Jump to content

Talk:Barbenheimer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Barbenheimer/Archive 6) (bot
(38 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Old AfD multi |page=Barbenheimer |date=11 July 2023 |result='''keep'''}}
{{Old AfD multi|page=Barbenheimer |date=11 July 2023 |result='''keep'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
1=
1=
{{WikiProject Film |class=B |b1=y |b2=y |b3=y |b4=y |b5=y |American=y}}
{{WikiProject Film|American=y}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=B||b1=y |b2=y |b3=y |b4=y |b5=y|b6=y |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{Press
{{Press
Line 29: Line 29:
|accessdate2 = July 10, 2023
|accessdate2 = July 10, 2023
}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(14d)
| algo = old(14d)
| archive = Talk:Barbenheimer/Archive %(counter)d
| archive = Talk:Barbenheimer/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 4
| counter = 6
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 42: Line 41:
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->


== Addition of Barbenheimer to 2023 main events ==
== Okay, everyone, let's do this! ==
{{closed rfc top
| status =
| result = '''Consensus to remove Barbara Millicent Roberts' full name, and to remove Oppie's nickname'''.

In this debate editors in support of the proposal attempted to present policy-based arguments for their position; primarily [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]], though several others were mentioned.

However, these arguments were rebutted by editors opposing the proposal, who successfully argued that none of the referenced policies or guidelines applied. Editors opposing the proposal generally did not attempt to make PAG-based arguments for their position and instead focused their arguments on best practices and perceived benefit to the reader.

Considering this, when we assess the strength of argument for each position we find them roughly equal; that there is no policy that is relevant to this debate and thus the community is free to make an editorial decision about what format will be of the most benefit to the reader.

While the arguments presented by many of those who opposed this change were well reasoned, they were not sufficient to persuade the broader community, with approximately twice as many editors supporting this change as opposing it. As such, there is a '''clear consensus to implement it'''.

Taking off my closer hat, I will note that I agree with editors like [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]] who argued that {{tq|this is a waste of time, and there's a lesson to be learned here about pushing for a minor change when the amount of resistance will be a drain on resources.}} This is not a consequential change, and the reader will be served either way; it would probably have been better to just leave the caption in its initial format, and I encourage editors who are considering opening such a discussion in the future to think twice before doing so. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
}}


I formally request that the caption of the first two images in the article is changed from "[[Barbie|Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer|Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer]]" to "The subjects of two films, [[Barbie]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]". Nobody's familiar with Barbie's in-universe full name. Likewise, nobody knows Oppenheimer's "Oppie" nickname (unless you read well into ''[[American Prometheus]]'' and/or other biographies about him). [[User:JSH-alive|JSH-alive]]/<sup>[[User talk:JSH-alive|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JSH-alive|cont]]/[[Special:Emailuser/JSH-alive|mail]]</sup> 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''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''. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*{{sbb}} '''Support''' - Recognizability, WP:NOTFANDOM, etc. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 20:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Wikipedia is not [[WP:FANCRUFT]]. [[User:Lightoil|Lightoil]] ([[User talk:Lightoil|talk]]) 10:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*Strong '''support'''. Consensus can change, and there is no policy-based reason to include this, other the mild mirth of some editors. – [[User:GnocchiFan|GnocchiFan]] ([[User talk:GnocchiFan|talk]]) 11:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
**{{u|GnocchiFan}}, are you saying that Barbie doesn't have an in-universe name? She does, and it's Barbara Millicent Roberts ([[Fight Club|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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
**:"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. {{u|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. – [[User:GnocchiFan|GnocchiFan]] ([[User talk:GnocchiFan|talk]]) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for the reasons already stated above. [[Special:Contributions/24.29.199.34|24.29.199.34]] ([[User talk:24.29.199.34|talk]]) 13:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*[[User:JSH-alive|@JSH-alive]] '''Oppose''': 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.{{pb
}}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''. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 14:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:Nightscream|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above and nom. -- '''[[User:ZooBlazer|<span style="background:#000000; color:red; padding:2px;">ZooBlazer</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ZooBlazer|<span style="color:#000000">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup>''' 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] trivial nonsense. Barbie’s full name is almost never used, and neither is Oppenheimer’s (let alone the nickname “Oppie”) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:Dronebogus|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 17:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Dronebogus|@Dronebogus]] The "Oppie" nickname is cited under [[Oppenheimer#Teaching]], in the paragraph starting "In the autumn of 1928,".
*:::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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 17:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::[[User:Dronebogus|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 17:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Because it’s a few users inserting nerd trivia/a glorified in-joke, because they think it’s funny/clever. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::[[User:Dronebogus|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[user:Nightscream|Nightscream]]. [[User:Yeoutie|Yeoutie]] ([[User talk:Yeoutie|talk]]) 22:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:Yeoutie|@Yeoutie]] [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is about article ''titles''. That is ''not'' what this is about.
*:Also, see my response to Nightscream. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
***True, what I essentially meant was the essence of [[WP:COMMONNAME]] ie what this doll is most commonly known as (and Oppenheimer to a lesser extent). Definitely the weirdest Wikipedia request I've ever seen. Also, by this why doesn't the Barbie film article use Barbie's full name throughout or any of the main Barbie pages? Such a trivial argument that would be better placed in a "trivia" section. [[User:Yeoutie|Yeoutie]] ([[User talk:Yeoutie|talk]]) 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
***:[[User:Yeoutie|@Yeoutie]] The name is used on [[Barbie]], and she is referred to as "Barbara" in the film. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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.{{pb}}On top of that, it's just plain amusing. And please, ''please'' no ignorant assertions that articles can't contain a touch of humor. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*:The caption should be "Barbara Millicent Roberts and Oppie" would be perfect for DYK. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 18:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*: {{Multiple image
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Vintage Malibu Barbie 2 (cropped).jpg
| alt1 =
| image2 = Oppenheimer (cropped).jpg
| alt2 =
| footer = [[Barbie|Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer|Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer]]}}{{Multiple image
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Vintage Malibu Barbie 2 (cropped).jpg
| alt1 =
| image2 = Oppenheimer (cropped).jpg
| alt2 =
| footer = The subjects of two films, [[Barbie]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]}} Wait... What name change? We're talking about a photo caption. How is
*::{{tq|[[Barbie|Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer|Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer]]}}
*:less understandable than
*::{{tq|[[Barbie]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]}} [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*::::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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This misses the point. This is unencyclopedic in its obtuseness, serving more to [[WP:POINT|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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*{{u|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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*: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]]. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*::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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*:::Being blunt here: your argument is, as Nightscream said below, “pseudo-academic gobbledygook” that is [[Poe's law|beyond parody]]. I [[Not even wrong|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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*::::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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*:::::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*::::::That's the central core of this article and the cultural phenomena, comparing the two as contrasts. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*:::::::{{anchor|anchor1}}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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 00:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:That's a good point, that it alerts the reader to the conflation. I hadn't thought of that. <s>I could actually oppose on that basis, especially since I really don't care either way.</s> --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) <small>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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
*::<span style="color:blue">"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''..."</span>
*::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 [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|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 (film)|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. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 03:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::And, aha, the present caption is much more informative. It contains a great deal of information in an understandable way. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Yeah, a great deal of ''contextually useless information''. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 04:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::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... [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::Why is this useless trivial information relevant to Barbenheimer? Because it isn’t. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 17:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::[[User:Tryptofish|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Strugglehouse: Yes I know that it has nothing to do with page names. That's why I said that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[User:Tryptofish|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 17:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::[[User:Tryptofish|@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". [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 17:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b>]]'''[[Special:contributions/WikiVirusC|<u style="font-family: Tahoma">C</u>]]'''[[User talk:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#008000">''<sup>(talk)</sup>''</b>]] 17:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:WikiVirusC|@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". [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 18:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b>]]'''[[Special:contributions/WikiVirusC|<u style="font-family: Tahoma">C</u>]]'''[[User talk:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#008000">''<sup>(talk)</sup>''</b>]] 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[User:WikiVirusC|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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 [[J. Robert Oppenheimer|Oppenheimer]] the subject of the movie [[Oppenheimer (film)|Oppenheimer]] as just Oppenheimer or referring [[Barbie]], the subject of the movie [[Barbie (film)|Barbie]] as just Barbie is ambiguious, then I don't think this conversation is ever gonna lead anywhere. [[User:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b>]]'''[[Special:contributions/WikiVirusC|<u style="font-family: Tahoma">C</u>]]'''[[User talk:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#008000">''<sup>(talk)</sup>''</b>]] 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]]: as a neutral observer I would recommend that you stop replying to every support vote. This could possibly give an impression of [[Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]] the discussion. <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">[[User:Schminnte|Schminnte]] ([[User talk:Schminnte|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Schminnte|contribs]])</span> 20:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Schminnte|Schminnte]] I was just trying to put my point accross, but I do see what you mean. I will take that into consideration. Thanks. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 20:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{u|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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b>]]'''[[Special:contributions/WikiVirusC|<u style="font-family: Tahoma">C</u>]]'''[[User talk:WikiVirusC|<b style="color:#008000">''<sup>(talk)</sup>''</b>]] 01:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
[[File:Book cover - robert's rules of order orig 1876 edition.jpg|thumb|140px|''Barbara Roberts Rules of Order'']]
*'''Point of order''' (according to ''Barbara Roberts Rules of Order''), {{u|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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*What are you on about now? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Stuff, and such. Please read the above for your answer. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 22:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Has Barbenheimer become a Contentious Topic yet? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:AUDIENCE|a general audience will understand]]. Remember that Wikipedia is written from [[MOS:REALWORLD|a real world perspective]]; using the full names places [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on the [[MOS:INUNIVERSE|in-universe fictional perspective]]. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 22:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Hello {{u|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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 23:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::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). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 00:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 00:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Truly incredible mental gymnastics... [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 01:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::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, {{tq|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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 02:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I more wanted to report him for making too many ''borderline nonsensical'' posts. It smacks of trolling. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::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]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::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? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::No, it’s [[WP:IAR]]/[[WP:NOTBURO]]— the spirit still applies, not the letter. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 23:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' {{sbb}} per Donebogus {{TQ|[[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.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 05:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{tq|The object of the caption is to identify the subject of the photos using the most identifiable names}}{{snd}}Flat out wrong. Try reading [[MOS:CAPTIONS]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:Pincrete|@Pincrete]] [[WP: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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 09:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 15:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::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". [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Pincrete|@Pincrete]] Because that's not what Wikipedia guidelines say. You <del>can</del> <ins>can't</ins> just reference some incorrect guidance and say "well it's kind of the same thing". [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 16:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I think you mean "You <u>can't</u> just reference some incorrect guidance", but of course as we've seen throughout this discussion, people seem willing to do so anyway. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::[[User:EEng|@EEng]] I did indeed mean "can't". I will update my comment. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 16:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::''"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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|the main purpose of a caption is to tell me what I'm looking at}}{{snd}}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?{{pb}}I don't see the word ''witty'' in this thread, so please explain what you're talking about. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Wit is humo(u)r, especially clever or dry humour. That is much discussed above. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 19:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Ah. Thank you for clarifying that your really mean ''humor'' (or ''humour'', I guess). Who said {{tq|it isn't even intended to be}}? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::{{tq|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. And if I'd {{tq|really meant ''humor''}} I'd probably have used that word. I used 'wit' because the inference is that this caption is clever! [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::This is hopeless. Something not being a joke doesn't imply it's not humorous. Also, where you say ''inference'' do you really mean ''implication''? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Penguino35|Penguino35]] ([[User talk:Penguino35|talk]]) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Please note''' that the new [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Traffic report]] is entitled "Come on Oppie, let's go party", giving further credence to Wikipedia's acceptance of Oppie as a standard nickname for Mr. Oppenheimer. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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? <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">[[User:Schminnte|Schminnte]] ([[User talk:Schminnte|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Schminnte|contribs]])</span> 13:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 23:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 14:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{tq|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? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*::{{tq|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?
*::[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I can see it confusing [[WP:CONFUSED|the easily confused]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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! [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{ping|wbm1058}} ... But it's not relevent! are we going to insert pop-culture facts into every article? [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''. Never really understood that caption myself. [[Special:Contributions/85.186.62.79|85.186.62.79]] ([[User talk:85.186.62.79|talk]]) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The shorter description reads cleaner. The longer version seems a bit puffy. [[User:Count3D|Count3D]] ([[User talk:Count3D|talk]]) 00:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Stop bludgeoning with faux votes already. At least I only reply to existing comments, mostly yours. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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)? [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 08:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' it is [[WP:HTRIVIA|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 [[User:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Cakelot1</span>]] ☞&#xFE0F; [[User talk:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">''talk''</span>]] 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Its funny and cute and I'm sure readers appreciate it.[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 {{tqq|"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 "[[WP:ITSFUNNY|but it's funny!]]" should be immediately disregarded by the closer. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 02:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:This has gotten so bad I was actually inspired to write an [[User:Dronebogus/No funny business|essay]] about why this is bad. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 08:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Completely agree with you on the point about the hidden note. I had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarbenheimer&diff=1165336717&oldid=1165336490 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. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 10:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Barbenheimer has an RFC|WikiProject Film]], [[Wikipedia talk:Humor#Barbenheimer has an RFC|Wikipedia:Humor]], and [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Barbenheimer has an RFC|Village pump (policy)]] have been notified of this RfC. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 03:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. [[User:Sojourner in the earth|Sojourner in the earth]] ([[User talk:Sojourner in the earth|talk]]) 05:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**:Please, PLEASE stop bludgeoning or I’m seriously reporting you. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**::Please, PLEASE report him. PLEASE. That would be delicious. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::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). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::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. <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">[[User:Schminnte|Schminnte]] ([[User talk:Schminnte|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Schminnte|contribs]])</span> 15:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**:{{ping|Randy Kryn}} At the AfD, [[Special:Diff/1164835009|you wrote]] {{tq|haven'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 {{tq|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.{{pb}}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. [[User:Sojourner in the earth|Sojourner in the earth]] ([[User talk:Sojourner in the earth|talk]]) 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**::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, {{u|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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::Well, thank you for clarifying your position. [[User:Sojourner in the earth|Sojourner in the earth]] ([[User talk:Sojourner in the earth|talk]]) 05:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::On rereading, not enough credit given to {{u|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...). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::Eeng is known for having a divisive sense of humor, so it’s no surprise he’s the one most responsible for this [[Alice's Restaurant|massacree]]. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::Yes, inserting "Oppie" into this caption was the final step in my secret plan to reduce Wikipedia to chaos. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::::'''''Oppenheimer'' SPOILER ALERT<small>and bludgeon alert</small>'''. 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. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Dronebogus and per [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 10:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per every other support, basically. Those who want to keep the current caption have failed to make an ''encyclopedic'' case for it. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Yngvadottir|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 [[WP:IAR|ignoring that rule]]. Plus, as [[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] pointed out above, the proposed replacement is bad grammar (although that at least would be easy to fix). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Complete waste of time RFC but also essential, so perhaps not a waste of time. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 13:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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? -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:NatGertler|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*::yer prob'ly right. My brain was often distracted from the current scene with thoughts of the previous scene. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::No, you were right originally. SPOILERS FOR BARBIE, but at the end of the film, Barbie becomes a human being, and the name she goes by for her gynecologist appointment is "Handler, Barbara", implying that she took her conversation with the spirit of her creator Ruth Handler to heart and considers herself Ruth's true daughter, mirroring the name and relationship of the real Barbara Handler. [[User:Yolol 14|Yolol 14]] ([[User talk:Yolol 14|talk]]) 13:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::<small>Aha! I was right for once! Not the first time this year, either!! -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
*'''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, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkSeaGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 17:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. -'''''[[User:Brainulator9|B<small>RAINULATOR</small>9]] ([[User talk:Brainulator9|TALK]])''''' 18:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*: Regarding [[c:COM:CHARACTER]], the specific image used here [[c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vintage Malibu Barbie 2.jpg|has previously been kept due to PD-US-no notice]]. Although it looks like [[c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls#Files in Category:Barbie dolls 6|someone (who !voted "support" above) is now challenging that]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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 [[WP:NCR|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. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. -'''''[[User:Brainulator9|B<small>RAINULATOR</small>9]] ([[User talk:Brainulator9|TALK]])''''' 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oh. Em. Eff. Gee.''' However this turns out, I volunteer to create its entry at [[WP:LAME]]. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 20:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Please do [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 05:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::300% yes &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 05:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Are these actually ''[[wp:edit wars|edit wars]]'', or mere discussions, per the first bullet point at [[WP:LAME#Guidelines on how to add an entry to this guide]]? -'''''[[User:Brainulator9|B<small>RAINULATOR</small>9]] ([[User talk:Brainulator9|TALK]])''''' 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I can add it to [[User:Dronebogus/Wikimedia Hall of Dubious Fame]], but I worried it was still a bit too “radioactive” (pun intended) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::But yes I think it’s basically a slow-motion edit war. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::It's lame, but it's not an edit-war. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::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). [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' caption is not encyclopedic or particularly educational or descriptive. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 20:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' More encyclopedic and descriptive. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 23:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:That would be fair use which I doubt applies here [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 05:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkSeaGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 18:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's more descriptive.[[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 06:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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... – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 12:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for the fact that this is an encyclopaedia, plus as [[user:filelakeshoe]] pointed out, yes, it should read "'''the''' two films". [[User:Robert Kerber|Robert Kerber]] ([[User talk:Robert Kerber|talk]]) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]]'s wisdom.<span style="color:red">&rarr;</span>''[[User:Stanistani|<b style="color:green">Stani</b>]][[User talk:Stanistani|<b style="color:blue">Stani</b>]]'' 02:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''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]]. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Precedent for what, exactly? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It's astonishing that someone with 50,000+ edits understands so little about how WP works. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[File:CERN-cables-p1030764.jpg|thumb|upright=1.8|Sorry, I couldn't resist. <small>Sorry, I couldn't resist. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)</small><br />I'm shocked. Really, I'm just trying to stay current, but I guess you get a charge out of it. ''Vive la résistance!'' --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)]]
*::::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.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::That too. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:What are you talking about? The Barbie image hasn’t been deleted yet. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::The Barbie and Oppenheimer images were briefly replaced by non-free posters with no fair use rationales for this page. I reverted that change. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, guys. [[Special:Diff/1169203852|This edit]] threw me off and made me think the image deletion request had already been closed. Disregard my previous comment ... for now, anyway. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[Special:Contributions/85.186.62.79|85.186.62.79]] ([[User talk:85.186.62.79|talk]]) 19:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[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. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 04:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::: 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. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 13:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::My sympathy for the closer. Even a "no consensus" close would raise a cloud of ire. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Hopefully the Barbie image gets deleted and the point becomes moot. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:How is a caption reading {{tq|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 {{tq|not allowed to write ''in a funny way'' as a matter of fact}}? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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? [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::*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 {{tq|emerging consensus}} on anything beyond this particular article (not to say that there's a consensus on this particular article, either).
*::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Straight faced humor is totally a thing and this is definitely trying to be that per Randy and you. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 08:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Whaaat? I give up. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You can’t keep flipping back and forth between “keep, it’s LOL SO FUNNY” and “psh, you think that’s funny? Ooookay…” [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 04:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Things can be funny and true at the same time. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::{{ping|EEng}} You stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbenheimer&diff=1165364700&oldid=1165363920 here] that writing the basic names "blunts the jokes". Furthermore, at [[Barbie]], the full name is not mentioned in the lead section at all. It's editor-forced personification of a toy to contrast with Oppenheimer. Again, it's possible to write about humorous topics in a straight-faced way. I would say [[WP:ASTONISH]] also applies: ''"The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read."'' As a reader, coming here and seeing the excessive naming, I thought some amateur or vandal came in and tried to add their sense of humor to Wikipedia's presentation of the topic. If it was just the images with the basic names, the average reader immediately understands that the phenomenon is related to the toy and the historical figure. Punching it up ourselves is unnecessary; we can quote or paraphrase reliable sources having fun with the phenomenon. Like we only describe disputes, we only describe funny moments in the world. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::*{{tq|blunts the joke}}{{snd}}I should have said "detracts from the amusement".
*::::*{{tq|we only describe funny moments in the world}}{{snd}}When two movies celebrated for concurrent release both happen to have characters named Barbie and Oppie, that ''is'' a funny moment in the world. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Erik|@Erik]] The full Barbie name is still in the Barbie article, and was in the lead until quite recently. I believe it was removed from the lead after it was decided that the article was mainly about the doll. However, the section that mentions the actual character lists the full name straight away. The Barbenheimer article also references the character. Other articles about fictional characters (including others within the Barbie universe) mention the full names first thing in the lead. And all articles about real people list full names first if available. Additionally, I doubt anyone is "surprised" or "astonished" by two subjects' full names. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 15:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I was. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]], [[WP:FANCRUFT]], ''etc.'' [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [[File:King Charles III.jpg|thumb|right|"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? ]]{{pb}}[[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:(Comment refers to image →) Believe it or not, we recently [[Talk:Charles III#Requested move 23 July 2023|debated]] that very question. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 22:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::[[User:Certes|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 22:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::A discussion I'm amazed is still going on. Oh well, something to laugh about a few years from now, I guess. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
*::But what about “Canada, Australia, NZ, other place other place…”? We can’t possibly leave those out! And his 56 or so honorary titles!! [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:Edward-Woodrow|@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. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 08:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::{{u|Strugglehouse}}, the Chuck, my bad. Have cancelled it. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Randy Kryn|@Randy Kryn]] Could you please edit your comment and use [[Template: Strikethrough]] instead of removing it, so that my comment still makes sense. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::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). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Chuck? I only ever call him Chuck in the privacy of my head. {{Smiley}} [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 12:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The [[Recurring jokes in Private Eye#People|approved nickname]] is "Brian". [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::<s>Thanks for pointing out that bizarre fancruft article for me to nominate for deletion</s> [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::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? '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 09:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::No, the article isn’t imo notable so I nominated it. Assume good faith please. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*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. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">Skarmory</span>]] [[User talk:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">(talk •</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">contribs)</span>]]</span> 05:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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 [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]], [[WP:RS|RS]], [[WP:GNG|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. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
* [[File:BARBENHEIMER.png|thumb|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*: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) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::{{center|{{big|𐡸 𐫱 𐡷}}}}
*::I don't agree that it's a low-quality image (it's not blurry, it's not low resolution, it communicates the subject clearly...). It might not appeal to some people's personal taste, but it does not qualify for tagging with [[c:Template:Low quality]] or have any of the characteristics named in [[c:Commons:Media for cleanup#Low quality images]].
*::{{center|{{big|𐡸 𐫱 𐡷}}}}
*::I also don't agree that it is "purely decorative". When we talk about purely decorative images, we mean images that have no relevance to the article's content at all, like the contents of [[c:Category:Typographic ornaments]] or the ones I have used to decorate this comment. A subject-relevant image is not "purely decorative".
*::{{center|{{big|𐡸 𐫱 𐡷}}}}
*::I'd totally believe you if you said [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], though. I don't particularly love it myself. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I think it’s ugly and poorly photoshopped, so yes I “don’t like it”. But it also doesn’t ''tell'' the reader anything. It’s just there to add a tiny pop of color. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This RfC is a giant waste of time; [[WP:NOT|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. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's not a humour issue, it's a [[WP:NOTFANDOM]] issue. The caption is unencyclopedic. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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". '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::The caption is not clearly written. It piles the reader with useless trivia instead of plainly stating what it illustrates. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 07:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::As pointed out a zillion times, "plainly stating what it illustrates" is not a caption's sole function. See [[WP:CAPTION]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Yeah, I’m not seeing “provides irrelevant trivia” [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 08:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::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:QUOTES|MoS section about curly quotes]]. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 09:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Um… no. We are [[Wp:not]] an [[Wikipedia:Indiscriminate|indiscriminate]] collection of information. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::The [[Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/August_2023|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 [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|thinks it is dumb]]. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] + apples an oranges, this is unrelated natter in a caption vs. articles some people (not me) might think are dumb. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::On Wikipedia, there are policies which determine whether things are included, not purely the subjective opinions of editors. Whether or not something is "irrelevant trivia" is simply not a factor in whether it belongs here. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::{{tqqi|Whether or not something is "irrelevant trivia" is simply not a factor in whether it belongs here}} Uh... yes it is. As Dronebogus said, this is a [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] issue – which is a policy. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 22:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Please read [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]. The policy you link to has four subsections: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". Is Barbie's middle name being in an image caption in an article about Barbie a summary-only description of works, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of unexplained statistics, or an exhaustive log of software updates? '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 00:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::But it's still ''not an indiscriminate collection of information''. This is [[WP:FANCRUFT]] stuffed in to no actual value. I meant the spirit of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]], not the specific examples listed. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 11:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 21:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The whole article is about the phenomenon of comparing and contrasting the two movies, so the existing caption seems on-topic. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Yes, thanks, that's what we've been saying all along <small>(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)</small> [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Deliberately posting a snarky piece of bludgeoning to complain that someone else is bludgeoning is [[WP:POINT]]y in the extreme. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Not complaining or in the least byte frustrated, it's all good. To quote Horace, "Levius fit patientia, quicquid corrigere est nefas". [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Here's some info on [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10182261/how-to-protect-against-null-byte-injection-in-a-java-webapp how to frustrate the least byte]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::59 (D-bogez) to 72 (R-krizzle), by signature count -- you two are about neck and neck. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::A more careful count seems to be DB{{snd}}41, RK{{snd}}28. DB has a commanding lead. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
*::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 [[:File:Margot Robbie (53012385004).jpg|Robbie as Barbie image]] would work. Caption? "Robbie as Barbie and Oppie as himself"). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per wbm1058 and JPxG. I'll refrain from saying anything further because I believe all relevant points have already been beaten to death. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 23:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
*This is a waste of time, and there's a lesson to be learned here about pushing for a minor change when the amount of resistance will be a drain on resources. But [[sunk costs|since I've read through (most of) this]], I'll become part of the problem and '''oppose''', for the simple reason that I find many support arguments further that most pernicious and baffling of misconceptions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: that there's somehow a rule against good writing. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per all the arguments presented above. I'm surprised it even got to the RFC stage, this is the exact kind of pointless bickering people make XKCDs about. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 06:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:<small>more than one person makes XKCDs? [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 06:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
*'''Comment:''' I've already opposed the inclusion of the full names (especially Barbie's) above. I want to ask those who like the full-name caption personification, what if we added the birth and death years, like "Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts (1959–present) and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer (1904-1967)"? Doesn't that make it funnier? If not, why is the full-naming okay but years "alive" not okay? Where do we draw the line in terms of humor, especially with no outright consensus to be even a little funny? Humor me here. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:That's just silly. Barbie is a doll, she wasn't born but created. The reason a full name could be used here without calling it humor is that the character, Barbara Millicent Roberts, is the name of the real in-universe character used in books, films, and whatnot, so nothing is broken about listing it as the character's full name. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[User:Erik|@Erik]] There's no point suggesting ridiculous things to try and extend your ridiculous points. Barbie doesn't have a canonical date of birth, and her date of invention doesn't count as one. She does, however, have a canonical full name, Barbara Millicent Roberts. That's the full name of her character. This article talks about the character. The film is about the character. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 15:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Isn't this article about the Barbie movie? Is Barbie's name in the movie "Barbara Millicent Roberts"? That doesn't seem to be the case, according to the barbie wiki {[[wikia:barbie:Barbie (Margot Robbie)]]} {{smaller|(Not a source that is usable for anything, but the sort of place to look for these sort of fan trivialities)}}. They also funnily enough give the main barbie characters birthday as March 9, 1959 {[[wikia:barbie:Barbie Roberts]]}.
*::I think what <s>[[User:Eric|Eric]]</s> [[User:Erik|Erik]] is getting at is there is infinite "True" information we can include in captions that we don't because we tend to prefer conscience captions that are helpful (in a sort of [[WP:POSA]] way). Why not say that the barbie in the image is from the 1971 and is a Malibu Barbie and that Oppenheimer is 40 here for example. That is true info, and may even be helpful on other pages, but not here, for the purpose of this double image. [[User:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Cakelot1</span>]] ☞&#xFE0F; [[User talk:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">''talk''</span>]] 16:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::<small>I think you meant Erik, not Eric (who is not involved in this debate and is likely ''very'' confused by the ping, LOL). [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
*::::<small>Name struck. Many apologies to Eric. [[User:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Cakelot1</span>]] ☞&#xFE0F; [[User talk:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">''talk''</span>]] 16:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
*::{{ec}} That wasn't Erik's point. Instead of zeroing in on how Barbie doesn't have a birthdate, why don't you all respond to the actual question? If you'd like, instead of birthdates, we can do {{tqq|Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimers, icons of modern America who forever changed the world and grappled with the meaning of life and death.}} [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::This conversation has already devolved into farcical levels of obsession with minutiae; let's please not make it worse by debating whether or not we are answering each other question's properly. Sheesh. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 18:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Tamzin and jpxg, this was an impressive waste of time. "Oppie" is also used extensively in the film that this article is half-about. I suspect we've all had a good laugh and can now move on to the much more important work of leaving "per nom" comments at random AFDs. [[User:Dylnuge|<span style="color: #1e79a1;font-weight:700;">Dylnuge</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dylnuge|''Talk'']] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylnuge|''Edits'']])</sup> 03:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'll admit this is pretty trivial stuff, and we can quibble over the niceties of verbiage till our ears bleed, but in my assessment the current version makes for the better read. [[Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126|74.73.224.126]] ([[User talk:74.73.224.126|talk]]) 12:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support change'''. It's a bit ridiculous to have one caption that reads "Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer" and another immediately below it that reads "Greta Gerwig and...Christopher Nolan." I see some people say the top caption is humorous but what actually is the joke here? [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
*:[[Koan|The joke is that there is no joke, only there is. But not really.]] It’s [[Schrödinger's cat|simultaneously a joke and not]]. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 15:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' We should be striving for better than this [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 18:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Both names being presented in the same fashion makes the caption more aesthetically pleasing; "[[Barbie]] and [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]" seems a bit lopsided. Plus, it is representative of the article, as it compares the main characters' names much like people compared the two movies. [[User:-insert valid name here-|-insert valid name here-]] ([[User talk:-insert valid name here-|talk]]) 00:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' with further simplification (less is more): "[[Barbie]] and [[Oppenheimer]]". -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 01:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
* <strong>Support</strong> per many, many others: these figures are almost universally known as "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" (the latter sometimes with a "J. Robert" prefix). There's a reason ''Barbie'' (the film) wasn't titled ''(Barbara Millicent) Roberts'', nor ''Oppenheimer'' titled ''Oppie'': because those names would be incomprehensible to anyone new to the topic. Such people are, of course, the intended readers of this article. The use of full names here is confusing and distracting, and we should be using their most common names instead. I don't understand how this is even controversial. [[User:Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow|Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow]] ([[User talk:Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow|talk]]) 07:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''/'''keep'''. I'm not sure why but the caption as current exists brought me a bit of joy reading it, it seems to fit the general tenor of the topic, and doesn't really, as far as I can tell, run against any policy. So it's just what the consensus of editors is. Which, to me, is the longer names. [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 13:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Thank you {{u|Skynxnex}}, that bit of joy is exactly what was intended, and you describe it well. Hopefully a good percentage of the almost 1,500,000 people who've read it "get it" as much as you have. Even if you, or they, are not sure why. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*::It also feels good/right to [[WP:ELHAT|include links to disaster relief]] or [[WP:MEMORIAL|post obituaries]] in articles, but neither aligns with the purpose of Wikipedia. Our primary purpose is to inform, not entertain. That's not saying we ''can't'' entertain at the same time, but we shouldn't be doing something we normally wouldn't do simply for the sake of being silly. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Simply for the sake of being silly? You may not have read the page, there is nothing related to your accusation here and that has been described and discussed many times. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 00:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::I think in the context of how an article reads, assuming it does not violate more important ideals, caring about how something "feels" and and often does matter and is not really the same in kind as your two examples. My "feels good" isn't to try to change the world or memorialize something. But rather it is that I feel that this good, slightly unusual, but not confusing/incorrect, wording makes the article better for readers. That does matter and is a big part of the purpose of Wikipedia. My main point is that this is mostly a disagreement, I think, on which version is a better article, and reasonable people disagree in all sorts of ways, but I haven't seen any arguments how this caption makes the article worse for readers that resonates with me. [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 03:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - When does this thing close? I'm running out of popcorn. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<span style="color: #606c38">Mike</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#606c38">Allen</span>]]'''</span> 00:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Not before August 29. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''/'''keep'''. As far as I can't see, it doesn't run against any Wikipedia policy, and provides useful information to readers. [[User:FreeEncyclopediaMusic|FreeEncyclopediaMusic]] ([[User talk:FreeEncyclopediaMusic|talk]]) 01:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' changing the caption, for reasons previously expressed in earlier sections of this talk page — [[User:Jamie Eilat|Jamie Eilat]] ([[User talk:Jamie Eilat|talk]]) 03:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per EEng. Teehe. [[User:SWinxy|SWinxy]] ([[User talk:SWinxy|talk]]) 05:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Krimuk2.0|Krimuk2.0]] ([[User talk:Krimuk2.0|talk]]) 09:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There is a difference between "fancruft" and "true statements phrased humorously." The current caption is true and informative, just phrased humorously, but humor isn't a problem - only inaccuracy. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*:It's true, but it's superfluous. [[WP:ONUS|Just because something is verifiable and true does not mean It should be included]], and especially not solely for comedic purposes. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 19:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Please stop repeating the misinformation "solely for comedic purposes" which has been explained to you and others repeatedly during this discussion. Please read the entire discussion again, thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Need I remind you of how this caption came about in the first place? The caption originally read {{tq|Barbara Millicent Roberts and J. Robert Oppenheimer}}; I [[#Barbara Millicent Roberts|asked that "Barbara Millicent Roberts" be changed to "Barbie"]], and as a compromise, editors changed it to {{tq|Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts}} — which is fine. But then, someone (sorry, can't remember who) decided to change Oppenheimer's name to the nonsense it is now ... '''''because they found it funny that Oppenheimer's nickname by those close to him (Oppie) was similar to Barbie, and they couldn't resist at the opportunity to create a parallelism effect by needlessly expanding Oppenheimer's first name (Julius)'''''. <small>Now, that just made realize I may have been the one who indirectly caused all of this, which is pretty ironic.</small> Am I not correct? If so, please enlighten me. I've also asked before why editors bothered to mention in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> that Oppie isn't a fake name if they thought this was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do. So far, I've received no response. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 15:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::"create a parallelism effect" - what do you think the article is about? As for Oppie, it's used hundreds of times in the film, maybe a thousand, so nothing broken here. EEng added the finishing touches on the caption, kind of like ''Dali with a laptop'' (a future painting?). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I am aware "Oppie" is not made up and used in the film; I saw it opening weekend. But let me ask you this: were the "finishing touches" you mentioned added ''because they made the caption funny''? This is a yes-or-no question. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::No. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Care to elaborate? Both you and Randy have made it no secret that you thought the new caption was funny. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::How can I elaborate on the answer to a yes-or-no question? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::By explaining ''why'' the caption was changed, if not for humor. I'm sure many of us are very curious as to what you have to say, and this will be important information to the closer as well. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 03:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::Next time you want elaboration, don't go out of your way to emphasize that you're asking {{tq|a yes-or-no question}}. But taking pity on your indecisiveness, I'll answer.
*:::::::::::*Several editors worked together to bring the caption to its current form, but IIRC I am responsible for two key elements: the ''Oppie'' nickname for Oppenheimer [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1165361858], and full names for both Oppenheimer and Barbie [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1165361858]. Why did I introduce those elements? Because I believed they would assist the article in fulfilling that most needful of caption functions, to draw the reader into the article. I did not introduce them in order to amuse (though the fact that the caption will be perceived by most people as at least somewhat amusing helped it fulfil that goal).
::::::::::::*{{tq|why editors bothered to mention in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> that Oppie isn't a fake name}}{{snd}}Because (IIRC) at least one editor suggested that ''Oppie'' was made up and/or that it was used in reference to JRO only obscurely.
*:::::::::::*{{tq|this will be important information to the closer}}{{snd}}No, it won't. My motivations in shaping the caption are irrelevant (unless you're planning to take me to ANI for it -- and that would be fun!); all that matters is what the caption ''is'', and how editors believe it comports with good judgment about shaping an article to best serve the reader's understanding.
*:::::::::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::{{tqq|But taking pity on your indecisiveness, I'll answer.}} Wow. Way to go, civility! Do you normally respond to yes-or-no questions with one word in real life too, without elaborating? I said {{tqq|yes-or-no question}} so you (plural) wouldn't try to dodge the question, a tactic employed many times by the participants of this discussion. But thank you for clarifying your intentions with the caption. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::*{{tq|so you (plural) wouldn't try to dodge the question}}{{snd}}Wow. Way to go, civility!
*::::::::::::::*{{tq|Do you normally respond to yes-or-no questions with one word in real life too, without elaborating?}}{{snd}}Yes, when the questioner makes a point of asking me to do so. Apparently you didn't realize that's what you were doing -- see [https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/is-a-closed-ended-question-inherently-a-leading-question].
*::::::::::::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::This isn't a courthouse. You aren't on trial. But at this point, it's clear that trying to be civil and engage with you in a constructive manner is a fruitless endeavor. I disagree with Randy's views too, but at least they have maintained a civil and diplomatic approach throughout. If you reply to this with another snarky comment or an ad hominem attack, you will not receive a response. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 22:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::As I read {{u|EEng}}'s answer above it seems he answered your request to expand on your originally asked-for "yes or no" question. The answer you received seems to answer some or all of your concerns. Did he miss any? Thanks for the compliment. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::He did. It's just that I was bothered by his shockingly rude tone in response to every one of my comments. I thank you for not engaging in such behavior. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 01:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::You lost me with the nonsense about what "with a straight face" means and the idea that this is a referendum on humor in articles in general. But don't worry, I'm only the bad cop in discussions of articles A-L. For M-Z, I'm the good cop and Randy's the bad cop. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::I was most impressed by the time {{u|EEng}} made that admin who claimed to be the Dali Lama give up his robes and his mop (and that silver oxen cup he claimed to own in his last life). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 05:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::<small>Sorry, I have to respond to this.</small> It is most definitely a "referendum on humor" (keeping in mind NOTPOLL, etc.) — regardless of your motivations. Multiple editors view the caption as inappropriate humor that doesn't belong in the article; others insist it's not humor and/or it is funny but still appropriate. All agree that the caption comes across as humorous, even if some claim that was not their intention. In short, this RfC revolves around the core issue of humor, i.e. yes, it ''is'' about humor. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::::Dream on. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::By the way, I probably should have brought this up earlier, but I just realized that while you all keep bringing up the fact that "Oppie" is used multiple times in the film, you seem to be conveniently forgetting another scene in the film: when Strauss (pretty sure it was Strauss?) asks Oppenheimer what the "J" stood for and he replied, "Nothing." [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::[[User:InfiniteNexus|@InfiniteNexus]] I believe you're misremembering the scene. Pretty sure Oppenheimer (the character) never actually replied to this question, and his teacher says it stands for "nothing, apparently". Also, that's just the film being historically correct, as Oppenheimer (the real person) always said it stood for nothing. Despite this, his birth certificate read "Julius Robert Oppenheimer". See [[J. Robert Oppenheimer#cite_note-initialJ-5]]. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 18:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::You might be right, it ''has'' been a month since I saw the film. But in any case, the point I'm trying to make here is, "Julius" is never mentioned in the film, unlike "Oppie", so what do you have to say about that? (We've already established that "Oppie", "Julius", and "Barbara" are all sourced, I'm not questioning that. But clearly, "Julius" was and is not commonly used to refer to Oppenheimer.) [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Randy Kryn}} Even if you prefer a single footer to separate captions, could you restore the alt text removed here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbenheimer&diff=1171314216&oldid=1171285658] [[User:Rjjiii|Rjjiii]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
*I’ve come back to this [[Alice's Restaurant|massacree]] with fresh eyes and all I’m seeing is a complete lack of consensus. The Barbie image will probably just get deleted anyway so I don’t think anyone should waste any more time on this. The last vote was also several days ago, and this thing’s been running since late July. Should someone just close this already? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' I have previously written [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Op-Ed|an essay in the ''Signpost'']] explaining why I think this sort of thing is unequivocally good. There is no policy-based reason for removal that I can see. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 00:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
**I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a policy-based reason for removal, other than editorial judgment. (And the people who believe that ''any'' of this is "unequivocal", either way... well, ''rolls eyes''.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
*** "Remove" comments have thrown around a lot of [[WP:UPPERCASE]] links, but I haven't seen any that actually have any relevance to this situation. The "Keep" side has had a few that do seem potentially relevant. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
**Also, I'm strongly in favor of keeping this RfC open through next April 1. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
*Am still seeing editors comment that the caption and double-image were added because they were funny. Please understand or at least consider that this may be true: the "funny thing" is, literally, that neither are funny and are 100% encyclopedically descriptive of the topic. {{pb}}Please get this actuality. The double-image speaks for itself as a descriptor of the page topic. The well-crafted caption (the good bits mostly an EEng creation, kind of like Banksy with a Wikipedia account) is much more encyclopedically descriptive than the proposed caption. It just is, given page-topic perimeters. One thing I'm expecting cited articles on are when people get copies of the two films and run ''Barbie'' with the ''Oppenheimer'' soundtrack, and visa versa, and do things like run both films side-by-side without or with sound. Are there any [[The Dark Side of the Rainbow|''Dark Side of the Moon''/''Wizard of Oz'']] moments within the Barbenheimer meme? That is a truly amazing coincidence pattern almost miraculously consistent throughout two full playings of the ''Dark Side of the Moon'' soundtrack. Barbenheimer most likely has some interesting bits in there. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
*:What is that supposed to mean? The [[Chewbacca defense]]? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 15:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Chew on what you'd like {{u|Dronebogus}}, but the first part of my comment is self-explanatory and seems easy to understand. The fact that the caption informs, guides, and educates the reader, is not funny. It's not supposed to be. That's why it is "funny", and "I don't like it" safe-place reasoning looks to be all the support "side" has. As for my comment about having an interest in finding out what occurs when playing the ''Barbie'' soundtrack over a silenced ''Oppenheimer'' film, and the ''Barbie'' soundtrack accompanying a silent running of ''Oppenheimer'', I was saying that creative minds will find some good bits in there. Probably enough for a good-sized section of this article. And no, that has nothing to do with the caption under discussion. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 02:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Paul is dead man. Miss him. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[Cranberry sauce|Robbie buried Oppie]]. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::[[Darmok|Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra?]] [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|Dronebogus}}, so as not to keep you up any more nights wondering what those comments refer to, see [[Paul is dead]]. And thank you for making this RfC a better place to spend a vacation. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*:And here I thought that EEng was a Wikipedian with a Bank account. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. If you want to mess with mainspace articles in ways that are going to perplex readers, I'm open to that, but it better be pretty darn hilarious. This is just...not. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - having the in-universe names is bizarre. The Barbie name is funny because so few people know Barbie by any full name. [[User:Yr Enw|Yr Enw]] ([[User talk:Yr Enw|talk]]) 11:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' That caption just doesn't serve any purpose, especially considering the article isn't about the characters mentioned, but rather about the phenomenon of the films. Also, this discussion is geting insanely lenghty. [[User:AshMusique|AshMusique]] ([[User talk:AshMusique|talk]]) 18:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' At long last, it is time. I have requested for a close at [[WP:CR]]. Hopefully, this will get picked up soon. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 14:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*:...and with your non-neutrally worded close request you've muddied the waters, so how about any involved or uninvolved editor just close this as no consensus and go on to the next phase of Wikipedia self-discovery. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My request was neutrally worded; your reply is not. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::If your honestly think your request was neutrally worded you should run for Congress. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Neutral doesn't mean straight-to-the-point. It means you can't try to sway the close to your favor, ''which I did not''. All I did was urge the closer to assess all arguments fairly and arrive at a thoughtful conclusion. On the contrary, your comment then suggested that the RfC should be closed as "no consensus" — that's up to the closer to decide. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}

===Caption discussion: The aftermath===
[[File:KroySquare.jpg|thumb|Killjoy was here.]]
*As the guy who wrote the caption, I just want to say I'm very happy with this close, (a) because it recognizes that no policy or guideline favors removal, so that it's simply a question of editorial judgment, and (b) because it gives a sharp kick in the ass to those who wasted so much community time in pursuit of getting their killjoy way. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/EEng|contribs]]) 20:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
** Personally I'm a little disappointed that the few policy-based arguments in favor of keeping (e.g. that [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Drawing the reader into the article|in being slightly surprising it draws readers into the article as MOS:CAPTION suggests]]) were apparently completely ignored, just {{tq|Editors opposing the proposal generally did not attempt to make PAG-based arguments for their position|q=y}}. Oh well, at least I can unwatch this now. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*::While over one and a half million readers tragically experienced the full names in the caption, and several millions of those required fully staffed automated safe spaces (paid for by the Wikimedia Foundation and Mattel), and yes, the closer may have ignored some policy language regarding captions, those of us on the Keep side know who the real winner is (Mattel). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::What are you talking about? What on earth does Mattel gain from the removal of parts of a caption from this page? What do safe spaces have to do with this? Why would Mattel pay for them on Wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:475E:F600:D166:6EF5:A4F1:8EF4|2600:4040:475E:F600:D166:6EF5:A4F1:8EF4]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:475E:F600:D166:6EF5:A4F1:8EF4|talk]]) 23:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::[[Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious|Good questions deserving of answers]]. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Just to make clear to those who may misunderstand, my comment above is a joke. Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor Mattel paid for safe spaces, as far as I know, for any readers traumatized by being exposed to the previous caption. Mattel has also not benefited by the removal of Barbie's in-universe character name, and arguably would be better off when her full name is further known, giving the character the respect such an iconic creation deserves. As for Oppenheimer, nice to know that a large crowd chants his nickname over and over again during a scene in the film, and that this will reflect well on the former caption if any of the 1.5 million readers of this page who were lucky enough to read the fuller and more accurate rendition "remember when". [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
**There was no policy-based reason for removal because there is no existing guideline that prohibits humor; but consensus from this RfC demonstrates that intrusive humor is frowned upon in articles. Again, subtle humor is fine, but "Barbie and Oppie" is just distracting. But I'm glad you're happy with this close — finally, something that we can both agree on {{wink}}. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**:{{tq|consensus from this RfC demonstrates that intrusive humor is frowned upon in articles}}{{snd}}Hahahahahaha! Intrusive humor? ''Intrusive'' humor is frowned upon? That's your achievement? Really??? Because (a) you're the only person who used the word ''intrusive'' (or any form of it) in the discussion, and (b) no one would ever have disputed that proposition -- ''DUH!'' You could have saved everyone a lot of trouble if you'd framed the question that way in the first place.{{pb}}So in summary, OK, noted: ''intrusive'' humor is frowned upon. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**::IN, what made the offending caption "intrusive"? The website Wikipedia informs us that "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzOs4PX7UMs Intrusiveness is typically unwelcome and recipients of intrusive behavior may feel like the intruder is coming without welcome or invitation, invading their personal space, or interfering in their private life]". Reading comprehension class, a pop quiz of the previous sentence: is the intruder welcome? [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::It's intrusive because it sounds like jokey vandalism inserted by middle schoolers. It sticks out like a sore thumb and doesn't flow naturally. Now let's just [[WP:DEADHORSE|get over this and move on]]. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 03:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::What a terrible thing to say about middle schoolers! --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::Indeed! When I was in middle school, a classmate vandalized the school's article to say that I was the school's head cheerleader. (We were both boys, you see.) I counter-vandalized to say that I had been elected to that position after he was caught engaging in crimes against puppies. This is, I think all reasonable minds would agree, considerably better comedy than any of the silly wordplay that [[User:EEng|EEng]] considers "humor".{{pb}}Anyhoo, my post-RfC thought is that we should make a rule that if you start an RfC on a matter of pure stylistic preference, regardless of the RfC outcome you get blocked for a week when it ends, a tax on the editor-hours wasted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(she&#124;they&#124;xe)</small> 06:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
**::::::For the benefit of those whose facetiousness detectors aren't operating properly, I just want to remind everyone of T's comment in the RfC that many of the arguments supporting removal of the caption {{tq|further that most pernicious and baffling of misconceptions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: that there's somehow a rule against good writing}}.[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
**::::Then I guess we're back to (from a previous thread) {{tq|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}}. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**:::::Or we're back to establishing that you are less mature than a middle schooler. {{fbdb}} --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
**::::::Or that. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
{{od|**::::::}}
A couple of thoughts here:
*When we insert images of cast or crew in articles, we don't write out their full names. Like for a Tom Cruise movie, it would be absurd to write "Thomas Cruise Mapother IV" in the caption. In essence, the so-called common name suffices.
*Other fictional characters' "real names" are [https://bestlifeonline.com/fictional-characters-real-names/ here]. It's hard to imagine these names in captions in an un-joking way.
See y'all at the next mashup. Also, apparently we almost had [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/taylor-swift-concert-film-new-exorcist-open-same-day.html Exorswift], between "Taylor Allison Swift and Satan 'The Morning Star' Lucifer". (Did I do that right?) [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
:I want to thank you for that comment. Aside from whether Taylor Swift's Lucifer is ''really'' Kanye, I think the full names of the [[Wizard of Oz (character)|Wizard of Oz]] and [[Mr. Peanut]] are magnificent, and I am pleased to find that our respective pages on those two already report those full names. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything to be said for altering the caption so that it says "the subjects of ''the'' two films" rather than "the subjects of two films"? I understand that's what the option in the RfC was but like... yeah. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 10:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:How about no additional wording before or after 'Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer' per the finding of the close: "Consensus to remove Barbara Millicent Roberts' full name, and to remove Oppie's nickname". Maybe the closer {{u|BilledMammal}} can clarify (and while here consider addressing {{u|Anomie}}'s caption-policy concern above, thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::While I'd learn towards what I suggested above, just 'Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer' would be better than the current caption, imo. <sub>(Editor's note: as I was typing this response, the caption was changed to add "the" to it. By "the current caption" I meant the one without "the". I'm fine with the new edit.)</sub> But we can wait for the closer to comment. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 11:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for the ping. I meant to clarify that aspect in my close rather than just hinting at it, but I must have forgotten: There was minimal discussion of the exact wording, and what discussion there was tended to dislike it, so there was no consensus to use "the subjects of two films".
::Regarding Anomie's caption-policy concern, I did notice those arguments but as few editors raised them I didn't feel it warranted mentioning in the close. My assessment of it was that while it was a good argument, whether a caption leads readers into the article is subjective and the notion that this caption does so was implicitly opposed by some oppose !voters who argued it is {{tq|intrusive to readers}} and that {{tq|The use of full names here is confusing and distracting}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|BilledMammal}}, thanks for the clarification, I've edited out the extra wording which, to the surprise of none, doesn't mention Ken's jealousy at his girl being so closely tied to another man. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks BilledMammal, for clearing up this matter of life and death, and I'm fine with going with the edited-out version. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Ser!|@Ser!]] I think that this should be included, in this way, with the "the". Without the "the", it reads in a confusing way. It sounds like Barbie and Oppenheimer are subjects of just "two films that exist". With the "the", it makes it obvious that the caption refers to the two subjects of the films in question within the article. I suspect the caption without the "the" that was included in the RfC was probably just a typo. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 11:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::You're saying that everyone who supported the change supported a typo? What a commentary on the reading ability of your fellow Wikipedians, there's an argument to be made that some of them know how to read. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Randy Kryn|@Randy Kryn]] Well, no, because there wasn't really consensus for whether to include the first part, only to remove the full names. No one was really for or against the "subjects of films" part. People were much more concerned about the full names, and I was just saying that excluding the "the" doesn't really make sense. [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 12:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I see. "Support" actually means "support some of the thing I'm supporting but not the rest". Got it. The closer did clear that up above, and the caption now contains only the nickname of the female and the full name of the alpha male. All back to normal. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Randy Kryn|@Randy Kryn]] Look, all I'm saying is that I don't recall seeing much discussion about the "subject of two films" part. The !votes I read were about the inclusion of the full names of the subjects. I was just saying it ''could'' have been a typo as I don't think excluding "the" makes much sense. But fine, forget about that if you really want to. I'm saying ''now'' that I would support the full caption reading "The subjects of the two films, Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer". The other captions in the article have a bit more info than just the names of the things or people shown, and I think this caption should have this too. If you think that everyone who was supporting the removal of the full names was also supporting the full version of the caption (excluding the "the"), then why doesn't the caption reflect this? [[User:Strugglehouse|Strugglehouse]] ([[User talk:Strugglehouse|talk]]) 12:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::Because the close clarified the wording. Nothing against your points, just a commentary on the disrespect shown Barbie, an iconic symbol of a strong woman who literally has a full in-universe name, and the respect shown Oppie, I mean J. Robert Oppenheimer, a scientist who, as a male, accomplished a big bada boom. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq|sharp kick in the ass to those who wasted so much community time}} - Completely agreed. There have been 158 editors on this talk page, and [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Barbenheimer#top-editors just five generated 83.1% of the text], with [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Barbenheimer/ the top two contributing less than 1% of the article itself]. (I'd normally not highlight this sort of discrepancy, as there are lots of helpful ways to contribute to an article that don't add big blocks of text and plenty of ways to help through constructive discussion -- it's just in this case, it's more about a handful of people digging in their heels, responding to everyone, and escalating ''utterly utterly unnecessary'' conflict rather than solving problems, and nearly all of it over something so trivial.) &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::Incidentally, 3 of those five opposed removing the caption [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:475E:F600:9897:130:9C13:565C|2600:4040:475E:F600:9897:130:9C13:565C]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:475E:F600:9897:130:9C13:565C|talk]]) 14:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::{{u|Rhododendrites}}, your comment above is a swing and a miss at me. Please do a deep dive into my early-days edits on the article compared with the progress and topic flow of the page. You may find, well, I'll let you describe it, see what you come up with. The crack about other editors not contributing to the article should also be questioned. For instance, the lead caption is what many readers will read first, and if {{u|EEng}} presented the case well on this talk page there is no reason to criticize. Recent attempts to change and add words to the RfD decided caption, and a comment in the summaries about something missing, may offer a chance for some editors from the RfC to look again at both captions and, maybe, "do you miss me yet?" feelings about the former caption may surface. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I'd dispute that it was a "swing" as much as illustrating where EEng's {{tq|sharp kick}} would actually land if we were measuring time wasted via words here vs. words in the article. YMMV. I'm not keen to spend any more time on this topic, though I'd be curious what the active editors here thought about the double feature sometime. <small>For me, I'm still excited to see Barbie, but found Oppenheimer kind of 'meh'. Kind of an old fashioned way to tell a historical story, sacrificing historical detail, the science, and the contributions of the all of the "minor players" in order to focus on the perspective of a "great man", when that man's perspective, at least through the movie, didn't really provide any insight into the underlying subjects -- just sort of perspective for the sake of making a cinematic biography. And now I'll [[WP:NOTAFORUM|show myself the door]] and invite arguments on my talk page :)</small> &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 03:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::But you're neglecting the educational and entertainment value of the discussion. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
*I'm sorry, how is this discussion still going? [[WP:LETITGO|Move onto more important things, people.]] [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 06:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
::Apology accepted. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
::I accept my kick in the ass with solemn resolve. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 04:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

== Internet phenomenon? ==

I'm reading the lead section and am wondering if "Internet phenomenon" should still be the main keyword? From what I can tell in reliable sources, it's just called "phenomenon". I also see "trend" and "craze". Not sure what the most appropriate encyclopedic term would be. "Internet phenomenon" could be stated later, and something broader could replace it in the opening sentence? [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm gonna address the previous edit you made here since I feel it fits. I gotta say the wording in the lead paragraph as is doesn't sit well with me. I think it's better to describe Barbenheimer as a phenomenon that resulted from the simultaneous release than as a phenomenon about the simultaneous release, and if we're gonna say something like "Barbenheimer is an internet phenomenon that started before the simultaneous release…", we might as well mention that it started in social media to avoid being repetitive at the beginning of the second paragraph. Or just don't mention social media at all in the lead since these days it's implied that a phenomenon that started on the internet started on social media.
:Regarding the specific wording, I'm cool with phenomenon. "Trend" is too shallow, and it could describe the trend of people seeing the movie as a double feature, but it doesn't encompass other aspects of Barbenheimer like the memes. "Craze" just seems a bit too informal. [[User:RyanAl6|RyanAl6]] ([[User talk:RyanAl6|talk]]) 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
::Would [[viral sensation]] be more accurate? [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
::"Phenomenon" seems accurate per the sources mentioned above, as the, you know, the "thing", has moved off the internet into the real world of movie screens. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] [[Cultural phenomenon]] is the most accurate and best matches language from the sources in the press. Given the paradigm shift and the wild side success of not only both films but the wake up call for Hollywood and audiences, it was more a cultural quake in that way, rather than simply just an internet viral fluke of sorts. It was many things at once, in other words. [[Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:32A0:CCEC:76EF:1A53:EBDB|2601:282:8100:32A0:CCEC:76EF:1A53:EBDB]] ([[User talk:2601:282:8100:32A0:CCEC:76EF:1A53:EBDB|talk]]) 14:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::::[[Cultural phenomenon]] works well. I was commenting on the use of the "internet phenomenon" wording, which this topic has obviously moved past. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

== Real-life Barbenheimer ==


This was the biggest cultural event of the year, so it should be added as a major event on the 2023 Wikipedia page. Date would be July 21. Thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/137.122.64.205|137.122.64.205]] ([[User talk:137.122.64.205|talk]]) 14:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/woman-named-barbara-oppenheimer-weighs-in-on-bomb-and-bombshell-summer/ar-AA1fU6nP] Sort of funny. About Barbara Oppenheimer, a professor and distant relative of Robert, getting attention because of her name. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B|2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B|talk]]) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
:Good find, and should be used somewhere deep into the page. Even though a distant relative, the reputably sourced feature article gives a unique focus on the Barbenheimer phenomenon. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
:Good idea, {{done}}. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::Perhaps her portrait with a caption of her name should be the new lead photo. [[Sarcasm|"Barbara Oppenheimer, a living example of the Barbenheimer phenomenon"]]. [[User:RyanAl6|RyanAl6]] ([[User talk:RyanAl6|talk]]) 01:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


== Naming the studios ==
==Good article nomination?==
The pushback this article received early on, including its deletion nomination in July 2023, made this a good article. Its quality is likely sufficient to become a [[WP:GA]] if a contributor to this article would nominate it, to have it reviewed. What do you think? --[[Special:Contributions/2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BA53:6003:72F0:65A7|2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BA53:6003:72F0:65A7]] ([[User talk:2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BA53:6003:72F0:65A7|talk]]) 09:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


I added to the lead section again the names of the studios that released the films. I'm not sure why the names were removed before? I find these names very relevant, considering the release date, counterprogramming, and box office content. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
== Hashtag NoBarbenheimer from Japan ==
It seems the [[Japanese Wikipedia]]'s [[:ja:バーベンハイマー#日本の反応|バーベンハイマー#日本の反応]] has more texts than what this article's "[[Barbenheimer#Japanese response|Japanese response]]" section currently does, so why not incorporate more content from there? But before we go, there are some things to consider. On one hand, as the only country to be attacked by nuclear weapons, the use of [[mushroom cloud]] image as a humour or in a lighthearted context is considered to be inappropriate in Japan. On the other hand (and correct me if I'm wrong), most of Japanese people are not sufficiently educated about any wrong doings of the [[Empire of Japan]] and [[Imperial Japanese Armed Forces|its armed forces]] during their existence, and especially the [[World War II|Second World War]], which led to the droppings of the bombs by the United States in the first place.<sup>1</sup> Additionally, at the time the social media controversy arose, the contemporary [[Government of Japan|Japanese government]] was considering whether or not (or rather, when) to [[Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant#Discharge to ocean, treated water|dump the radioactive wastewater from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean]]. Hope these add much to the context.


I restored the names of the studios to the lead section. I don't see a reason for them to be not mentioned at all. Maybe mentioned later, but the studios did decide on the release schedule, so they are very relevant to mention. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I'd like to recommend everyone to read ''[[Barefoot Gen]]'', which criticises both the war crimes of Imperial Japan, and America's dropping of atomic bombs.


== Barbie image ==
:<sup>1</sup> But let's not cite some non-notable sources {{diff|Barbenheimer|prev|1169139757|like last time}}. Perhaps we can wait until a notable anti-Japanese expert writes an opinion for a major outlet, and then a pro-Japanese expert replies with a counter-claim (like in November 2019 when an [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/01/japan-rising-sun-flag-history-olympic-ban-south-korea anti-Japanese historian called for a ban] of [[Rising Sun Flag]] in the venues of [[2020 Summer Olympics]] in Tokyo, Japan, for being a symbol of Japanese imperialism, and a press secretary from the [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)|Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs]] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/12/japans-rising-sun-flag-is-not-a-symbol-of-militarism called that opinion to be based on a misunderstanding]).


I notice that the image of Barbie has been replaced by one of Ruth Handler. I'm not sure when that happened, but I assume this was because the previous image was deleted on Commons. For the sake of parallelism, we should either be using a non-free image of Barbie next to Oppenheimer, or an image of Margot Robbie next to Cillian Murphy. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 01:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
[[User:JSH-alive|JSH-alive]]/<sup>[[User talk:JSH-alive|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JSH-alive|cont]]/[[Special:Emailuser/JSH-alive|mail]]</sup> 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
:All the Barbies were deleted not long after the film opened, but the last one had a good run. The black-and-white image of Ruth Handler with various Barbies and Kens captures both the history of the icons and their creation as well as greatly paralleling the film. ''Barbie'' features Barbie and Ken in all of their various designs and looks. And there are several prominent plot points revolving around the actress playing Ruth Handler. The tie-in to the film portrayed by the image of Handler and multiple Barbies and Kens appropriately replaces the photograph of the now deleted, but not forgotten, single Barbie (linking Handler in the caption also seems to create an appropriate historical balance to the Oppenheimer link). Wondering out loud...[[Inside baseball (metaphor)|did Handler have a nickname?]] [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::[[File:"Will You Push Me To The Fridge, Human? (23846522209).jpg|thumb|On the lookout for {{u|EEng}}.]]
::A cursory Google does seem to indicate a nickname, at least as a child[https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/history/barbie-movie-ruth-handler-2f929140][https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ruth-handler-barbie-creator-barbara-b2382149.html]... Shall we try for Ruthie and Oppie? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Nice find, but probably not, as Ruthie is not commonly known (while, on the other plastic hand, "Oppie" is quite well known and was actually voiced hundreds of times in the film). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Um, no, we are not doing that again. When I said "parallelism" I didn't mean "paralleling the film", I meant that placing the subject of one film next to the creator of the subject of the other film seems a bit off to me. Ruth Handler next to Oppenheimer's mom (or an atomic bomb) would make more sense. Or we could go with a more reasonable approach such as the original Barbie vs. Oppenheimer, or Margot Robbie vs. Cillian Murphy as I suggested above. Perhaps we could even use one from ''Variety''{{'s}} Actors on Actors photoshoot... [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Are you...mouth agape in the name of all that's holy...asking for an RfC? [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::No thank you. Been there, done that. But tell me one of these images isn't perfect: [https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Cillian-Murphy-Margot-Robbie-Variety-Actors-on-Actors-16x9-2.jpg] [https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1730285582700704219/photo/1] [https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Cillian-Murphy-Margot-Robbie-Variety-Actors-on-Actors-Full.jpg] [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 04:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::The middle one isn't perfect. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I suspect we've squeezed all the juice we're going to get out of this one. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well this talk page sure is a weird place ... does anyone else have any thoughts on which pair of images to use? [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd like to know what [[WP:NFC]] rationale you think would allow any of those images to be used. Seeing as we have free images representing the subject of the article (e.g. Movie theatres Marquees), and free images of both of the people in those pictures. [[User:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Cakelot1</span>]] ☞&#xFE0F; [[User talk:Cakelot1|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">''talk''</span>]] 07:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I wasn't necessarily pushing for the Variety images, that was just a suggestion. A non-free image of Barbie (the doll) could easily satisfy NFC, or we could move the freely licensed images of Murphy and Robbie from {{alink|Film industry reaction}} (not sure why they were in that particular section anyway). Or perhaps something like [[:File:Trinity - Explosion 15s.jpg]] to juxtapose Handler, if we think her image is fine. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::A non-free image of a Barbie doll would not work here (this is not the topic's direct article) so the best that can be done has been done - the photograph of the doll's creator shown with a dozen various Barbie and Ken dolls. Are you sure that you aren't angling for an RfC? The last RfC confirmed the use of both a Barbie image and the Oppenheimer image along with their names in the caption, and the substitute for the non-free Barbie image still contains the doll itself and has been expanded to include its notable creator. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::An image doesn't have to be on the main article about its subject in order to satisfy NFC; not having a good-quality representation of one of the subjects of this article is a valid rationale. I am not sure why you keep on floating the idea of an RfC when that's not how RfCs work. I never said anything about an RfC, nor do I feel so strongly about this issue that I am planning to take it there. RfCs are only used as a last resort when discussion has failed to resolve a pressing issue, or when a major change in policies or guidelines is being proposed. This discussion, less than a day old and with few constructive comments, and about something that isn't that big of a deal (I just think having parallelism would work better and that the current arrangement doesn't make much sense, not that it is a grave problem that would cause the end of the world if left unchanged), has not progressed to a point where an RfC is warranted per [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. What I am going to do now is wait to see if more people chime in on whether they want to replace either image, and if it becomes clear that there isn't interest in doing so, the discussion will naturally die off and we will move on. That's how discussions work on Wikipedia; not everything has to end with a firm resolution or an RfC (or other forms of unnecessary drama). [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Given that the image and caption selected at the RfC are not currently possible due to things on Commons, I believe the consensus reached there is no longer in force. Changing it to reinsert "Barbara Millicent Roberts and Oppie" or something similar would still be against the consensus, but the current photo is not a real substitute for the doll photo, even though it contains dolls. If there were a different photo of just a doll we could swap it and keep the same caption, but we definitely wouldn't be able to use a non-free image here. I don't think another RfC is needed at this time, we can just discuss our options and only resort to an RfC if we can't agree. Personally I think the best option is swapping the two images for an image of each of the actors. If an image of the two of them together were freely licensed, that would be even better. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:IMO the current photo is fine, but there is also this one [[:File:Charlotte Johnson with 1965 Barbie doll.jpg]], that can also work here. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::Hmm, what if we cropped that image to show just the doll? I guess the black-and-white color scheme would be a good parallel between Oppenheimer's black-and-white portrait. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::That might be possible, but I'm not an expert on copyright. Cropping it like that seems like it may interfere with [[commons:De minimis]] usage (which already seems questionable in the current version). <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


== Section removal discussion ==
===Discussion===
*This RfC fails on [[WP:RFCOPEN]] and this really needs to be discussed per [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. I recommend withdrawing this RfC or narrowing the question to something more brief. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
*:I agree. I didn’t know this was even supposed to be an rfc. Additionally there is no discernible topic at all, mostly just a suggestion to incorporate text from a foreign language Wikipedia (uncontroversial and common action; does not need an rfc) followed by a lot of [[WP:NOTFORUM]] musing about Japanese political controversies as well as manga recommendations(???) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
*::Then what should I have done, other than not adding a book recommendation? [[User:JSH-alive|JSH-alive]]/<sup>[[User talk:JSH-alive|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JSH-alive|cont]]/[[Special:Emailuser/JSH-alive|mail]]</sup> 14:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
*I think that incorporating text from a foreign-language Wikipedia would be good, although not sure how much the other stuff has to do with the article. {{ping|JSH-alive}} For those who do not have much reading time, would you recommend either the live-action or animated film adaptations? '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
*:You mean other works that criticise both the Japanese Empire and the dropping of atomic bombs by the U.S.? I only know about ''Barefoot Gen'', but that was later adopted into a live-action film series, an animated film series and a live-action TV series. [[User:JSH-alive|JSH-alive]]/<sup>[[User talk:JSH-alive|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JSH-alive|cont]]/[[Special:Emailuser/JSH-alive|mail]]</sup> 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


I made an edit removing a section and it was reverted, and the editor who reverted it said to discuss the removal on the talk page, so here I am. I removed the section 'Counterprogramming' because it was not about the article topic but a related topic that was already linked to in the introduction. My reasons for removing this section are:
== A woman which was named after this movie event ==
*The section primarily consists of information and examples related to the topic of [[counterprogramming]], which is related to, but distinct from, the article topic. Most of the section consists of examples of counterprogramming that have nothing to do with the specific example of Barbenheimer.
*The article on the topic that the section is about is already linked to in the introduction of the article, where it states that Barbenheimer is an example of counterprogramming. If a reader wanted to learn more about that topic, they would click on the link and read the article. A brief definition after that statement would suffice to provide context.
I don't think that this section should remain here. I might be able to let a section like this slide if it were shorter, but it's pretty long for a section that's not even about the specific article topic. I propose the following:
*Remove this section from the article.
*Add a brief definition of counterprogramming after the statement explaining that Barbenheimer is an example of it (if it isn't there already).
*Expand the [[Counterprogramming]] article to include the information contained in this section. It fits much better there and that article is pretty short, so I think that this could improve both articles.
If you have any thoughts on the matter, post them here! If there's a good reason why this section should be kept here, please let me know. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy and have made some mistakes in the past, but I'll put this out here for other people to discuss.
Signed, [[User:TypoEater|TypoEater]] ([[User talk:TypoEater|talk]]) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


== Citation overkill ==
There was a crazy story about [https://nypost.com/2023/08/31/my-name-is-barbie-oppenheimer-most-people-think-im-joking/ a woman who accidentally named after this movie event], isn't that obvious to have this featured on this article or shall we just made her profile instead? [[User:VernardoLau|VernardoLau]] ([[User talk:VernardoLau|talk]]) 17:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


: She's not named AFTER this event. For that, she would have needed to be born this summer or have changed her name. She's a random not notable private citizen who just coincidentally has a funny name. --[[User:Blobstar|Blobstar]] ([[User talk:Blobstar|talk]]) 17:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, in the lead section there is a note filled with 11 references, resulting in a [[WP:CITATION OVERKILL]]. I would reduce the number of references, maybe keeping only two of them. [[User:Redjedi23|Redjedi23]] ([[User talk:Redjedi23|talk]]) 16:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:38, 19 March 2024


Addition of Barbenheimer to 2023 main events

This was the biggest cultural event of the year, so it should be added as a major event on the 2023 Wikipedia page. Date would be July 21. Thoughts? 137.122.64.205 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea,  Erledigt. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the studios

I added to the lead section again the names of the studios that released the films. I'm not sure why the names were removed before? I find these names very relevant, considering the release date, counterprogramming, and box office content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the names of the studios to the lead section. I don't see a reason for them to be not mentioned at all. Maybe mentioned later, but the studios did decide on the release schedule, so they are very relevant to mention. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie image

I notice that the image of Barbie has been replaced by one of Ruth Handler. I'm not sure when that happened, but I assume this was because the previous image was deleted on Commons. For the sake of parallelism, we should either be using a non-free image of Barbie next to Oppenheimer, or an image of Margot Robbie next to Cillian Murphy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the Barbies were deleted not long after the film opened, but the last one had a good run. The black-and-white image of Ruth Handler with various Barbies and Kens captures both the history of the icons and their creation as well as greatly paralleling the film. Barbie features Barbie and Ken in all of their various designs and looks. And there are several prominent plot points revolving around the actress playing Ruth Handler. The tie-in to the film portrayed by the image of Handler and multiple Barbies and Kens appropriately replaces the photograph of the now deleted, but not forgotten, single Barbie (linking Handler in the caption also seems to create an appropriate historical balance to the Oppenheimer link). Wondering out loud...did Handler have a nickname? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the lookout for EEng.
A cursory Google does seem to indicate a nickname, at least as a child[1][2]... Shall we try for Ruthie and Oppie? The WordsmithTalk to me 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find, but probably not, as Ruthie is not commonly known (while, on the other plastic hand, "Oppie" is quite well known and was actually voiced hundreds of times in the film). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Um, no, we are not doing that again. When I said "parallelism" I didn't mean "paralleling the film", I meant that placing the subject of one film next to the creator of the subject of the other film seems a bit off to me. Ruth Handler next to Oppenheimer's mom (or an atomic bomb) would make more sense. Or we could go with a more reasonable approach such as the original Barbie vs. Oppenheimer, or Margot Robbie vs. Cillian Murphy as I suggested above. Perhaps we could even use one from Variety's Actors on Actors photoshoot... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you...mouth agape in the name of all that's holy...asking for an RfC? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you. Been there, done that. But tell me one of these images isn't perfect: [3] [4] [5] InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The middle one isn't perfect. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we've squeezed all the juice we're going to get out of this one. EEng 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this talk page sure is a weird place ... does anyone else have any thoughts on which pair of images to use? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what WP:NFC rationale you think would allow any of those images to be used. Seeing as we have free images representing the subject of the article (e.g. Movie theatres Marquees), and free images of both of the people in those pictures. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't necessarily pushing for the Variety images, that was just a suggestion. A non-free image of Barbie (the doll) could easily satisfy NFC, or we could move the freely licensed images of Murphy and Robbie from § Film industry reaction (not sure why they were in that particular section anyway). Or perhaps something like File:Trinity - Explosion 15s.jpg to juxtapose Handler, if we think her image is fine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-free image of a Barbie doll would not work here (this is not the topic's direct article) so the best that can be done has been done - the photograph of the doll's creator shown with a dozen various Barbie and Ken dolls. Are you sure that you aren't angling for an RfC? The last RfC confirmed the use of both a Barbie image and the Oppenheimer image along with their names in the caption, and the substitute for the non-free Barbie image still contains the doll itself and has been expanded to include its notable creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An image doesn't have to be on the main article about its subject in order to satisfy NFC; not having a good-quality representation of one of the subjects of this article is a valid rationale. I am not sure why you keep on floating the idea of an RfC when that's not how RfCs work. I never said anything about an RfC, nor do I feel so strongly about this issue that I am planning to take it there. RfCs are only used as a last resort when discussion has failed to resolve a pressing issue, or when a major change in policies or guidelines is being proposed. This discussion, less than a day old and with few constructive comments, and about something that isn't that big of a deal (I just think having parallelism would work better and that the current arrangement doesn't make much sense, not that it is a grave problem that would cause the end of the world if left unchanged), has not progressed to a point where an RfC is warranted per WP:RFCBEFORE. What I am going to do now is wait to see if more people chime in on whether they want to replace either image, and if it becomes clear that there isn't interest in doing so, the discussion will naturally die off and we will move on. That's how discussions work on Wikipedia; not everything has to end with a firm resolution or an RfC (or other forms of unnecessary drama). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the image and caption selected at the RfC are not currently possible due to things on Commons, I believe the consensus reached there is no longer in force. Changing it to reinsert "Barbara Millicent Roberts and Oppie" or something similar would still be against the consensus, but the current photo is not a real substitute for the doll photo, even though it contains dolls. If there were a different photo of just a doll we could swap it and keep the same caption, but we definitely wouldn't be able to use a non-free image here. I don't think another RfC is needed at this time, we can just discuss our options and only resort to an RfC if we can't agree. Personally I think the best option is swapping the two images for an image of each of the actors. If an image of the two of them together were freely licensed, that would be even better. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the current photo is fine, but there is also this one File:Charlotte Johnson with 1965 Barbie doll.jpg, that can also work here. Artem.G (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what if we cropped that image to show just the doll? I guess the black-and-white color scheme would be a good parallel between Oppenheimer's black-and-white portrait. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be possible, but I'm not an expert on copyright. Cropping it like that seems like it may interfere with commons:De minimis usage (which already seems questionable in the current version). The WordsmithTalk to me 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section removal discussion

I made an edit removing a section and it was reverted, and the editor who reverted it said to discuss the removal on the talk page, so here I am. I removed the section 'Counterprogramming' because it was not about the article topic but a related topic that was already linked to in the introduction. My reasons for removing this section are:

  • The section primarily consists of information and examples related to the topic of counterprogramming, which is related to, but distinct from, the article topic. Most of the section consists of examples of counterprogramming that have nothing to do with the specific example of Barbenheimer.
  • The article on the topic that the section is about is already linked to in the introduction of the article, where it states that Barbenheimer is an example of counterprogramming. If a reader wanted to learn more about that topic, they would click on the link and read the article. A brief definition after that statement would suffice to provide context.

I don't think that this section should remain here. I might be able to let a section like this slide if it were shorter, but it's pretty long for a section that's not even about the specific article topic. I propose the following:

  • Remove this section from the article.
  • Add a brief definition of counterprogramming after the statement explaining that Barbenheimer is an example of it (if it isn't there already).
  • Expand the Counterprogramming article to include the information contained in this section. It fits much better there and that article is pretty short, so I think that this could improve both articles.

If you have any thoughts on the matter, post them here! If there's a good reason why this section should be kept here, please let me know. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy and have made some mistakes in the past, but I'll put this out here for other people to discuss. Signed, TypoEater (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overkill

Hello everyone, in the lead section there is a note filled with 11 references, resulting in a WP:CITATION OVERKILL. I would reduce the number of references, maybe keeping only two of them. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbenheimer&oldid=1214579458"