Talk:Real life

Origins of the expression "in real life"

The very earliest mention of "in real life" (in connection to the Internet) that I've seen was in the output of the Unix "finger" command, cited in RFC 1194 (section 4.2 on page 10, 11/1990). "In real life" jokes were common in Unix circles in the early 90s, I wouldn't be surprised if it had spread to the Internet at large from there (since they share common roots). It was probably re-discovered independently of course, but I think the article should mention this possible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.15.151 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a life, William Shatner

Did William Shatner *really* invent that phrase? My mind is boggled.

The article says he popularised it on SNL, not that he invented it. Even so, I think it's quite an old phrase really. If anyone can find any instances of its earlier use, that would be a useful addition to this article. -PaulHammond 13:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea such a thing existed as "not on the Internet". —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ;)

I have a hard time believing that there is such a thing as a "real life". ;) --Muna (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing the Real and the Virtual

I've had to remind myself, several times, that the pillows in Morrowind cannot be given to my brother-in-law IRL for a Christmas present. Now THAT'S verisimilitude. --BlueNight 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha try having to remind yourself that you're not Bella Swan and that Edward Cullen doesn't loves you on youtube when you're role-playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.208.27 (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability capacitation?

Being new to the land of the wiki, I am still unaccustomed to this... place.

However, it seems as if the existence of the Real Life is unverifiable. This fact, to my knowledge, is in somethingorother to the Wikipethos. Can something be done? Gulanzon (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging

This merge was unclear from the beginning, and proposed in October 2006 and as such, not relevant any more. Cenarium ^Talk 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Comment - Nominator left no explanation.
• Disagree. "Real life" as a concept will always need some kind of contextualisation. Some sort of explanation. Making it a simple disambiguation page is counterproductive. The Real life article should be fixed, not added to a list of albums. - BalthCat 06:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - Conceptually “real world” is a place (tangible), whereas “real life” is a non-tangible, personal concept. Confounding the two betrays a subjective, egocentric (not meant as insulting, but as purely conceptually descriptive) view of the two concepts. Something can exist in the real world (the CN Tower) and in the virtual world (in Second Life, in a CAD program, etc) having nothing to do with someone's real life. Msanford (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree "real life" would be able to mean situations with peoples lives (often drama).
• Comment - "real world" is used to describe events much less personal. ("real world" events, events outside of training, situations, and sanarieos) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.167.32 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Merge Real world with Real life as the lead sections of both are saying that they are the same thing, and if there is any difference that is best discussed and explained just the once in the one article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I am inclined to agree with the merge proposal as these are two sides of the same coin. Abtract (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I agree with the last two votes. --Ben Sawyer ^(t-c-e) 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Real world is a disambiguation page. Inappropriate merge. Enigma ^message 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Move and Redirect - not Merge No information will be lost this way, and the new Real Life page will just be a disambiguation. makes more sense. Miekec (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested move to Real life (reality)

Per discussions in the June 2008 AFD linked above, I'd like to open discussion here in regard to the suggestion to move this article to Real life (reality) and make Real life a redirect to Real life (disambiguation) (which would, of course, list Real life (reality) among its entries. I don't believe this article justifies the topic as the primary meaning of the phrase, significantly more likely to be searched-for by users than any other topic known as "Real life." Propaniac (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed - This is just a clean up and the article will remain. Why this was not considered as part of the concensus, I have no idea... Lets make it happen. --Pmedema (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it. The whole AFD discussion was kind of a mess, but five days seems long enough to wait for any objection to be raised here. Propaniac (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya... I was a bit miffed when I got reverted when I was trying to be BOLD because it was just a clean up and not removal of the article... so the comment about it not being consensus was not thought out. "Make it happen cappen"!!--Pmedema (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem was it was done during an AFD discussion where consensus was not yet clear. –xenocidic (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I did some preliminary copy-editing on the article, but it could definitely use some help by someone better than I am at re-writing. Specifically, the abbreviations and some of the terminology mentioned in various places might be non-notable. Also, the religious connotations section seems very prosaic to me, which I tried to clean up a little bit, but it could definitely use more work. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Move

I notice this page has recently been moved, but I'm a little concerned about the move, as it no longer has parentheses after it to help disambiguate it from other uses of the term, and perhaps more importantly, there's now a Real life and a Real Life page, which I think is generally considered bad practice on Wikipedia (though I was unable to find a specific mention of it in a quick browse of various policies). —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree- The move to Real life (reality) which was being discussed in preceding headings seemed much more understandable. 173.17.246.165 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Psychology

(Add?) In opposition to a "fake life" created through one's Denial - Commandur (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not the terminology, but the actual concept

Is there an article about, not the terminology, but the actual concept? E.g., where it would be appropriate to say, "Some students believe that real life/meatspace/whatever is more suitable for meetings because it is easier to read presentation screens behind the teacher and to communicate with the teacher and the rest of the class." Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:48, 5 July 2010 (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: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Real life → In real life — Or move Real life to Real life (terminology) or Real life (internet culture), and leave the Canadian TV series where it is. Real life should redirect to Reality, which denotes the primary meaning of the phrase "real life"; this article is just about the expression as used in internet culture. City of Destruction 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) City of Destruction 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• In Real Life → In Real Life (TV series)

• Oppose. The current situation seems correct to me. I think this is the primary meaning. Powers ^T 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support for In Real Life → In Real Life (TV series). I and many have never heard of this TV series before. I do not see why some TV series or book should hijack the dominant-meaning position of an everyday word or expression which had a proper meaning long before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's hardly a hijack. In real life redirects here, as it should. Getting to In Real Life requires the user to explicitly type it in title case, which is a strong indication they're looking for the TV series. Powers ^T 01:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all moves per Powers. Capitalization differentiates the TV series, and I believe the current page to be the primary topic for "real life". --Cybercobra (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

Delete this article (again)

I want to delete this article. Even with a few paltry references, I don't feel that this article is about a real topic. It is a cloaked WP:BITR article (a coatrack). There seems to be no Wikipedia:Verifiability of the principles mentioned in the article to distinguish its subject from any semantically similar concept, such as reality or life or vitality or existence or existential or the purpose of life. Why is there no real death? This article is a denigration of the English language to the point in which it contrives distinctions, nay, it carves imaginary channels into the human mind in which fiction and reality must flow separately. This makes the article's subject a distinct point of view (WP:POV), viz. the view that a person's life and a person's virtual reality are separable. My point of view is that life and virtual reality are inseparable and that adding the adjective "real" is redundant and preposterous. And I mean this beyond the implication that "real life" is a neologism, because I feel it is a complete literary and logical fallacy to prepend the word "real" to "life" and come up with a topic necessary for an encyclopedia. It is a concept didactic for semanticists and thus for a good dictionary. (See WP:DICTIONARY.) Also, this term is clearly anecdotal for an idiom appearing in certain slang (Computerease? Gamerology?) and jargon found in science fiction. See WP:NOT. I propose that we really get rid of the real life article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Then delete it, or at least put it through the relevant community process for deleting it. Try WP:AFD. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a novel idea how about actually helping to build the article, instead of deleting other editors hard work?

I know actually building an article is harder than destroying it. It is really easy to criticize other editors contributions as you do, it is much harder to look at a bad article and improve it.

My guess is if you spent half your time writing an encyclopedia instead of learning acronyms, you would have several featured article awards. Igottheconch (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh First sentence is terrible

First sentence is terrible:

generally denotes a broader notion of reality than what would be assumed in the current context (although this may vary depending on its usage).

I replaced it with something like this:

actual human life, as lived by real people, esp contrasted with the lives of fictional or fantasy characters

Will cite this. Igottheconch (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Busy

Template:Busy, which is used on hundreds of user pages, links to this article. If this article is put up for deletion, a notice should be placed on that templates talk page, notifying editors of its deletion. Whether the editors who use Template:Busy should be notified is debatable. Igottheconch (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange looking segment

I found a strange segment on the "Society" part of this article. It didn't look like anything more than someone playing about with the page so I went and removed it. Going to post what it said just to be sure.

(obvious vandalism quoted here, removed by Wlgrin; see below)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.140.228 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to repair the vandalised article. Since it was obvious vandalism, and because Wikipedia maintains a full revision history of the page, there was no need to reproduce it on this discussion page (a few search engines index those too), so I have removed the full quotation from your comment above. I have also restored the article to its original (pre-vandalism) state, since the vandal had done more than just adding the crude non-sense which you later deleted. When discovering vandalism, it is beneficial to review all the changes made by the vandal using diff, the comparison tool on the revision history of the page. Finally, I have restored the automatic signature placed for your comment above by SineBot, which you had then deleted. Please, remember to sign and date your posts in discussion pages (not in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Also, keep in mind that, even if it does not appear on the page, your IP address remains visible in the revision history. If you would prefer your IP address not to be recorded and obtain increased privacy (along with other convenient features), you are naturally welcome to create a user account. Wlgrin 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Usage of rl online

I was pondering usage of rl online based on personal experience and it occurs to me that its precise meaning is not exactly "not on the Internet." For example, suppose I wrote a story about a guy who e-mailed Jimbo Wales and put it on fanfiction.net. Someone could read it and legitimately comment, "I've e-mailed Jimbo Wales in real life!" More generally, it seems like "real life" is used to distinguish actual literal occurrences of an action from actions taken in one of the "virtual worlds" created by the Internet - even if it's just the very simple virtual world of an imaginary face-to-face meeting between two people. I'm not sure how best to capture this distinction, or where to find sources about it, but just thought I'd comment. Dcoetzee 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Movies, films, video, TV

I think this has more recent history than just the internet, I have seen movies/TV juxtaposed to "in real life" unrelated to the internet. Even now when watching a movie I compare how different and unrealistic it is to "real life." B137 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Reality?

This article seems like it would be better as a section or two of "Reality". Thoughts? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I don't see that the merge is needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the term "real life" used to distinguish on the Internet. Not really related at all to reality. Lizard (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to check out Reality#Technology, then. There's already a subsection there, and IMO there isn't enough material to sustain a full, separate article on "real life". Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a very weid article

What does this article do on wikipedia? It's not a real encyclopedia topic, and it's even not very documented about psychology. It's very light in the psychological/philosophical domain, very light! I don't know how it could be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:99A4:7151:5B27:A5F4 (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

   Indeed, as far as current content goes! The page is organized as a series of sections dealing each with a different sense, that would belong together on a Dab page as mere links to separate articles that would all be embarrassingly short stubs if they had been properly broken out. I'm giving it a small share of mind (cf. market share) that may grow into a brief decomposition-into-pathetic-stubs project before a small hoard? horde? of colleagues with more sincere interests in the quite distinct topics flesh them out.
   There may be a brief Genealogy of [a concept] article feasible,^* and i'm gonna see if a week or two permits me time to play with a stub for it; i think such a concept something like -- aha! -- WP:Broad-concept article, is a guideline or at least an essay that may aid me or a colleague who reads this.

_* It would rough out how the various targets of its companion Dab, and of some non-contenders for the Dab page, can be considered to express a common metaphor and/or very fuzzy-edged common concept (which may leave it hard to pick out an unambiguous name encompassing it).

--Jerzy•t 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a very popularly used expression, I don't see why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. People are always wanting to find out more about random things, so don't do something like nominate it for deletion, though I don't expect you will. | ComplainingCamel (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics is not an opinion

Wikipedia's attitude is clearly skeptical and hostile towards Nostradamus. Invented prophecies, wrong solutions or forcing by some interpreters are highlighted. The blame for all this is subtly placed on Nostradamus and it is stated that his prophecies can only be identified after the events have occurred. Which is completely normal. Never has a cryptic prophecy been correctly exposed before it occurred. Prophecy is the message that God entrusts to the prophet to make known to men. There are two types of prophecies: explicit and cryptic. The explicit one is for example when God entrusts the tables of the law to Moses. The cryptic one is John's prophecy of the apocalypse, full of symbols, codes and figures that can hardly be interpreted before the events stated happen and in fact almost two thousand years have passed since its enunciation. My contribution is based on scientific and mathematical evidence specifying the source for which it can be objectively assessed. There is no adequate justification for removing it. It means wanting to also deny the Pythagorean theorem without giving a rational justification. 151.50.94.171 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)