Jump to content

Talk:For sale: baby shoes, never worn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Photo of baby shoes

[edit]

This afternoon, after noting that there seems to have been no previous discussion about the subject, I removed a photo of baby shoes for the reason that it serves no illustrative or informative function. Per the WP Manual of Style for image use: "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." Further, it is misleading: readers should not be given the impression that the story which is the subject of the article is literal, in the way a photo of a specific pair of shoes may suggest. --Civilizeme (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the image was discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/For sale: baby shoes, never worn, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive219, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive807. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Orlady; Daniel Case already turned me on to those links. The first and last don't include any discussion over the reasoning for including or excluding an image, or this image in particular; and the second shows an editor observing that a majority of reverts suggest consensus. So the matter that's been discussed is user behavior, not the reasoning for including the photos. I take the view that the photo is misleading, not just superfluous. So I'd be pleased if other users would address that before they continue in a war of reversions. For my part, this automatic reverting without discussion strikes me as hostile and territorial -- but now that I see that you had some experience with a bad actor in the past, it seems less so. --Civilizeme (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish for any parties to run afoul of 3RR guidelines, and fear I may have. Can we hearken to the principle given by WP? "When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues." Let us talk this through. It seems I've walked into an article with some history behind it, and I can only ask that we start with the assumption of good will. I genuinely think the edit I prefer is constructive -- rather than, say, merely cautious or just inflexible -- and I think it would not be a waste of time to share our respective views about the matter. I seem as well to be behind the times, or out the loop, as regards a change in discussions about edits. Is it true that discussion now happens in edit summary labels as opposed to Talk pages? I'm only a sporadic editor, and would be glad to benefit from persons who are more active and experienced. --Civilizeme (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't wish for any parties to run afoul of 3RR guidelines" ... and so far you haven't, but you're one revert away. One revert after you reverted from "the wrong version".

I appreciate that you have opened a discussion, but it looks better when everyone starts discussing without regard to what the article says at that point. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Daniel Case, I recalled that there had been a lot of communication about this image last year. Yes, much of it was in edit summaries. Apparently, the pages we found earlier today don't contain all of the talk-page discussion that occurred. I found some additional communication at User talk:201.215.187.159#Baby shoes pic, User talk:201.215.187.159#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, User talk:201.215.187.159#Please self-revert, User talk:201.215.187.159#August 2013 (the entry dated 1 August 2013); there likely was more discussion elsewhere. To summarize what happened last year:
  1. The image was added to the article during a DYK-page discussion of the article in which several users participated. No discussion participant objected to the inclusion of the image.
  2. The image remained in the article, undisturbed, for a couple of months.
  3. An IP user removes the image from the article, saying "This image does not illustrate the article topic and adds nothing," then proceeds to edit-war to keep the image out of the article.
  4. During the affair, at least 4 different experienced users (most or all them admins) returned the image to the article or advised the IP user to stop edit-warring to restore it, giving a variety of different reasons why the image was appropriate: e.g., "It makes it more readable than just a wall o' text would be. Nor does it take anything away from the article"; "Consensus indicates that this image is relevant"; and "everyone else who has touched this page seems to think the image is a valuable element".
  5. The IP user repeatedly cited the MOS as indicating that it was wrong to include the image in the article, and insisted that the rest of us were wrong for thinking otherwise.
  6. WP:CONSENSUS left the image in the article.
Now, registered user Civilizeme shows up and starts edit-warring to keep the image out of the article, making arguments that are extremely similar (in substance and style) to the arguments that the IP made last year. Is it any wonder that Daniel Case stated "We went through this last summer"?
Quit beating a dead horse, Civilizeme. The actions of multiple editors indicate that consensus supports including this image. And please note that WP:Sockpuppetry is not healthy for your future at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

On June 19, I made an edit to this article, adding a reference to XKCD's use of this concept in the Legacy section. This was removed an hour later by User: Mr. Granger. A couple of days later, User:QuentinUK readded it in the Popular Culture section, again reverted the same day by Mr. Granger.

Can we get some other editors to weigh in on whether this belongs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchups (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 September 2015‎

Seems like textbook WP:XKCD - if there was no secondary-source coverage of Randall's joke, no real-world knock-on effect and (ahem) if Hemingway didn't acknowledge the reference in response, then it doesn't belong in this Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Couldn't have said it better myself. (My God ... I didn't know this problem was so widespread across Wikipedia that we needed an entirely separate project-space page to explain this). Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Always good to have a policy-based answer rather than guessing. I wonder what we can do with some of the other overlodaed Popular Culture sections. Matchups 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's an essay at WP:IPC with some thoughts. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Again, you beat me to it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible replacement for picture of baby shoes.

[edit]

I suggest to replace the image with the image from http://shorteststory.com/index.php?date=2018-07-25 . It is a 5-word flash fiction directly inspired from Hemingway, saying "FOR SALE: BABY SHOES. HAUNTED!". It is illustrative and it would still work perfectly if scaled down. And it is a work on its own directly related to and derived from the topic. Main issue is the license. I know the image used is free ( https://unsplash.com/photos/jjDqU0P0-SM ), but the author for the story (and final result) hasn't given a clear license and needs to be asked. --149.172.68.17 (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first picture is not illustrative of the story this article is about - it's illustrative of a separate story based on it. The second picture is fine, I guess, but I don't see how it's any better than what we have. Also (and I know this is being pedantic to an unhelpful level) but the story is about baby shoes not baby booties. The two terms are not rigidly defined of course, and there is some overlap in the picture galleries, but they do seem to generally be used for different items. I think the current picture is more illustrative. Matt Deres (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

[edit]

This type of article could be easily vandalized. ~~ ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It is referenced on Uk´s post punk band Idles. The song is called https://genius.com/15284877 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.13.133 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "June"? People generally don't title their songs with URLs. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

focus of article

[edit]

The article is named after the story (or its title, there's no difference).

But the focus is on the claim Hemingway wrote it.

Either the focus should be righted, so the bits about Hemingway read as only a part of the article; or the article should be renamed to more accurately describe the content.

CapnZapp (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Six word story" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Six word story has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20 § Six word story until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_worn&oldid=1249768733"