Talk:Bubble Boy (film)

Major Actors

Shouldn't the major actors and/or production people [director] be mentioned in this article? - Bagel7

spoiler warning

also, there should be a spoiler warning because this kind of gives away the plot - Bagel7

Please see WP:SPOILER --Objix (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ONLY Distasteful Behavior?

I would'nt say that his disrespect for Jimmy is his ONLY con. It is heavly implied that he only marries her in order to have sex with her, both in the scene before the prom and as the two talk outside. -

Stub Rating

This article could easily be a start if it has some scheme of organization and a little more detail. --Supernumerary 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous spelling errors in the later part of the narrative, as well as a few semantical mistakes.

Clean up

Okay, I have seen some MAJOR problems on this artcle. Grammar, misspellings, run-on sentences, and nearly EVERY. SINGLE. EVENT. IS. INCLUDED! We don't need to know the whole movie! Just a summary on some of the important events! I will be cleaning this up by myself, if no one helps me. But please, try and help! Kyo cat^(T)•(C) 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help if I can. I can't do much, though, since I don't know much about the movie. // Sasuke-kun27 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All we need to do is cut down on some sentences. They get too repetitive, and they describe everything that happens. It's just too much information. And you haven't seen it?! I suggest you do. It's really funny. Kyo cat^(T)•(C) 04:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to delete some sentences, since it is way too much information. We fixed most of the spelling and grammar errors. Kyo cat^(T)•(C) 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

"..the Bright and Shiny cult, which seems to parody the Heaven's Gate cult, as it involves castration and being taken away by aliens.."

Seems to me more a parody of the Brianism cult. Almost uses their logo of a circle with a dot (so-called circumpunct). Also "Bright and Shiny"/"Brights" is a recurring Brianist/Skeptic theme. Annamonckton (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The consensus here is that this does not qualify as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to the level as required to retain the Bubble Boy title, and that it would be best served as a disambiguation page, so I've performed the move to Bubble Boy (film), and have moved the disambiguation page Boy in the Bubble to Bubble Boy. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Bubble Boy → Bubble Boy (film) — this should redirect to the disambiguation page Boy in the bubble, since it should refer to the two real life bubble boys, and not this comedy film 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. The two real life boys have real life names, which are properly the titles of their articles; those articles would not be titled Bubble Boy. There's already a hatnote on the film's article, so redirecting the film's actual title to a dab page would only inconvenience readers searching for or linking to the film under its real name, while helping almost no one. Station1 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  What about "Bubble Boy" as a nickname? It appears that Vetter is called that, so it seems to be a reason not to have the title case article title go straight to the film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  I would agree if it was clear that David Vetter was the primary topic for "Bubble Boy", but I don't think that's the case. Combined with the fact that his article would not take the title "Bubble Boy" even if the film didn't exist, and that "Bubble Boy" would redirect to a dab page, not redirect to Vetter, if this proposal goes through, I think it's better to get at least some readers directly to an article with a hatnote than to force all readers to a dab page. I wouldn't object to adding Vetter to the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is messy now (see the procedural note I have added, above moved now to below). But however it goes, nothing is lost by adding the obvious qualifier in this case, and a great deal of clarity is gained. See also the RM at The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld). The very fact that we have these two RMs going at the same time gives evidence of how confusing things can get, if we don't keep the needs of readers as our primary concern. WP:PRECISION (and other provisions of policy, and guidelines affecting titles) need to be read and applied with care and flexibility, and not followed mechanically in a way that fails to serve the Project and those who use it. Noetica^Tea? 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've moved your "procedural note" to this section from its insertion into the middle of the proposal because I disagree with it, and because it wasn't clear that my opposition was written before the note's insertion. No one is proposing that The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld) should be moved to this title because it is the primary topic for Bubble Boy, so this need not be a multi-move request. I agree it's interesting to consider both proposals, and appreciate the link, but one move is not dependent on the other. Also, just because you disagree with another editor doesn't mean they don't have the needs of readers in mind or that they are following policy "mechanically" or without care and flexibility. Especially when the reason given is that the proposal will "inconvenience readers searching for or linking to the film under its real name, while helping almost no one", I think it's possible to disagree without repeatedly resorting to the unfounded charge that readers are not being considered. Station1 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, Station1. But like you, I call it as I see it. The complex of articles involving boys in bubbles is a mess, and so (partly as a consequence) is the smaller complex of RM proposals concerning those articles. They would be far better treated together. Some editors may only have known about one RM when they reviewed the lists at WP:RM (or commented at an RM), some only about the other. As for unfounded charges, I invite you to show, for the whole complex of articles in question, what you prefer for the titles of them all and how those preferences best suit the Project and its readers. Show how, in detail, my claims concerning mechanical and legalistic interpretation of provisions are unwarranted; and why (if you think it) overall benefit to the Project and to readers is not to be kept paramount, and referred to as editors see fit. Please let me know at my talkpage when and where you will do all that (I'm busy in real life). Meanwhile, I'll feel free to diagnose problems as I find them, without the intent to accuse anyone of bad faith. Noetica^Tea? 21:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the 5 or 6 articles currently listed at Boy in the bubble, I see no problem with the current titles. Anyone typing "bubble boy" goes directly to the dab page. Anyone typing "Bubble Boy" with caps more likely wants the film so gets there directly, but for those who don't there's a hatnote to avoid confusion. Same for "The Boy in the Plastic Bubble". The phrase "Bubble Boy" is not even mentioned in one of the two articles about the real people, but in any case real people should be at their real names if there's any chance that anything else could be reasonably considered non-NPOV, not to mention ambiguous with another article. I'm not opposed to moving The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld) to The Bubble Boy, but the latter averages only 100 hits per month, some of which probably want the film, so I'm not too concerned about that one. The song has no article, and a different title anyway. So none of the article titles are ambiguous, most readers get to the article they want directly (unless they type generic "bubble boy") and hatnotes direct the minority to the correct articles - that's what serves readers best imo. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• [Procedural note: This really ought to be part of a multiple RM with another current one at The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld). Can an admin please intervene to get these in order? Noetica^Tea? 21:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)]

I was the proposer of the Seinfeld episode move (and had nothing to do with this other proposed move). I don't know if it's technically possible for the move discussions to be merged, but I don't think it would be particularly helpful to do so, as this move is suggesting that the boy-in-a-bubble is the primary topic for "Bubble Boy", while the other move is suggesting that the boy-in-a-bubble is not the primary topic for "The Bubble Boy." I think some kind of merge at this point would be quite confusing, although certainly users may want to participate in both discussions. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The main thing is to get readers to where the want to go, quickly if possible but even more importantly not being confused. Secondary consideration is that the title of the article they get to should be clear and correct. For this article, "Bubble Boy" and "Bubble Boy (film)" are equally clear and correct, so no real difference there. As to navigation: typing "bubble boy" in the search box bring one to the disambig page, but typing "Bubble Boy" brings one to this article on the film. IMO they should both take the reader to the disambig page. Caps or no, I would say that 1) we can't really know what the person is looing for, and 2) they are most likely looking for one of the actual persons informally called "Bubble Boy", is my guess. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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. No further edits should be made to this section.