Jump to content

Talk:Barbenheimer/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Critical acclaim

IP, I'm asking you one last time to please discuss on the talk page. You may have narrowly avoided a WP:3RR violation by three hours, but further edit-warring will be considered disruptive and may lead to a block regardless — you've already reverted fivefour times in the past 48 hours and been reverted by three different editors all five times. "Positive reviews" is a neutral and factual statement that sources unanimously agree on, versus "critical acclaim", which is a loaded word and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that is listed as a "word to watch" in WP:PUFFERY. As I have written, you cannot cherry-pick sources (WP:UNDUE); such an exceptional claim would require near-unanimity from extremely high-quality sources — which is not the case here. We also have to be consistent with the main Barbie article, which does not use "acclaim". You keep bringing up "WP:EDITORIALIZING", but if you actually looked at where the link leads to rather than blindly posting it, you can see it has nothing to do with what you're saying. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

IP, I've got no way to ping you, but please respond; WP:COMMUNICATION is required. If you don't respond, I'll restore the neutral, factual wording of "positive reviews". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It appears the IP (or at least, their last-used address) has been partially blocked. Any opposition to restoring "positive reviews"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus Oppose I would not do that. This is an article about the Barbenheimer cultural phenomena and not about either film. Apples and oranges. We shouldn't use the article here to bolster or dilute the success or failure of either movie as this article is WP:NOTAFORUM for either.
We really should just leave out discussion about the movie's critical success as it is divisive tbh and adds absolutely nothing notable to the article itself, nor does it help explain to the reader why Barbenheimer is a thing. It just sticks out like a sore thumb. Analysis over the box office success in the body itself is more than sufficient. No need to add superfluous info to the already bloated lead.
Also this is problematic and likely provoking the ire of some, as it is emblematic of what could be mistaken as a slow motion edit-war you are engaging in, or at least POV pushing. The film itself clearly is doing very well with audiences, with most critics loving it, and the press reporting on it as a big deal. They are saying it is practically saving Hollywood after a string of flops. So when you tried to use this citation to falsely imply a false-balance, i.e.that the movie is somehow experiencing a "mixed response", it adds to the drama. The citation you included doesn't even make that claim. I will give you enough credit to know better than that, and I will AGF and extend you the benefit of the doubt that you made a mistake.
The editor @GnocchiFan has also stepped in to object, suggesting that the WP:ONUS is on anyone who wants to push contested information- and I think we can all agree "that this wording and alternatives have been contested." So, talk page consensus should be sought before re-adding- in the interest of also keeping the article concise and efficient. So, this now involves others.
Also be careful not to group all IPs together since many have visited this page with conflicting contributions and odd POVs. For instance, I only see one IP who was zealously pushing his agenda to bolster "Barbie" as a film with "critical acclaim", and they were apparently partially-blocked. I don't see the other IPs facing a similar fate, so it's best either to seek consensus here (and elsewhere) over such a trivial matter to begin with.
If you feel strongly about this, and disagree, then better file an WP:ANI or SPI if you think it necessary, but doing so will likely draw your own aforementioned questionable behavior in question and could WP:BOOMERANG.
When I return to my terminal at home I will log into my account if you want to debate this further-- as I do not have my password information where I'm working (so can't formally respond).
In the meanwhile, my advice is to take a breather from trying to make your esoteric WP:POINT. At least until many more editors have had a chance to chime in. We don't want to further provoke zealous ANONs into trolling the page, and that's why we have the WP:BRD cycle, which we all should respect if we mean what we say, since this drama is exhausting. Wouldn't you agree? 50.238.87.250 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
To respond to that WP:WALLOFTEXT with another:
  • To begin, it is somewhat suspicious that your IP address geolocates to the same area (Colorado) as the other warring IPs, but I will assume good faith for now. Moving on.
  • We shouldn't use the article here to bolster or dilute the success or failure of either movie as this article is WP:NOTAFORUM for either. Briefly mentioning the films' reception does not violate NOTFORUM, and it totally relevant in my view to discuss one of the impacts of the phenomenon.
  • Also this is problematic and likely provoking the ire of some, as it is emblematic of what could be mistaken as a slow motion edit-war you are engaging in, or at least POV pushing. I am not sure why you think that? That was just a new source and new information being added (to another article), with the opinion/assessment clearly and properly attributed to the NYT. This is in line with WP:DUE, which is the reason I added the citation — to balance out the Fortune source the warring IP inserted to the Barbie article.
  • The citation you included doesn't even make that claim. It does. As reviews for “Barbie” rolled out ahead of its weekend opening, a critical divide emerged. Some thought that Greta Gerwig [...] had met the expectations for a more subversive take on the 11.5-inch Mattel phenomenon [...] Others felt that the director did not go far enough in dinging her corporate sponsors, keeping the critiques of consumerism and female beauty standards at surface level. To paraphrase, critics disagree as to whether Gerwig succeeded in what she was trying to accomplish, i.e. there was a mixed response.
  • So, talk page consensus should be sought before re-adding I agree, which is why I asked that the warring IP respond here. I am glad we are having this discussion so we can come to a consensus — hopefully.
  • Also be careful not to group all IPs together since many have visited this page with conflicting contributions and odd POVs. Rest assured I did my research before concluding that it's most likely the same person (WP:DUCK). As I wrote above, all but one of the warring IPs geolocate to Colorado, specifically Denver:
The admin who partial-blocked 63.86.0.75 seems to agree, per this edit summary and the IP's block summary.
  • If you feel strongly about this, and disagree, then better file an WP:ANI or SPI if you think it necessary, but doing so will likely draw your own aforementioned questionable behavior in question and could WP:BOOMERANG. ANI is not the place for SPI's; SPI's are rarely effective in dealing with IP sockpuppets. I am still not sure why you find my edit to Barbie "questionable", and I am not sure why it would cause a BOOMERANG if I'm reporting a sockpuppetry incident and not edit-warring/3RR (which I did not breach, mind you).
  • In the meanwhile, my advice is to take a breather from trying to make your esoteric WP:POINT. Accusing editors of being POINTy without merit is uncivil. At no point have I been disruptive; if you feel differently, kindly elaborate.
InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus If it is still warranted, when I get home and log-in to my account proper, I will attempt a more thoughtful response rather than cram something here on my precious 'short' work break. It seems like that may moot though since we are in agreement about seeing what consensus here may evolve after others chime in.
But a couple quick thoughts, since you asked.
I noticed you WP:DUCKed my larger concern.
Saw what I did there?
Because there is a vocal 'anti-woke' minority group out there raging against the "Barbie" movie, trying to get their WP:POINT across that this benign film is somehow 'misandric'. So when a big fuss is being made like this, which looks a lot like that WP:POINT and sounds a lot like that WP:POINT then most will reasonably assume it IS that WP:POINT. However, likewise, I will sincerely extend to you the same "good-faith" you extended to me and I will assume that you are NOT making that WP:POINT, predicate that you were not being sarcastic, of course.
For others tuning in, the etiquette of MOS:FILMLEAD advises that Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources.
  • Rotten Tomatoes, 88% of 444 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 8/10.
  • Metacritic, assigned the film a score of 80 out of 100, based on 67 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews", not merely positive.
  • Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale, while those polled at PostTrak gave it an 89% overall positive score, with 79% saying they would definitely recommend the film.
Yet, you honestly believe that a vague citation you cherry-picked from July 19th nearly a month ago is the one to summarize the film's overall critical reception? As "mixed" no less?!? When at best the source actually says "here's the critical divide". It doesn't say there "WAS or IS a critical divide."
The New York Times source leaves out any assessment or analysis of the overall critical consensus and simply parrots what some good and bad 'early' reviews had to say when the movie was barely out. It's basically "a sampling", like the other editor said. Yet several more cogent sources since then have summarized the film as having "acclaim" or at least being a hit with critics and audiences alike, with Oscar buzz for the film AND the writing AND the acting. It feels like you WP:DUCKed those other citations as you exhaustively looked for something to make your case, and that New York Time citation was the best you could find. But again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and AGF, I will assume you weren't aware of that, and maybe didn't look all that hard.
So, now that you are aware, I will challenge you to find a reliable source or two per MOS:FILMLEAD that makes your case for you. Sans that, this is your original interpretation of RT and MC and CinemaScore's high audience score by way of that ONE 'vague' citation, giving WP:UNDUE weight to your personal opinion here that this film is getting a "mixed reception" by the critics-- which, quite frankly, is starting to look a lot like some WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH you did to arrive at your WP:POINT.
But, if you aren't being disruptive nor failing to WP:OWN your role in any of this drama here, then we can both prove it by letting others now have a say. Giving less-invested editors a chance to put together a consensus, and (even better) maybe take a vote on WHY this movie should (or should not) be treated any differently that the other movies out there.
A better use of this time might be a section in the article itself discussing the polarizing reception this is causing around the world.
As for the rest, there are arbitration boards and dispute resolution boards, of course, that can handle those other concerns. I'm part of a indie film club here in Colorado and as you can imagine many of us are debating this film because that and "Oppenheimer" are all the rage right now, as you know. So I can check around a little, if it is my place, to see if there's truth to what you are saying about someone being 'ornery' at our arthouse theater computers or elsewhere.
But, that aside, WE should focus on the substance here, and not each other (or one or two bad apples as a means to WP:GAME the article, and scapegoat others to push a POV.)
So, on that note, I'm bowing out, and I think you should too, and let's see how others feel about all this-- since we've debated this to death tonight, and I trust other more experienced editors than myself to make the right call on said drama.
Thanks for the lively debate. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I try not to get too much into politics on Wikipedia, but I assure you that the last thing I would do is push the conservative "anti-woke" agenda. I am contesting the claim that Barbie was critically acclaimed because I do not see the near-unanimity in sources that would be required to make this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I have been thinking for a while that the Film project needs more stringent guidance regarding when we can label a film as "critically acclaimed" or "critically panned", but so far that hasn't happened yet.
I am not saying Barbie received mixed reviews; it didn't. It received generally positive reviews from critics, but it wasn't critically acclaimed. I never even insisted it received mixed reviews — the original text I added to Barbie (film) was while The New York Times assessed the film's reception as more mixed (emphasis added), contrasting the previous sentence about Fortune's assessment of the film being acclaimed. Nor did I try to use it to summarize the film's reception, as that would be WP:UNDUE. I also wasn't actively searching for that NYT article; I had already read it a month ago and simply dug it out of my Chrome history.
Regarding I will challenge you to find a reliable source or two per MOS:FILMLEAD that makes your case for you, I'm afraid you've got it backwards. "Generally positive reviews", "mixed reviews", and "generally negative reviews" are the three standard summaries we use to describe critical reception, and in this case, there is practically no disagreement that Barbie was positively received. In contrast, "critically acclaimed" and "critically panned" are rare and exceptional statements; "acclaimed" is listed as a word to watch under WP:PUFFERY. Exceptional claims require the backing of an exceptional number of exceptionally strong sources; i.e. we can't just find three sources that mention "acclaim" and call it a day. (It will not be difficult to find sources that say the more neutral "positive", on the other hand.) The onus is on those who wish to make this exceptional claim.
TL;DR Barbie wasn't critically acclaimed. It also didn't receive mixed reviews. It was generally well-received (i.e. "received positive reviews"), as the vast majority of sources agree. Some of you want to say the film was "acclaimed"; to do that, we would need far more than just three sources to support that claim, in addition to implementing the same change to Barbie (film). We can't have this article say one thing and another article say something else.
InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: An excellent example is John Wick (film). In § Critical response says: John Wick received generally positive reviews. The statement is attributed to three sources, and that's already sufficient. § Retrospective assessments then makes a bold, exceptional claim: John Wick is regarded as one of the best action films ever made. Please see the ref attached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus Who is kidding who here? I think I am the one you wanted to speak to, not to be confused with the other editor.
But I saw this informative expose in the actual news where it says (quote)
  • "attempted assassination of Barbenheimer On July 11, user InfiniteNexus".
Then this obvious attempt at WP:SYNTH, where in a source sentence about "Barbie's critical acclaim" you tried to WP:WEASEL in these words "The New York Times assessed the film's reception as more mixed"
Come on, man.
To you and @MikeAllen I say this... trying to force a WP:FALSEBALANCE onto a subject matter is WP:NOTNEUTRAL when the neutral point of view policy itself does NOT prescribe neutrality, in the exact meaning of the word. When there are competing points of view, Wikipedia does not aim for the midpoint between them. Rather, it gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources. Wikipedia's less-than-obvious meaning of "neutral point of view" is a perennial source of confusion, and in this instance the critic aggregators and the multiple reliable sources summarizing the critical consensus of "Barbie" are more within their right to label this film "acclaimed".
Maybe a more fitting name for the neutral point of view policy might be "the neutral and proportionate point of view policy". Emphasizing the essential aspect of proportionality may prevent the kind of confusion described above, and it would be unproportionate to water this down when rottentomatoes, MC and several other sources have more than earned their WP:DUE.
Barbie has just become more profitable for Warner Bros. than "The Dark Knight".lol And they are talking about the flick being nominated for best picture. Yeah, I think we are safe calling this an "acclaimed" film. The very reliable source WP:NPR as recent as a few days ago has said Barbie has earned “...critical acclaim." And that's one of three sources I found within a five minute search on google. That's not "cherry-picking". That's the simple truth.
As the other editor said, let's not treat this film differently than any other movie, backlash or not. It's an "acclaimed" movie and there's nothing "exceptional" about it. 165.85.54.245 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Well this is funny. You're telling me that the IP which geolocates to Colorado (50.238.87.250) is not the same person as the previous IPs which also geolocated to Colorado, but you — 165.85.54.245 geolocates to Utah — are??
Let me cut to the chase: "acclaimed", again, is an exceptional claim. That's not a contestable claim, it is clearly documented under WP:PUFFERY, and I can pull up previous discussions (predating Barbenheimer) where editors agreed on the same thing. If you have new sources to support "acclaim", such as the NPR one, then please present them here. You can't just say, Yeah, I think we are safe calling this an "acclaimed" film. I gave you an example with John Wick; follow it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus He/she/it DID in fact give you "a new reliable source" above to support "critically acclaimed". They didn't "JUST call it safe", they are letting the source by NPR do the talking. In their response to you above, they tried to embed A LINK TO THE NEW SOURCE in some text above (like I did just now).
Maybe in good faith you missed it, or on your own didn't look hard enough, or perhaps you're just making it a point to be sarcastic or obtuse here, and (hopefully not) trying to move the goal posts.
In any case, HERE it is again, the citation by NPR you asked for:
There is also another one by WP:THEHILL, this one
...where it talks about "Barbenheimer" and how both films "earned critical acclaim.".
There are also TWO citations by "Collider", this one:
...and the other one from as recent as a few days ago:
A few more citations also can be found from "Screenrant", which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics", like this one from a few days ago:
Soooooo...like you did with John Wick, they did in fact give you "an example", which you apparently neglected "to follow" for whatever reason. And I just gave you several more "examples". Can you follow that? 2601:280:CB02:7B7:5C0B:6B50:4063:FE7D (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The positive response for both films is due in part of this whole Barbenheimer fiasco, so it should be mentioned in the lead. I agree with InfiniteNexus in keeping neutral language in the page. Also, what's your user account that you were going to log into? Mike Allen 09:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't ask for "a new source"; I asked for there to be support for the exceptional claim with (and I quote) an exceptional number of exceptionally strong sources. I did not ignore the NPR source; in fact, I mentioned it in my previous comment, so it's perplexing that you say I "missed" it. NPR, The Hill, and Fortune are indeed examples of strong sources; Collider is not great but good enough; Screen Rant is only marginally reliable. WP:FILMRS#General has a list of strong sources, and newspapers in general are also strong. If you (or the other IP) can produce additional sources from high-caliber publications, great, add it to the Barbie article and we'll add it here as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Scratch all of that. It looks like someone (don't know who and when) has done exactly what I was looking for and exactly like the John Wick example at Barbie (film)#Critical response. See, it's not that hard, enough good-quality sources was all I was looking for (not three). InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I did two days ago, partly to prevent IP sock edits. These IP edits may also be the blocked ones that caused the protection of the page. ภץאคгöร 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Nyxaros. And yes, these IPs are obviously the same ones causing the disruption which led to this page being protected, but to try to report them every time they switch addresses would be tiresome. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Different Barbie portrait

What do we think of the picture that User: Trillfendi added in place of the previous Barbie photo. I personally think it's better to have stereotypical blonde Barbie but I'm not totally opposed to keeping the current photo of it's cropped to zoom in on her face. RyanAl6 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with any 'portrait' of barbie (including the current one which is in the process of being deleted on commons) is going to be copyright. The image the Trillfendi added (File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg) was an NFC image and so can only be used on pages where a WP:NFCC compliant justification is given. I think you would find it difficult to find a reason why an image of barbie is needed for this article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Walking through downtown Asheville I saw this theater and thought it perfectly encapsulated Barbenheimer:

There's been a lot of disagreement over whether or not the Barbenheimer logo should be included in the article, but I would suggest this image as a possible alternative, being placed below the portraits of Barbie and Oppenheimer with an appropriate caption. RyanAl6 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm doesn't seem funny enough.. Mike Allen 09:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • If well-placed and sized (290px makes it the same size as the double image) that seems a good idea but I'd go with no caption. The image is descriptive enough without a caption, and the 'Fine Arts', as EEng mentions, works. If a caption is added then just a brief mention of the Barbenheimer combination (but even that is already obvious from the article title and content) or, if we can go with no caption and remove the frame, this may even work at some point, maybe not presently, just above the double-image as a self-descriptive illustrative piece. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    Please read MOS:CAPTION. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    Oh brother, here we go again. To what, exactly, are you referring? EEng 18:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    Photographs and other graphics should have captions, unless they are unambiguous depictions of the subject of the article or when they are "self-captioning" images (such as reproductions of album or book covers). (emphasis my own). This image is not an unambiguous depiction of the Internet phenomenon, it is a photo of a theater marquee listing the two films which gave rise to the phenomenon. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    I'd support adding the image to the lead (with a caption, obviously, per above). It's a very clear image and much superior to the one currently in the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    I figured. Instead of the Cliff's Notes, try reading the the full guideline: Not every image needs a caption; some are simply decorative. Relatively few may be genuinely self-explanatory. But, ya know, I can sure see the point of view that the mentally defective among our readership might be confounded and confused by this photo: "Oh, what CAN this photo be? What is a "theatre"? What ARE these plastic letters? And the NUMBERS -- perhaps some kind of secret code??? I'm so confounded and confused!" EEng 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    After reading what others have had to say I’d agree that the image would best be left caption-less. The first paragraph of the article already establishes Nolan and Gerwig as the directors of their respective movies, so there’s really nothing about the image that isn’t already explained by context. A caption mentioning the name and location of the theatre as well as what the marquee is listing would be bloated. RyanAl6 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    Is there any harm in including a caption, even if it seems useless to you? Please don't make a big fuss out of another trivial matter that should be easily resolved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    Well, since the "no caption" contingent has called WP:DIBS on caption style, and InfiniteNexus is asking politely for it to back-off and allow a caption, maybe another RfC could be looming. That should be a ruckus but interesting and philosophical. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    I sincerely hope you're not being serious about an RfC about on such a trivial, insignificant matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    Of course not, I wouldn't call one. No need for an RfC, no-caption just makes obvious commonsense. All the information needed is already in the image. Except including a caption for our blind readers which is the only argument I can come up with to have one, but then its language would be needlessly self-descriptive which might look like bad writing to sighted readers. What do you suggest as a caption? Maybe "Barbenheimer presented at the Fine Arts theater in Asheville, North Carolina" which would contain the page topic. In that case it should go either underneath the Barbie Oppie image, as another way of defining the topic, or just above it where it would also look good and be descriptive. There, I've opined on both sides of the issue. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    I was thinking something along the lines of A theater marquee showing Barbie and Oppenheimer. Nothing too crazy, just a brief sentence describing what the image depicts (which isn't "Barbenheimer"). InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    It needs (and currently has) WP:ALTTEXT, so if you want a caption, you could just make the alt text be the caption (per "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    For a moment there I almost allowed myself to believe that you're capable of irony. EEng 07:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    Poe's law, you can never be too sure. I also assumed the ludicrous idea for "Oppie" was also a joke, until I looked at the article and saw that it was really there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    That's the opposite of Poe's Law. Good try, though. EEng 15:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Support This looks great! With the addition of this, the other funny stuff (unnecessary at it is) now works. However, I have to say... watching this bizarre battle play out here, I feel Gulliver's frustration he had with the Lilliputians as THEY needlessly squabbled over how to eat their soft-boiled eggs.lol That aside, good find. 2601:280:CB02:7B7:5C0B:6B50:4063:FE7D (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know Wikipedia formatting well enough to solve this but as it currently is, formatting the image to match the pixel sizing of the two portraits below it will line it up on Desktop view, but will leave it wonky on mobile view. Is there a way to make it line up on both views? RyanAl6 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought I put this down here, but apparently not. I had predicted before this image was added that someone would eventually come along and add a caption. I was right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
General consensus at the end of this discussion was that the image would be better off without a caption. Plus, not having a caption makes the marquee work almost as a caption for the portraits below, as the Barbie side of the marquee lines up with the portrait of Barbara Millicent Roberts, and the Oppenheimer side lines up with the portrait of Oppie. With that I'll delete the caption unless [[User: Becausewhynothuh?]] would like to reopen discussion. RyanAl6 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Besides the humor of a theater adding both Oppenheimer and Barbie side-by-side, I'm not sure how much this adds to the article, especially since we already not only have another image of a theater showing the two films, but showing the two as a double feature. It's very clean to be the head image, however, with a larger closeup of the titles being displayed. I'm also unsure if it should be stuck with the double portrait. I hope it overall doesn't look redundant. And in regards to the rest of this conversation, no, there's not much to add in a caption besides the theater's location. I slightly oppose that. Carlinal (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as new lead image, with caption. It’s better illustrative of the topic than the portraits of Julius (J) Robert “Oppie” “The Modern Prometheus” Oppenheimer and Barbra Millicent “Barbie” “Barbie Girl in a Barbie World” Roberts. It should have a caption because captions are the house style and people expect them (we do NOT need captions to become “the new infobox wars”). Dronebogus (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment A similar image had been already present under the Double feature viewing section, but has been removed. This removal was made right after another similar one was added in the Analysis section.
Also, about replacing the two Barbie and Oppenheimer images, I'd say the proposed image doesn't illustrate the contrast about both films' themes, a core part of the topic. I'd say that it can be included in the lead, but not as the only image there. However, the Barbie image is at Commons' Deletion Requests. So three solutions come to mind: (a) replace the Barbie image with a similar, freely licensed one; (b) replace both images with the two logos for each film (not the image that says "Barbenheimer" since consensus tells me it's not apt); or (c) replace both with a non-free fan poster. In (a), it is likely that finding a free image portraying Barbie in an appropriate manner will be hard, and in (c), unless there is some specific poster that became widely spread, attracted media attention and is mentioned in the article, it probably wouldn't meed the non-free content criteria (see rationale at File:Goncharov-poster.png). So option (b) is the best option IMO; it captures the quirkiness of Barbie and seriousness of Oppenheimer at least a bit.
(When searching for the article on Wikipedia - using a browser (PC or mobile) or the Android app - or on Google, the image that appears at the side of the article title before pressing on it is always the Barbie one. In the page preview attached to any link leading to the article, Barbie is displayed, as well as above the article in the Android app. It could be fixed by merging the two images into one, one at the side/above the other. No idea if this is even a problem, but I feel it's relevant.) ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 19:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
(on Google, the image that appears before pressing the article link is actually Oppenheimer now) ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline of superhero movies

Can this article about Barbenheimer be used to denote that? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kailash29792, please feel free to add it somewhere and see if it sticks. I couldn't stay on the link because of the pop-in ads. If it's a reputable source and is relevant to the Barbenheimer topic, why not. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Oppenheimer (film)#Real-life Barbenheimer

FYI, an IP posted something on the Oppenheimer talk page, but I think it may have been meant for this talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Real-life Barbenheimer

[1] Sort of funny. About Barbara Oppenheimer, a professor and distant relative of Robert, getting attention because of her name. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good find, and should be used somewhere deep into the page. Even though a distant relative, the reputably sourced feature article gives a unique focus on the Barbenheimer phenomenon. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps her portrait with a caption of her name should be the new lead photo. "Barbara Oppenheimer, a living example of the Barbenheimer phenomenon". RyanAl6 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Internet phenomenon?

I'm reading the lead section and am wondering if "Internet phenomenon" should still be the main keyword? From what I can tell in reliable sources, it's just called "phenomenon". I also see "trend" and "craze". Not sure what the most appropriate encyclopedic term would be. "Internet phenomenon" could be stated later, and something broader could replace it in the opening sentence? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna address the previous edit you made here since I feel it fits. I gotta say the wording in the lead paragraph as is doesn't sit well with me. I think it's better to describe Barbenheimer as a phenomenon that resulted from the simultaneous release than as a phenomenon about the simultaneous release, and if we're gonna say something like "Barbenheimer is an internet phenomenon that started before the simultaneous release…", we might as well mention that it started in social media to avoid being repetitive at the beginning of the second paragraph. Or just don't mention social media at all in the lead since these days it's implied that a phenomenon that started on the internet started on social media.
Regarding the specific wording, I'm cool with phenomenon. "Trend" is too shallow, and it could describe the trend of people seeing the movie as a double feature, but it doesn't encompass other aspects of Barbenheimer like the memes. "Craze" just seems a bit too informal. RyanAl6 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Would viral sensation be more accurate? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
"Phenomenon" seems accurate per the sources mentioned above, as the, you know, the "thing", has moved off the internet into the real world of movie screens. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn Cultural phenomenon is the most accurate and best matches language from the sources in the press. Given the paradigm shift and the wild side success of not only both films but the wake up call for Hollywood and audiences, it was more a cultural quake in that way, rather than simply just an internet viral fluke of sorts. It was many things at once, in other words. 2601:282:8100:32A0:CCEC:76EF:1A53:EBDB (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Cultural phenomenon works well. I was commenting on the use of the "internet phenomenon" wording, which this topic has obviously moved past. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbenheimer/Archive_4&oldid=1188573436"