Talk:Nuking the fridge

Edit

needs to point to #REDIRECT[[Jumping the shark#Nuking the fridge]]

Geni 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.101.233 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

The main talk page seems to be on Talk:Nuked the fridge. -- Beardo (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The main page is now at Nuking the fridge, but there is something else already at Talk:Nuking the fridge -- Beardo (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to make this look a little more professional. I'll do a bit more later. --AndrewK (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The title here should probably be changed to "nuke the fridge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.118.191 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that sentiment-- and hopefully, after the AfD discussion is over, it will be moved to "Nuke the fridge". That was the title of an article that was deleted a few weeks ago, so I can understand that when it was re-created, the author(s) wanted to avoid accusations that it was a repeat. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First Movie?

Is it still counted as "nuking the fridge" if it was the first or only movie in the series. An example I'm thinking about (and this is my personal point of view of this movie) is the recent Transformers movie, in the scene where all the autobots (good alien robots) are hiding from the main character's parents by hiding around the outside of his house. I found that scene at a "over-the-top level of the ridiculous" and it was quite hard for me to take the movie seriously after that, not to say that a movie where alien robots come to earth and transform into vehicles and fight other alien robots that transform into vehicles should be a movie that should be taken seriously (still, all good movies should be convincing within thier own fiction)! Sorry about any spelling errors, and sorry for saying "should" so much! Please leave me a message on my talk page if you have an answer to my question, thanks--Maceo (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with pretty much everything said here ... except, it's NOT the "first"/"only" Transformers film. It's just the first bad one ;) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I Wikipedia-fied a bunch of the reference links just now. They actually still aren't really correctly formatted - they still need to reflect article titles, dates retrieved, etc... so I'll come back later and do that unless someone beats me to it. Just wanted to help get the ball rolling in the right direction. All the best. Townlake (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added Toronto Sun link, removed Facebook link - sorry, but if phrase supporters want this article taken seriously, Facebook links in the article will not help. Townlake (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed the IMDB reference and the Websites section for similar reasons. These changes can absolutely be discussed, but there are solid policy reasons to remove both sections, both of which center on the reliable sources requirement. Townlake (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree about some of the links, but I think the website section should stay up, at least for nukedthefridge.com. The reason being that the site has adopted the phrase, but is not actually about the phrase. The website actually reviews films, largely based on if they fit the criteria of the definition of this term. Basically, it is not about the phrase, but is the chief user of the phrase. As such, I feel that at least that site is worth mentioning in conjunction with the term.--AndrewK (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable. To me, the deleted version looked like the links were there primarily to promote the sites and their founders, which would be a legitimate criticism to raise in the AfD. If you can set up a revised version in the terms you described here, that'd be great. Townlake (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Definitely a good point about them looking like promotions, though I do think the one is worth mentioning along with the phrase. I think it would probably be a good idea to at least temporarily hold off on re-adding the section until the afd issue is settled. Maybe just a sentence mentioning that the phrase led to a movie review site could be included for now.--AndrewK (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Go for it. I'm crazy today with non-wikipedia stuff, so I'm unlikely to do much editing in the near term. Townlake (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Can't do it just yet. There's a notice saying not to mess with the article until they make a decision regarding the afd. I don't want to do anything that will hurt its chances. Besides, I'm sick of being bold on Wikipedia. Whenever I am my changes just get deleted. --AndrewK (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuked/Nuke/Nuking/Nukes

I believe most of the other varients were blocked in the past, but can we somehow get them unblocked and have all the conjugations of "nuke" directed to this page?--TheFridge (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"No Consensus" for deletion

So, is the article staying, or are they still trying to make a decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.185.167 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It means further discussion is necessary. Personally, a merge seems most appropriate: the concepts are very closely related, so much so as to be virtually indistinguishable, and this term doesn't have enough demonstrated currency to need its own, separate article. Powers ^T 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think it works as a standalone article, but I won't obstruct a merger and I understand the rationale for going that route. Townlake (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You both are free to leave a comment on the merger proposal at Talk:Jumping the shark. The !vote count seems one sided but if you can present a good reason why the article is better as a standalone than as a section of Jumping the shark, please do so. Thanks!  :) Protonk (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability and neologism

I tagged this article for notability and neologism concerns, as I believe the subject of this article is a nonnotable neologism. Notability is permanent, and this word is looking like its heading down the garbage can of outdated jargon. It's been around 1/2 year since this word came out, and nobodys using it in current lingo. All the news sources coined the phrase as a neologism, and its even now only used as a "remember when" moment. "Nuking the fridge" has jumped the shark, and unless current reliable sources show otherwise, this article shouldn't be here. Themfromspace (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The section of WP:N that you refer to, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), directly contradicts the use you make of it. I quote that section in its entirety:

If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

I have removed the notability and neologism tags. I have no sympathy for WP:N or other deletionist policies and guidelines at all, and I believe Wikipedia has succeeded in spite of them, not because of them. But those who do believe in WP:N should try at least to be accurate in their use of it.

Neuromath (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All do respect, but these guidelines are what makes Wikipedia work. I retagged the article. The first sentance itself states the article is a neologism. Wikipedia operates by guidelines and policies, not by the whims of certain editors. Themfromspace (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (WP:NEO) any more carefully than WP:N. WP:NEO is not a blanket prohibition on articles about neologisms; it merely argues that such articles are especially likely to violate the general requirement (from WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS) for secondary sources about the topic of a proposed article. WP:NEO even states specifically that when secondary sources about a neologism do exist, then the neologism becomes an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. I quote (emphasis added):

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

Since Nuking the fridge already cites several secondary sources specifically about this neologism, it meets the WP:NEO criteria for notability, and I have accordingly removed the neologism tag once more.

Since you profess allegiance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Edit war ((WP:WAR) very carefully. If you are inclined to retag this article with notability or neologism tags a third time, please add new and relevant reasoning on this talk page to justify your action in doing so (just as I have done, both times, when I removed your tags). Attacking my views about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines doesn't count; I have been very careful to give arguments that have force even for those who do not share my general views on policies and guidelines. (I felt it necessary to dissent explicitly from the policies and guidelines, because in the past my discussion of their implications has been taken to imply agreement with them.)

Neuromath (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't realise it, there was an AFD for this article. The result was to keep, and the admin left the choice to merge up to the community. Consensus was reached at this talk page to merge with Jumping the Shark. The tag should be on the page until this disagreement is worked over. That's how wikipedia works; warning tags stay on pages during disagreements (which we are clearly in) and get removed when consensus has been achieved. Themfromspace (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What policy or guideline do you base that claim on? You have twice now demonstrated that your assertions about the content of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines you mention, or link to, cannot be relied on; I see no reason to suppose this third instance is any different. If there is really anything in the content of any policy or guideline to support your assertions, why do you not quote its actual words? There are rules against removing certain specific deletion tags such as {{AfD}} before a deletion debate is closed, but that does not, to my knowledge, extend to the notability or neologism tags you have applied, which represent nothing but your stated (and still unsupported) opinion. The only reason I don't remove them a third time is that WP:Edit war is one of the relatively few Wikipedia policies that (at least at present) I do have some sympathy with. But any other user who disagrees with your opinion would be justified in removing the tags that express it. Again, if I'm wrong about this, why do you not show the actual words of the policy or guideline that supports your claims?

Neuromath (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One other point: I see nothing on this talk page to support any claim that a "consensus" to merge was reached, even in the eyes of those who accept the Wikipedia concept of "consensus" as logically coherent (which I do not).

Neuromath (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything was done over at Talk:Jumping_the_shark#Merger_proposal. The proposal was rather formal and passed 9-1. Themfromspace (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) So the proposal wasn't on this talk page at all, but on another one. And the "rather formal" vote you refer to took place over a two-day period half a year ago (and vote-counting isn't supposed to be how Wikipedia "consensus" is determined, anyway). And you still have not shown anything specific in any Wikipedia policy or guideline to justify your claim that your notability/neologism tag must remain on this page. I hope other editors will not be intimidated into thinking that that tag represents anything but your own opinion - or "whim". You have shown clearly that you don't even bother to learn the content of the policies and guidelines you cite, or the accepted procedures for establishing so-called consensus, yet you still try to use them to give the impression that contradicting you and reversing your actions is opposed to "consensus" and to the policies and guidelines supported by it. ----Neuromath (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on similarity of meaning with Jumping the shark as basis for merging

After an AfD for Nuking the fridge, based largely on Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (WP:NEO), failed with no so-called consensus, it is ironic that the deletionist faction should now try to merge Nuking the fridge with Jumping the shark on grounds of similarity of meaning. According to WP:NEO, the difficulty in pinning down exactly what neologisms mean, while using only evidence from reliable sources, is one of the major reasons for (in general) avoiding the use of neologisms or the writing of articles about them:

The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. ... Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we do not do that here at Wikipedia. ... An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

Why, then, is it thought to be OK to support a merge proposal by speculating on talk pages about whether, and how much, the terms Jumping the shark and Nuking the fridge differ in meaning? The references cited for Nuking the fridge do comment on the similarity of the concept to Jumping the shark, but they also draw some distinctions between the two concepts. And for the ones that have Nuking the fridge as their principal topic, their primary purpose is to document the use and origins of Nuking the fridge, not to determine exactly how closely related that concept is to Jumping the shark, which is brought in as precedent and background material, not as the focus of a compare-and-contrast exercise, or an exercise in demonstrating synonymy.

As I have pointed out elsewhere on this page (#Notability and neologism), WP:NEO does not contain a blanket prohibition against writing articles on neologisms; it only warns editors to be especially careful to observe Wikipedia policies and guidelines against original research, unverifiable claims, and the use of unreliable sources, when writing about neologisms. In the case of Nuking the fridge, those standards have been met for writing an article about Nuking the fridge (which has been the principal focus of at least some of the sources cited), but not for equating that concept with Jumping the shark. Keeping separate pages for these terms allows us to be agnostic about the relationship between them; merging the pages would need to be supported by an argument for close similarity of meaning, which would involve original research.

It should be noted that this argument can be expanded into a general argument (from standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines) that pages should very seldom be merged. Comparing and contrasting two terms, or showing them to be synonymous, is a comparatively rare topic in published literature in so-called reliable sources; demonstration of synonymy generally involves original research. Thus, by Wikipedia's own standards and guidelines, merging of articles should be similarly rare.

One last thought:

Merging is the last refuge of a deletionist.

--Neuromath (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Please stop categorizing editors into two opposing factions and seeing all of those who have voiced their support for this article's deletion/merge as being "against" you. We are all here to build the encyclopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The existence of opposing inclusionist and deletionist factions on Wikipedia is not my invention, and is not a matter of opinion, but of well-documented fact. Check out the references in the article Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Not all Wikipedia editors fall clearly into one faction or the other, and I never claimed that they did; nevertheless, the inclusionist-deletionist controversy is a well-known fact, and a well-recognized problem, both inside and outside of Wikipedia. The language of WP:NOT (of which WP:BATTLE is a section) is notoriously unclear (and, in my opinion, it is among the very worst of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines); but, in any case, it has no power to legislate away established facts. If "Wikipedia is not a battleground" is really meant to deny the existence the of the inclusionist-deletionist factional division, then on this point WP:NOT is simply wrong.

Personally, I was driven to inclusionism when, again and again, perfectly good articles that I had learned from and/or contributed to were partially or wholly deleted (or I had to waste valuable time on talk pages and in deletion debates in order to save them). I didn't come to this conflict; it came to me.

One final point: "Please stop" is the language of Wikipedia warning templates like {{Test3}}. Please find a way to phrase your requests that makes it clear that they are only requests.

--Neuromath (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a reference to an article in MTV Movie News (full reference in the main article Nuking the fridge) showing that this expression remained sufficiently notorious months after the movie opened to elicit critical attention - and defensive responses from the movie's screenwriter and one of its major stars. Indeed, for many fans of the Indiana Jones franchise, it seems to be the sole remaining point of interest in the film. More significantly for the issue of merging, this article focuses on Nuking the fridge as its principal topic, and yet never so much as mentions Jumping the shark or the TV episode that that expression was based on. As I have argued elsewhere on this page, such a reference is "above and beyond" - there was already a compelling case against merging or deletion without it - but perhaps it will help persuade some people who were on the fence. And in view of this additional contribution, I believe I can at this point remove the miserable "neologism" tag once more, without incurring any legitimate charge of edit warring. --Neuromath (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe before we edit the article anymore, we make mention of it on the Jumping the shark page, or perhaps invite the discussion over this article to take place there. This information was kept at jump the shark for about half a year, and its where the original merge debate took place. I doubt many people are watching this page, while Jump the shark is much more popular. It's hard to find a consensus when two disagreeing editors are involved. What do you say? Themfromspace (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Like all articles based around a colloquialism, this is horribly, horribly written

I'm going to get rid of some weasel words, bad conventions, and extraneous information. Shiggity (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fad

OK, so it was briefly fashionable to say "nuked the fridge" instead of "jumped the shark", and the references in this article document that fad. Is there any reason not to merge this information into Jumping the shark as was previously discussed? An article just to document the existence of a fleeting pop-culture expression seems a bit pointless for an encyclopedia. Can't we leave that job to Wiktionary and UrbanDictionary? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed last year, and consensus was to merge the articles (see Talk:Jumping the shark#Merger proposal). For some reason this wasn't actually done, but there's pretty universal agreement that this shouldn't exist as a separate article. I've redirected it to Jumping the shark; anyone who wants to add information about it to that article is free to do so. Robofish (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)