Talk:Donald Trump baby balloon/Archive 1

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Resolved

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bonner link in infobox[edit]

Resolved

Link is incorrect. How do we remove? This frustrates me about the automatic linking in the template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that feature needs to be removed from the template. I've enclosed his name in nowiki tags.- MrX 🖋 14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX addressed with this edit. I was expecting a template parameter to force unlinking, but this works! We might consider turning automatic linking off. Thanks for your help! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how many balloons[edit]

Which source's excerpt affirms that the balloon flown in London was the exact same flown in Edinburgh? Is it possible there is 1 design but 2 incarnations? Does any talk about a balloon being transported 402 miles? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that Hatty Collier is referring to the physical blimp shell and not the entity of the blimp which encompasses multiple incarnations? https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2018/07/14/16/trumpblimp1407e.jpg appears to show at least two exist. Someone might talk about bringing a "poster" into a new town when actually referring to separate copies of an omnipresent poster, right? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and headings[edit]

Template:Infobox artwork brings no value to the article. Quite frankly, it looks silly. This tendency to put enclose every subject into the rectangle of an infobox is unhelpful, but in this particular case, the use of Template:Infobox artwork is quite far fetched. I see no indication that this balloon was ever intended to be a piece of art or that anyone considers it art.

As for the headings, MOS:BODY discourages having separate sections for short paragraphs and single sentences, such as those in Donald Trump baby balloon#London, Donald Trump baby balloon#Scotland, and Donald Trump baby balloon#Purpose. The content of those three sections would fit better in a single section about the purpose and use of the balloon. Surtsicna (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock to all of your false claims; and indeed they are all false. The infobox brings value to the article by presenting key facts in an easily-digestible format. It also brings value by making them machine readable. Infobox artwork is appropriate, as the blimp is a work of art; but even if it were not, it would still be a suitable infobox, as it does not assert that the subject is an artwork. The headings are needed as there is - as the current hatnote template, not to mention the article content, makes abundantly clear - an ongoing matter with much more yet to be said. Finally you ask in your edit summary that I "explain [my] reversion of two explained edits". I did; my explanation was "restore infobox & headings", which is no less a valid explanation than you gave for your removal of the infobox and headings (you gave "less can be more", as your sole justification for the latter). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will start off by noting that your response is disturbingly hostile. It reads like a tweet of the subject of this balloon. Anyway, when more content is added, more sections will be warranted. Until then, the Manual of Style is clear: there is no need for sections consisting of a single sentence or a short paragraph. Finally, your explanation is not parallel to mine because I explained why I was removing content, while you did not explain why you were restoring it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS does not say what you pretend it does. The actual quote is "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.". That general rule of thumb does not apply in this specific case, for the reason I have already given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the word "generally" is there to exclude situations where the content cannot be moved (or merged) to any other section, such as those in Prince George of Cambridge. In this case, the content of three tiny sections can be subsumed into one proper section. In other words, three paragraphs (six sentences) should not be split into three sections when one section will do just fine. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The word "generally" is there to exclude situations where the content cannot be moved..." Can you give evidence for this remarkable claim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing remotely remarkable about it. The same sentiment is echoed by MOS:PARA; diving the article into three single-paragraph sections inhibits the flow of the text. Do you have evidence for your own interpretation? Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back the infobox, which is helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 04:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things named after him[edit]

List of things named after Donald Trump in a see also section? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure this is something named after him as much as a depiction. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing as nominator is a block-evading sock and per WP:DENY - while not vandalism, this does fall under WP:DISRUPT and consensus is obviously 'oppose'. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump baby balloon → Donald Trump baby blimp – The word "balloon" can describe small or large objects, whereas "blimp" better conveys the immensity. It is a shorter word in both letters and syllables, aesthetically pairs better with "Trump" (shares last 2 letters) and is the term Trump used when addressing it. Blimp is used by Daily Mirror, Washington Post, Evening Standard and Common Dreams, establishing it as the primary and most accurate term. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Proposer has been blocked for suspected socking. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blimp is an airship the common word is I think more suitable. 49.148.250.192 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restricting blimps to "ships" is a narrow usage which is no longer supportable given the many sources, including Trump himself, who refer to it as a blimp. "Balloon" makes people think of a tiny thing a clown would tie into the shape of a puppy. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tie a hot air balloon into the shape of a puppy? nagualdesign 05:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: Don't, just don't: Google gives you estimate counting, and calling it "estimate" (or even counting) is extremely charitably. The truth is that the number of results are magnitudes off (wildly exaggerated), and are not even failing in any consistent way, i.e. you can not even compare the numbers of two different searches. -- DexterPointy (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for following reasons
  1. It's a blimp (a whopper) of a baby. Blimps are larger than balloons, and infants (real humans) are far shorter than 6 m (Disclaimer: I'm not a midwife, but ...).
  2. The way it's tethered when flown, bear closer resemblance to a blimp than to a hot air balloon. (Hot air balloon are, pre-flight, tethered so that the basket approx. touches the ground.)
  3. SEO. The 3 components: "Donald Trump", "baby", and "blimp" - are (this far in history) unique in framing this gimmick. Same is not true, if the word "balloon" is used (it's not hard to imagine stories about the toddler Donald Trump at an event, where there's also balloons, - and just one baby also being mentioned).
  4. Most mentions I've seen, seems to use or prefer the term "blimp" over "balloon". I know its a subjective impression of mine, but there's no reliable tally available, so ... it is what it is.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also further below for the alternative suggestion: "Trump Baby (balloon)" ; which I support too. -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the size argument, the Goodyear Blimps are 192 feet long and 59.5 feet tall. The Trump baby is 12 feet by about 6 feet. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said it's "a blimp (a whopper) of a baby". Unless the Goodyear blimp has been morphed into a baby shape, then ... -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barrage balloon is probably a much better moniker, except that nobody has yet called it a barrage balloon. The major (and sad) point is that WP article titles are determined by what is most commonly used (hailing mediocrity). If you show the illustrative photo of barrage balloon to Joe Average, then Joe will highly likely tell you that it's a blimp.-- DexterPointy (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Description" section begins "The 6-metre (20 ft) tall, helium-filled plastic inflatable..." Doesn't this suggest that the preferred generic term is "inflatable"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please focus on the article's title here, not deviating into cleaning up whatever non-sense is in the content. (The term "plastic inflatable" is probably one of the most synthetic and alienating terms I've ever come across.) -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Focus all you wish. I'm just pointing out what will remain a disparity between title and content. If that description really is "synthetic and alienating" as you suggest, I'm sure we'd all welcome an improvement. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inflatable doll? —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inflatable non-living doll? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not a blimp and search engines prefer the current term. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Re: "...search engines prefer the current term": How did you conduct interviews with search engines about their preferences? -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did Bing and someone above did Google. What do you mean "interviews"? Did I contact the search engine personally and interview it? Yes. Yes, I did. Sort of a Borgish fella. Said all was square and balloon was right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: My point was that machines do not have preferences. Though, much more important and to the point: your methods, data, and conclusion is opaque to the extreme; and now saying "I did Bing", isn't really bringing further illumination to market. -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know what User:Anna Frodesiak means. Google Trends for 13 July in the UK shows 100% for "trump baby", 83% for "trump balloon", 53% for "trump blimp" and 4% for "trump inflatable". Worldwide on 14 July it is 100% for baby, 93% for balloon, 24% for blimp and 2% for inflatable. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamacfarlane: You've got Google Trends very wrong on two counts (one major, one minor).
Major: Google Trends does not show number of searches. The numbers (indices) you're seeing are not only normalised, but also uncorrelated!
Minor: Google Trends is traditionally slow in updating. Collecting and analysing all statistical data from the server logs of all servers in all data centres across the globe, is not a top priority for Google. The more recent the metrics Google Trends shows you, the greater margin of error. A rule of thumb, is to give a week or so for letting the dust settle.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I implied they were the number of searches, or if the data was extremely precise and up to date. What is shown is, for the four terms I picked as examples, "search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time". jamacfarlane (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamacfarlane: The most important point is that data aren't correlated. I'm unsure if you got that point, but am confident that others may well fail, so a simple example to illustrate what I meant is: "It took 10 seconds to fill a glass of water (100% full), and it took 10 minutes to fill a swimming-pool to it only being half full (50% full)". Point: Neither volumes nor flows (pump-capacities) can be compared from the stated data. -- DexterPointy (talk)
  • Oppose, per Anna above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose calling it a blimp as it's clearly not one (per Blimp). However, balloon doesn't seem the right term either, but I think we can all agree it's an inflatable. The original crowdfunder called it the "Trump Baby", a "six meter high orange, inflatable baby", [1] so I support moving to Donald Trump inflatable baby. The fact "blimp" is used by various newspapers doesn't make it accurate, and inflatable is a neutral term. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Inflatable", eh? Say, that's not bad. But, I still like balloon, for now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion got the buoyancy of a metal inflatable -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blimp, support "Inflatable" —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative (better title) is "Trump Baby (balloon)"
    Note: The name, acc. to origin of this balloon/blimp, is actually "Trump Baby"
    This proposed alternative appear to reconcile all (or certainly nearly all) factors which goes into naming an article, amongst others being
- It's short and simple (the "(balloon)" ending is partly needed for disambiguation, and partly for clarity)
- Google (the most prevalent search engine) does do extended stemming (aliasing) on "balloon" & "blimp" for queries which also includes "Trump".
- It aligns well with what it's commonly being called (mainstream media is currently in a state of no-consensus on "balloon" versus "blimp")
- It technically is a balloon, not a blimp.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're now going to open a new Requested move? You'll need to let this one close first? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly competent to propose an alternative title within the discussion, in view of coming to consensus. Opening another RM for each alternative proposal would be needlessly complicated and is, in fact, prohibited by Wikipedia policy as multiple open RMs are not supported by the bot that handles updates to the current discussions page. See WP:RM#CM. jamacfarlane (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only in a WP technical procedural interpretation, is this a move request. In terms of discussion purpose/aim, then this discussion might as well be called "What should the article's title be?" -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then I'm not sure you the OP should have filed a Requested move. Latecomers might get a bit confused as to what they're expected to !vote for. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not filed any move request. meh? -- DexterPointy (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Trump Baby (balloon)" because this article is the primary topic and there are no other "Trump Baby" articles which could be confused with it. I would support moving to Trump Baby though. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ScratchMarshall has been blocked as a sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyciol. If I were on my PC I'd strike through his posts. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • since he initiated the move request it should just be closed עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully agree. Isn't that policy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think since other editors have supported moving (to various titles), the RM should stay open to see what the consensus is. If it's withdrawn on the basis the nominator is blocked, another editor will almost certainly make a similar request and we will have to have the discussion all over again. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vote is 10 to 1 against at the moment. I think it's fair to say that no one will make a similar request. nagualdesign 19:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Against blimp but no stated opposition to Trump Baby is my point. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least folks have expressed their views. Happy to see this closed and a new proposal e.g. Trump Baby, or whatever, if desired. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion How about closing this (because no way it will be blimp), and starting a new RfC with a list of several choices like we do with lead images? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another suggestion. RfC's are rubbish, so let's just close this one per Anna, Martin and myself, then discuss things. Once one or two options appear to be gaining support, if necessary put it to a !vote. nagualdesign 20:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That is even better. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source that says it doesn't have an engine? –dlthewave ☎ 14:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
?????? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG talk 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
is theree a source that says its not an airplane עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and is there a source that says it's not a geo-stationary spy-satellite, etc., etc.?? I suspect not. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...work it out people. I'll be back in a bit. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Support close - This is one of banned editor Scratchmarshall's attempts to bog down the discussion with questions of minutiae that may have no objective answer. There is no oversyllablization or word pairing issue that needs to be addressed.
To address the question, "balloon" does encompass objects of various shapes and sizes such as the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade example above but this doesn't seem to be a source of confusion for anyone except Scratch. We only need to disambiguate between notable topics that actually exist, not every hypothetical example of a "Trump baby balloon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 14:55, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image caption[edit]

Resolved

The caption on the second image is not actually a caption, but a quote from an activist. It violates WP:NPOV because it gives undue prominence to an individual's point of view and it is not a description of the image. I changed the caption to a more appropriate one but was reverted by BushelCandle.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.
However, it's not a quote from any old by-standing, commentator critical (as the majority in the UK are) of the USA's national embarrassment. It's a direct quote from Leo Murray, "who led the campaign to fly the blimp during Trump's visit". --BushelCandle (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: I suggest you read the article linked to in the reference, which was the source of both the image and the caption, before deciding whether or not it's a reliable source. Personally, I see no reason to doubt its veracity. If you think the caption should simply describe the image then I suggest that the quote be placed in its own quote box. It's definitely relevant to the article. I really don't wish to be drawn into a protracted political debate though, so I'll just take a back seat. Cheers, nagualdesign 00:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% confident that the quote doesn't belong in the image caption and I can almost guarantee that other editors will promptly remove it. If we quote the person at all, there has to be a reason. Either they are a notable person whose opinions are routinely sought by the press, or their comment has been noted by multiple sources. We don't just insert random quotes from a questionable source into an encyclopedia article, especially when they are solely a political message. IF the quote is noteworthy, it will be found in some mainstream sources. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part about Leo Murray being the guy who led the campaign? As for mainstream sources, take your pick. Remember, Google is your friend! nagualdesign 01:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a part of what MrX is getting at us that the caption should note Leo's status as the campaign's lead. "London activist" is very general. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I understand his role, but the quote does not belong in a WP:CAPTION. It's not a description of the Trimp™ (Trump-blimp) I don't object to it being in the article proper. Obviously I don't feel that strongly about it, but somebody will.- MrX 🖋 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The caption has been removed, as has the image altogether (see below), so I am marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion[edit]

Resolved

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't the {{Article for deletion}} template be at the top of this talk page rather than the top of the article, since it's aimed at editors and not the general public? I tried searching for an answer but found nothing. nagualdesign 17:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BushelCandle: I already tried moving the AfD template to the talk page earlier, having received no reply to my question above, but the template displayed an error message ("Oi! Wrong namespace, dickhead!" or WTTE) so I left it. nagualdesign 23:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: AFD templates are never on talk pages. The general public is welcome to participate in any deletion discussion. --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflicgt) Yup, it does defy logic to my way of thinking and I was too cock-sure to double check before attempting the move and too slow to self-revert - someone more knowledgeable (User:NeilN) beat me to it. I'd better go to bed now before I make any more silly mistakes... --BushelCandle (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general public is welcome to participate in any deletion discussion. Fair point. nagualdesign 23:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has closed and the article has been kept. Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. nagualdesign 22:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Deletion requests have now been broken into 3 separate pages. The 2 new nomination pages can be found here and here. nagualdesign 18:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three images have been deleted, and I've moved the remaining image in the article to the infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody here have a Facebook account?[edit]

If so, could you please read my comments at the 3rd nomination page and follow the link provided? We just need somebody with FB credentials to ask the copyright owner of the photograph whether or not they have licensed the images used on Crowdfunder under CC BY-SA 3.0, as claimed on Common Dreams. I have attempted to contact Crowdfunder and have provided them with my email address, but I have yet to receive a reply. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 21:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody...? nagualdesign 22:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: I was at the Trump rally (though not taking part, just passing through) and I took a photo of the baby balloon myself which I'm happy to upload as a free licence, if I could work out where my damn Mac has put the file. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Make sure you upload it locally, since the Commons folk seem to believe that if you take a photo of anything you're somehow infringing on the intellectual property of the people who made the thing that you photographed, and if one of them sees another one scratching their head in confusion they think they're supposed to err on the side of deletion. nagualdesign 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it locally to File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg. I haven't cropped or retouched it, it's straight from my phone. It's not the best shot, but it is all my own work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually pretty useful, since you can see the Houses of Parliament in the background and a lot of people's reactions. I've taken the liberty of lightening the foreground a little and cropping some of the sky (3:2 ratio). I'll add it to the article. Thanks again, Ritchie. nagualdesign 23:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bit late now, but I did notice that a picture I took of it outside the O2 in London, prior to Pearl Jam's show, was deleted, after I uploaded it to Commons. Seems a bit OTT to me (the deletion, not me travelling to London to take the pic...) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of the design[edit]

The copyright holder has confirmed that the license of the design has yet to be set or published but is planning on doing this very soon. If you have a twitter account, you can join that discussion at Twitter, more viewpoints may help them come to a helpful decision. If the copyright release is set as non-commercial use only such as CC-BY-NC, then photographs which have the balloon as their focus will not be suitable for Wikimedia Commons, but could be hosted on Wikipedia without any issue. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that answers the question I came to ask. We have a picture of the Edinburgh protest showing both balloons which would make a good addition... Lirazelf (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Resolved

Not sure if I can get in trouble for reverting vandalism on repeat (3RR, etc.), but I could use help with reverting and we might consider deleting the diffs with the graphic imagery. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also submitted a temporary request for page protection. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected temporarily. Should the diffs with the graphic images be removed from the edit history? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted from Commons, so there is nothing left to see in the history. And a reminder for everyone: there is no 3RR limit if you are reverting blatant vandalism. Go to 300R if you wish, but of course report to WP:AIV at some point. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

I am concerned about the neutrality of this section. The ballooon was wildly popular- but reading this section you would realise that. I have placed a {{cn}} tag to start the debate- but I suggest that the text is selective chosen from with in the references. Who the hell cares what (NF) an extreme right wing loopy thinks? I would cull that for the start. On the American side- if we mention a Republican shouldn't we have a Democrat too. Lots of issues here. ClemRutter (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have been bold and trimmed the section diff. One-sided views from self-confessed extremists, with no representative alternative published views is clearly non-neutral for an encyclopaedia. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'reactions' section should be deleted anyway. It's only 3 lines, which can easily fit in elsewhere.
I would support deleting the reactions section. Trump's reaction, which is noteworthy, can be incorporate somewhere else.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US balloon[edit]

The US balloon that will be flown in New Jersey belongs under the section use where it has always been. It is not a reaction. We should not confuse our readers by improperly placing this material somewhere where they won;t be looking for it. - MrX 🖋 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US version does (or do not, if more than one) yet exist, so cannot have been used. The details of the proposal to make it (them) therefore belong under "reaction", not "use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a proposal; it's a concrete plan that is fully funded. We could change the section name from Use (which is awkward anyway) to Locations which should satisfy these concerns. How does that sound?- MrX 🖋 13:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Equally dumb, since objects that do not exist cannot have a location. See also WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! I'm trying to reach a reasonable compromise here. I don't think it's reasonable to have the New Jersey balloons under Reactions since balloons that definitely will be built don't react.- MrX 🖋 13:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: The section structure of this article is not ideal. Perhaps we should keep everything but the third-party comments in simple, chronological order.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The text in question begins "Inspired by the UK Baby Trump balloon...". The phase "Inspired by" makes explicit that it is a reaction to.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, the original balloon should go under reactions because it's a reaction to Trump.- MrX 🖋 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "reaction" section is for reactions to the balloon. Putting the balloon under "reactions" because the balloon is a reaction to something else would be circular.
Yes, that was exactly my point.- MrX 🖋 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the same balloon (being taken to the U.S.) it's under use. If it's a copycat balloon it may be appropriate to move the article to "...baby balloons" (plural) to recognise there is a phenomenon of people making Trump balloons, and describing each individual use of them. This article suggests there will be three new balloons made for New Jersey using the original UK design. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Use is the wrong place for the information, Reaction fits better since the plan for the US balloon is a reaction... Failing that why not rename the Description section to History and put the plans for the new one there? PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would screw up the chronology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could put everything under Background and History. - MrX 🖋 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone other than MrX think that details of the proposed US ballon(s) belong under "Use"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's not a use yet; it's a proposal. If and when Trump Babies are flown in the U.S., the article can be updated. jamacfarlane (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question Andy. At this moment in time I have no strong opinion as it wouldn't affect the balance of the article but thinking to the future when they start being replicated for car stickers, billboards, school projects and other artwork then the balance shifts to grouping them all under reaction. ClemRutter (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel nearly as strongly about this as PoTW. If other editors feel it belongs somewhere else, I'm not going to edit war over it. Once the balloon is flown over NJ, it definitely belongs under Uses (or hopefully a more encyclopedic heading like Locations or Venues. I still think the article should be restructured.- MrX 🖋 13:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: sorry, can you explain PoTW? I've restructured the article to remove 'reaction' and someone else has updated it to 'background' and 'history' which I am content with. jamacfarlane (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, PigsonTheWing (Andy Mabbett). - MrX 🖋 14:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views?[edit]

Dear Pigsonthewing, could you point me to a source that quotes Trump's purported racial views as a theme of the balloon protest? Just trying to avoid WP:OR or WP:SYN here. Many thanks in advance. — JFG talk 12:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, demonstrators gathered outside the Turnberry course in Ayrshire, where demonstrators shouted: “No Trump, no USA, no KKK, no racist USA!”
— The Independent

The first of a series of protests over the president's visit was held outside Trump Turnberry on Wednesday, with a small group of activists from Stand Up to Racism Scotland (SUTR) brandishing banners with the slogans "Trump not welcome" and "No to racism, no to Trump".
— BBC

"The baby Trump is not just a piece of humor, but it is also a symbol of the administration," Jiminez-Castro told N.J.com. "It's symbolic of the children that are in cages, it's a symbol of racism, and we know that he hates to be ridiculed."
— NPR

“He’s also racist demagogue who is a danger to women, immigrants and minorities and a mortal threat to world peace and the very future of life on earth. Moral outrage is water off a duck’s back to Trump. But he really seems to hate it when people make fun of him...

A spokesman for the Nona Hurkmans group, which is behind the protest, said they wanted to use “humour to take a stand against the rise of racist and fascist politics both here in the UK and over in the US”
— iNews

This was a courtesy. Next time, would you please check the sources yourself?- MrX 🖋 12:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the quotes. I did read all of those that were cited in the lede, and was puzzled not to find the word "race", "racial" or "racism" in there. I believe it would be useful to add the best quote representing this view in the lede paragraph, lest another editor slaps a "Fails verification" tag some later day. — JFG talk 13:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading all this, still nothing that verifies the contested sentence:
  • BBC: Balloon won't fly over Turnberry, will be flown elsewhere in Scotland. Separately, "a small group of activists" displayed anti-racist banners at Turnberry. No connection between the balloon and racial views. — JFG talk 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPR: quotes U.S. activists who plan to create a copy of the balloon and fly it in their country. Jimenez-Castro calls it a symbol of children in cages and of racism, but that's just his personal opinion of the balloon, which has nothing to do with the U.K. protests actually flying it.
  • The Independent: Same story as BBC about protesters chanting slogans at Turnberry. No balloon. — JFG talk 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • iNews: Never heard of it; is that an RS? Looks like an online news aggregator at first glance. It actually cites the text of a petition that had been circulated to support the balloon project. He’s also racist demagogue who is a danger to women, immigrants and minorities and a mortal threat to world peace and the very future of life on earth. That's something, although a kind of boilerplate rant against Trump. I honestly don't see how this quote supports the assertion that balloon-waving protesters had any stance over Trump's "racial views".
I believe we need to find good journalistic sources covering the protests and making an explicit connection between this big beautiful balloon and Trump's big nasty racial views. Otherwise we are in WP:SYNTH territory, and that's neither big nor beautiful. We also have zero text in the article that talks about race or racism or views thereof, so how can "racial views" be left standing in the lede? We are an encyclopedia, we don't do clickbait. — JFG talk 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are journalistic sources. The connection is explicit and clear. The project was funded on this very premise![2] You don't get to impose your own criteria simply because you disagree with the sources or you think that Trump's racial views are clickbait. We follow WP:V. - MrX 🖋 13:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the only source kind-of supporting the statement is iNews, a minor publication at best. BBC, NPR and the Independent make absolutely no connection, and should be discounted for purposes of verification. — JFG talk 15:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I literally linked to the fundraising campaign that started the whole thing. Andy Mabbett quoted the text (below) and even bolded the salient portions. It doesn't get any better than that.- MrX 🖋 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, should we add to the lede sentence that the balloon was created in reaction to Trump's "mortal threat to world peace and the very future of life on earth"? This content would have just as much justification as "racist demagogue", which was helpfully watered-down to unspecified "racial views", so that it links nicely to our long-winded article about them. — JFG talk 15:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some supporting secondary source for ""mortal threat to world peace and the very future of life on earth", then I would have no objection to adding it, but it should be shortened to something like "world threat".- MrX 🖋 16:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly hundreds of people who have called Trump a threat to world peace, but I can't find that in relation to the balloon. Similarly you have not shown any secondary source about "racial views" in relation to the balloon. The article body also fails to mention this. It should be removed from the lede. In fact, the lede sentence would be much simpler if it just stated that the balloon was flown as a protest against Trump generally: no need to specify a laundry list of "him, his visit, his policies and his racial views." — JFG talk 07:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of writing, reference 19 quotes (emboldening mine): "The petition: Make Trump Baby Fly. Donald Trump is a big, angry baby with a fragile ego and tiny hands. He's also racist demagogue who is a danger to women, immigrants and minorities and a mortal threat to world peace and the very future of life on earth. Moral outrage is water off a duck's back to Trump. But he really seems to hate it when people make fun of him. So when Trump visits the UK on Friday the 13th of July this year, we want to make sure he knows that all of Britain is looking down on him and laughing at him. That's why a group of us have chipped in and raised enough money to have a 6 metre high blimp made by a professional inflatables company, to be flown in the skies over Parliament Square during Trump's visit. HTH. Quite why you were unable to find that for yourself, after being directed to the article's references, puzzles me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it; please see my comment on this quote, which probably edit-conflicted with yours. "That's why" does not seem to connect to the earlier phrase describing Trump as a "racist demagogue" and a "mortal threat to life on Earth". Rather it more logically refers to "when he visits, we want to make sure he knows [we're] laughing at him." — JFG talk 13:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem out of place to describe the blimp as a "protest at him, his visit, his racial views, his history of sexual misconduct, and his policies" when there's nothing about the physical balloon that directly references racism, sexual misconduct or policy. A fake-tan baby holding a phone in its tiny hands is only mocking Trump's appearance, temperament and affection for Twitter, and its flight during his visit is protesting at that visit. These would be more relevant details to put across in the first sentence. The current lead text does not even mention that the balloon depicts him as a baby! --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable[edit]

Per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, this event does not yet meet the criteria for lasting notability. There are lots of protests against lots of politicians every single day, and lots of different artwork associated with these protests. But these routine news events do not, in and of themselves, make their subjects notable simply because they are reported on by a few different media sources. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; there is no way to know whether this event will end up being considered "timeless." This article may remain intact for now, but once the recentism of the event has faded, it should be evaluated as to its lasting notability, or lack thereof. Greggens (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, but as your final sentence explains, unlike most anti-Trump protests, this is big news now (all around the world), and only time will tell if the world forgets. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been in the news cycle for at least two weeks. Notability can be a fleeting thing but WP:1E lasts, in many cases, forever. Wikipedia is still WP:NOTNEWS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Hasn't been in the news cycle for at least two weeks." Absolute statements are dangerous. Have you been paying attention to tabloid news in my country? HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about nominating this since I wholeheartedly agree, but I know how it's going to end. Wikipedia has all but forgotten about NOTNEWS, just look at the shitstorm over a few tweets from a couple years ago by this woman (you can't have it both ways, Winkelvi), and so the response will be "keep there are plenty of sources", which is completely unsatisfactory. I suggest you wait a year, a month, a week, a natural day, and nominate it while all the ones on the other side aren't looking. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personal remarks
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Please stop following my edits and making sarcastic comments to and about me, Drmies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't resist. Seriously? I follow recent changes, and I have an interest in this and other articles, and I followed the two earlier AfDs. That there's something to say about your edits, well, there's the blatant--what shall we call it--epistemological chasm between your argument here and your argument there, so yeah, that's worth commenting on. That is, NOTNEWS is a valid argument here, but less so if you refuse to apply it across the board. So I'd love to agree with you, but you make that really difficult. Now feel free to spend your time more wisely than on me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Now feel free to spend your time more wisely than on me." What a humorously ironic statement. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're always looking.Czolgolz (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. You're not even really in the SEC, as far as I'm concerned. Ha! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some mischievous tagging going on here.ClemRutter (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I removed the notability tag, and thanks for the removing the recentism tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this Trump Baby balloon protest was a one time thing, then I would support merging it into Trump Protests and redirecting the current title of this article to the section it is in the Trump Protests article. But the Balloon is going global and will take flight in Ireland in November 2018 and other protest groups plan on flying their own variations of the balloon in New Jersey, as metioned by this article. In conclusion, this article is definitely notable for the reasons metioned above. 344917661X (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted in Paris[edit]

A Baby Trump balloon was seen in Paris, France recently Link: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/11/11/paris-anti-trump-protesters-armistice-day-bell-newday-vpx.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

See also: Salute to America

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dump Trump[edit]

Similar article at Dump Trump (statue) (some current sources mention both), if page watchers care to come help expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_baby_balloon/Archive_1&oldid=1073333613"