Talk:Barbenheimer/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
What is going on with the links?
Barbie links to oppenheimer, and oppenheimer links to barbie. I get that this might be some kind of joke, but isn't this against Wikipedia rules or something? Thetukars (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- You'd be correct. Someone (thank you, helpful IP address) has now reverted this back to normal. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
adding BarbMinHeimer as a drop-down tab would be cool
Pikmin 4 is set to release the same day as Barbie and Oppenheimer so it'd be cool to see a small note about it on the Barbenheimer wikipedia page Celestiallide (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is there media coverage of its release overlapping? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- as much as I'd love to see Barminheimer referenced in this article, it is definitely a way less notable fad meme that wouldn't pass the twenty year test, akin to the memes from when it was revealed that sonic 3 and avatar 3 would have the same release date. maybe a single sentence footnote, if anything, can be justified. Barbenheimer is a cultural phenomenon that has broken out of the twitter comment section and into the real world, Barminheimer is an in-joke within the niche pikmin community. that's how it be sometimes. 2601:249:9301:1560:D9E3:1AA5:265D:2B54 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Change this article title
The term "Barbenheimer" is really uncommon. In my experience people talking about this without using the term. Per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:UNDUE I think the title should be changed to "Barbie and Oppenheimer release phenomenon", "Barbie and Oppenheimer dual release phenomenon", or something like that (feel free to suggest a new one). Hddty (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, "Barbie and Oppenheimer release phenomenon" returns zero Google hits, so I'd call that uncommon too. Maybe we should call it Oppie vs. Barbie, or Oppie and Barbie's Excellent Adventure. EEng 08:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Hddty It is not uncommon. Google "Barbenheimer". You will see a plethora of reliable sources referring to the phenomenon by the name.
- https://variety.com/2023/film/news/christopher-nolan-barbenheimer-barbie-oppenheimer-opening-terrific-1235668082/
- https://www.vox.com/culture/23789864/barbenheimer-barbieheimer-barbie-oppenheimer-release-memes-double-feature
- https://www.ign.com/articles/christopher-nolan-embraces-barbenheimer
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/movies/barbie-oppenheimer-release-day.html
- I am fine with setting up a few redirects to this page if you believe it would be helpful for readers. But I do not think we should change the article name. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Barbenheimer seems to be a very common term and seems like the best title for this article. --Jpcase (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Oasis v Blur
I have deleted a comparison between this thing and the rivalry between Oasis and Blur in the 90s, as its only source says "Contrary to the way the rivalry was initially framed, this is no replay of the hostile Blur v Oasis Britpop war of the mid-1990s."
I saw that this sentence gets removed and added again regularly. Please make sure that it doesn't get added again (or at least not without a better source than one directly contradicting the claim) once the weekend is over in the timezone where Warner Bros. International Inc employees live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoheolo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Contested deletion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page should not be speedily deleted because Barbenheimer is epic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:CE08:DF01:70EA:F28A:E29E:800C (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Articles for deletion would be the best route. Mike Allen 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MikeAllen: This seems to be controversial. I've added a
{{Notability}}tag and was even thanked for it, and yet it was later removed as a WP:DRIVEBY tag. I'm hesitant to start an AfD for this because it has some fair amount of references behind it, but I see a definite problem with WP:20YT here. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to document every short-lived internet phenomenon, and this sort of thing is like flypaper for culture journalists. And so, despite the amount of references, inclusion isn't justified, in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- i think that what determines if barbenheimer has staying power is if this level of "same release day film tone dissonance" (SRDFTD for short) happens again in the next 5 years. this type of SRDFTD has happened in the past, but they happened so close together than no one remembers any specific example anymore. a long time has passed since the last big SRDFTD, allowing for barbenheimer to take up more space in the public and cultural consciousness. For the time being this should not be deleted since it is a notable cultural event, I know anecdotal evidence isn't credible evidence, but people I know who almost never go to the movie theater are making time in their day for a double feature. this goes beyond just memes.
- i'd say it's notable until it isnt. hope this made sense lol. 2601:249:9301:1560:A4E6:FC3D:22DB:6A5A (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
it's notable until it isnt
is just not how it works. Again, see WP:20YT. I'd strongly argue that this "quirky" phenomenon is best covered in one sentence on Barbie (film) and Oppenheimer (film). By no stretch of the imagination does it merit its own article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)- if damn "Listenbourg" can get its own article, I don't see why barbenheimer can't be given a shot. I am aware of the twenty year test, my take was that barbenheimer would pass the twenty year test as long as no other "notable" SRDFTD happens within the next five years.
- anyways, I do think that the creation of this article could've at least waited until the movies came out lol. there's not much impact to write about when the bombs haven't even dropped yet. 2601:249:9301:1560:D9E3:1AA5:265D:2B54 (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- "same release day film tone dissonance" as a concept is/should be covered by the Counterprogramming (film distribution) page. It makes sense to me that Barbenheimer should be a couple of sentences there as an example of user response (the memes encouraging double feature) to the Counterprogramming marketing strategy.
- IMHO, this article isn't well written as it opens by declaring that Barbenheimer is an example of Counterprogramming. But then as you read the article further it's made clear that the Barbenheimer memes are actually a response to Counterprogramming. Pklapperich (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MikeAllen: This seems to be controversial. I've added a
...because Barbenheimer is epic
is not a valid defense of this article's inclusion.
- Having put time and resources into establishing this article from its pitiful state, there is merit in assessing what notability this topic might have after July 21. I also acknowledge prudence and thus the notability that this subject will have in the decades to follow. It is premature to make such an assessment at this time with a stringent and forthcoming date that could determine that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- This page is already getting 30,000 views a day. The cats out of the bag, hung out to dry, and while not as fun as a barrel of monkeys, is as notable. Hopefully nobody will try to RfD this page so that time isn't wasted but, more importantly, an RfD tag isn't hung on top of this future feature page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: This article is "doing the numbers" because Depths of Wikipedia went and posted about it. In any case, pure numbers don't establish notability. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Festucalex. Of course the numbers don't, but sources do, and this one is picking up enough reputable source coverage (The Guardian etc.) and making the rounds in Hollywood and elsewhere as a pop-up culture phenomenon (which can only intensify as the premier date approaches) that its notability seems established. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: This article is "doing the numbers" because Depths of Wikipedia went and posted about it. In any case, pure numbers don't establish notability. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Putting this much detail on two film pages would be incredibly annoying, however the details most definitely have a place on Wikipedia.
- there’s several key missing sections that need to be added to name a few
- Oppenheimer north vs barbie south in London
- the Barbie dream house marketing stunt 81.155.91.197 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- For Deletion: I also agree with most of the rationale being presented here. While this is a fun trend, I think that this doesn't warrant an article because I also think that this fails WP:20YT. In regards to @Festucalex's suggestion of covering it in one sentence, I also think that it functions perfectly as the article is kind of bare as it mainly just talks about previous instances before, meaning that the Barbenheimer is in no way unprecedented and similar situations has happened before. Also, the double feature viewing and box office sections are just redundant and there for filler, imo. The analysis section is probably the best, but even then, it's simply just X person supports either movie and Nolan doesn't appreciate it. So to recap, I think it's just stretching it thin, and this can easily be condensed to a few sentences that can be fit into their respective articles and is definitely not enough content to warrant its own. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Dcdiehardfan Claiming that this qualifies for deletion due to WP:20YT seems like an impossible argument to make. The fact that it fits WP:GNG so well is already an indicator that it will remain notable. Overall we simply don't know enough to be able to make that call. Either we leave the article up, and take it down if it becomes clear that it's fallen out of notability, or we take it down now, and regardless of how notable it remains, there is no article. - callumpenguin (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Callumpenguin While I admit I might've jumped the gun a bit, I still stand by my opinion that I think this article fails the 20YT, but again, I'm certainly not clairvoyant, so perhaps I could be wrong on that. However, I think that for now, it's ok to keep the article. I like the statement you said though about keeping the article up tentatively and deleting it once it's time. And @InfiniteNexus thanks Dcdiehardfan (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Dcdiehardfan: The correct place to cast your !vote is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Dcdiehardfan Claiming that this qualifies for deletion due to WP:20YT seems like an impossible argument to make. The fact that it fits WP:GNG so well is already an indicator that it will remain notable. Overall we simply don't know enough to be able to make that call. Either we leave the article up, and take it down if it becomes clear that it's fallen out of notability, or we take it down now, and regardless of how notable it remains, there is no article. - callumpenguin (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- For Deletion: I also agree with most of the rationale being presented here. While this is a fun trend, I think that this doesn't warrant an article because I also think that this fails WP:20YT. In regards to @Festucalex's suggestion of covering it in one sentence, I also think that it functions perfectly as the article is kind of bare as it mainly just talks about previous instances before, meaning that the Barbenheimer is in no way unprecedented and similar situations has happened before. Also, the double feature viewing and box office sections are just redundant and there for filler, imo. The analysis section is probably the best, but even then, it's simply just X person supports either movie and Nolan doesn't appreciate it. So to recap, I think it's just stretching it thin, and this can easily be condensed to a few sentences that can be fit into their respective articles and is definitely not enough content to warrant its own. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- This page is already getting 30,000 views a day. The cats out of the bag, hung out to dry, and while not as fun as a barrel of monkeys, is as notable. Hopefully nobody will try to RfD this page so that time isn't wasted but, more importantly, an RfD tag isn't hung on top of this future feature page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. It’s interesting phenomenon also with good marketing strategy. We need to keep it Anna.gadom (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ITSINTERESTING. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Does the recently announced postponement of the Oppenheimer general release affect the notability of this article? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ECF9:6F3F:2E4B:BF56 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- What delay? InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ECF9:6F3F:2E4B:BF56 These aren't recent claims, and they aren't true. It is not delayed, it was a misunderstanding. See this source and this source. I have just added a couple of sentences to the article about this. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Potential Oppenheimer delays
Recently a talk page comment under Talk:Barbenheimer#Contested deletion brought to my attention a possible delay in Oppenheimer's release. I researched this, and found it to be untrue, but I found widely published, reliable sources for this information.
I added the following text to the article:
In April 2023, the director of Cannes Film Festival, Thierry Frémaux, stated that Oppenheimer's theatrical release was set for the end of the year,[1] leading reports to claim that the film was no longer set to release on the same day as Barbie. However, it was revealed later in the month that Frémaux was mistaken on this, and that the two films were still both set for July 21.[2][3][4]
It was then reverted for being "just a rumor". I reverted this back, as I believe it should stay, but it was again reverted.
It is not breaking any of Wikipedia guidelines. I am not predicting anything or stating my opinion, so, per WP:RUMOUR, I believe the information I added can stay.
I don't want to create more arguments for this page's talk page, but I didn't think this would be controversial as it's well-sourced information.
Thoughts? Strugglehouse (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- it's not controversial, it just didn't happen, and is unlikely to happen. you write
the two films were still both set for July 21
. why is it useful to know that it was rumoured that the film would be delayed, though it didn't happen? Artem.G (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)- @Artem.G It can be kept as it passes WP:RUMOUR for numerous reasons. It is verifiable, and appears in various reliable sources. It isn't just a rumour, it's something that is widely published. It's not a prediction, and it's not an opinion. It adds to the information on the comparison and double feature viewing of both films. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't revert it again, though it's not an answer to why is it needed in the article. It didn't happen, so IMO it's not useful. Artem.G (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- If there was evidence people were (and continue to be) significantly confused by this, that would be one thing. But apparently not. Just someone made an error. Blip on the screen of no significance whatsoever. No one will care in 5 years. In fact, no one cares now. EEng 15:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng There has been active confusion and feelings about this. The sources I posted above mention this, saying about the "hubbub" caused, and the "film fans in their feelings". There are also more references that say this, such as this one, which shows posts from fans angry about the change, and this one, stating that there have been "rumblings". I don't think two extra sentences are really clogging up the article. "No one cares" seems like a bit of a stretch. I think you mean "I don't care". Strugglehouse (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Got anything outside the period April 13-17? EEng 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng I will admit I can't find any good sources outside of this date, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. It *was* reported on by reliable sources. Just because it's not being actively reported on every day doesn't mean it shouldn't be included and that it isn't relevant. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not "not being actively reported on every day" -- it's not being actively reported on any day, past the 72 hours it took for everyone to realize it was just a typo on someone's teleprompter or something. If there was any chance that someone today is still confused about the release date, we might make the effort to disabuse them. But there's no such chance and it's just deadweight to include it. Obviously it's no big deal either way, but as Saint-Expury[5] said in his well-known commentary on Wikipedia editing: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." EEng 21:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng Yes, maybe it was only reported on for a short time, but it was reported on reliably. I just don't think having two extra, well-sourced sentences matters. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, no one's questioning the reliability. See WP:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. EEng 22:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng Okay. I'd rather not argue about this, so if there's no more consensus from anyone else to keep the info, then let's just leave it. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, no one's questioning the reliability. See WP:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. EEng 22:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng Yes, maybe it was only reported on for a short time, but it was reported on reliably. I just don't think having two extra, well-sourced sentences matters. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not "not being actively reported on every day" -- it's not being actively reported on any day, past the 72 hours it took for everyone to realize it was just a typo on someone's teleprompter or something. If there was any chance that someone today is still confused about the release date, we might make the effort to disabuse them. But there's no such chance and it's just deadweight to include it. Obviously it's no big deal either way, but as Saint-Expury[5] said in his well-known commentary on Wikipedia editing: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." EEng 21:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng I will admit I can't find any good sources outside of this date, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. It *was* reported on by reliable sources. Just because it's not being actively reported on every day doesn't mean it shouldn't be included and that it isn't relevant. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Got anything outside the period April 13-17? EEng 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @EEng There has been active confusion and feelings about this. The sources I posted above mention this, saying about the "hubbub" caused, and the "film fans in their feelings". There are also more references that say this, such as this one, which shows posts from fans angry about the change, and this one, stating that there have been "rumblings". I don't think two extra sentences are really clogging up the article. "No one cares" seems like a bit of a stretch. I think you mean "I don't care". Strugglehouse (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- If there was evidence people were (and continue to be) significantly confused by this, that would be one thing. But apparently not. Just someone made an error. Blip on the screen of no significance whatsoever. No one will care in 5 years. In fact, no one cares now. EEng 15:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't revert it again, though it's not an answer to why is it needed in the article. It didn't happen, so IMO it's not useful. Artem.G (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Artem.G It can be kept as it passes WP:RUMOUR for numerous reasons. It is verifiable, and appears in various reliable sources. It isn't just a rumour, it's something that is widely published. It's not a prediction, and it's not an opinion. It adds to the information on the comparison and double feature viewing of both films. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Keslassy, Elsa (2023-04-13). "Cannes Chief Thierry Fremaux Breaks Down 2023 Lineup: Jonathan Glazer's Surprise Film, Convincing Martin Scorsese to Enter Competition and Johnny Depp Controversy". Variety. Retrieved 2023-07-16.
- ^ Chitwood, Adam (2023-04-14). "No, Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer' Has Not Been Delayed". Yahoo Entertainment. Retrieved 2023-07-16.
- ^ Solomon, Daniel (2023-04-14). "Oppenheimer vs Barbie Battle Still On: Report Debunks Nolan Delay Rumors". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2023-07-16.
- ^ Woodroof, Cory (2023-04-14). "Oppenheimer still set for battle with Barbie despite delay rumors". For The Win. Retrieved 2023-07-16.
- ^ Note: Name probably misspelled, sorry. In my defense: French names are impossible to spell.
Cause
I'm kind of surprised that this article makes no mention of what directly led to this event, which is Nolan's breakup with Warner Bros. due to the HBO Max debacle and Warner's subsequent middle-finger to Universal. If this article is to exist, someone should add that info. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus If there are reliable sources for this information, we can add it. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, actually improving the article and not focusing on the temporary craze of it all. That would be great encyclopedic writing. Mike Allen 14:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus Here are some sources for this:
- https://www.insider.com/christopher-nolan-warner-bros-feud-oppenheimer-barbie-2023-7?amp
- https://screenrant.com/oppenheimer-movie-christopher-nolan-barbie-release-response/
- https://variety.com/2023/film/news/christopher-nolan-barbenheimer-barbie-oppenheimer-opening-terrific-1235668082/amp/
- https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/christopher-nolan-isnt-happy-barbie-144932256.html
- More can be found online. I don't have time to add this now, so if anyone wishes to, there are some sources. If not, I can add some information at another time. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppenheimer (film)#Development has plenty of sources on the Nolan–Warner split. I'll throw in this one as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus I have just added a "Cause" section. Feel free to add any more (reliably sourced) information if you think I've missed anything. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Should "Barbenheimer" be italicized?
Barbie is italicized, Oppenheimer is italicized. Should "Barbenheimer"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Barbenheimer is a concept, not an actual artistic or literary creation (which are italicized, such as book titles, films, artworks, etc.), so probably not. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- The memers (is that a word?) sure are treating it as one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)