Talk:Surreal

Image

OK, what's wrong with a surreal image on a "surreal" disambiguation page? By the way, removing something is not a minor edit -- see Wikipedia:Minor edit -- so please don't flag it as such. Reverts should also be accompanied by an explanation. Rls 14:28, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Heh, I think it's a pretty funny addition anyway. We don't seem to have a page on the concept of 'Surreal' itself, so we might as well have a picture that gives an example. --212.85.5.19 11:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brilliant :P 203.97.255.167 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what's wrong with having an image on a disambiguation page. First of all, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images discourages the use of images on disambiguation pages. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to provide links to several articles with similar names and to help distinguish (or "disambiguate") between them. Therefore, anything that goes on a disambiguation page should apply to ALL items on that page and should serve the purpose of disambiguation. (The MoS link I've provided gives a good example of where an image serves that exact purpose.) The image of a cow with antlers on a pole is a surreal image, but clearly does not apply to every page on this list, since every page on the list is not about surrealism. (In fact, the image could only apply to Surrealism and Surreal humour, but no other articles.) Furthermore, seeing the justifications given above for having the image on the page, it appears that this image was added as a joke. Yes, I too think the picture is pretty funny. However, Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, and this image clearly undermines that purpose. It serves no useful purpose on this page other than to try to be funny. Therefore, this image ought to go. --Hnsampat 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealism is an artistic movement and surreal humour refers only to humour. There is no page that captures surrealism as an abstract concept, and quite possibly never will be. The disambiguation page therefore is the only place appropriate for an illustration of the abstract concept. I don't follow your argument that the use of humour (clearly appropriate in this case) undermines the 'seriousness' of Wikipedia. 134.83.1.234 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you would like to keep the image on the page in order to provide a visual definition of "surrealism," correct? In this case, you mean "surrealism" as in "bizarre or dreamlike state"? Well, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and, as such, something should not exist on Wikipedia merely for the purpose of "defining" a concept. If you feel that there currently is no article that appropriately captures the abstract concept of surrealism, then please by all means create such an article. However, we cannot inappropriately place an image on a disambiguation page (i.e. put an image there that does no disambiguation whatsoever) just because "there's nowhere else to put it."

I must disagree with you that the concept of "surrealism" is not appropriately captured in any of these articles. I think the concept that we're going for is perfectly defined in both the Surrealism and the Surreal humour articles, namely that surrealism involves the juxtaposition of totally different things to create something rather bizarre. Surrealism as an abstract concept is about the exact same thing (i.e. "bizarre or dreamlike" states result from seeing or visualizing things that just don't belong together.)

As far as humor in general goes, the problem is not that the image is inherently funny. The problem is that, based on the arguments put forth at the top of this talk page, it appears that placement of the image on this page was meant to be funny. In other words, I don't think this image was originally put on here for a serious purpose but rather as a joke. Those sort of additions to Wikipedia, which are not meant to improve the article, are what is known as "silly vandalism."

So, because the image serves no disambiguation purpose on this disambiguation page, I feel it has to go. Furthermore, I feel that the concept of surrealism is already adequately explained in the articles. However, you may disagree with me. Therefore, I propose a compromise. How about you go ahead and create the Surrealism (abstract concept) article and include the cow image on there instead of on this page? Then, put a link to that page on this disambiguation page. That way, we're both satisfied, in that the inappropriate cow image will be gone from this disambiguation page (which is what I want) and there will be an article properly defining surrealism as an abstract concept (which is what you want). What do you say? --Hnsampat 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. I'm not qualified to write a treatise on the concept of surrealness and if I created a stub it would soon be deleted. As it stands the image captures the concept quite well. I also disagree on the style point that disambiguation pages should not have images; it seems that it has not been tested with much discussion. IMO it aids browsing.

I don't see that removing the image achieves much. It may satisfy your need to make the page 'clean' but it's hardly inconveniencing anyone. In the worst case, that it is just a joke, it is an appropriate one, and hardly frivolous vandalism as you suggest. Consider that the image has been there a long time on a not particularly obscure page, so most Wikipedians seem happy with it. See also the comments when you tried to delete the image; the general opinion was that it was an appropriate illustration of surrealness. 134.83.1.234 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. By the way, the comments above were written long before I ever knew this page even existed, and aren't in response to anything I ever did. I don't really know what Wikipedia's consensus on this is, as this issue has mainly been a difference of opinion between you and me (virtually nobody else has edited the article on this matter). But, I won't push the matter any further, although I will slightly modify the caption of the image to make it clear why it is there. By the way, you may want to consider becoming a registered Wikipedian instead of an anonymous IP address, since you seem to be a capable contributor. --Hnsampat 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As none of the arguments raised above in favor of keeping the image are in any way in keeping with policy, I have removed it. I have also added a hidden comment discouraging the addition of images, per MOS. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]