Talk:Goncharov (meme)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an internet meme about the nonexistent film Goncharov originated with a Tumblr user posting a photo of the film's name found on a pair of boots? Source: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/goncharov-scorsese-movie-tumblr/
  • ALT1: ... that an internet meme about the nonexistent film Goncharov has inspired a fandom which, as of November 2022, had posted over 500 fan fiction works about the film on Archive of Our Own? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/nov/25/goncharov-why-has-the-internet-invented-a-fake-martin-scorsese-film
  • ALT2: ... that the nonexistent film Goncharov, subject of an internet meme of the same name, at one point had a Letterboxd page with several "reviews" by users, which was later deleted by the site? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/style/goncharov-scorsese-tumblr.html
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Article content originated as a list entry which I initially added to List of Internet phenomena, which was expanded into a mainspace article by another user (incorporating the list entry and a draft which I contributed to) after continued significant coverage of the subject.

Converted from a redirect by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 (talk) and Special:Contributions/93.107.217.97 (talk). Nominated by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 (talk) at 22:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC).

Moved from Talk:Goncharov (meme)

Comment I would recommend saying "fictional" instead of "fictitious." The latter carries the connotation that the Goncharov meme is a serious attempt to deceive people into believing in the existence of an imaginary film, while the former indicates that there's a general understanding that the film doesn't exist and the meme is an elaborate joke. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: I think "fictional" implies that the film's content is fictional, which isn't what we're trying to convey. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: If that is the case, I propose "imaginary" be used in place of "fictitious." Again, "fictitious" often carries the connotation of deception, whereas "imaginary" conveys that there isn't a serious effort to deceive people into believing in the existence of a fake film. CJ-Moki (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: We can always say "nonexistent" in keeping with the wording of the current revision of the article. Or just use a different word across all locations. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have strong concerns relating to the article's use of a non-free "movie poster", given that this is a non-existent film. The non-free media appears easily replaceable, and we can't run a DYK until we resolve the image copyright issues. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I have amended the file description page to what I believe is a more appropriate fair use rationale which addresses the concern raised. Hopefully it is now sufficient. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 05:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A full review of this nomination is still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I find the rewritten fair use rationale persuasive. Actually I was more concerned about Daily Dot being used as a source but I suppose it can be allowed in this instance, as the claim is not contentious. I prefer the first hook. BorgQueen (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't fully understand the history here, but per discussion on my talk page and on WT:DYK#Users promoting or rejecting articles which they reviewed, I've removed this from queue 2. As far as I can tell, it's really to be promoted back to a new prep set, but I'll leave that for somebody else while I sort out the rest of queue 2. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Should this article use {{infobox film}}? The similarly imaginary Bowling Green massacre page uses {{infobox civilian attack}}, so I think we could use an infobox template in this article. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose we can try. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think using the film infobox is rather misleading, especially all the "Directed by", "Written by", "Starring" etc credits. Moreover since the article is about the meme, the infobox should summarize the key features of the meme itself (e.g. where and when it originated), instead of summarizing the fictional film within the meme. Bennv123 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a meme infobox? silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess nothing is stopping me from making one. Maybe I'll do that. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes perhaps a good approach would be to use a meme/cultural phenomenon infobox at the top of the article and a movie infobox within the article (for instance aside the section that talks about the synopsis). This is still a good way to display information about the fictional movie but in a way that makes it obvious that it is fictional. Alexander Doria (talk)

N.b., The usual practice of {{film date}} in {{infobox film}} automatically categorizes the page. In this case, it put Goncharov in Category:1973 films, which is not appropriate since the film isn't real. I edited the infobox to just give the plain date. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that 1973 is before the fall of the Soviet Union?

Other than this, which implies but does not state that this is an inconsistency, I can't find any RS mentioning it. Would it be WP:SYNTH to mention this in some way? CharredShorthand (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent this whole "fall of the Soviet Union" bit is basically citogenesis, though not a Wikipedia-driven example. There's little to no discussion of Goncharov on Tumblr that claims or presupposes that the film takes place after the fall of the Soviet Union; but at some point someone wrote up a plot synopsis on TV Tropes that stated that, and then all these journalists used that as their source for the description of the main plot elements despite it not actually being part of the emergent consensus. Even if that's the case, there's nothing we can do about it; this is all OR on my part at best and we've got to go with what reliable sources say. But it kinda grinds my gears anyway, and I wish we could at least downplay it a bit. AJD (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose given the whole thing is created by a fuzzy consensus process based on people saying things in various venues and repetition of other people's 'plot details' they thought were funny or felt right, this is all perfectly natural. If the TVTropes poster did make the Soviet aspect up de novo, and news articles regurgitated it and copied each other, that's exactly in the spirit of the meme! CharredShorthand (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This hasn't been a common element in content I've seen either, but the film always could've been set in a hypothetical future. (You know, if it was real, even in 1973.) There's plenty of fiction set after the fall of the United States, for example. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That's valid. CharredShorthand (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"a nonexistent homoerotic gangster film"

The "homoerotic" has now several times been removed from the lede of the article, despite the fact that the homoerotic aspects are mentioned within the article and established within numerous reliable sources as an aspect of Goncharov's story. Personally I think since it's a significant part of the fiction and consistently mentioned in sources, there is plenty of basis for highlighting it as a defining trait and it should stay mentioned in the lede just as it is. I thought I should probably open a topic here, though, just so that it can be discussed and decided if there is consensus that this is appropriate, if necessary, or someone can tell me if I'm being stupid and overlooking some rule or another. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "homoerotic" should be moved out of the first sentence to elsewhere in the lede? It does seem to me to interrupt the flow of the first sentence a bit; while the fact that Goncharov is homoerotic is important to the meme, it's not as important as the fact that it's (1) nonexistent and (2) a gangster film. For instance the third sentence could be "It is usually described as a mafia film set in Naples, produced with the involvement of Martin Scorsese, with homoerotic subtext involving the main characters." AJD (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the most homoerotic films that actually exist don't have that adjective in the first sentence of their Wikipedia articles. MOS:FILMLEAD says to put that kind of detail later in the lead if we're writing about a film, MOS:LEADSENTENCE to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. --Belbury (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

it should be included, as it is included in nearly every source, but yes the word should be discluded from the lead.

Nucg5040 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be included in the lede somewhere, possibly in a new sentence that also describes that general fictional premise, which the lede does not currently have. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

i do see your point, but as others have said in the thread, the lead needs to be kept short and the term relegated to later in the article, or at least nearer the end of the lead.

Nucg5040 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone else in the thread is saying that it is perhaps sensible to had the term somewhere in the lead (which, to clarify, is the entire section of paragraphs), just not in the first sentence. I was broadly repeating with AJD is suggesting about the third sentence, and what Belbury said about MOS:FILMLEAD. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Poster in the wild

I have a photo of the poster (the one in the infobox) flyposted in Greenwich Village. Would it be a useful enough addition to the article for me to make the effort to poke around and investigate whether it's a nonfree image or can be uploaded to Commons? Note, the article currently already has two images already. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd need to see the image to be sure if it's worthwhile. One thing that we could try, even if the image is non-free, is to acquire permission for its use from the artist as they're apparently reachable via Tumblr and Twitter DMs (and since they're just a freelance individual who created this poster for fun, I can't imagine that it'd be too complicated to get it). I'm not sure how useful that might be, but it's probably worth a shot. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess WP:COPYREQ would apply in that case. It'd probably be fine since we're only asking specifically for copyright release on the image of the flyposted poster, and not the poster itself? I'm not completely sure of all the details here, since I've never looked into that or been involved in the process of acquiring such permission. I suppose we'll have to see. The possibility is there, nonetheless. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 00:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Belatedly: A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, nor drawing, nor sculpting (but see Commons:Freedom of panorama) from :commons:Commons:Derivative works § If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Thank you! That was the exact sort of concept I was thinking of might be a problem! The term "derivative work" escaped my mind. Much gratitude for the reply and update on that! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)