Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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 thatthis 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)
I formally request that the caption of the first two images in the article is changed from "Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer" to "The subjects of two films, Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer". Nobody's familiar with Barbie's in-universe full name. Likewise, nobody knows Oppenheimer's "Oppie" nickname (unless you read well into American Prometheus and/or other biographies about him). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Barbie and J. Robert OppenheimerEEng 23:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 humorI'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)
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?
"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)
haven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption, so it's evident that you thought the caption was funny at the time you added it. You now seem to be arguing that the caption is not intended to be funny at all, and above you say there is
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)
Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimernot 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)
emerging consensuson anything beyond this particular article (not to say that there's a consensus on this particular article, either).
Whether or not something is "irrelevant trivia" is simply not a factor in whether it belongs hereUh... 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)
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)
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)
a yes-or-no question. But taking pity on your indecisiveness, I'll answer.
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 questionso 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 .
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)
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)
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)
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)
A couple of thoughts here:
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)
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)
intrusive to readersand that
The use of full names here is confusing and distracting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 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.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
sharp kickwould 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 :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.