals or ethics of the situation. We are passing only on the legal aspects of the strange event. Moreover, it is by no means fatefully written that the arrival of Lautsenhezer in his own way constituted a wholly Samaritan interposition. What turned out to be a providential rescue of the plaintiff could also have been his coup de grace because had Lautsenhezer's car struck Gash in some manner other than the way in which they met in the aqueous arena, Lautsenhezer's car could have done what so far the creek had not accomplished, that is to say, killed Gash.It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Gash could have extricated himself from his dilemma without the intercession of Lautsenhezer, or he could have been rescued by others through less unorthodox methods.
2. Can you point to a well-developed Wikipedia article, one that has been vetted by the rest of the community, like say, a featured article, and show how humor is in that article? Yes or no? – Yes. See WP:Good_article_reassessment/Sacred_Cod/1.
Eeng: "Looks like you're really worked up about this"
Argumentum ad hominem. I am no more "worked up" aboout this than about any other editorial matter on Wikipedia, the 10-day pause being irrelevant to this. I didn't know about the then-most-recent statement above, and since I have other things to do, I didn't become aware of it until now.
Eeng: "I refer you to Hori, Bons Mots, Buffoonery, and the Bench...
That's not a Wikipedia article. The issue is not whether humor is incompatbile with a formal tone in works outside of Wikipedia. This issue is whether the two are compatible with the policies that govern material in articles on Wikipedia, since that's what this discussion, like all other editorial discussions on Wikipedia, is about. Are you having difficulty comprehending this?
Where is there humor in that article? Show me. Remember, we're not talking about whether there can be Wikipedia articles about the topic of humor, since obviously, that's not in dispute: caricature, Mad, or any film comedy are examples. We're talking about whether Wikipedia can exhibit a humorous tone itself, since that's the relevant point of discussion here, since you and others here have been claiming that the caption can exhibit humor by its use of the over-long names, or that the article itself is intended to be ironic. I assume you do understand the disction, correct? The fact that Wikipedia can have articles on humorous topics does not mean that it can exhibit humor in its own voice. So where in that article is the text presented in an intentionally humorous manner?
Argumentum ad hominem – This from the author of (above) Your pretentiousness aside ... pompous blovations
I am no more "worked up" aboout this than about any other editorial matter on Wikipedia – Then I hope you've taken steps to keep your blood pressure under control. They don't call you Nightscream for nothing.
issue is not whether humor is incompatbile with a formal tone in works outside of Wikipedia. This issue is whether the two are compatible with the policies that govern material in articles on Wikipedia – OK then, so if you don't accept evidence of what "formal tone" means in the real world, then what in our "policies that govern material" defines it?
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1 Where is there humor in that article? Show me. – Srsly? Everyone in that discussion could see it. I'll give you a hint: start with the infobox.
Could you, like, learn how to indent, how to use the {{tq}} template, and stuff like that?
No answer. Huh. Are you (to borrow your term) chickening out of answering (3 and 4 above, I mean)? EEng 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too late for DYK
All you lunkheads let the DYK nomination deadline pass without lifting a finger. HULK ANGRY!EEng 08:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll just have to take it to GA then, won't you. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GA GA goo goo. EEng 20:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{sad}}{{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GA? This has feature written all over it (or is that just my screen?). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Adding non-free poster
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.
Let me know what you think of it before I add it to the article. Yoshiman6464♫🥚 15:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. [6] 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]
I support using the poster. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:15, 15 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]
It's a good addition for the page, but don't be surprised if a bot comes by and eats it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why did you choose such a busted looking picture of barbie for this? of all the photos of barbie thats the one you chose? plz
more evidence towards wikipedia's male dominance and misogyny Dlkny (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlkny It's the best image on Wikimedia Commons we have of the doll. Do you have a suggestion for a better photo to replace this one? Strugglehouse (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Malibu Barbie clearly needed a better sunscreen. Kind of leathery, I'd say. EEng 18:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so you agree...busted Dlkny (talk) 19:59, 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. EEng 20:28, 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]
Jesus fuck, REALLY? Misogyny? What a load of crap. EEng 18:25, 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. EEng 21:38, 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. EEng 00:26, 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]
Randy Kryn, what are your thoughts on replacing the photo for oppie with the uncropped version? serendipitously, the cropped photo of roberts and the uncropped photo of oppie are framed similarly. dying (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have tested both and then did a quick back-and-forth to view the result and, to me, the present cropped version is much better. When compared like this Oppenheimer fades way back into the distance, seems more aloof, and doesn't match Barbie's expression of intensity and fervor. When matched against Barbie, Oppenheimer has to look like he means it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, that was actually one of the reasons why i had suggested using the uncropped photo of oppie. considering that oppenheimer is generally regarded as the more intense of the two films, i thought it was interesting that, if both subjects were framed similarly here, it is roberts who is the more intense one. it may also help to bump the total width of the multiple image template up to 350 pixels, so that oppie doesn't appear too distant. dying (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think out of the two, "Barbie Doll 2011 (cropped).jpg" would work best as an alternative to the current image. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 01:17, 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]
Redux
Since the newer Barbie doll images are up for deletion, I've restored the original Barbie in the suede vest as the intent is to have an image of Barbie, replacing the image of Margot Robbie added by @RodRabelo7:. Given that there was objection to the suede vest Barbie, I think this is due a revisit already. I did upload a new version of File:Vintage Malibu Barbie.jpg without the digital border under the Commons policy that minor cropping is allowed. (It should be showing above eventually, but the cache may take a hot second? idk how that works.) We could also consider an image of Robbie, as the actress of the Barbie film, as RodRabelo7 has suggested by adding that image. I generally don't have a hard preference, especially since I don't actually think the suede vest Barbie is bad at all. I do think there are no appropriate images of Robbie that fit this article properly. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TenTonParasol and RodRabelo7, if we're going to use a photo of robbie instead of roberts, we might as well use one of murphy instead of oppie. i went through some of the photos available on commons and put together three possible pairings of the two. by blind luck, each pairing consists of photos that are already similarly framed. do any of these possibilities work for either of you? dying (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense! Unfortunately, puts me against the idea of using the actors instead of the subjects entirely. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've replaced the Barbie doll / Robert Oppenheimer images with the film posters. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've brought back the long-time double image. Maybe an RfC would clear this up, if someone can articulate why. See my comment below. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Barbie doll images violates c:COM:TOYS. They're copyrighted three-dimensional figures. Of the actor photos, I prefer the two in the middle (where she's laughing and he's talking). ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, vest Barbie, the original for this page, is a public domain free use image. In fact, can someone do a couple of crops on it to make the head and torso larger to compare with Oppenheimer's photo, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter which doll image is chosen. They're all copyright violations. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vested image has been cleared at Commons for use, and, in fact, can someone who knows how post it on Wikipedia as well so Commons has no say about it? Thanks again. By the way, none of the images of the actors seems very good to me, and the actors, as I say, should have the images on the film pages and not on this page, which is about the contrast and melding of the two filme and the two, ah, individuals, featured in the films. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using images of the actors is for the film articles, not the internet meme. If the concern is about the potentially deleted image, if it gets deleted then the original vest Barbie image seems the way to go, several of us like it. An RfC may be needed to resolve some concerns, but I really can't tell what the concern actually is. This seems like an "I don't like it" opposition but it's not being made clear what's not to like. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also landed against the actors. And, as said above, I'm fine with the suede vest Barbie, and I'm not super sure what the issue is. But, I remind that I have cropped the border out of the one with the green skirt to make it a viable option since the border was, as I understand it, previously considered disqualifying. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the use of a copyrighted work in a photo (for non-private use and without permission) may be considered an unauthorized use of the work in some jurisdictions. In the US, toys are considered copyrighted works unless they're public domain. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the two images of the Malibu Barbies from 1971 are public domain due to a failure to copyright. I like one with the green skirt better than the one with the suede vest. Although honestly, I think the movie posters would look better in the lead. Those Malibu Barbies look like they're on some sort of controlled substance. ThreeOfCups (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ThreeOfCups, i might be missing something obvious here, but how do we know that "Malibu Barbies from 1971 are public domain due to a failure to copyright"? as an aside, for future reference, one way to easily link to the page you mentioned above is "[[:c:COM:TOYS]]". further information can be found here.dying (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added the link above. If you click on the Malibu Barbie images and scroll down to the Object section, it explains why the photos are public domain in the US. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ThreeOfCups, thanks for the explanation. i had previously seen those notices, but i believe they are just tags added by an administrator at commons. i don't believe they actually prove that the doll is in the public domain. it looks like the tags were added after an editor asserted that the doll was in the public domain while discussing the deletion requests of the two files on commons (here and here) without actually showing that any due diligence was done to confirm this.i did a quick search in the online copyright catalog that the u.s. copyright office has for records on or after 1978, and found an entry for the registration of the copyright renewal of a malibu barbie doll head, claimed by mattel, inc., and recorded in 1993. i do not know for sure if this refers to the doll head featured in our pictures, but it is difficult to imagine how it would not. presumably, this renewal is still in effect, if i am reading our article on copyright renewal in the u.s. correctly.
lius bert "pie" penheimer
admittedly, ianal of toy dolls (or anything else, for that matter), but i am assuming that the body of the doll was based on an older model and copyrighted separately. i have no idea which bodies were used for which dolls and how mattel referenced them when applying for copyright renewals, but even if it can be shown that the body of the malibu-themed doll is in the public domain, i imagine we would then have to crop the head out of the photo of roberts if we want to use that photo without violating u.s. copyright law, and presumably also do the same with the photo of oppie to have a fair comparison of the two subjects. dying (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "on or after 1978" is the key phrase here. As the Object sections of the Malibu Barbie image pages say, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1928 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." The salient question is whether the 1971 dolls are subject to copyright. So far I've seen no evidence that they were. A quick Google search of Barbie images suggests that the Malibu Barbie head may have changed in 1978 (Sungold Malibu Barbie). Unfortunately, I have nothing further to add to this discussion. I'm not an expert on copyright law or on the history of Barbie. ThreeOfCups (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies, ThreeOfCups, i had stated that the database covered records on or after 1978 to explain why i would not be able to find the original copyright registration there. i believe the renewal is evidence that the doll's head was originally copyrighted, as otherwise there would be nothing to renew. the database entry also states that the renewal is for "GP0000073829 / 1968-03-01", suggesting that the original copyright was registered in 1968.in any case, as we are both neither copyright law experts nor barbie history experts, i am pinging IronGargoyle and Mdaniels5757, the two editors on commons i mentioned previously, in case they have something they wish to contribute to this discussion. they are both commons administrators, so presumably would have more experience with copyright issues than we do, though i am not sure about their experience with barbie issues. (i am not pinging the third editor who participated in the two discussions linked above because that editor is currently blocked on en wikipedia.) dying (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so, i dug a little deeper, and was able to find what i believe is the original entry for the registration of the copyright for the head of the malibu barbie doll in the u.s. copyright office's catalog of copyright entries. the entry can be seen near the top of the middle column of this image, which is page 364 of this pdf file on commons. dying (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, i could easily be wrong, but from my reading of the comments, i don't think anyone expressed an "'I don't like it' opposition". for my part, i would prefer using a pairing of the subjects of the two films, but had suggesting using a pairing of the leads of the films as an alternative if using a photo of roberts would violate u.s. copyright law. regardless, a pairing of the leads could also be inserted under the subsection titled "Film industry reaction", as reactions from both leads are mentioned there. dying (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added images of the film leads in the "Film Industry Reaction" section. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like the two Malibu Barbie images (vest and dagger-in-belt) will be the only choices for page presentation after the Ungreat Commons Purge of 2023, maybe someone would like to try a cropping or three from the waist up of the two images to get a better perspective for which one to use. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have cropped them for better fit using the handy dandy crop tool Commons has. I've placed them both next to Dr. Oppenheimer for comparison. I can adjust the crop on either one if desired, though I'd rather make those adjustments after one is chosen, but that's definitely communicating the general idea of the crop. I still prefer the suede vest Barbie, because the similarity in angle and eyeline works better in tandem with the Oppenheimer photo, I think. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TenTonParaso, and that first one looks really good now. I'm going to put it on the page just to get a photograph, it'll probably be reverted quickly but the photo needs its moment in the sun. I've never tried the Commons tool and didn't know it existed, and don't know if I could figure it out if I saw it. But thanks again, I'll go grab that photo. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It really looks good, and the similarity between the facial expressions holds up in the enlargement. Thanks again TenTonParasol. It should also be loaded up on English Wikipedia, Commons has a way of eating major pictures. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cropping the photo, TenTonParasol. Are we allowed to edit the photo to knock out the background? That 1970s wallpaper is wild. I can add a less distracting background if it's permissible. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a version with the background knocked out. If y'all don't like it, it can be reverted. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ThreeOfCups. Thanks for the upload. The original flower background seemed to go along with the contrast concept. Barbie, all flowers and wise femininity and then Oppenheimer, grey and way too serious for his own good (at least in life accomplishments). Would ask if we can go back to the flowers but will see if anyone else chimes in. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major edits like that have to be uploaded as their own separate files (see c:COM:Overwriting existing files), so I've reverted the change on that basis. (Feel free to re-upload is its own file.) However, I've also noticed an overpaint to the back of her necklace where it wraps toward the back of her neck and I think a spot burn tool (or otherwise a levels adjustment) on the lighting highlight on her hair at the right that makes it look gray, and those edits are fully unacceptable to make. I also didn't think knocking the background out was necessary in the first place bc I don't think it is distracting.
Sidebar, I am not going to upload the crops locally to Wikipedia because they are free files and thus they properly belong at Commons. They'd just be quickly marked as candidates for transfer to Commons if moved over here or deleted as identical files on Commons. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all Malibu Barbie images have been nominated for deletion per c:COM:TOYS, since it can't be proved that the dolls weren't copyrighted. Not sure what the next step is. ThreeOfCups (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I say don't touch it because the caption is under RfC, so as a matter of form it should stay where it is for now. We don't have to remove the images until they're deleted. If the images are deleted, it'll render the entire RfC pointless anyway, but leave it for now until the image deletion is sorted out.
Once the image is deleted, I'd recommend using the movie logos, File:Oppenheimer Movie Logo.svg and File:Barbie (2023 movie logo).png. Logos are something I have a little more familiarity with, where I'm not simply taking the tags in good faith, and as far as I know, they're correctly labeled. (Oppenheimer for sure, Barbie getting unsure, but the assertion they're not complex enough as text and shapes is what I would expect for logos.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, at the deletion discussion, Randy Kryn seems to be very concerned that the image be retained here as WP:NFC. I personally don't think it would possible to find an WP:NFC compliant justification. However, as such discussion doesn't really belong at a commons DR, if Randy Kryn wants to continue this train of thought, they should probably do it over here instead. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i believe Cakelot1 had meant to link to this. dying (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apoligies, I've fixed the link to point at the right place now Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
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]
Yeah, but the reverse order might be a good way to take your mind off of nuclear annihilation. EEng 20:43, 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" [7]. EEng 07:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there's nothing curvaceous going on, we're talking Barbie here. 110.145.212.222 (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're being watched
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]
Personally, I always dance like nobody's watching. EEng 08:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, man. I was hoping for a better publication. Carlinal (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Carlinal !
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.
As long as nobody tries to add something about this WP-article to this WP-article, I'm good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This internet oddity reminds us to laugh, enjoy the mystery, and savor the quirky moments life throws our way ! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily take "eccentric genius" (just saw Oppenheimer btw)! For clarity, what I meant was that I don't want anything like
"Kotaku noted that Wikipedians had had extensive discussions about Wikipedia's Barbenheimer article."
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? EEng 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you've unleashed a delightful riddle upon us! However, I must admit, deciphering this enigmatic comment is akin to chasing a mischievous kitten through a maze of words!
Are we trying to create a never-ending loop of Barbenheimer discussions within the Barbenheimer article itself? Perhaps, it's an attempt to turn the article into a mystical portal to another dimension of Wikipedian debates!
While I appreciate a good puzzle, let us remember that clarity and coherence are like the guiding stars of Wikipedia. So, how about we gather our wits, brush off the cosmic dust from this conundrum, and focus on illuminating the Barbenheimer article with valuable content, minus the endless loop-de-loops? Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:57, 24 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
Lighthearted Fantasy Comedy versus kafkaeque Tragicomedy Bernadette1303 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kafkaesque
adjective
characteristic or reminiscent of the oppressive or nightmarish qualities of Franz Kafka's fictional world.
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]
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]
"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]
Whatever we do, let's be sure to work in the word accolades. EEng 13:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is some odd phrasing and should be removed or altered. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:30, 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]
I added citations to verify that both films have received critical acclaim. I removed the Metacritic references. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:58, 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 even mention critical acclaim, and have only been cited to pad the source count in order to bolster a certain narrative.
Reverted to original status until consensus is reached. Z8n (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the original sentence until a consensus is reached. @CapnZapp's objections are valid. The original sentence is misleading. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the previously WP:Censored content per WP:RS. We are NOT supposed to give WP:Undue weight to aggregators like Metacritic as they are not considered reliable sources according to MOS:FILMLEAD. It quite clearly tells us to summarize the press consensus in one or two recent sources, and Ive just added several.
Stop allowing this one disruptive editor from holding the page hostage! He’s WP:NOTHERE to be reasonable.
…to @Z8n I say to you, listen to your own (dishonest) advice and Keep. It. Simple. Again, the sources here trump the flimsy Metacritic loophole you think you are (not so) cleverly exploiting according to the rules which say the sources simply have more weight.
This is a no-brainer, folks. Barbie is a cultural phenomena reflected in the press as such with widespread critical acclaim and an earth shattering box office tally.
I'm not actually seeing anything in MOS:FILMLEAD saying that review aggregators "are not considered reliable sources"...although maybe I'm overlooking something? As I've noted, I do agree that any summary of the film's reception should not be based solely on Metacritic and that there are available sources to support describing the film's reception as "critically acclaimed". I'd prefer not to see sources included in the lead though, since lead sections typically aren't supposed to include lots of sources, and sources really shouldn't be needed in a lead for something as simple as a film's reception. As long as sources are given for the reception in the body of the article, then they shouldn't be needed in the lead. --Jpcase (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Can we try to turn down the temperature on this conversation? Things have been pretty heated both here and at Talk:Barbie (film). I'm sorry if I've contributed to that in any way. Please, let's avoid casting aspersions on the motives of other editors, which is something I've seen both sides of this disagreement doing. Try to keep WP:AGF in mind. --Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always ask yourself, "What would Barbie do?" Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbenheimer is not a film. It's a cultural phenomenon. MOS:FILMLEAD does not apply. There are articles about the films, and they have critical response sections. It's not necessary in this article to include information about the critical response. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see my section above this one, which I have now actioned since no one else did. This is not a fork of either the Oppenheimer or the Barbie film articles. Although there's a lot of opining going on as to which is the better film and whether Barbie will maintain its box-office dominance and other matters fascinating to film industry insiders, film reviewers, and newspaper editors trying to sell newspapers, this article should be mainly focused on reviews of and responses to the double feature. I've found 3 plus a damp squib in the New York Times that I couldn't see any way to use. (One we were citing in the wrong place, among the pre-release opinions.) There are probably others; I didn't really pummel Google on this, since I have to go dump water on the garden now. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Longmore/Layered Butter poster
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 [8], [9], [10]. Use of this image is not only a copyright violation, it's also an advertisement for Layered Butter products.
Therefore, I removed the image and replaced it with the previous image. ThreeOfCups (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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."[11]
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]
"Blockbuster"
The lead sentence says: "an Internet phenomenon that began circulating on social media before the simultaneous theatrical release of two blockbuster films".
This is nonsensical: a movie can't be described as a blockbuster until after it's released and it turns out that a lot of people attend it. It should say something like "two highly anticipated films". --142.112.221.64 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The term has also come to refer to any large-budget production intended for "blockbuster" status, aimed at mass markets with associated merchandising, sometimes on a scale that meant the financial fortunes of a film studio or a distributor could depend on it." It's right there in the article. 24.29.199.34 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images
There is too much squabbling over the images featured. Can we just settle this once and for all here? Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic
Dueling pistols at 30 paces on Montmartre or cut for high card? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not show, but I'm closer, and would have won anyway drawing the Ace of Pentacles, the symbol of both prosperity for the films and a new beginning which is what the union/mystic marriage of Barbie and Oppie can symbolize (Oppenheimer and his influence on the world trumped and tempered down by Roberts' feminine energy and goodwill). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which images, specifically? And how do you propose to settle it? On one hand, the use of the Layered Butter poster is a clear copyright violation. On the other, it provides them with free advertising, so it probably doesn’t do them any harm. In that case, the only thing really at risk is Wikipedia’s integrity. ThreeOfCups (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how the layered butter poster is not covered by our unfree media rules Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s rich. Answer the question Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I genuinely don't care how many Wikipedia rules this image violates. I care that Layered Butter isn't being harmed by it. So, go ahead, use the image, make money for Layered Butter. They deserve it. It's an awesome image. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the mere existence of a commercial image violated WP:PROMOTIONAL and was automatically revenue and advertising for the copyright holder, then all images of purchasable items or otherwise connected to commercial activity would automatically be considered making money for someone and we wouldn't have any fair use images at all. So, I don't understand the logical throughline on that.
The image is one of the most notable examples of a mash-up poster relating to the phenomenon and numerous references mention the concept of mash-ups (though the article itself could stand to discuss this a little more, especially since so many references cover it), so it's an appropriate image to include somewhere in the article regardless of it being for sale. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Here's what I did to satisfy my concerns about the poster use. I moved some of the content from the photo caption into the lead, and some into the Counterprogramming section. Hopefully my changes now position the poster as illustrating internet user reaction, rather than the Barbenheimer phenomenon itself. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But keep it as the second image, not the first. The for-sale poster is fine for the page but not as a first image promotion. Coming second it at least shows that Wikipedia has a sense of proportion when promoting images because, if used first, we might as well work for the copyright owners. Please do not move the image back to first slot and, if moved, please revert, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tipping Point in viewers taste ?
Several Sources interpret this succes as a tipping point for Hollywood, ending the era of sequels, superheroes and blatant opinions.
Common interpretation is, that people want original content instead of sequels (not barbie may be a franchise, but not a _fiction_ franchise)
The suboptimal performance of Mission Impossible 7 and Indiana Jones 5 confirms this
So far no superhero has been affected, but the genre relies heavily on franchises
There's been extensive discussion on what works best for various parts in this article, but I wish to know what's established for the images, mainly which ones and where they should belong.
Firstly, I'm thinking of having the double portrait of Barbie and Oppie in the background section. The fanmade Barbenheimer poster was the head image at one point, but has since been moved down. If I edited the article for this accordingly, what reason would there be for opposition?
Next, there's the location of Christopher Nolan's image. He's in another double portrait with Greta Gerwig (as directors of the two films) in the film industry reaction section, but what irks me is that in that section Gerwig has her comments in it, but Nolan does not, or at least doesn't have one yet. Maybe Nolan's image could fit better in the release date dispute section?
Lastly, the usage of film logos. I fail to understand how they supplement the context of this article compared to the fan poster. A previous version has this logo stitching the two together featured, but has been replaced. There's also the "I Survived Barbenheimer" t-shirt logo, which was mentioned earlier in this talk page. If having the subject-related logos in the article is beneficial, which one works best?
This is my only major concern on improving Barbenheimer. I'm happy this article reached B-class during the same month both films were released, and I hope the hype of both films is taken advantage of for further improvements at a quicker pace. Thanks. Carlinal (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Oppose), this has been heavily discussed in a section above. Again, please realize that the film presents the character as in-universe (why do you think nobody knows Barbie's full name?) and Oppenheimer's well-known nickname "Oppie" is used both within and throughout the film and was the working title of the book which became the film, as you link, American Prometheus. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Consensus can change, and there is no policy-based reason to include this, other the mild mirth of some editors. – GnocchiFan (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GnocchiFan, are you saying that Barbie doesn't have an in-universe name? She does, and it's Barbara Millicent Roberts (say her name). There is no policy to not include the two principal film characters' full names other than the "I don't like it" grumpiness of some editors (see what I did there, no policy for either choice). How about WP:CONSISTENCY - if one nickname is used the other should be as well, which will result in the caption: "Barbie and Oppie", which I would be fine with. The word "Barbie" has to be included for recognizability, so if one character's nickname is used the others should be as well. But then character respect determines that each character should be identified with their entire name to be consistent (i.e. if "J. Robert Oppenheimer" is used then it stands to respectful reason that the other name should not be just a nickname). Bah, humbug, say the nicknamers-disrespecters of characters-I-just-don't-like-itists. Both names are fine and, bottom line, nothing broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Barbie" is the official name for the doll, even if she does have an in-universe full name. WP:CONSISTENCY is a redirect, so I don't know what policy you're talking about.
Oppenheimer's nickname is not what he is commonly known as, nor his official name. Nightscream makes some very valid comments against inclusion (in the section above which is titled after Barbie's full name).
I don't think anything is "broken" by including Barbie's full name, but it seems trivial and unencyclopaedic. – GnocchiFan (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons already stated above. 24.29.199.34 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSH-aliveOppose: The full names, with nicknames, should stay. The claim that "no one knows the names" is disputed by the fact that there are multiple reliable sources for them. There is also stong consensus above to keep these.This article is about the characters and their films. These names are the characters full names and nicknames, and they are used in the films. Barbie is referred to as "Barbara" in Barbie, and Oppenheimer is referred to as "Oppie" throughout Oppenheimer. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been heavily discussed in a section above, and each of the mendacious and fallacy-riddled arguments by Randy Kryn and Strugglehouse have been thoroughly debunked. The manner in which names of subjects are presented in articles, including in article titles, lede sections, and captions, is governered by policies and guidelines that call for doing so with the name by which the subject is most commonly known, and not by obscure trivia names, hypocorisms, or in-universe references, as explicitly stated in MOS:BIO, MOS:HYPOCORISM, WP:OUTUNIVERSE, etc. Reliable sources help determine whether a full name or nickname may be mentioned somewhere in an article, but is not the sole criterion by which the subject is commonly referred in these instances. Barbie is most commonly referred to as "Barbie", both in the film, and in general, and not as "Barbara". Oppenheimer is most commonly referred to as "Oppenheimer", or "Robert" in the film. The nickname "Oppie" is used maybe one time, and is not how he is referred to "throughout" the film. Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream The "Oppie" nickname is used throughout the film. It's used far more than once.
MOS:HYPOCORISM refers to "common English-language hypocorism[s]". "Oppie" is neither "common" – i.e. it's not "conventional" ("If it is not conventional, it is not "common"") – nor is it English-language – it originates from "Opje", a Dutch nickname given to Oppenheimer whilst in the Netherlands.
I really don't think people are getting confused about the full names of the subjects. It's quite simple to know who we're talking about. If readers want to know more, they'll click through into the articles, or read on.
The full names are fine, because Oppenheimer is about the life of Oppenheimer, who had that full name, and Barbie is about the character of Barbie, who has that full name. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above and nom. -- ZooBlazertalk 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWP:COMMONNAME, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivial nonsense. Barbie’s full name is almost never used, and neither is Oppenheimer’s (let alone the nickname “Oppie”) Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus The full names of subjects are not "nonsense".
This article is about the characters and their films.
The Barbie film is about Barbie, the character, whose full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts. "Barbara" is also used in the film.
"Oppie" is what Oppenheimer was known as. He was called this at various points in his life. It's also used many times throughout the film.
Plus, the guidelines you cited make no sense in this context, since WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, which this is not about, and the full names and nicknames are already on the respective character's articles, so saying that the information shouldn't be included because it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE is just plain incorrect. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to scroll down several paragraphs to find Barbie’s full name, and I can’t even find where Oppenheimer is called “Oppie” in his article. So yes including this information is trivial, indiscriminate nonsense. As for common name, the spirit applies here— don’t call things weird obscure titles unless absolutely necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to scroll down a bit to find Barbie's full name, but that's because it was agreed that the Barbie article was generally more about the doll. The article talks about her as a character further into the article, and this is when the full name is used. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, you have to scroll down several paragraphs on Oppenheimer’s article too. This is trivia. We don’t need this information placed prominently on this article. Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus I just don't see the problem. It's not taking up loads of room or getting in the way, it's well sourced information about two characters. I just don't get why people are getting so worked up about their use. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it’s a few users inserting nerd trivia/a glorified in-joke, because they think it’s funny/clever. Dronebogus (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus No it isn't. I've said this a dozen times. It's not an "in-joke", it's not even a "joke". It's just two names. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see my response to Nightscream. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since, ya know, I'm the one who wrote the caption. The COMMONNAME arguments are nonsense, since COMMONNAME is about article titles, which quite rightly should be the name our readers are most likely to already know, to aid them in finding the article and recognizing it as being, indeed, the article they were looking for. But the article's purpose, once readers have arrived there, is to tell them stuff he doesn't already know such as Barbie's real name and Oppenheimer's nickname -- DUH. A caption is the ideal place to introduce a minor fact such as the subjects' nicknames, especially given the accidental parallelism.On top of that, it's just plain amusing. And please, please no ignorant assertions that articles can't contain a touch of humor. EEng 23:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mostly just to annoy EEng, because, ya know, EEng is Pretty in Pink. Otherwise, I do actually think that the proposed name change is more encyclopedic, if not on the basis of our guidance on pagenames, then because it is more easily understood by readers who might not yet be "in" on the joke. But please don't mind me. I'm just here to see my gynecologist. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC proposal, as written, is to also have a few words at the beginning, so I corrected the caption here. And, um, yeah, it's kind of more informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to compare apples to apples. Obviously "The subjects of the two films" can be included (or not) in either version of the caption. EEng 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this discussion, and decided to come back and say that I now support more firmly, because I'm getting increasingly annoyed by what I see as a cavalier attitude by some of the opposing editors. This is an inherently silly topic, but I increasingly think that, since we are being asked to choose between a jokey option and an encyclopedic one, we should go with the encyclopedic one. I get it, that the jokey one is clever in its way, but don't anyone try to pretend that the difference between jokey and encyclopedic isn't as I describe, because it clearly is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This misses the point. This is unencyclopedic in its obtuseness, serving more to make a point that humor must forbidden (when it actually isn't!) than to illustrate the subject. The existing caption is much truer to the subject. And accurate. And better writing. And amusing, which in this case is a virtue. Besides losing all of that, the proposed changed caption "the subjects of two films" is bad writing: by avoiding a definite article, it makes it sound like the people depicted are merely the subjects of two random films among many, rather than the specific two films that this article is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re arguing we should keep this because “LOL IT’S WACKY don’t be a wet blanket” plus some generic truisms like “it’s more accurate” or non-arguments like “the caption isn’t grammatically correct” (we aren’t discussing the recent, unnecessary addition of the WP:BLUE statement that the images are of the films’ subjects) Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus, respectfully, maybe read David Eppstein's comment again. You may have missed the intent of the generic truisms which are actually wise words and the summarization of why the present caption is better. He describes it as much more than truisms and "LOL IT'S WACKY" that you scream at him. Much more. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it multiple times and that’s all I’m getting. “Much truer to the subject” and “more accurate” are truisms, one is unprovable and the other is a non-argument (providing more information is always more strictly accurate, but not necessarily better). The writing/grammar complaints are fixable and not the main issue (should the names be changed). And yes, voting against removing something because it’s (supposedly) funny is a bad argument, WP:ITSFUNNY. Dronebogus (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case providing more information is both accurate and better. A lot of good information is packed into that caption which some readers will take to mind and do a deeper look into the links (why put the links there in the first place, silly rabbit). Using both names, and I can't emphasize this enough in a non-joke context, showing respect to the Barbara Roberts in-universe symbol of womanhood seems mandatory if the full name of a male follows. Do you want to get the Women in Red people griping about an RfC purposely worded to disrespect Barbie? They're bound to find out and then we've gone and done it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being blunt here: your argument is, as Nightscream said below, “pseudo-academic gobbledygook” that is beyond parody. I can’t even argue against someone who asserts that “showing respect to the […] in-universe symbol of womanhood” is important to an encyclopedic image caption. Dronebogus (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbie is honored by generations of women. She's probably earned at least a sMidgen of respect when directly aligned with and compared to such a historic male figure of the 20th century. Yes, I'm stretching it a bit here, but the respect part feels right. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re stretching a lot considering you are seriously trying to compare a children’s fashion doll to one of the most significant people in modern history. Dronebogus (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the central core of this article and the cultural phenomena, comparing the two as contrasts. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's none so blind as those who will not see. Dronebogus, this means you. You're missing the point of the phenomenon and this is causing you to miss the point of the caption, which has been crafted to be directly relevant to the phenomenon its article describes. Making the caption straight, by stripping it of its idiosyncracies and only stating what it depicts, transforms it into something that similarly misses the point, and causes it to become irrelevant to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The parallelism in the caption orients the reader to the unexpected conflation that is the topic of the article, thereby enhancing the use of the paired images to make the point (or something along those lines in more up-to-date academicese). Whereas the replacement caption is a big "duh" (and reduces both films to pointless biopics). However, since the point is clearly missable, the article needs to provide the encyclopedic context by mentioning that Oppenheimer is based on American Prometheus and that that book's working title was Oppie, rather than just using the book to footnote "Oppie" as Oppenheimer's nickname. Surely a source can be found that mentions this in a relevant context. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, that it alerts the reader to the conflation. I hadn't thought of that. I could actually oppose on that basis, especially since I really don't care either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) I struck part of that, because I no longer want my view to be seen as potentially opposing, but I do still think that it was a good point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The article needs to provide the encyclopedic context by mentioning that Oppenheimer is based on American Prometheus and that that book's working title was Oppie..."
The article on the film. Not an article on the Internet phenomenon, let alone a mere caption at the top of that article. Mention of a given fact is dependent on the article, and the location in the article, vis a vis whether the fact is contextually relevant to that section. These nicknames are relevant to sections on the subjects, or the films, in sections that discuss their names. They are not, however, contextually relevant to a mere caption at the top of an article about an Internet phenomenon arising from films on those subjects, because the relationship to those names in this case is extremely tangential, and therefore, far more tangential. It is reasonable to mention the full name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in the title and opening lines of the lede and the Early life section of Mozart's own article. But if you look at all the captions in that article, they all refer to him as simply "Mozart". Ditto for the caption at the top of Amadeus, the caption in List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, etc. That's because there's no contextually relevant reason to refer to his full name in those locations. The same principle applies here, and all the talk about "parallelism" or "unexpdected conflations" or whatever other pseudo-academic-sounding gobbledygook you dream up does not change this. Nightscream (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no overriding reason to change the long-standing caption, and to change such a masterpiece (at least in some people's eyes, please realize that some editors lean toward this being masterpiece status, which I would think would be enough to say, OK, let's trust their judgement) would, I would think, need an overriding reason. It does not, and there is actually nothing of import broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a literary work. We’re not here to debate aesthetics or entertain people. Our sole requirement and metric of judgment is informativeness. Dronebogus (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, aha, the present caption is much more informative. It contains a great deal of information in an understandable way. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a great deal of contextually useless information. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that both nicknames in the caption include citations. Readers who follow the link in the Oppenheimer cite (the reason Wikipedia uses links), for example, will discover that Oppie was the long-time working title of the book adapted for the Oppenheimer film. The more you know... Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this useless trivial information relevant to Barbenheimer? Because it isn’t. Dronebogus (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish This has nothing to do with page names, this is about an image caption. People do not need to be "in" on any joke. These names aren't a joke, they're simply just the full names of the subjects. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strugglehouse: Yes I know that it has nothing to do with page names. That's why I said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish Okay, sorry, I misread your comment. Still, people don't have to be "in on a joke". It's just two subject's names. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I hope that you realize by this point that I just don't care, either way. My point about the "joke" is that a general reader will assume that one name is Barbie, and the other is J. Robert Oppenheimer. Those are the names that are generally familiar to the public. Bringing in stuff like Millicent and Oppie is not just putting in two routine names, and it's a bit disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It is a joke, although it also does have the desirable feature of drawing the reader's attention to the conflation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish If you don't care, that's fine, but I'm just making the point that I don't believe two full names are "jokes". Strugglehouse (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the change as is, and would have even stronger support for simply Barbie and Oppenheimer. Typical we don't even use full names in captions see Robbie at Margot Robbie, or just Beyoncé or Eminem on their articles. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiVirusC That's different. Those are biographies of living people. They're subject to specific guidance. Margot Robbie is referred to as "Robbie" per MOS:SURNAME – "a person should generally be referred to by surname only" and Beyoncé and Eminem are referred to by their mononyms per the same guidance – "If they use their mononym or pseudonym exclusively, then use that name". Strugglehouse (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Living person or not it's not different. J. Robert Oppenheimer page itself has just Oppenheimer, Buffy Summers just says Buffy. This is what we usually do, living, fictional or otherwise. I am not going to see this as some sort of super exception. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiVirusC It's still a guideline for biographies, which this article is not. Are you suggesting we refer to the subjects simply by their surnames? That would create much more ambiguity. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand that you cited a guideline for biographies, I never did anything. As I said, this is how we usually do things. And if you think referring to Oppenheimer the subject of the movie Oppenheimer as just Oppenheimer or referring Barbie, the subject of the movie Barbie as just Barbie is ambiguious, then I don't think this conversation is ever gonna lead anywhere. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Strugglehouse: as a neutral observer I would recommend that you stop replying to every support vote. This could possibly give an impression of bludgeoning the discussion. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte I was just trying to put my point accross, but I do see what you mean. I will take that into consideration. Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiVirusC, if by some odd chance the present caption is overturned (before you commented did you realize that the nomination is incomplete? It doesn't contain the cites which, if you look at the real caption, tell the story. So this RfC seems invalid right at the start, not alerting editors that the stated rendition of the caption is wrong) then I would totally support using just the caption "Barbie and Oppenheimer" which both reflects the film titles (binding the caption to the page topic) and overcomes the respect concern. Again, if Oppenheimer's full name is used, and taking into account the equality of the images, then Barbie's full name should also be used. Just as it is now (and usually are inclu8ded in the first mention of individuals in captions of articles which are not specifically about them), Nothing really needs to be changed, and arguably any change lessens the amount of information communicated within the caption - cites and links included. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main focus of RfC is focused on the names and how they were used in the caption. Regardless of any other additions/changes, I'd still prefer the Barbie and Oppenheimer. I skimmed through history just now a few weeks and don't know what cities or real captions you are referring to, but my response was focused on the names themselves anyways. Personally I'd prefer the mock Barbieheimer poster to go up top with the lead, and the depicts subjects images to be in body of article. That's an even more separate discussion though. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Roberts Rules of Order
Point of order (according to Barbara Roberts Rules of Order), JSH-alive, please consider null and voiding this RfC because of a distorted nomination (although keep the comments up for the record). When listing the present caption both here and at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All noticeboard the nomination neglected to add the two citations within the caption and thus the links attached to the citations. These cites and links contain important RfC relevant essential explanatory information for commenting editors as well as those confused and/or in need of a safe space because of the caption. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about now? Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff, and such. Please read the above for your answer. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has Barbenheimer become a Contentious Topic yet? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support For those not in the know, there is a small but very enthusiastic group of editors who are pushing for greater prominence of the full names of Barbie fashion dolls on English Wikipedia, on pages such as Barbie, Ken (doll), and this article. What must be remembered is that Barbie is a toy product line. There is a fictional character angle that is explored in some ancillary media, but independent reliable sources rarely approach the subject from that perspective. I do not think the "full names" of these characters are used all that often in the packaging or marketing of the toys and most brand products. A general reader will not be familiar with them. They are worth mentioning within the articles themselves, but we should apply the same prominence that sources do. To introduce the topic, or reference the topic in articles such as this one, we should use the common brand names that a general audience will understand. Remember that Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective; using the full names places undue weight on the in-universe fictional perspective. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TarkusAB. Maybe look before you leap. Ken has his full name in the first sentence of his page (Kenneth Sean "Ken" Carson) and has had for a very long time. The lead of Ken's page details his biographical in-universe history. And has for a very long time. In fact, when his page was first created in 2003, he was noted as the boyfriend of 'Barbara Millicent Roberts'. Again, nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False. I did check and the first revision of each year since 2003, and nearly all started with "Ken", sometimes followed by "(full name Ken Carson)" in parantheses or something similar. That's very different from the current "Kenneth Sean "Ken" Carson". But this is distracting from my point, which is: the reason this RFC is happening is because of a Barbie doll naming dispute. Oppenheimer is just a casualty of the situation. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, for quite awhile Ken (doll) has been given the full name or his last name. This is not a doll naming dispute, it's about a caption of a double-image containing the personification of a woman and an actual male. The male is given a full name, thus the woman should continue to be respectfully named with her in-universe name. Nothing more than that except for using Oppenheimer's real nickname which was the long-time working title of the book which was adapted into the film featured in this article (which is found in the included cites, which editors in this discussion have not and are not being told about in the nomination). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about Barbie like she is a real person; it is a children's toy product. Regarding "Oppie": The nickname isn't mentioned once in the film's article and is mentioned once in his article. And you're arguing about its inclusion in an image caption elsewhere? The sourcing isn't relevant here. That is a ridiculous hill to die on. TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the article Barbenheimer, which inevitably ties the two films and two characters together. One about a historical male figure, one about a personified female icon. The opening image brings them into an article-relevant equal footing. This RfC wishes to kick that footing out from under one of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should Randy Kryn be reported for bludgeoning a borderline troll stance at this point? Because he pretty obviously knows, or should know, his incessant commentary here sounds absolutely ludicrous, especially from a 15-plus year veteran and top-200-most-active editor. Dronebogus (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since by my count he's made 15 posts to this thread, and you've made 15, I'd say your bludgeoning argument might fall flat. And with a respected admin telling you, There's none so blind as those who will not see. Dronebogus, this means you, if I were you I'd steer clear of the question of who sounds ludicrous, too. EEng 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D.E. Is clearly taking sides outside of his administrative duties here, which he is allowed to do but should not be taken as gospel. Dronebogus (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well DUH, but being a respected admin (and, as we all know, we have a number who aren't all that respected) tends to correlate with good editorial judgment. I notice you've just kind of let your let's-report-him-for-making-too-many-posts point quietly fall to the floor. EEng 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I more wanted to report him for making too many borderline nonsensical posts. It smacks of trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that you can't understand his posts is part and parcel of your inability to grasp the point of the very caption that we're discussing. It's what that admin guy was trying to tell you earlier -- see #anchor1. EEng 23:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m seeing more “support” than “oppose”. Are you saying they’re also just too hopelessly ignorant to understand the deep significance of the caption? Dronebogus (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deep significance to understand, but giving the number of arguments appealing to WP:COMMONNAME it's hard to avoid concluding that ignorance does play a part. EEng 07:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Summoned by bot) per Donebogus WP:COMMONNAME, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivial nonsense. Barbie’s full name is almost never used, and neither is Oppenheimer’s (let alone the nickname “Oppie”) . The object of the caption is to identify the subject of the photos using the most identifiable names. The present wording isn't remotely humourous, it's just puerile twaddle and an 'in joke' as far as I can see. Sorry to some of those whose wit I ordinarily admire.Pincrete (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The object of the caption is to identify the subject of the photos using the most identifiable names – Flat out wrong. Try reading MOS:CAPTIONS. EEng 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PincreteWP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles. This - as I've said to many others who make this argument - is not what this discussion is about. It is about a caption. So that point is invalid.
Two subject's names are not nonsense. Nor are they "in jokes". They're not even "jokes". The wording doesn't have to be humorous, that's not the point. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether COMMONNAME is the apt policy is a bit academic in this circumstance. Why would we not use the simplest and most common identifying names for the photos? Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as MOS:CAPTION says, a caption's function is not just to identify, but to supply additional information which will (among other things) help "draw the reader into the article". EEng 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete Because that's not what Wikipedia guidelines say. You can can't just reference some incorrect guidance and say "well it's kind of the same thing". Strugglehouse (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "You can't just reference some incorrect guidance", but of course as we've seen throughout this discussion, people seem willing to do so anyway. EEng 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng I did indeed mean "can't". I will update my comment. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You can't just reference some incorrect guidance and say "well it's kind of the same thing". I just did, for the simple reason that the main purpose of a caption is to tell me what I'm looking at, just as the purpose of titling an article is to identify what I am reading (or will be reading, if I follow the link). One of you insists that this caption is witty (and should be), the other that it isn't even intended to be. Well before I even read the RFC, I found the captioning baffling and uninformative and assumed someone had made an error or two - but certainly I thought it unfunny, so you're right about that. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the main purpose of a caption is to tell me what I'm looking at – The main purpose of course, but not the only one. I wonder how many more people I'll have to direct to MOS:CAPTION before this thread is put out of its misery?I don't see the word witty in this thread, so please explain what you're talking about. EEng 07:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wit is humo(u)r, especially clever or dry humour. That is much discussed above. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank your clarifying that your really mean humor (or humour, I guess). Who said it isn't even intended to be? EEng 07:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two subject's names are not nonsense. Nor are they "in jokes". They're not even "jokes". The wording doesn't have to be humorous, that's not the point. from Strugglehouse above. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The images are captures of the Barbie doll and Oppenheimer, not the on-screen talents that portrayed them. Label them as Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer. The details of their additional full names/nicknames can easily be included in the body of the article or on their respective pages. Penguino35 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to !vote here, but the traffic report title is at most a decision taken between three editors and The Signpost. Surely you can't suggest that this is Wikipedia accepting the use of the nickname in this case, when there's a large number of editors in this discussion actively arguing against its inclusion? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost is NOT Wikipedia. It’s a small editor organization. Whatever opinions it has are its own and have exactly zilch bearing here. This is getting really, really desperate here. Dronebogus (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform readers about things they are not familiar with. The idea that "nobody's familiar with Barbie's in-universe full name" or Oppenheimer's "Oppie" nickname is a good reason to keep the current caption, so that our readers can learn something. As to whether this is "encyclopedic", well, the topic itself is not very encyclopedic, is it? I'm open to covering pop-culture topics with a bit of "EEng's manual of style", whereas I would not be with actual encyclopedia topics. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so that our readers can learn something???? Are you crazy? Don't you understand that captions should only say things our readers already know, so that they won't get confused? EEng 14:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you understand that captions should only say things our readers already know, so that they won't get confused? But if you look at a picture that ONLY confuses, since you were under the impression that you were looking at a plastic doll, whose only name you always assumed was a single word, and nobody bothers to correct you? Plus I'm afraid, if the only factual info the article is able to communicate is the in-universe pretence that this doll has a full name (a DoB? an address? a phone number?), if that info is really worth communicating, isn't it better done in text?
I plead guilty this time, but my knowledge of the in-universe world of naff, US, cliche-ically feminoid plastic dolls is obviously not up to par. Oppenheimer I know a fair amount about! Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: ... But it's not relevent! are we going to insert pop-culture facts into every article? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Never really understood that caption myself. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The shorter description reads cleaner. The longer version seems a bit puffy. Count3D (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no policy to change this, or anything other than "I don't like it". Each attempt at citing a guideline or policy has been discussed as incorrect usage. For example, just above the reasoning is "reads cleaner", then above that "Never really understood that caption", then above lots of editors dazed and confused, and some attempts at commonname which doesn't apply to captions, and so on. EEng, Wbm1028, Strugglehouse and others have articulated how these fail as policy. The nominator still has not included the cites and links provided in the real caption in their incomplete nomination representation of the caption (so no, the nom does not duplicate the caption accurately). All in all, this misworded RfC has failed to convince. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bludgeoning with faux votes already. At least I only reply to existing comments, mostly yours. Dronebogus (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued supervision seems in good faith. Do you get at least some of why Barbie's entire name should continue to be used out of respect for her position as an icon and plaything for generations of women (yet, when she becomes article-appropriately equalized in a double photo and adequate caption with a prominent historical male, many seem to want to establish her unequal status)? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NO. Absolutely not. She’s a god-damned plastic doll. Oppenheimer was a living, breathing human with a brain and thoughts who was responsible for one of the most important and controversial scientific advancements in the history of our species. Dronebogus (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is trivial information unrelated to the topic at hand. It places undue weight on information that isn't generally included in sources about "Barbenheimer", seemingly because some users think it's funny. Good captions should be succinct and establish the picture's relevance to the article (per WP:CAPTION) which in my view the current caption doesn't Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its funny and cute and I'm sure readers appreciate it.★Trekker (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per my previous comments. (About time this happened — I was just about to suggest an RfC when I saw this.) While it can be argued that the injection of subtle humor to articles is acceptable, this joke in particular is extremely obvious and intrusive to readers. Any talk about this "not being a joke" is just pretext; if the people who are vehemently defending the inclusion of the nickname think this isn't an intrusive joke, why did they bother adding a note that "Oppie" nickname cited in ... and leaving a hidden note warning editors not to change it? This is not an appropriate use of humor on Wikipedia, and any arguments saying "but it's funny!" should be immediately disregarded by the closer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has gotten so bad I was actually inspired to write an essay about why this is bad. Dronebogus (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you on the point about the hidden note. I had raised this in an earlier discussion as to why there was a hidden note in spite of there being no consensus for this, but I didn't receive a response. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 10:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the hidden note (this had been discussed on this talk page, and is being discused). The caption is not a joke but filled with information about the two characters in the films (the nomination still hasn't been changed to include the links and cites, which to me makes all comments null and void or somewhere in-between). As for the essay, one of the saddest I've ever read, neither lost nor found. Please realize again that there is no joke, no Easter egg, nothing out of the ordinary here. The caption is well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Humour is fine until it starts causing intense month-long discussions and edit wars, at which point it becomes detrimental to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and only one reason this nomination should be null and void, the caption is not about humor. It's about the appropriate use of a full caption in a double-image representation of the article and the respect for both characters from the films which have been lumped together by a popular societal meme. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, PLEASE stop bludgeoning or I’m seriously reporting you. Dronebogus (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, PLEASE report him. PLEASE. That would be delicious. EEng 15:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really wanted to reply to the comment below "Even if the information were relevant, an image caption would not the place to hide it" (I would have said "a pretty poor hide-and-seek player" but didn't, which shows some appropriate restraint). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone stop bludgeoning? The last thing we should want is a controversial ANI thread. There's plenty of comments already here and it's pretty clear that the bludgeoning is not going to make anyone change their mind. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: At the AfD, you wrotehaven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption, so it's evident that you thought the caption was funny at the time you added it. You now seem to be arguing that the caption is not intended to be funny at all, and above you say there is nothing out of the ordinary here. The caption as it stands is certainly out of the ordinary. There must be dozens of pictures of Oppenheimer on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to find me another one which is captioned "Julius Robert 'Oppie' Oppenheimer". If it's not meant to be funny, then it's simply bizarre.On the other point you keep bringing up, I'm not aware of any policy, or indeed any real-world ethical principle, that says we ought to show respect towards fictional characters. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sojourner, I laughed and laughed then laughed some more knowing that here was the opportunity to create such a double-image and serious encyclopedic presentation: a side-by-side representation of the meme. The image and caption takes into account the entire history and societal implications of the two equal characters which had been brought together in a meme by some internet geniuses. The poetry of Barbenheimer and of the image seemed obvious and even too easy, because essays carved in stone could be written about this juxtaposition. I cannot take credit for the whole caption, EEng came by and perfected it. That this has fnorded the minds of many editors and probably many readers solely because it works, they sense that it works, realize that in a logical world it cannot work but they can't explain why. In need of a safe place-style image and caption, some have brought it this far. It is still poetry, still totally serious, still ultimately and perfectly encyclopedic, and remains funny as the dickens when viewed just a little-bit over thataway towards the side of logic. A treasured combination, and I'm glad to be a part of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading, not enough credit given to EEng, who added the full name 'Julius', added and fought for the nickname 'Oppie', and added the citations. Without EEng this would just be a doll and a guy (a familiar combo to some...). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eeng is known for having a divisive sense of humor, so it’s no surprise he’s the one most responsible for this massacree. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, inserting "Oppie" into this caption was the final step in my secret plan to reduce Wikipedia to chaos. EEng 16:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppenheimer SPOILER ALERTand bludgeon alert. Saw the film, and come on people, Oppenheimer's nickname "Oppie" is totally film-centric and page-appropriate. Especially in an article which, bottom line, is about a film mash-up that worked. For some reason I was counting the uses of 'Oppie' in the film, and was at 12, when a scene came on where maybe 80 of Oppenheimer's colleagues loudly chanted "Oppie!" maybe six or seven times. That brought the count to 492. In a fair encyclopedia (miss you Brittanica, darn good while you lasted but now a fancy customer magnet for ads) the use of "Oppie" in the divisive scandalous caption should have no opposition from anyone who has experienced the film and in-particular that scene. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an encyclopedia, not a comic. The full names are appropriate for the Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer articles, but not here. Even if the information were relevant, an image caption would not the place to hide it. Certes (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per every other support, basically. Those who want to keep the current caption have failed to make an encyclopedic case for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After having read through the discussion above, I find a lot of bad WP:ALPHABETSOUP references, a lot of argument that comes down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT versus WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, some outright fallacies (e.g. claims that the nickname "Oppie" is somehow obscure when it is reportedly used throughout the film in question), and a good bit of WP:BLUDGEONING on both sides. IMO the most relevant policy/guideline reference is to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Drawing the reader into the article which argues for keeping it. Yngvadottir's comment above, while not directly linking that, explains it well (although I disagree on the supposed need for a concatenation of film to book to working title for "encyclopedic context"). On the remove side, the best I see seems to be MOS:OUTUNIVERSE (specifically the bullet about fictography), although IMO that's a bit of a stretch since that guideline is about writing whole article sections rather than a name in a caption and the grammatical parallelism highlighting the central contrast of the meme that is the topic of the article is IMO sufficient for ignoring that rule. Plus, as David Eppstein pointed out above, the proposed replacement is bad grammar (although that at least would be easy to fix). Anomie⚔ 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete waste of time RFC but also essential, so perhaps not a waste of time. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. There is no rule against doing things with a little style, so long as it is clear, and things like this serve the project well by making it seem open and friendly (having seen some very positive reaction to the caption for the guy playing bagpipes for a penguin. The weakness of my oppose comes solely from remembering, perhaps incorrectly, that Barbie is briefly given a different last name in the film (Handler?) That the concern is that a caption is giving people information they don't already have is, well, odd. Is the goal of the encyclopedia to give people only information that they have? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler I don't believe that Barbie is given that last name in the film. Ruth Handler is the creator of Barbie, and (SPOILERS!) she (as a character) makes a couple appearances in the film. In the film, Ruth's character says that Barbie was named after her daughter, Barbara. That may be what you're remembering. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yer prob'ly right. My brain was often distracted from the current scene with thoughts of the previous scene. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've found the spirited opposition to the current caption to be spending a silly amount of energy on something small for no good reason. I do like the current caption for the parallelism, which contributes to the subject of the article as mentioned above. I can't provide a policy based reason other than "I like it" hence neutral !vote, but neither do I have a strong policy based reason for changing it and I'm unconvinced by the arguments for changing it. I'd rather we keep the parallelism for the reason of the article subject, and simply "Barbie and Oppenheimer" would be sufficient and help point at the portmanteau of the title. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: I wonder if the images could just be removed; they seem more decorative than informative and, more importantly, I'm concerned even the current image of Barbie used is unacceptable per c:COM:CHARACTER - if the original Barbie doll is under copyright, then a failure to add a copyright notice for the derivative work would not affect any expression incorporated from the original. I know there are several cases in which this has been observed, though most of them involve failure to renew the copyright; much of these, as well as further discussion, can be found at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/05#Bugs Bunny (you'll have to scroll down a bit). I could be wrong, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's me, yes. FWIW the nom has nothing to do with this discussion, which I participated in after being summoned by the bot, but -- and I cannot stress this enough -- is not something that I have feelings about (though the amount of impassioned bludgeoning and Reichstag climbing makes for a fun example of Wikipedia culture). I was surprised to see a non-free image used in the article, clicked it, saw it was on Commons with a "no notice" tag, and thought that was pretty suspicious. Sure enough, while they don't have a copyright notice written on the doll, every box/packaging I've seen from that time have copyright notices. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the decision you listed failed to consider the "not really PD" aspect, which COM:CHARACTER goes into. I also wonder if there's any case law to suggest that the packaging and the doll can share a copyright notice like that or if they need to have their own notices, since you can take the doll out of the box. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But yes I think it’s basically a slow-motion edit war. Dronebogus (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's lame, but it's not an edit-war. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But where this incident can be documented is WP:HUMOR, as a case study. Be sure to note this RfC's outcome (i.e. there was consensus that non-subtle and unencyclopedic humor is not appropriate, or there was not consensus). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support caption is not encyclopedic or particularly educational or descriptive. Andre🚐 20:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support More encyclopedic and descriptive. Some1 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as obviously unencyclopaedic and not helpful to readers who don't know about the topic. Although, I personally think the two films' posters would be better for the top of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fair use which I doubt applies here Dronebogus (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way the two posters would qualify for fair use. I've suggested further up on this page that the logos may be a suitable replacement since, as most logos are, over on Commons under assertion that text and simple shapes don't qualify for copyright. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's more descriptive.Cortador (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (though it should be "the subjects of the two films"). People looking at policies and guidelines to justify their arguments here are missing the point, this is a simple editorial decision, the proposed caption is far clearer and more informative, and the consensus reflects that. Holding an RfC over this feels a bit like trying to kill a mosquito with a trinity gadget but here we are... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the fact that this is an encyclopaedia, plus as user:filelakeshoe pointed out, yes, it should read "the two films". Robert Kerber (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note! Even though the two images have been removed (due to the Barbie image's deletion), it would still be helpful for this discussion to be closed so it can serve as precedent in the future. After the 30-day period, please request for a formal close at WP:CR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent for what, exactly? EEng 05:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the event someone decides to sneak in a not-so-subtle and not-so-encyclopedic and oh-so-distracting joke into another article and then vehemently defends it by throwing out excuses and claiming it is "not a joke" even though it most definitely is. If such a situation arises, this discussion will be invoked (WP:SSE). The outcome of this RfC will guide future decisions regarding where we draw the line when it comes to humor. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's astonishing that someone with 50,000+ edits understands so little about how WP works. EEng 18:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Sorry, I couldn't resist. EEng 20:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] I'm shocked. Really, I'm just trying to stay current, but I guess you get a charge out of it. Vive la résistance! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's astonishing that so much discussion, and so many strong opinions, are being directed at something that is about a toy that children play with. And Barbie. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, enlighten me. Citing previous discussions as precedent is common practice on Wikipedia; in fact, it has been done so several times over the course of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The Barbie image hasn’t been deleted yet. Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Barbie and Oppenheimer images were briefly replaced by non-free posters with no fair use rationales for this page. I reverted that change. Certes (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, guys. This edit threw me off and made me think the image deletion request had already been closed. Disregard my previous comment ... for now, anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was sort-of-closed by deleting it – an understandable mistake for a closer with an edit count of 2. We soon reopened it. Certes (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMO this RFC should be closed asap. It's been going for more than a week and so far, little to no productive discussion. It's quite clear to me that, in the end, this will come down to "no consensus", and I think it warrants an (albeit late) WP:SNOW close. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW indicates a strong consensus, traditionally against or in more recent usage for the proposal. It's the opposite of "no consensus". This discussion doesn't look like either to me. Certes (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, a close should be requested on August 29, which is 30 days after the RfC was initiated. This is the "normal" time for an RfC to stay open. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should WP:SNOW close in favor of removal imo. There aren’t that many serious keep votes; most of the “keep” arguing is coming from two users who can’t seem to decide if they’re serious or not. Dronebogus (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I hope whoever closes this looks at the actual comments, realizes that the "remove" side is lacking any valid arguments (mostly WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT with a ton of irrelevant links to various policies, guidelines, and essays that don't actually apply here) while the "keep" side does have a few amid much WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, and close it accordingly. Anomie⚔ 13:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sympathy for the closer. Even a "no consensus" close would raise a cloud of ire. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the Barbie image gets deleted and the point becomes moot. Dronebogus (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of unnecessary humor in violation of WP:NPOV, especially WP:IMPARTIAL. Editors can write about funny topics, they're not allowed to write in a funny way as a matter of fact. This topic is already inherently funny, and Wikipedia should write about it with a straight face like it does everywhere else. There is no policy to support adjusting away from an impartial tone based on the nature of the topic. Imagine being anything than impartial with articles about the worst historical figures in the world. Let's capture the humor that exists outside Wikipedia and not pretend to be stand-up comedians here. If there is no consensus, the default outcome should not be to keep this. We have basic labels to fall back on. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is a caption reading Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer not straight-faced? And BTW, since others to whom I've posed the following question have been unable to cite anything actuallyon pointg: where do you get that not allowed to write in a funny way as a matter of fact? EEng 20:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Straight-faced? Are you still refusing to admit that this is a joke? That the caption was intentionally made to sound funny? That in a normal circumstance, we wouldn't write image captions this way? And also — that there is emerging consensus that this kind of humor does not belong on Wikipedia? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a joke, though many readers may find it amusing. (There's a difference.)
Methinks you need to look up straight-faced in a dictionary. The caption is absolutely straight-faced.
Where not incongruous to the topic, any caption might be written similarly.
A confused local vote in an ill-formed RfC trying to crush a nut with a sledgehammer isn't an emerging consensus on anything beyond this particular article (not to say that there's a consensus on this particular article, either).
Straight faced humor is totally a thing and this is definitely trying to be that per Randy and you. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whaaat? I give up. EEng 17:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t keep flipping back and forth between “keep, it’s LOL SO FUNNY” and “psh, you think that’s funny? Ooookay…” Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things can be funny and true at the same time. jp×g 20:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the partisan implication of the image caption? Is there some political faction, social movement, et cetera it supports at the expense of another? I do not understand how it is partial. jp×g 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:FANCRUFT, etc.Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]"His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" or King Charles III?Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment refers to image →) Believe it or not, we recently debated that very question. Certes (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes The discussion you linked is a move discussion - to change the title of an article. As mentioned above, article titles are very different from captions. They both have their own distinct rules and guidelines. Titles must follow WP:COMMONNAME, etc., whilst captions don't - they have their own rules. Articles titles and their guidelines have nothing to do with what we are talking about in this discussion. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion I'm amazed is still going on. Oh well, something to laugh about a few years from now, I guess. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what about “Canada, Australia, NZ, other place other place…”? We can’t possibly leave those out! And his 56 or so honorary titles!! Dronebogus (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow This argument is ridiculous. I assume this is meant to be a joke, but it doesn't relate at all. Using the first name you mention would break rules such as MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, as it is far, far too long. The second name you list makes absolutely no sense, as no one has ever called him Chuck. That doesn't work here, as the nicknames used in this caption are used - frequently.
The point about the move discussion that you make in your second comment also isn't relevant, as this discussion isn't about moving an article or changing the article name, it's about an image caption. Very different things with very different rules and guidelines. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This exchange makes it make sense, as looking at it again I see that Edward Woodrow tucked it into a signed edit so I shouldn't have played with it or add it back as a struck comment. A bad joke on my part (which shows the difference between a bad joke caption which has little real-world counterpart and an encyclopedic caption, which you articulate). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck? I only ever call him Chuck in the privacy of my head. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that bizarre fancruft article for me to nominate for deletionDronebogus (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really blowing off steam during a talk page argument by following links in people's comments to nominate articles they like for deletion? jp×g 09:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article isn’t imo notable so I nominated it. Assume good faith please. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation marks being included for the nicknames are just distracting for me, especially when the nicknames/full names (whichever is appropriate) can be removed without causing problems. I have nothing against humor in articles (we could probably use a little more of it), but it needs to be done in a way where it doesn't make it harder to read, and in this case it creates problems and also slightly increases reading time for information that amounts to little more than trivia. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 05:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mean to be the “no fun brigade >:[“ but we absolutely do not need any intentional humor at all in articles. It violates WP:NPOV and is simply WP:NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a creative writing exercise. Articles should be written to inform the reader. This is basically the only concern; things like NPOV, RS, GNG exist so that articles can be made more informative. Changing the level of funniness in an article is not a cogent basis for alterations; a true statement incidentally being funny is not a point of view. jp×g 20:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a completely different approach to the lead image. I don't think the intended joke is successful at being funny, but whether it's kept or rejected, I'm not sure that's the right approach to (specifically) the lead. A pair of movie posters would make more sense, or maybe this image, which is used on several other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The poster idea was attempted and rejected as mentioned above. I’ve removed that image before as low quality and purely decorative. Imo we don’t need a lead image and current image use is decorative and gratuitous, with only one image actually being directly related to the phenomenon (the theater photograph) Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This RfC is a giant waste of time; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a role-playing forum or a creative writing project. The purpose of the project is to write encyclopedia articles that inform readers. It is not to optimize the funniness level of the articles. I don't know why so many people think it's a good use of time to spend thousands of words (that, again, RfC closers are required to read) demanding changes to image caption that is correct but could conceivably be laughed at by someone. It would be utterly frivolous to open a massive RfC to say "the image caption isn't funny enough", so why is it supposed to be a good idea to open a massive RfC to say "the image caption is too funny"? To put it simply: whether or not an article is funny should not be a focus of our editorial efforts, and obsessing over it is disruptive to the project. This does not depend on which "side" you take; it's just pointless. jp×g 20:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a humour issue, it's a WP:NOTFANDOM issue. The caption is unencyclopedic. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "encyclopedic" means. I only know what it means to be neutral, clearly-written, and informative. It is begging the question to say that we must edit every article to go out of our way to never say anything funny, if "encyclopedic" has been arbitrarily defined to mean "impossible for any person to conceivably laugh at". jp×g 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is not clearly written. It piles the reader with useless trivia instead of plainly stating what it illustrates. Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out a zillion times, "plainly stating what it illustrates" is not a caption's sole function. See WP:CAPTION. EEng 08:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I’m not seeing “provides irrelevant trivia” Dronebogus (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "provides irrelevant trivia" thing is right there in WP:5P... it's the part about being an encyclopedia, right between WP:CIVIL and the MoS section about curly quotes. jp×g 09:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best examples of prose on the site for this month include a specific sternwheel steamer from the American Civil War, an overview of fictional depictions of the planet Mars, and a man from 1820s London who ate oysters and then left without paying several times (yes, that's it, he didn't do anything else notable). The simple fact of thinking something is boring and for nerds does not have any bearing on content policy... inclusion criteria are based on stuff like WP:V, WP:DUE and WP:RS, not whether somebody thinks it is dumb. jp×g 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF + apples an oranges, this is unrelated natter in a caption vs. articles some people (not me) might think are dumb. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is by far one of the most amusing RfCs I've come across, but simple is best for those coming to Wikipedia to learn. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole article is about the phenomenon of comparing and contrasting the two movies, so the existing caption seems on-topic. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that's what we've been saying all along (posted to try to keep pace with the bludgeoning by Dronebogus, potentially exhausting but doable with the proper diet, vitamin C, and the readability of Monobook) Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately posting a snarky piece of bludgeoning to complain that someone else is bludgeoning is WP:POINTy in the extreme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not complaining or in the least byte frustrated, it's all good. To quote Horace, "Levius fit patientia, quicquid corrigere est nefas". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
59 (D-bogez) to 72 (R-krizzle), by signature count -- you two are about neck and neck. jp×g 20:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A more careful count seems to be DB – 41, RK – 28. DB has a commanding lead. EEng 21:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
29) Editors are digging up copyrights for the head of Malibu Barbie, so I'd suggest taking pictures of the double-image and caption now, before anti-Barbites remove this example of high art and poetry which appropriately existed within the strict confines and content restrictions of Wikipedia. In the future people will speak of it as lore, and those lucky enough to have a photograph will look at it, from time-to-time, and say "Remember, when?" Barbenheimer's loss will soon be memory lanes gain. What to replace it with? The only other image actually related to the topic (which is why the Barbie head could be moved to Wikipedia and arguably get fair-use for this page) seems to be the double-double movie theater image, which I would think should then move to the top (unless switching out a good crop of the Robbie as Barbie image would work. Caption? "Robbie as Barbie and Oppie as himself"). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
_(3).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_green_background.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}