Talk:YTMND

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the YTMND article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

YTMND is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: August 25, 2006

YTMND has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is part of WikiProject Internet pop culture, which is a WikiProject founded to work on pages and categories related to Internet memes and other fads of the world wide web. If you are interested in joining, or have any other questions, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet pop culture.

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: Aaron Rutkoff (11/7/2005). "Sean Connery Delivers A Line That Eventually Sparks an Internet Fad". Wall Street Journal.

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details. The citation is in: John Lichman (February 3, 2006). ""Teh interweb"—It offers more than porn". Washington Square News.

Archives
August 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 - August 2006 September 2006 -

PLEASE READ: To keep this article from being deleted again in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines please follow the guidelines, outlined below, as established by the Current State Section Proposal:

• PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY FORUM HISTORY INFORMATION TO THIS ARTICLE (UNLESS THE FORUMS ARE SHUT DOWN PERMANENTLY) The fact of the forums' existence is noted, what goes on there is, by consensus, not encyclopaedic.
• PLEASE KEEP ADDITIONAL YTMND FADS INFORMATION ON THE YTMND WIKI
• PLEASE KEEP ADDITIONAL GENERAL YTMND HISTORY INFORMATION SHORT. ONLY ONE OR TWO SENTENCES PER MAJOR INCIDENT and ensure that you cite the reliable secondary sources for each individual incident.

The reason for this is because by consensus excessively detailed information about the history, fads or the forums of YTMND is not considered encyclopaedic. We should be able to convey the interesting history of YTMND in a concise manner. However, if the history section begins to get too large it might warrant it's own article. Note that this is all in accordance with the Current State Section Proposal as previously discussed. Thanks!

Contents 1 Notable YTMNDs 2 YTMND on Spam Blacklist 3 Mistake 4 Broken link 5 What should be done now

[edit] Notable YTMNDs

I think we need to be a little careful here. Per WP:EL we should not include external links to pages which violate copyright. Many YTMNDs do just that: the sound clips are often from commercial recordings and not covered by fair use as they are not being used to parody the original source (use to parody something else is not covered by fair use). There is an elegant solution, which is to link to the YTMND wiki article on the fad, which has the double benefit of avoiding links to copyvios and giving much more information about the fad than is appropriate here. Any notable YTMND will surely have an article on the YTMND wiki, so this seems to me to have no real dowside. Look at wiki.ytmnd.com/Picard_song and see what I mean. Guy 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Perhaps, if there are no objections, we should start a discussion as to which YTMNDs are notable?--Dreaded Walrus 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should go into a fit of copyright paranoia over something that is a different corporation's responsibility than YTMND Inc's. They seem to have an adequate level of responsibility: they have a designated agent and everything. Wikipedia can't honestly be blamed for copyright infringement on another website. However, linking to the YTMND wiki article does sound like an adequate compromise. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, links to avoid: Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media.; also the following types of links are strongly discouraged: Sites that are violating a copyright. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. Many YTMNDs do contain copyright violations, usually in the soundtrack. Many also require rich media. Linking to the YTMND Wiki avoids both problems while at the same time giving the YTMND community the opportunity to present additional context and information. What exactly is the problem here? Guy 12:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What problem? I simply said that I accepted the compromise but not the perfenander relating to why we need a compromise in the first place. The compromise works, though. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only is there the copyvio situation, but many YTMNDs (including some of the more popular ones) nowadays also use a flash pre-loader, which loads both the image and the sound and plays them together. This, of course, goes against the section of the policy which you quoted. Perhaps what I would suggest would be a brief description of a YTMND (as opposed to just a straight list of popular ones) with a link to the corresponding YTMND Wiki article. --Dreaded Walrus 13:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I am strongly opposed to bare lists of anything, so the brief description is also good. Guy 13:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. We can create the descriptions of very notable YTMNDs (read: mentioned by the media), cite said media, and link to the YTMND Wiki. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So, which ones to pick then?StvnLunsford 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Picard obviously. Beyond that I don't know. Maybe some of the more original but very popular ones, such as Safety Not Guaranteed, NEDM, and PTKFGS? Oh, and great compromise BTW. (since there obviously is a consensus towards linking to SOMETHING externally) Sir Crazyswordsman 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, PTKFGS, Safety, etc., are good choices; maybe by adding some of these in we can get this to Good Article status. StvnLunsford 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with selecting a few good YTMNDs to mark as notable is that it introduces POV into the article. What might be a good YTMND to one person might be total crap to another. By introducing some POV into the article in this way, you might be damaging the article's chances at GA-class. I only see two YTMNDs that might get past NPOV, and that's the original YTMND since it started the site, and the Picard Song YTMND since it got major Web-blog attention, and maybe AOTS since it was on TV. I haven't seen much for other YTMNDs outside of the Meme community. Of course, I might be missing something. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I flagged myself for contradiction. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability and popularity aren't one in the same. One of the most notable sites is "Batman: Ualuealuealeuale" (not linking to it since I want Picard to beat it back) because it was the first to beat Picard Song in views, but it is simultaneously hated by many because 1. It wasn't found to be very funny and 2. It was "viewhacked." Sir Crazyswordsman 00:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we CAN use the inkdrinker part as one of the notable YTMNDs. It was a good guideline for a while... StvnLunsford 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Most people don't know who Inkdrinker is unless they see all the downvotes he's made, and he hasn't made many in a while. I honestly think KHAN!, Conan, and even Cosby should go in before Inky. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My definition of "notable enough for the article" is that it has been mentioned in the media. It also wouldn't hurt if the YTMND had an entry on the YTMND Wiki, because even they have a notability standard (for having articles on whole fads, that is). I hope something comes of the discussion this time, because this is what... the third time discussing this? —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the YTMND Wiki, and you're right. They do have a classification of what the site considers its most popular fads. These include, direct from their Template:Fads :

• KHAN!, Barrel Roll, Picard Song, Stapler, Conan is..., Future Conan, NSMB, Nooo!, Sonic says, What is Love, Burger King, Ualuealuealeuale, Brian Peppers, ...has one weakness., O RLY, OMG, secret Nazi..., I Love Bell Peppers, CATCH THAT MAN!!!, Facial Expressions, "lol, internet", Safety Not Guaranteed, PTKFGS, Nintendo 64 kid, Bill Cosby, NEDM.

Problem is... there's just too many of them, even for quick one-liners. If you're going to do Notable YTMNDs, this list should get you started. And you can BJAODN my template. lol :P --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of those, here's what I think should be mentioned:

• KHAN!, since it was the first ever fad
• Picard, duh
• Brian Peppers, since it has an interesting history (mainly with the Allan Peppers letter)
• Ualuealuealeuale, mainly because it was the origin of viewhacking
• SNG because of its media attention
• PTKFGS, since it's really more than a fad
• Bill Cosby, since Cosby Bebop is probably the most popular site of all time now (most favorites and votes)
• NEDM maybe, if only becayse of its interesting history.

This should be a good maximum for which fads to cover. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While those fads may be interesting, how does that establish their notability? And what's SNG? —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

SNG == Safety Not Guaranteed. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just narrowing down the field to try and keep the coverage to a minimum. Sort out their favorite fads, see if there's any media coverage on those. If there is, note them. If not, ignore them. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the fads with media attention in bold. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Now they need their appropriate citations, and they should be good to go. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we throw in the Lindsay Lohan doesn't change facial expressions YTMND since it started the war with eBaum's world? (I'd link it but Wikipedia won't let me) Crimson Shadow 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Lindsay Lohan YTMND is already referenced in the article as a result of that incident. If a list of "Notable YTMNDs" is added to the article, I don't see why it wouldn't fall into that list. My only concern is with a lack of media exposure of that YTMND, although I might have just not seen any. Have you seen any press articles or other documents outside of eBaum and YTMND that talk about this fad? --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND on Spam Blacklist

Is this really necessary? I was just attempting to expand on this article here with mention of http:// scientologyattack . ytmnd . com/, as it has had more than some attention directed at it from YTMND and subsequently across the immediate social internet extending from it. Given the size and scale of said film (small), it's quite a notable event in it's history as far as I'm concerned, yet I found myself unable to link. Yes, I can imagine rogue YTMNDers love to mess up wiki with such spam links, but wouldn't blacklisting ytmnsfw.com (which is NOT on the current blacklist) be safer, since YTMND itself has a fairly aggressive filtering proceedure for 'unsafe' (ie. racist or blatantly offensive) sites? Just my two cents, hope someone with blacklist-editing ability notices. AKismet 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is a discussion page on Meta, and on that page is a section for proposed removals. You're probably better off bringing up this point there.--Dreaded Walrus 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked into why YTMND.com is on the blacklist — it's because YTMNDs that are created are mostly copyvios that we ought to not link to. However, www.ytmnd.com and wiki.ytmnd.com are on the spam whitelist so we can still link to the official website, as well as link to the relevant article on YTMND wiki when we bring them up. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

The original yourthemannowdog.com did have sound - but you cannot hear the sound because the web archiver did not archive it. If you look at the source of the first yourethemannowdog.com you will notice that a WAV was embedded into the site. --J.P. 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Wayback Machine doesn't archive sound. I took a look at the source code, and I didn't see any indication of sound files. I guess I didn't look hard enough. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to see it yourself you can look at line 17 in the HTML. --J.P. 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it after I took a second look at the code (the first time when I originally wrote that section I hadn't noticed any code indicating any sound files). ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

The first external link in the "Media exposure" section (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8366702/) is broken. It seems I have to report this fact in the talk page as seen in the edit history. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Then I suppose we stop linking to it...? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should be done now

There hasn't seem to be any major development off this article for quite some time. However, I do not feel the article is totally perfect yet. What more should we do to improve the article? (Other than the Notable Creation bit; we all know about that and I don't want to have that conversation again.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a cleanup of the Media Exposure section, as suggested in the article itself, would be a good idea. I'd remove most of what's listed there and leave descriptions of the first article or two to mention the site and maybe the first contest (Attack of the Show). In my opinion, the article's in pretty good shape besides that. DiscordantNote 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I myself would like a bit about technical features/innovations on the site, like private messaging and crew. Or a section about the web pages itself. Sources, people! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I think, is that its going to be hard to find those sources. I'll do some searching on digg and TechDirt, and of course Google some stuff, but I think anything on the technical features will be slim beyond Max's own blog updates. Also, I think we could get something done on the Notable Articles aspect if someone would put something up. Then we could see how it works and make changes as necessary.StvnLunsford 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They're acceptable, for now. They're not Third Party but it's better than nothing. Also, we should migrate, in general, from using on-YTMND sources to using things like articles published about YTMND. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)