Talk:Barbenheimer

Naming the studios

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

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

Barbie image

I notice that the image of Barbie has been replaced by one of Ruth Handler.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

All the Barbies were deleted not long after the film opened, but the last one had a good run. The black-and-white image of Ruth Handler with various Barbies and Kens captures both the history of the icons and their creation as well as greatly paralleling the film. Barbie features Barbie and Ken in all of their various designs and looks. And there are several prominent plot points revolving around the actress playing Ruth Handler. The tie-in to the film portrayed by the image of Handler and multiple Barbies and Kens appropriately replaces the photograph of the now deleted, but not forgotten, single Barbie (linking Handler in the caption also seems to create an appropriate historical balance to the Oppenheimer link). Wondering out loud...did Handler have a nickname? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

On the lookout for EEng.

A cursory Google does seem to indicate a nickname, at least as a child[1][2]... Shall we try for Ruthie and Oppie? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice find, but probably not, as Ruthie is not commonly known (while, on the other plastic hand, "Oppie" is quite well known and was actually voiced hundreds of times in the film). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, no, we are not doing that again. When I said "parallelism" I didn't mean "paralleling the film", I meant that placing the subject of one film next to the creator of the subject of the other film seems a bit off to me. Ruth Handler next to Oppenheimer's mom (or an atomic bomb) would make more sense. Or we could go with a more reasonable approach such as the original Barbie vs. Oppenheimer, or Margot Robbie vs. Cillian Murphy as I suggested above. Perhaps we could even use one from Variety's Actors on Actors photoshoot... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you...mouth agape in the name of all that's holy...asking for an RfC? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No thank you. Been there, done that. But tell me one of these images isn't perfect: [3] [4] [5] InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The middle one isn't perfect. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect we've squeezed all the juice we're going to get out of this one. EEng 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Well this talk page sure is a weird place ... does anyone else have any thoughts on which pair of images to use? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know what WP:NFC rationale you think would allow any of those images to be used. Seeing as we have free images representing the subject of the article (e.g. Movie theatres Marquees), and free images of both of the people in those pictures. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily pushing for the Variety images, that was just a suggestion. A non-free image of Barbie (the doll) could easily satisfy NFC, or we could move the freely licensed images of Murphy and Robbie from § Film industry reaction (not sure why they were in that particular section anyway). Or perhaps something like File:Trinity - Explosion 15s.jpg to juxtapose Handler, if we think her image is fine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A non-free image of a Barbie doll would not work here (this is not the topic's direct article) so the best that can be done has been done - the photograph of the doll's creator shown with a dozen various Barbie and Ken dolls. Are you sure that you aren't angling for an RfC? The last RfC confirmed the use of both a Barbie image and the Oppenheimer image along with their names in the caption, and the substitute for the non-free Barbie image still contains the doll itself and has been expanded to include its notable creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

An image doesn't have to be on the main article about its subject in order to satisfy NFC; not having a good-quality representation of one of the subjects of this article is a valid rationale. I am not sure why you keep on floating the idea of an RfC when that's not how RfCs work. I never said anything about an RfC, nor do I feel so strongly about this issue that I am planning to take it there. RfCs are only used as a last resort when discussion has failed to resolve a pressing issue, or when a major change in policies or guidelines is being proposed. This discussion, less than a day old and with few constructive comments, and about something that isn't that big of a deal (I just think having parallelism would work better and that the current arrangement doesn't make much sense, not that it is a grave problem that would cause the end of the world if left unchanged), has not progressed to a point where an RfC is warranted per WP:RFCBEFORE. What I am going to do now is wait to see if more people chime in on whether they want to replace either image, and if it becomes clear that there isn't interest in doing so, the discussion will naturally die off and we will move on. That's how discussions work on Wikipedia; not everything has to end with a firm resolution or an RfC (or other forms of unnecessary drama). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the image and caption selected at the RfC are not currently possible due to things on Commons, I believe the consensus reached there is no longer in force. Changing it to reinsert "Barbara Millicent Roberts and Oppie" or something similar would still be against the consensus, but the current photo is not a real substitute for the doll photo, even though it contains dolls. If there were a different photo of just a doll we could swap it and keep the same caption, but we definitely wouldn't be able to use a non-free image here. I don't think another RfC is needed at this time, we can just discuss our options and only resort to an RfC if we can't agree. Personally I think the best option is swapping the two images for an image of each of the actors. If an image of the two of them together were freely licensed, that would be even better. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO the current photo is fine, but there is also this one File:Charlotte Johnson with 1965 Barbie doll.jpg, that can also work here. Artem.G (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, what if we cropped that image to show just the doll? I guess the black-and-white color scheme would be a good parallel between Oppenheimer's black-and-white portrait. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That might be possible, but I'm not an expert on copyright. Cropping it like that seems like it may interfere with commons:De minimis usage (which already seems questionable in the current version). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Section removal discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Citation overkill

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