This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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 Tamzin who argued that 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. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 29 August 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 30 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. – GnocchiFan (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
GnocchiFan, are you saying that Barbie doesn't have an in-universe name? She does, and it's Barbara Millicent Roberts (say her name). There is no policy to not include the two principal film characters' full names other than the "I don't like it" grumpiness of some editors (see what I did there, no policy for either choice). How about WP:CONSISTENCY - if one nickname is used the other should be as well, which will result in the caption: "Barbie and Oppie", which I would be fine with. The word "Barbie" has to be included for recognizability, so if one character's nickname is used the others should be as well. But then character respect determines that each character should be identified with their entire name to be consistent (i.e. if "J. Robert Oppenheimer" is used then it stands to respectful reason that the other name should not be just a nickname). Bah, humbug, say the nicknamers-disrespecters of characters-I-just-don't-like-itists. Both names are fine and, bottom line, nothing broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
"Barbie" is the official name for the doll, even if she does have an in-universe full name. WP:CONSISTENCY is a redirect, so I don't know what policy you're talking about.
Oppenheimer's nickname is not what he is commonly known as, nor his official name. Nightscream makes some very valid comments against inclusion (in the section above which is titled after Barbie's full name).
I don't think anything is "broken" by including Barbie's full name, but it seems trivial and unencyclopaedic. – GnocchiFan (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support for the reasons already stated above. 24.29.199.34 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@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.This article is about the characters and their films. These names are the characters full names and nicknames, and they are used in the films. Barbie is referred to as "Barbara" in Barbie, and Oppenheimer is referred to as "Oppie" throughout Oppenheimer. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support This has been heavily discussed in a section above, and each of the mendacious and fallacy-riddled arguments by Randy Kryn and Strugglehouse have been thoroughly debunked. The manner in which names of subjects are presented in articles, including in article titles, lede sections, and captions, is governered by policies and guidelines that call for doing so with the name by which the subject is most commonly known, and not by obscure trivia names, hypocorisms, or in-universe references, as explicitly stated in MOS:BIO, MOS:HYPOCORISM, WP:OUTUNIVERSE, etc. Reliable sources help determine whether a full name or nickname may be mentioned somewhere in an article, but is not the sole criterion by which the subject is commonly referred in these instances. Barbie is most commonly referred to as "Barbie", both in the film, and in general, and not as "Barbara". Oppenheimer is most commonly referred to as "Oppenheimer", or "Robert" in the film. The nickname "Oppie" is used maybe one time, and is not how he is referred to "throughout" the film. Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nightscream The "Oppie" nickname is used throughout the film. It's used far more than once.
MOS:HYPOCORISM refers to "common English-language hypocorism[s]". "Oppie" is neither "common" – i.e. it's not "conventional" ("If it is not conventional, it is not "common"") – nor is it English-language – it originates from "Opje", a Dutch nickname given to Oppenheimer whilst in the Netherlands.
I really don't think people are getting confused about the full names of the subjects. It's quite simple to know who we're talking about. If readers want to know more, they'll click through into the articles, or read on.
The full names are fine, because Oppenheimer is about the life of Oppenheimer, who had that full name, and Barbie is about the character of Barbie, who has that full name. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Support per above and nom. -- ZooBlazertalk 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
SupportWP:COMMONNAME, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivial nonsense. Barbie’s full name is almost never used, and neither is Oppenheimer’s (let alone the nickname “Oppie”) Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus The full names of subjects are not "nonsense".
This article is about the characters and their films.
The Barbie film is about Barbie, the character, whose full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts. "Barbara" is also used in the film.
"Oppie" is what Oppenheimer was known as. He was called this at various points in his life. It's also used many times throughout the film.
Plus, the guidelines you cited make no sense in this context, since WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, which this is not about, and the full names and nicknames are already on the respective character's articles, so saying that the information shouldn't be included because it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE is just plain incorrect. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You have to scroll down several paragraphs to find Barbie’s full name, and I can’t even find where Oppenheimer is called “Oppie” in his article. So yes including this information is trivial, indiscriminate nonsense. As for common name, the spirit applies here— don’t call things weird obscure titles unless absolutely necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You do have to scroll down a bit to find Barbie's full name, but that's because it was agreed that the Barbie article was generally more about the doll. The article talks about her as a character further into the article, and this is when the full name is used. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
So yeah, you have to scroll down several paragraphs on Oppenheimer’s article too. This is trivia. We don’t need this information placed prominently on this article. Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus I just don't see the problem. It's not taking up loads of room or getting in the way, it's well sourced information about two characters. I just don't get why people are getting so worked up about their use. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Because it’s a few users inserting nerd trivia/a glorified in-joke, because they think it’s funny/clever. Dronebogus (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus No it isn't. I've said this a dozen times. It's not an "in-joke", it's not even a "joke". It's just two names. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, see my response to Nightscream. 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. Yeoutie (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Yeoutie The name is used on Barbie, and she is referred to as "Barbara" in the film. 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.On top of that, it's just plain amusing. And please, please no ignorant assertions that articles can't contain a touch of humor. EEng 23:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The caption should be "Barbara Millicent Roberts and Oppie" would be perfect for DYK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 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. --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. EEng 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. This misses the point. This is unencyclopedic in its obtuseness, serving more to make a point that humor must forbidden (when it actually isn't!) than to illustrate the subject. The existing caption is much truer to the subject. And accurate. And better writing. And amusing, which in this case is a virtue. Besides losing all of that, the proposed changed caption "the subjects of two films" is bad writing: by avoiding a definite article, it makes it sound like the people depicted are merely the subjects of two random films among many, rather than the specific two films that this article is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
So you’re arguing we should keep this because “LOL IT’S WACKY don’t be a wet blanket” plus some generic truisms like “it’s more accurate” or non-arguments like “the caption isn’t grammatically correct” (we aren’t discussing the recent, unnecessary addition of the WP:BLUE statement that the images are of the films’ subjects) Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Dronebogus, respectfully, maybe read David Eppstein's comment again. You may have missed the intent of the generic truisms which are actually wise words and the summarization of why the present caption is better. He describes it as much more than truisms and "LOL IT'S WACKY" that you scream at him. Much more. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I have read it multiple times and that’s all I’m getting. “Much truer to the subject” and “more accurate” are truisms, one is unprovable and the other is a non-argument (providing more information is always more strictly accurate, but not necessarily better). The writing/grammar complaints are fixable and not the main issue (should the names be changed). And yes, voting against removing something because it’s (supposedly) funny is a bad argument, WP:ITSFUNNY. Dronebogus (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
In this case providing more information is both accurate and better. A lot of good information is packed into that caption which some readers will take to mind and do a deeper look into the links (why put the links there in the first place, silly rabbit). Using both names, and I can't emphasize this enough in a non-joke context, showing respect to the Barbara Roberts in-universe symbol of womanhood seems mandatory if the full name of a male follows. Do you want to get the Women in Red people griping about an RfC purposely worded to disrespect Barbie? They're bound to find out and then we've gone and done it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Being blunt here: your argument is, as Nightscream said below, “pseudo-academic gobbledygook” that is beyond parody. I can’t even argue against someone who asserts that “showing respect to the […] in-universe symbol of womanhood” is important to an encyclopedic image caption. Dronebogus (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Barbie is honored by generations of women. She's probably earned at least a sMidgen of respect when directly aligned with and compared to such a historic male figure of the 20th century. Yes, I'm stretching it a bit here, but the respect part feels right. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You’re stretching a lot considering you are seriously trying to compare a children’s fashion doll to one of the most significant people in modern history. Dronebogus (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
That's the central core of this article and the cultural phenomena, comparing the two as contrasts. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
There's none so blind as those who will not see. Dronebogus, this means you. You're missing the point of the phenomenon and this is causing you to miss the point of the caption, which has been crafted to be directly relevant to the phenomenon its article describes. Making the caption straight, by stripping it of its idiosyncracies and only stating what it depicts, transforms it into something that similarly misses the point, and causes it to become irrelevant to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The parallelism in the caption orients the reader to the unexpected conflation that is the topic of the article, thereby enhancing the use of the paired images to make the point (or something along those lines in more up-to-date academicese). Whereas the replacement caption is a big "duh" (and reduces both films to pointless biopics). However, since the point is clearly missable, the article needs to provide the encyclopedic context by mentioning that Oppenheimer is based on American Prometheus and that that book's working title was Oppie, rather than just using the book to footnote "Oppie" as Oppenheimer's nickname. Surely a source can be found that mentions this in a relevant context. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point, that it alerts the reader to the conflation. I hadn't thought of that. I could actually oppose on that basis, especially since I really don't care either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) I struck part of that, because I no longer want my view to be seen as potentially opposing, but I do still think that it was a good point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
"The article needs to provide the encyclopedic context by mentioning that Oppenheimer is based on American Prometheus and that that book's working title was Oppie..."
The article on the film. Not an article on the Internet phenomenon, let alone a mere caption at the top of that article. Mention of a given fact is dependent on the article, and the location in the article, vis a vis whether the fact is contextually relevant to that section. These nicknames are relevant to sections on the subjects, or the films, in sections that discuss their names. They are not, however, contextually relevant to a mere caption at the top of an article about an Internet phenomenon arising from films on those subjects, because the relationship to those names in this case is extremely tangential, and therefore, far more tangential. It is reasonable to mention the full name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in the title and opening lines of the lede and the Early life section of Mozart's own article. But if you look at all the captions in that article, they all refer to him as simply "Mozart". Ditto for the caption at the top of Amadeus, the caption in List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, etc. That's because there's no contextually relevant reason to refer to his full name in those locations. The same principle applies here, and all the talk about "parallelism" or "unexpdected conflations" or whatever other pseudo-academic-sounding gobbledygook you dream up does not change this. Nightscream (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
But there is no overriding reason to change the long-standing caption, and to change such a masterpiece (at least in some people's eyes, please realize that some editors lean toward this being masterpiece status, which I would think would be enough to say, OK, let's trust their judgement) would, I would think, need an overriding reason. It does not, and there is actually nothing of import broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a literary work. We’re not here to debate aesthetics or entertain people. Our sole requirement and metric of judgment is informativeness. Dronebogus (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
And, aha, the present caption is much more informative. It contains a great deal of information in an understandable way. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, a great deal of contextually useless information. 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... Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is this useless trivial information relevant to Barbenheimer? Because it isn’t. Dronebogus (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish This has nothing to do with page names, this is about an image caption. People do not need to be "in" on any joke. These names aren't a joke, they're simply just the full names of the subjects. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Strugglehouse: Yes I know that it has nothing to do with page names. That's why I said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish Okay, sorry, I misread your comment. Still, people don't have to be "in on a joke". It's just two subject's names. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, but I hope that you realize by this point that I just don't care, either way. My point about the "joke" is that a general reader will assume that one name is Barbie, and the other is J. Robert Oppenheimer. Those are the names that are generally familiar to the public. Bringing in stuff like Millicent and Oppie is not just putting in two routine names, and it's a bit disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It is a joke, although it also does have the desirable feature of drawing the reader's attention to the conflation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish If you don't care, that's fine, but I'm just making the point that I don't believe two full names are "jokes". Strugglehouse (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Support the change as is, and would have even stronger support for simply Barbie and Oppenheimer. Typical we don't even use full names in captions see Robbie at Margot Robbie, or just Beyoncé or Eminem on their articles. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC That's different. Those are biographies of living people. They're subject to specific guidance. Margot Robbie is referred to as "Robbie" per MOS:SURNAME – "a person should generally be referred to by surname only" and Beyoncé and Eminem are referred to by their mononyms per the same guidance – "If they use their mononym or pseudonym exclusively, then use that name". Strugglehouse (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Living person or not it's not different. J. Robert Oppenheimer page itself has just Oppenheimer, Buffy Summers just says Buffy. This is what we usually do, living, fictional or otherwise. I am not going to see this as some sort of super exception. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC It's still a guideline for biographies, which this article is not. Are you suggesting we refer to the subjects simply by their surnames? That would create much more ambiguity. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I completely understand that you cited a guideline for biographies, I never did anything. As I said, this is how we usually do things. And if you think referring to Oppenheimer the subject of the movie Oppenheimer as just Oppenheimer or referring Barbie, the subject of the movie Barbie as just Barbie is ambiguious, then I don't think this conversation is ever gonna lead anywhere. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Strugglehouse: as a neutral observer I would recommend that you stop replying to every support vote. This could possibly give an impression of bludgeoning the discussion. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Schminnte I was just trying to put my point accross, but I do see what you mean. I will take that into consideration. Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
WikiVirusC, if by some odd chance the present caption is overturned (before you commented did you realize that the nomination is incomplete? It doesn't contain the cites which, if you look at the real caption, tell the story. So this RfC seems invalid right at the start, not alerting editors that the stated rendition of the caption is wrong) then I would totally support using just the caption "Barbie and Oppenheimer" which both reflects the film titles (binding the caption to the page topic) and overcomes the respect concern. Again, if Oppenheimer's full name is used, and taking into account the equality of the images, then Barbie's full name should also be used. Just as it is now (and usually are inclu8ded in the first mention of individuals in captions of articles which are not specifically about them), Nothing really needs to be changed, and arguably any change lessens the amount of information communicated within the caption - cites and links included. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Main focus of RfC is focused on the names and how they were used in the caption. Regardless of any other additions/changes, I'd still prefer the Barbie and Oppenheimer. I skimmed through history just now a few weeks and don't know what cities or real captions you are referring to, but my response was focused on the names themselves anyways. Personally I'd prefer the mock Barbieheimer poster to go up top with the lead, and the depicts subjects images to be in body of article. That's an even more separate discussion though. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Barbara Roberts Rules of Order
Point of order (according to Barbara Roberts Rules of Order), JSH-alive, please consider null and voiding this RfC because of a distorted nomination (although keep the comments up for the record). When listing the present caption both here and at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All noticeboard the nomination neglected to add the two citations within the caption and thus the links attached to the citations. These cites and links contain important RfC relevant essential explanatory information for commenting editors as well as those confused and/or in need of a safe space because of the caption. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
What are you on about now? Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Stuff, and such. Please read the above for your answer. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Has Barbenheimer become a Contentious Topic yet? --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 a general audience will understand. Remember that Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective; using the full names places undue weight on the in-universe fictional perspective. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello TarkusAB. Maybe look before you leap. Ken has his full name in the first sentence of his page (Kenneth Sean "Ken" Carson) and has had for a very long time. The lead of Ken's page details his biographical in-universe history. And has for a very long time. In fact, when his page was first created in 2003, he was noted as the boyfriend of 'Barbara Millicent Roberts'. Again, nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
False. I did check and the first revision of each year since 2003, and nearly all started with "Ken", sometimes followed by "(full name Ken Carson)" in parantheses or something similar. That's very different from the current "Kenneth Sean "Ken" Carson". But this is distracting from my point, which is: the reason this RFC is happening is because of a Barbie doll naming dispute. Oppenheimer is just a casualty of the situation. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
True, for quite awhile Ken (doll) has been given the full name or his last name. This is not a doll naming dispute, it's about a caption of a double-image containing the personification of a woman and an actual male. The male is given a full name, thus the woman should continue to be respectfully named with her in-universe name. Nothing more than that except for using Oppenheimer's real nickname which was the long-time working title of the book which was adapted into the film featured in this article (which is found in the included cites, which editors in this discussion have not and are not being told about in the nomination). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
You talk about Barbie like she is a real person; it is a children's toy product. Regarding "Oppie": The nickname isn't mentioned once in the film's article and is mentioned once in his article. And you're arguing about its inclusion in an image caption elsewhere? The sourcing isn't relevant here. That is a ridiculous hill to die on. TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
We are talking about the article Barbenheimer, which inevitably ties the two films and two characters together. One about a historical male figure, one about a personified female icon. The opening image brings them into an article-relevant equal footing. This RfC wishes to kick that footing out from under one of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Truly incredible mental gymnastics... TarkusABtalk/contrib 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. 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, There's none so blind as those who will not see. Dronebogus, this means you, if I were you I'd steer clear of the question of who sounds ludicrous, too. EEng 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
D.E. Is clearly taking sides outside of his administrative duties here, which he is allowed to do but should not be taken as gospel. Dronebogus (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Well DUH, but being a respected admin (and, as we all know, we have a number who aren't all that respected) tends to correlate with good editorial judgment. I notice you've just kind of let your let's-report-him-for-making-too-many-posts point quietly fall to the floor. EEng 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I more wanted to report him for making too many borderline nonsensical posts. It smacks of trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that you can't understand his posts is part and parcel of your inability to grasp the point of the very caption that we're discussing. It's what that admin guy was trying to tell you earlier -- see #anchor1. EEng 23:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m seeing more “support” than “oppose”. Are you saying they’re also just too hopelessly ignorant to understand the deep significance of the caption? Dronebogus (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
There's no deep significance to understand, but giving the number of arguments appealing to WP:COMMONNAME it's hard to avoid concluding that ignorance does play a part. EEng 07:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Support (Summoned by bot) per Donebogus WP:COMMONNAME, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivial nonsense. Barbie’s full name is almost never used, and neither is Oppenheimer’s (let alone the nickname “Oppie”) . The object of the caption is to identify the subject of the photos using the most identifiable names. The present wording isn't remotely humourous, it's just puerile twaddle and an 'in joke' as far as I can see. Sorry to some of those whose wit I ordinarily admire.Pincrete (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The object of the caption is to identify the subject of the photos using the most identifiable names – Flat out wrong. Try reading MOS:CAPTIONS. EEng 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@PincreteWP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles. This - as I've said to many others who make this argument - is not what this discussion is about. It is about a caption. So that point is invalid.
Two subject's names are not nonsense. Nor are they "in jokes". They're not even "jokes". The wording doesn't have to be humorous, that's not the point. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Whether COMMONNAME is the apt policy is a bit academic in this circumstance. Why would we not use the simplest and most common identifying names for the photos? Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Because, as MOS:CAPTION says, a caption's function is not just to identify, but to supply additional information which will (among other things) help "draw the reader into the article". EEng 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pincrete Because that's not what Wikipedia guidelines say. You can can't just reference some incorrect guidance and say "well it's kind of the same thing". Strugglehouse (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I think you mean "You can't just reference some incorrect guidance", but of course as we've seen throughout this discussion, people seem willing to do so anyway. EEng 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@EEng I did indeed mean "can't". I will update my comment. 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. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
the main purpose of a caption is to tell me what I'm looking at – The main purpose of course, but not the only one. I wonder how many more people I'll have to direct to MOS:CAPTION before this thread is put out of its misery?I don't see the word witty in this thread, so please explain what you're talking about. EEng 07:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Wit is humo(u)r, especially clever or dry humour. That is much discussed above. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you for clarifying that your really mean humor (or humour, I guess). Who said it isn't even intended to be? EEng 07:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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 really meant humor I'd probably have used that word. I used 'wit' because the inference is that this caption is clever! 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? EEng 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. 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. 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? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 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. 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. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
so that our readers can learn something???? Are you crazy? Don't you understand that captions should only say things our readers already know, so that they won't get confused? EEng 14:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't you understand that captions should only say things our readers already know, so that they won't get confused? But if you look at a picture that ONLY confuses, since you were under the impression that you were looking at a plastic doll, whose only name you always assumed was a single word, and nobody bothers to correct you? Plus I'm afraid, if the only factual info the article is able to communicate is the in-universe pretence that this doll has a full name (a DoB? an address? a phone number?), if that info is really worth communicating, isn't it better done in text?
I plead guilty this time, but my knowledge of the in-universe world of naff, US, cliche-ically feminoid plastic dolls is obviously not up to par. Oppenheimer I know a fair amount about! Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: ... But it's not relevent! are we going to insert pop-culture facts into every article? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Strong support. Never really understood that caption myself. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Support. The shorter description reads cleaner. The longer version seems a bit puffy. 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. 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. 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)? 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. Dronebogus (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Support it is trivial information unrelated to the topic at hand. It places undue weight on information that isn't generally included in sources about "Barbenheimer", seemingly because some users think it's funny. Good captions should be succinct and establish the picture's relevance to the article (per WP:CAPTION) which in my view the current caption doesn't Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Its funny and cute and I'm sure readers appreciate it.★Trekker (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 "Oppie" nickname cited in ... and leaving a hidden note warning editors not to change it? This is not an appropriate use of humor on Wikipedia, and any arguments saying "but it's funny!" should be immediately disregarded by the closer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This has gotten so bad I was actually inspired to write an essay about why this is bad. Dronebogus (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Completely agree with you on the point about the hidden note. I had raised this in an earlier discussion as to why there was a hidden note in spite of there being no consensus for this, but I didn't receive a response. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 10:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Have removed the hidden note (this had been discussed on this talk page, and is being discused). The caption is not a joke but filled with information about the two characters in the films (the nomination still hasn't been changed to include the links and cites, which to me makes all comments null and void or somewhere in-between). As for the essay, one of the saddest I've ever read, neither lost nor found. Please realize again that there is no joke, no Easter egg, nothing out of the ordinary here. The caption is well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Support Humour is fine until it starts causing intense month-long discussions and edit wars, at which point it becomes detrimental to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Again, and only one reason this nomination should be null and void, the caption is not about humor. It's about the appropriate use of a full caption in a double-image representation of the article and the respect for both characters from the films which have been lumped together by a popular societal meme. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Please, PLEASE stop bludgeoning or I’m seriously reporting you. Dronebogus (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Please, PLEASE report him. PLEASE. That would be delicious. EEng 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). 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. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: At the AfD, you wrotehaven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption, so it's evident that you thought the caption was funny at the time you added it. You now seem to be arguing that the caption is not intended to be funny at all, and above you say there is nothing out of the ordinary here. The caption as it stands is certainly out of the ordinary. There must be dozens of pictures of Oppenheimer on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to find me another one which is captioned "Julius Robert 'Oppie' Oppenheimer". If it's not meant to be funny, then it's simply bizarre.On the other point you keep bringing up, I'm not aware of any policy, or indeed any real-world ethical principle, that says we ought to show respect towards fictional characters. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes Sojourner, I laughed and laughed then laughed some more knowing that here was the opportunity to create such a double-image and serious encyclopedic presentation: a side-by-side representation of the meme. The image and caption takes into account the entire history and societal implications of the two equal characters which had been brought together in a meme by some internet geniuses. The poetry of Barbenheimer and of the image seemed obvious and even too easy, because essays carved in stone could be written about this juxtaposition. I cannot take credit for the whole caption, EEng came by and perfected it. That this has fnorded the minds of many editors and probably many readers solely because it works, they sense that it works, realize that in a logical world it cannot work but they can't explain why. In need of a safe place-style image and caption, some have brought it this far. It is still poetry, still totally serious, still ultimately and perfectly encyclopedic, and remains funny as the dickens when viewed just a little-bit over thataway towards the side of logic. A treasured combination, and I'm glad to be a part of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
On rereading, not enough credit given to EEng, who added the full name 'Julius', added and fought for the nickname 'Oppie', and added the citations. Without EEng this would just be a doll and a guy (a familiar combo to some...). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Eeng is known for having a divisive sense of humor, so it’s no surprise he’s the one most responsible for this massacree. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, inserting "Oppie" into this caption was the final step in my secret plan to reduce Wikipedia to chaos. EEng 16:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppenheimer SPOILER ALERTand bludgeon alert. Saw the film, and come on people, Oppenheimer's nickname "Oppie" is totally film-centric and page-appropriate. Especially in an article which, bottom line, is about a film mash-up that worked. For some reason I was counting the uses of 'Oppie' in the film, and was at 12, when a scene came on where maybe 80 of Oppenheimer's colleagues loudly chanted "Oppie!" maybe six or seven times. That brought the count to 492. In a fair encyclopedia (miss you Brittanica, darn good while you lasted but now a fancy customer magnet for ads) the use of "Oppie" in the divisive scandalous caption should have no opposition from anyone who has experienced the film and in-particular that scene. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Support This is an encyclopedia, not a comic. The full names are appropriate for the Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer articles, but not here. Even if the information were relevant, an image caption would not the place to hide it. Certes (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, per every other support, basically. Those who want to keep the current caption have failed to make an encyclopedic case for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep After having read through the discussion above, I find a lot of bad WP:ALPHABETSOUP references, a lot of argument that comes down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT versus WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, some outright fallacies (e.g. claims that the nickname "Oppie" is somehow obscure when it is reportedly used throughout the film in question), and a good bit of WP:BLUDGEONING on both sides. IMO the most relevant policy/guideline reference is to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Drawing the reader into the article which argues for keeping it. Yngvadottir's comment above, while not directly linking that, explains it well (although I disagree on the supposed need for a concatenation of film to book to working title for "encyclopedic context"). On the remove side, the best I see seems to be MOS:OUTUNIVERSE (specifically the bullet about fictography), although IMO that's a bit of a stretch since that guideline is about writing whole article sections rather than a name in a caption and the grammatical parallelism highlighting the central contrast of the meme that is the topic of the article is IMO sufficient for ignoring that rule. Plus, as David Eppstein pointed out above, the proposed replacement is bad grammar (although that at least would be easy to fix). Anomie⚔ 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Support Complete waste of time RFC but also essential, so perhaps not a waste of time. scope_creepTalk 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? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@NatGertler I don't believe that Barbie is given that last name in the film. Ruth Handler is the creator of Barbie, and (SPOILERS!) she (as a character) makes a couple appearances in the film. In the film, Ruth's character says that Barbie was named after her daughter, Barbara. That may be what you're remembering. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
yer prob'ly right. My brain was often distracted from the current scene with thoughts of the previous scene. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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. Yolol 14 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Aha! I was right for once! Not the first time this year, either!! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Neutral. I've found the spirited opposition to the current caption to be spending a silly amount of energy on something small for no good reason. I do like the current caption for the parallelism, which contributes to the subject of the article as mentioned above. I can't provide a policy based reason other than "I like it" hence neutral !vote, but neither do I have a strong policy based reason for changing it and I'm unconvinced by the arguments for changing it. I'd rather we keep the parallelism for the reason of the article subject, and simply "Barbie and Oppenheimer" would be sufficient and help point at the portmanteau of the title. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Alternate proposal: I wonder if the images could just be removed; they seem more decorative than informative and, more importantly, I'm concerned even the current image of Barbie used is unacceptable per c:COM:CHARACTER - if the original Barbie doll is under copyright, then a failure to add a copyright notice for the derivative work would not affect any expression incorporated from the original. I know there are several cases in which this has been observed, though most of them involve failure to renew the copyright; much of these, as well as further discussion, can be found at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/05#Bugs Bunny (you'll have to scroll down a bit). I could be wrong, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
That's me, yes. FWIW the nom has nothing to do with this discussion, which I participated in after being summoned by the bot, but -- and I cannot stress this enough -- is not something that I have feelings about (though the amount of impassioned bludgeoning and Reichstag climbing makes for a fun example of Wikipedia culture). I was surprised to see a non-free image used in the article, clicked it, saw it was on Commons with a "no notice" tag, and thought that was pretty suspicious. Sure enough, while they don't have a copyright notice written on the doll, every box/packaging I've seen from that time have copyright notices. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
My concern is that the decision you listed failed to consider the "not really PD" aspect, which COM:CHARACTER goes into. I also wonder if there's any case law to suggest that the packaging and the doll can share a copyright notice like that or if they need to have their own notices, since you can take the doll out of the box. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
But yes I think it’s basically a slow-motion edit war. Dronebogus (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's lame, but it's not an edit-war. 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). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Support caption is not encyclopedic or particularly educational or descriptive. Andre🚐 20:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Support More encyclopedic and descriptive. 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
That would be fair use which I doubt applies here 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, TenTonParasol 18:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Support It's more descriptive.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... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 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". Robert Kerber (talk) 15:01, 7 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Precedent for what, exactly? EEng 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's astonishing that someone with 50,000+ edits understands so little about how WP works. EEng 18:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Sorry, I couldn't resist. EEng 20:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I'm shocked. Really, I'm just trying to stay current, but I guess you get a charge out of it. Vive la résistance! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's astonishing that so much discussion, and so many strong opinions, are being directed at something that is about a toy that children play with. And Barbie. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Then please, enlighten me. Citing previous discussions as precedent is common practice on Wikipedia; in fact, it has been done so several times over the course of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The Barbie image hasn’t been deleted yet. 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. Certes (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, guys. This edit threw me off and made me think the image deletion request had already been closed. Disregard my previous comment ... for now, anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion was sort-of-closed by deleting it – an understandable mistake for a closer with an edit count of 2. We soon reopened it. Certes (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment: IMO this RFC should be closed asap. It's been going for more than a week and so far, little to no productive discussion. It's quite clear to me that, in the end, this will come down to "no consensus", and I think it warrants an (albeit late) WP:SNOW close. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:SNOW indicates a strong consensus, traditionally against or in more recent usage for the proposal. It's the opposite of "no consensus". This discussion doesn't look like either to me. Certes (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
As I wrote above, a close should be requested on August 29, which is 30 days after the RfC was initiated. This is the "normal" time for an RfC to stay open. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It should WP:SNOW close in favor of removal imo. There aren’t that many serious keep votes; most of the “keep” arguing is coming from two users who can’t seem to decide if they’re serious or not. Dronebogus (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally I hope whoever closes this looks at the actual comments, realizes that the "remove" side is lacking any valid arguments (mostly WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT with a ton of irrelevant links to various policies, guidelines, and essays that don't actually apply here) while the "keep" side does have a few amid much WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, and close it accordingly. Anomie⚔ 13:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
My sympathy for the closer. Even a "no consensus" close would raise a cloud of ire. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully the Barbie image gets deleted and the point becomes moot. 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. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
How is a caption reading Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer not straight-faced? And BTW, since others to whom I've posed the following question have been unable to cite anything actuallyon pointg: where do you get that not allowed to write in a funny way as a matter of fact? EEng 20:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Straight-faced? Are you still refusing to admit that this is a joke? That the caption was intentionally made to sound funny? That in a normal circumstance, we wouldn't write image captions this way? And also — that there is emerging consensus that this kind of humor does not belong on Wikipedia? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not a joke, though many readers may find it amusing. (There's a difference.)
Methinks you need to look up straight-faced in a dictionary. The caption is absolutely straight-faced.
Where not incongruous to the topic, any caption might be written similarly.
A confused local vote in an ill-formed RfC trying to crush a nut with a sledgehammer isn't an emerging consensus on anything beyond this particular article (not to say that there's a consensus on this particular article, either).
Straight faced humor is totally a thing and this is definitely trying to be that per Randy and you. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Whaaat? I give up. EEng 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…” Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Things can be funny and true at the same time. jp×g 20:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@EEng: You stated 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. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
blunts the joke – I should have said "detracts from the amusement".
we only describe funny moments in the world – When two movies celebrated for concurrent release both happen to have characters named Barbie and Oppie, that is a funny moment in the world. EEng 18:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@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. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:35, 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. jp×g 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Support per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:FANCRUFT, etc.Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" or King Charles III?Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
(Comment refers to image →) Believe it or not, we recently debated that very question. Certes (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Certes The discussion you linked is a move discussion - to change the title of an article. As mentioned above, article titles are very different from captions. They both have their own distinct rules and guidelines. Titles must follow WP:COMMONNAME, etc., whilst captions don't - they have their own rules. Articles titles and their guidelines have nothing to do with what we are talking about in this discussion. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
A discussion I'm amazed is still going on. Oh well, something to laugh about a few years from now, I guess. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
But what about “Canada, Australia, NZ, other place other place…”? We can’t possibly leave those out! And his 56 or so honorary titles!! Dronebogus (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Edward-Woodrow This argument is ridiculous. I assume this is meant to be a joke, but it doesn't relate at all. Using the first name you mention would break rules such as MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, as it is far, far too long. The second name you list makes absolutely no sense, as no one has ever called him Chuck. That doesn't work here, as the nicknames used in this caption are used - frequently.
The point about the move discussion that you make in your second comment also isn't relevant, as this discussion isn't about moving an article or changing the article name, it's about an image caption. Very different things with very different rules and guidelines. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Strugglehouse, the Chuck, my bad. Have cancelled it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn Could you please edit your comment and use Template: Strikethrough instead of removing it, so that my comment still makes sense. 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Chuck? I only ever call him Chuck in the privacy of my head. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that bizarre fancruft article for me to nominate for deletionDronebogus (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? jp×g 09:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
No, the article isn’t imo notable so I nominated it. Assume good faith please. 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. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 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. 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 NPOV, RS, GNG exist so that articles can be made more informative. Changing the level of funniness in an article is not a cogent basis for alterations; a true statement incidentally being funny is not a point of view. jp×g 20:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we need a completely different approach to the lead image. I don't think the intended joke is successful at being funny, but whether it's kept or rejected, I'm not sure that's the right approach to (specifically) the lead. A pair of movie posters would make more sense, or maybe this image, which is used on several other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The poster idea was attempted and rejected as mentioned above. I’ve removed that image before as low quality and purely decorative. Imo we don’t need a lead image and current image use is decorative and gratuitous, with only one image actually being directly related to the phenomenon (the theater photograph) Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
𐡸 𐫱 𐡷
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.
𐡸 𐫱 𐡷
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".
𐡸 𐫱 𐡷
I'd totally believe you if you said WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though. I don't particularly love it myself. 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. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. This RfC is a giant waste of time; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a role-playing forum or a creative writing project. The purpose of the project is to write encyclopedia articles that inform readers. It is not to optimize the funniness level of the articles. I don't know why so many people think it's a good use of time to spend thousands of words (that, again, RfC closers are required to read) demanding changes to image caption that is correct but could conceivably be laughed at by someone. It would be utterly frivolous to open a massive RfC to say "the image caption isn't funny enough", so why is it supposed to be a good idea to open a massive RfC to say "the image caption is too funny"? To put it simply: whether or not an article is funny should not be a focus of our editorial efforts, and obsessing over it is disruptive to the project. This does not depend on which "side" you take; it's just pointless. jp×g 20:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not a humour issue, it's a WP:NOTFANDOM issue. The caption is unencyclopedic. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what "encyclopedic" means. I only know what it means to be neutral, clearly-written, and informative. It is begging the question to say that we must edit every article to go out of our way to never say anything funny, if "encyclopedic" has been arbitrarily defined to mean "impossible for any person to conceivably laugh at". jp×g 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The caption is not clearly written. It piles the reader with useless trivia instead of plainly stating what it illustrates. Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
As pointed out a zillion times, "plainly stating what it illustrates" is not a caption's sole function. See WP:CAPTION. EEng 08:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I’m not seeing “provides irrelevant trivia” 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 section about curly quotes. jp×g 09:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The best examples of prose on the site for this month include a specific sternwheel steamer from the American Civil War, an overview of fictional depictions of the planet Mars, and a man from 1820s London who ate oysters and then left without paying several times (yes, that's it, he didn't do anything else notable). The simple fact of thinking something is boring and for nerds does not have any bearing on content policy... inclusion criteria are based on stuff like WP:V, WP:DUE and WP:RS, not whether somebody thinks it is dumb. jp×g 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF + apples an oranges, this is unrelated natter in a caption vs. articles some people (not me) might think are dumb. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
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. jp×g 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
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. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 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? jp×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. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 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! 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. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that's what we've been saying all along (posted to try to keep pace with the bludgeoning by Dronebogus, potentially exhausting but doable with the proper diet, vitamin C, and the readability of Monobook) Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deliberately posting a snarky piece of bludgeoning to complain that someone else is bludgeoning is WP:POINTy in the extreme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Not complaining or in the least byte frustrated, it's all good. To quote Horace, "Levius fit patientia, quicquid corrigere est nefas". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
59 (D-bogez) to 72 (R-krizzle), by signature count -- you two are about neck and neck. jp×g 20:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
A more careful count seems to be DB – 41, RK – 28. DB has a commanding lead. EEng 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 Robbie as Barbie image would work. Caption? "Robbie as Barbie and Oppie as himself"). 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 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 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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|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. Soni (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
more than one person makes XKCDs? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
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. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@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. 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)} (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 EricErik 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. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I think you meant Erik, not Eric (who is not involved in this debate and is likely very confused by the ping, LOL). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Name struck. Many apologies to Eric. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 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 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.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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 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. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 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. 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? Jessintime (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Support We should be striving for better than this SportingFlyerT·C 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. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Support 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. Bernanke'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. Skynxnex (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It also feels good/right to include links to disaster relief or 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. 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. 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. Skynxnex (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment - When does this thing close? I'm running out of popcorn. MikeAllen 00:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Not before August 29. 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. FreeEncyclopediaMusic (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Support changing the caption, for reasons previously expressed in earlier sections of this talk page — Jamie Eilat (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Support per EEng. Teehe. SWinxy (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom. 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. SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 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. 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 Barbara Millicent Roberts and J. Robert Oppenheimer; I asked that "Barbara Millicent Roberts" be changed to "Barbie", and as a compromise, editors changed it to 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). Now, that just made realize I may have been the one who indirectly caused all of this, which is pretty ironic. Am I not correct? If so, please enlighten me. I've also asked before why editors bothered to mention in the <ref> 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. 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?). 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Both you and Randy have made it no secret that you thought the new caption was funny. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
How can I elaborate on the answer to a yes-or-no question? EEng 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. 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 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 [1], and full names for both Oppenheimer and Barbie [2]. 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).
why editors bothered to mention in the <ref> that Oppie isn't a fake name – Because (IIRC) at least one editor suggested that Oppie was made up and/or that it was used in reference to JRO only obscurely.
this will be important information to the closer – 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.
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 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
so you (plural) wouldn't try to dodge the question – Wow. Way to go, civility!
Do you normally respond to yes-or-no questions with one word in real life too, without elaborating? – 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 [3].
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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
As I read 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. 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. 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. EEng 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I was most impressed by the time 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to respond to this. 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:54, 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." InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@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. 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.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Even if you prefer a single footer to separate captions, could you restore the alt text removed here: [4]Rjjiii (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I’ve come back to this 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? Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose I have previously written 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. —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.) --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. Anomie⚔ 11:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'm strongly in favor of keeping this RfC open through next April 1. --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. 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 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Chew on what you'd like 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Paul is dead man. Miss him. EEng 05:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
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. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
And here I thought that EEng was a Wikipedian with a Bank account. --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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
My request was neutrally worded; your reply is not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
If your honestly think your request was neutrally worded you should run for Congress. 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Caption discussion: The aftermath
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally I'm a little disappointed that the few policy-based arguments in favor of keeping (e.g. that in being slightly surprising it draws readers into the article as MOS:CAPTION suggests) were apparently completely ignored, just Editors opposing the proposal generally did not attempt to make PAG-based arguments for their position. Oh well, at least I can unwatch this now. 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). 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? 2600:4040:475E:F600:D166:6EF5:A4F1:8EF4 (talk) 23:26, 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". 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 . InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
consensus from this RfC demonstrates that intrusive humor is frowned upon in articles – 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.So in summary, OK, noted: intrusive humor is frowned upon. EEng 02:22, 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 get over this and move on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
What a terrible thing to say about middle schoolers! --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 EEng considers "humor".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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 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 further that most pernicious and baffling of misconceptions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: that there's somehow a rule against good writing.EEng 07:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Then I guess we're back to (from a previous thread) 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. EEng 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Or we're back to establishing that you are less mature than a middle schooler. [FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
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 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 Exorswift, between "Taylor Allison Swift and Satan 'The Morning Star' Lucifer". (Did I do that right?) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 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 and Mr. Peanut are magnificent, and I am pleased to find that our respective pages on those two already report those full names. --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. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 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 BilledMammal can clarify (and while here consider addressing Anomie's caption-policy concern above, thanks. 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. (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.) But we can wait for the closer to comment. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 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 intrusive to readers and that The use of full names here is confusing and distracting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
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. 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@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. 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@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. 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@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? 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
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 just five generated 83.1% of the text, with 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.) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
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 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd dispute that it was a "swing" as much as illustrating where EEng's 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. 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 show myself the door and invite arguments on my talk page :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
But you're neglecting the educational and entertainment value of the discussion. EEng 07:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
_(3).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)