Talk:Russell Crowe's jockstrap

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

Non-free image[edit]

Like in Princess Leia's bikini, would one be allowed in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I don't think it's comparable. The image for the bikini is FU because it requires the bikini to be worn by Fisher in character as Leia to illustrate the article in a meaningful way. The jockstrap does not have to be worn by Crowe. In fact, I am pretty certain dozens of people have made pictures of it while at Blockbusters, we just need to find one of them and ask them to release it under a free license. Regards SoWhy 10:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, my friend. You are saying that, with the bikini, no freebie will become available because the subject is dead, right? I might write to nearby businesses or something in the area to see if anyone has a pic from Blockbusters. If taken indoors, and considering it is a piece of art, like a doll or something, do you think it would be copyrighted? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: With the bikini, the actress had to be in character which was copyrighted. Similar reasoning applies to the images used for Doctor Who (e. g. at Thirteenth Doctor). The clothes themselves are probably not copyrighted but the ensemble as worn by the actor in character is. As for the other question, I don't really know, maybe ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? Regards SoWhy 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak, SoWhy, no, you're not quite right. The actor being in character isn't copyrightable and the ensemble often isn't either. In the case of the Thirteenth Doctor, the only potentially copyrightable aspect are the horizontal lines on her shirt which appear to be decorative and separable from the utilitarian object that is the shirt. The lines are not eligible for copyright protection in the US, but in the UK they may be due to a very threshold of originality. With Princess Leia's bikini it's more complicated. It has more decorative elements, but whether those are separable from the utilitarian object is hard to say. (and our wonderful 0.1 megapixel limit isn't helping, I can barely make anything out) The real issue with both is that you can't just walk onto the set to take a photo. If the actors would make public appearances in costume (like maybe at a comic con or similar event) a free alternative could possibly be created in some cases. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an image[edit]

If someone wants to find people who may have a photo, please consider searching Facebook for the following and asking them:

  • Former Blockbuster owner Alan Payne lives near Austin, Texas, related to Border Entertainment
  • Former Blockbuster general manager is Kevin Daymude, probably still in Alaska

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Now that the article is saved from deletion, any luck with finding a picture? Regards SoWhy 19:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SoWhy. Unfortunately not. I have no access to facebook or linkedin or such, so it's hard. I actually haven't tried the phone book. Maybe that gives emails these days. I'll try that. I'm not hopeful. Maybe I should try to find businesses in the area, like hotels or such, and email them. I'm sure lots of people took smartphone pics. Any suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak, there's a story today about the last blockbuster on the planet, in Bend, Oregon. The general manager, Sandi Harding, mentions that she's sad for her friends at the Australian and Alaskan stores because as the franchise shrank they all developed a kinship with one another. Maybe contact her? --valereee (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
valereee, hi. I tried to but couldn't find way. I don't have Facebook where I am. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak, we should generally not be cold calling anyone who isn't a professional photographer (or similar position where one can expect inquiries) or already a Wikimedian or producer of freely licensed content (who already understands our cause). What you're saying here (names of Blockbuster employees, contacting people on social media, contacting hotels) gets way too close to stalking. Sometimes you can do it, but it's too easy to cross the line of what amounts to real-life harassment. The article has a non-free image now as the jockstrap is not on public display (anymore), so no free equivalent can be created. In my own search for a photo of the store (File:Anchorage Blockbuster video store (41894010352).jpg) I did ask the photographer (who already freely licensed the store photos, so presumably understands our cause) due to the date of the store images. Unfortunately they had just missed it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why split out?[edit]

Hi. I came across this article and my immediate thought was "if this subject deserves any coverage on the English Wikipedia, it should be part of the Cinderella Man article." Looking a bit closer here, the page history indicates that this subject was already covered in that article and was split out into a separate article. Why is this? I can see a case for having dedicated articles for ruby slippers, for example, but this jockstrap does not seem significant enough to be a standalone article. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, MZMcBride. My rationale for making a standalone was this: Since it could also justifiably go into a Russell Crowe#Legacy section, a Last Week Tonight With John Oliver section, a Cinderella Man section, and even slightly a Blockbuster Video section, why not make it a standalone to be easily accessed by all four using {{main|}}. If only at Cinderella Man, then it feels like overly attached to that article. The item mostly abandoned its connection to that movie. What is it mostly connected to? This item has taken on a life, a path, a new strain of bacterium, all its own. It has its own provenance, if you will. Furthermore, its provenance is not over. We don't know where it is now, and that information will likely become known, further expanding the article. If the content, even now, were to only be in Cinderella Man, it would constitute a third of that article, unbalancing it. Finally, it easily passes GNG. Who knows, maybe someday the new strain of bacterium will pass GNG too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more bit of rationale: It appears in these categories now:
Category:Undergarments
Category:Memorabilia
Category:Individual garments
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it fits solely in the article for Cinderella Man since the object has gained much prominence outside the film and thus would have to be covered in the Last Week Tonight and the Blockbuster Video articles as well. If a subject does not squarely fit into one article, it seems ill-advised to force it when there is clearly sufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. Whether such an item should really have received so much coverage is another question of course. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Russell Crowe's jockstrap → Cinderella Man jockstrap – It does not appear that this jockstrap was ever actually owned by Russell Crowe; he wore it for one film role, and it is the appearance of the item in the film that gave rise to its significance. I think this is comparable to Princess Leia's bikini, except that since Crowe played a real person, James J. Braddock, and the real Braddock never owned this jockstrap either, the better point of reference is the film itself. bd2412 T 17:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Not sure why you think it was not owned by Crowe, as it was clearly sold by him at an auction. Also, the notability of this item has nothing to do with the film, but everything to do with the actor (and the fact that Last Week Tonight decided to make this into a thing). --Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I see what you mean, but it is still only notable because it appeared in the movie. Russell Crowe has plenty of articles of clothing or sports equipment that we don't create articles on. bd2412 T 02:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the WP:COMMONNAME of the jockstrap in question?--67.68.28.220 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There may be a better name, but Cinderella Man jockstrap is not it. Media calls it a jockstrap and it's more Crowe's than anyone else's, hence the current name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the running gag relates to Crowe not the film. Russell Crowe's Cinderella Man jockstrap would be a better and more helpful title for users, but Wikipedia does not exist for our readers and the long title police will never allow that. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As stated in the article, After the film was produced, Crowe took possession of various props from the film, including the jockstrap, and incorporated them into his collection of memorabilia. Judging from the sources, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Russell Crowe's jockstrap". Searching this term with quotes nets 1,670 GNews hits, e.g.
Regards SoWhy 15:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Infobox[edit]

Is an infobox really necessary? It doesn't really add anything that isn't already apparent just from reading the first sentence of the article. Surachit (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russell_Crowe%27s_jockstrap&oldid=1216515557"