Talk:Blåhaj/Archive 1

Archive 1

Appearance in Hawkeye source update

Currently, the article says: "A Blåhaj also made a brief appearance in the Marvel Studios-produced television series Hawkeye." The citation for this is currently reference 11, "Russians Are Obsessed With These Big Plush Ikea Sharks," which seems to have no reference to this appearance. I found this article online which discusses its appearance in the show, and which includes a link to a reddit thread with a screenshot of the point where a Blåhaj appears. I'm not really sure how to cite it, however, or whether I should go about doing it at all, I'm something of a wikipedia newbie. I figured I would leave the link to the article here, and hope someone else can help. Thank you!

https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/a-mistake-in-marvels-new-hawkeye-series-goes-viral/ LyraDerg (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how that got mixed up, the cite for this was supposed to be this article, which mentions it briefly, but at some point that was apparently mistakenly removed by another editor. I will fix it now. Joyce-stick (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Should also note, WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED is not typically considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, due to lack of editorial oversight. Initially the article cited it as a source, including that link, but in the DYK nomination discussion I was advised that those citations be removed. Since all the statements brought up I'd used WGTC articles to source were backed up by the other sources anyway, I did so without issue. Joyce-stick (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Amazing!

Great article! Perhaps 'tis time for Djungelskog as well -KnightofFaerië (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Year of production

Wondering if anyone has found a better source regarding the year it was first produced? I know the cited article says 2014 but I have owned one myself since December 2012. anto475 14:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I found none in my initial search for sources when beginning the writing of the initial submitted draft of the article, and IKEA doesn't seem to have disclosed the exact beginning of its production anywhere. Joyce-stick (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Plural & capitalization of BLÅHAJ

To me it seems a bit weird to use "Blåhajs" as a plural when it is a Swedish word. The plural in Swedish would be "Blåhajar" but I realize that would be confusing to non-Swedish speakers, so think just using "Blåhaj" as the plural makes the most sense.

I feel like it might also make sense to use "BLÅHAJ" instead of "Blåhaj" to more clearly distinguish it as the IKEA product and not as the Swedish name for the blue shark. In addition I very rarely see it referred to as "Blåhaj" and it is almost always all uppercase or all lowercase. Meowthia (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TM: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one.

The sources used in the article largely use "Blåhaj", so we should use that. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove the connection to the Swedish word. For all intents and purposes, Blåhaj is a trademarked word. It's also not a singular entity; there are many Blåhajs in existence. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't refer to all products in the plural simply because there are multiple of them, because sources don't generally discuss them that way. It would be extremely awkward to say that, for instance, "The Nintendo Switches are video game consoles developed by Nintendo..." "As eighth-generation consoles, the Nintendo Switches compete with the PlayStation 4s and the Xbox Ones..." that's simply ridiculous, and completely counter to how they are generally referred to in the media, serving only to confuse readers. We would not do the same here for Blåhaj, for the same reason. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHER. I'm not advocating for referring to it as "the Blåhajs" or "the Blåhaj". Because Blåhaj is such a general term, the article can be dropped and it can be made plural without issue. "Blåhajs are sold in gray and blue" sounds much better than "Blåhaj is sold in gray and blue", because there are multiple Blåhajs and Blåhaj is a product that can be sold. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, and I am even willing to accept that as a compromise, for contexts where we are referring to Blåhaj as a product, and not as a meme or character. Saying that IKEA "claimed that Blåhajs would be discontinued in April 2022" is fine, because that's clearly referring to the toy sharks and their physical production, and this is reflected in the current revision. However, saying that "In 2018, Blåhajs grew to prominence as an internet meme" is silly, because the sentence is about how Blåhaj the widely known toy shark (as it's discussed in the sources, a valid argument that you still are conveniently ignoring) became an internet meme.

I'm also not really sure why you're saying that

I'm not advocating for referring to it as "the Blåhajs" or "the Blåhaj"

When your edits to this page have conveyed that you in fact advocate just that.

I'd like to stress that not all your edits to the page have been bad, you did significantly improve the structure and condense the text for readability, and remove some WP:PROMO language that I had thoughtlessly inserted (though you didn't give much in the way of an edit summary about it, making it quite confusing to sort out at first), and even went to the time to take a picture of your own Blåhaj, which, even though it was supplanted by a better picture, I appreciate. You did ultimately help improve the article, and seriously, thanks for that. But you seem to be fairly willfully ignoring the reason for the consensus of other editors here? It really doesn't help my impression that you changed back a correction to your own grammatical mistake that was correct, multiple times, in ignorance of both my own and another editor's summarized edit explaining your error. This just strikes me strongly as you looking for problems to fix that aren't there. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and also, however "general" a term "Blåhaj" may be in Swedish, it is by no means a common term in the WP:ENGLISH language, where, if anyone says Blåhaj they are likely referring to the subject of this page and nothing else (unless maybe they're a Swedish language student) so that's kind of irrelevant here. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Saying "The Blåhajs" in the lede is my bad, but that's my position now. I'll also add that the picture of the Blåhaj is not mine. If there is a distinction between Blåhaj, the toy shark—and Blåhaj, the product—I'll concede, but I have yet to see any evidence that there is a distinction. IKEA hasn't expressed Blåhaj as a character in a way that makes me think that there is a distinction (I know about the IKEA Japan promotions). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what IKEA says, we're not here to promote their image of the toy, but rather that in popular culture as shown in reliable sources. Joyce-stick (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Better image

The current image of the blahaj has only the head. My suggestion is to add a new picture that has the full shark in it and is on a solid background. Roostery123 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There aren't yet any good fair use images of it as described. That's kind of why I initially chose this image.

File:IKEA East Palo Alto - July 2021 - 28.jpg

IKEA East Palo Alto - July 2021 - 28

It wasn't ideal, but I felt it was more or less the best out of a bad bunch, since it shows the entire shark, gives a decent sense of its scale, and had the bonus of being able to be described as "a school of blahaj" which was funny. The current image isn't exactly good either, but I can't exactly make an argument that it's worse. Though it doesn't show the shark's whole body, the fact that it shows the shark's likeness in profile is arguably an advantage. Neither are great, but whichever's better is kind of down to personal preference I suppose.

If I owned a blahaj myself, I'd try taking a better picture of it, but alas I don't and so I can't. But if anyone does own one, and feels like contributing a better picture themselves, then they're most certainly free to do so! Joyce-stick (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a pile of Blåhaj I took a photo of when visiting an IKEA store about two months ago, if it is usable, feel free to do so.

File:Blåhaj IKEA Kungens Kurva, June 18 2022.jpg

A pile of IKEA BLÅHAJ stuffed sharks lying in a bin at an IKEA store

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Okänd (talk • contribs)

Please see the discussion about the current issues with the images further down on the talk page. That image may well be usable since it's primarily of a location and not of the sharks, but we already have several similar images whose copyright status has been called into question, which are under discussion for deletion on the Commons. I don't think we exactly need more of them at this point. Joyce-stick (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of images

I've opened a deletion discussion on Commons to sort out the copyright status of images of Blåhaj. If these end up being deleted, one image would probably be acceptable to be hosted on enwiki under WP:NFCC. pinging people in relevant discussions/with relevant edits: @Amakuru, Arconning, LilianaUwU, Brainulator9, and Therapyisgood: Elli (talk | contribs) 01:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You beat me to it, lol. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Might as well ping those who took part in the DYK nomination above: @Joyce-stick, Sammi Brie, and SL93. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds correct. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If any image should be used, it should be this one and/or this one as they are yet the highest quality photos displaying the full toy from an ideal angle. I'd also make a case that this image, if protected under copyright, may be fair use, but since the primary subject here is an interior of an IKEA store, and not the toy itself, it may very well not be considered a WP:DERIVATIVE work, since as the FAQ says, photos of copyrighted buildings are fine. I would also strongly argue for this image to be retained, as it has encyclopedic value, demonstrating that the toy is popular enough for IKEA to prominently display it in the lobby of one of their stores and thus giving greater credence to its claim to notability. (It's also just a good picture!) Joyce-stick (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

When is the deletion discussion closing? Its been like a month and nothing have been deleted or kept. Roostery123 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No idea. Just waiting for the commons admins to say something. To my knowledge, however, nothing is precluding us from uploading an image of the shark on enwiki as a fair use example now, so I suppose if you want to try to do that then feel free. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 07:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)