Talk:Wikipedia in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-29. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Weird Al image

I am going to keep this short, but sweet. Why is his parts of this article seperated, and why in the world is the same image posted twice. Someone please fix this, i would, but I don't have an account and i don't know the procedure to remove a photo.

[edit] Daniel R. Tobias quote

"I think Wikipedia has achieved the pop-cultural status of being suitable for mention in humorous (and not entirely flattering) contexts; it seems to have a connotation something like "I've achieved a shallow, superficial, and quite likely inaccurate understanding of a subject the lazy way... and I'm damn proud of it!"" -- Daniel R. Tobias on WikiEN-l about the trend.

Until Wikipedia is also a dictionary word; claiming that it's anything like Google is silly and certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And people wonder why it gets such a bad reputation.--67.171.78.155 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

Somebody please make this redirect to Wikipedia. I don't know how >.< Sorry! --JCipriani 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion discussion reached a consensus of keep not merge or delete. Konman72 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless; this article does not need to be on it's own. It doesn't make much sense. The size of this article is roughly the same size as the other sections in the Wikipedia main article, so if this article is left alone then, for the sake of consistency, all other sections of the main article should also be placed in their own articles, I'd think. --JCipriani 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you say or think, the discussion was made and the admin decided that the consensus was to keep the article. Konman72 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes it does. What I say and think dictates the content in Wikipedia. That's what it's for. It's not like I'm vandalizing anything, or having an edit battle; it's an honest edit with a sensible reason. Also, if there was no deletion discussion to begin with, then there would have been no "keep" decision at all. Would the merge then have been OK with you? If so, that doesn't make much sense, logically. And looking at the deletion discussion, I see a lot more keep and merge than just keep. None of that really matters though. What's the real reason that you think it shouldn't be merged aside from "text above says 'keep' not 'keep and merge'?" --JCipriani 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I actually do think it should be merged, but that wasn't the decision. And, no, the point of Wikipedia is that the community decides what happens. You make an edit and then another person edits that and so on and so forth until a consensus is achieved. You seem to think that Wikipedia is a place to do whatever you want, it is no where near that, it is a place with rules that must be followed. We are supposed to be objective editors, my and your beliefs should not affect our editing practices in any way. I also noticed the many keep and merge votes, but that is not my or your role here. An admin looked at the discussion and decided that keep was the consensus and so that is what we do. Wait a month or two and nominate the article again if you are so adament about it, but as it stands a consensus has been reached and we must follow that decision. Konman72 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The community (or at least, the few that voted) seemed to arrive at the consensus to merge; I'd say the admin made the wrong decision but I don't know who they are or how to contact them to tell them that. Is there a way to nominate articles for merging rather than deletion? Or is it the same process? I don't want the information deleted. I just think it makes no sense by itself. Besides, if we both would like it merged, as well as all the other people that voted, then why don't we do it and wait for somebody to revert it who honestly doesn't want it merged for a good reason? --JCipriani 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The keep and merge votes were to merge this article with Wikimedia in popular culture. If you would like to make that merge then go right ahead. Konman72 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, that merge was already done, which is probably why the consensus is now to just keep the article. Konman72 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok something seems broken now... the Wikimedia Pop Culture article redirects to the Wikipedia Pop Culture article, which redirects to Wikipedia, which contains the link to the Wikipedia Pop Culture article (but not the contents of the article) that ends up taking you right back to the Wikipedia article itself. That just seemed to happen in the last 5 minutes but this article is no longer accessible from the Wikipedia main article. Perhaps somebody else is in the middle of making changes... --JCipriani 05:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, another editor turned this into a redirect a minute ago. I have already reverted it so things should be fine now. Wikimedia in pop culture redirects here and Wikipedia has a link here. Konman72 05:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was my fault. The bot reverted my first change, I pointed it out and the bot owner made the redirect apparently. Oh well, I guess I should nominate it for "deletion" again in a few days then? Eh whatever... --JCipriani 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about this page? That's just not the way we roll. You can't keep nominating an article for deletion until you get your way. Isopropyl 05:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I was about to say the same thing. Perhaps in a few months another discussion could be tolerated but at the moment we have the decision, and unless something major changes we follow it for a while. Konman72 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "nominating it until I get my way"... I didn't even know about the deletion discussion until after the decision had already been made. I'd never nominate it more than once anyway, and if I had participated in the original deletion discussion then I certainly wouldn't consider nominating it again myself (no I didn't sit back and watch that discussion; I just never came to this page before that decision was made, and on coming here, my immediate observation was 'this should really be merged with the Wikipedia page'). Since my suggestion is different than anything that was discussed in the deletion discussion; it seems like there would be no need to wait, as it would be a fresh new suggestion, no? I mean if I have something I'd like to see done, waiting a few months because an entirely different discussion just happened seems arbitrary, and makes things take longer than they need to take... the only reason I'm not nominating it again right at this moment is because there's always a chance that I'm missing some major point, as I tend to do. I'll wait until tomorrow to do it, since there may be a real reason for not doing it again so soon after the last one. --JCipriani 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article deserves to exist...

...but as it stands it's just a listing of references to Wikipedia. Someone needs to do some through research and organize all the information into a coherent article. The title isn't List of references to Wikipedia in popular culture. Morgan Wick 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not coherent, needs more work, but better than it was now. -- Zanimum 17:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert's Edit.

--71.197.196.45 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC) "He checked Wikipedia to determine whether he had referred to Oregon as being California's Canada or Washington's Mexico before deciding to call it it Idaho's Portugal and pretending [citation needed] to adjust a Wikipedia article to say so."

He actually made that edit on Colbert Report recurring elements.

[edit] Major overhaul

I've tried to give this article the major rewrite it was tagged for. I've removed the following content because it is a series of Wikipedia references, but doesn't illustrate any points about Wikipedia in popular culture. — Reinyday, 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed references

Hank Scorpio, a character from The Simpsons, mocks intelligent girl Lisa Simpson for citing her knowledge of him and his illegal activities during a prison break scene in Simpsons Comics #117.[1]

In 2006, commenting to the New York Times on the demands on Central Intelligence Agency analysts to produce instant information, John E. McLaughlin, former acting U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, stated, "intelligence analysts end up being the Wikipedia of Washington".[2]

An altmuslim.com review of a new television series about terrorists noted that the characters routinely gave detailed background of events in the history of Islam and stated, "no one, and I assume even terrorists, talks like a walking Wikipedia."[3]

In May 2006, British chat show host Paul O'Grady received an inquiry from a viewer regarding information given on his Wikipedia page, to which he responded, "Wikipedia? Sounds like a skin disease."[citation needed]

An Internet webcomic called Applegeeks mentioned several times "Why spend money for education when Wikipedia has the same information for free?"[4][5]

Hannelore, a character in webcomic Questionable Content, suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder. She references Wikipedia's article on head lice as the reason why she cut most of her hair off.[6]

[edit] also

8-Bit Theater once pardoyed Wikipedia with a fictonal "magipedia" that Red Mage unsuccessfully used to prove to Black Mage that "turtles are not fish". [7]

Wikipedia was mentioned on the August 30, 2006 broadcast of the radio program Marketplace during a feature on Wikia.

[edit] Added NPOV Warning

In regards to the subsection on Wikiality, which had this gem: "He suggested that viewers change the elephant page to state that the number of elephants has tripled in the last six months, although the addition of false information to Wikipedia is considered vandalism." This seems to me to indicate that Mr. Colbert knowingly committed an act ov vandalism, which may or may not be the case. To preserve NPOV and encyclopedic tone, we should avoid backbiting and defensive comments like these. Npovmaster 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. How hard would it have been to change "although" to "however" if you thought something was being implied (which it wasn't)? And what is the deal with your Scientology edit? — Reinyday, 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move the Wikiality section to its own article?

I think we should move the section (or subsection, rather) to it's own article. The whole "Wikiality" concept is sort of being censored. Make it an article, elaborate on it, but include a link to Wikipedia in popular culture and say info on related topics can be found there. Discuss? aido2002 09:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What more is there to say? We must remember WP:OR. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mastermind reference

The episode of Mastermind broadcast on 21st August 2006 on the BBC2 television channel in the UK featured this question in its general knowledge round: "Which internet encyclopedia was founded by Jimmy Wales in 2001?" The contestant gave the correct answer: "Wikipedia."

Is this suitable to be put on this or another page? Carcharoth 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm moving this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio. Carcharoth 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiality should get its own section

Wikiality is obviously an attempt at creating another word with the stature of Truthiness. They were both discussed in a very similar way.

If you dont think that the article is long enough to justify giving it its own section than we could easily expand it. Wikiality has been discussed three times on the Colbert Report. The third time being when Colbert made reference of the Sigmund Freud's article on Wikipedia. I know that Wikiality wasn't discussed specifically, but the concept of Wikiality certainly was. Furthermore, we could discuss the similarities between Wikiality and the original signature word Truthiness. The concepts of both are very similar. Wikiality is the substitution of your reality or your interpretation of reality (real or imagioned) and Truthiness is the substitution of what you want the truth to be or what you feel the truth is. Beyond that, we can discuss the effects of Wikiality on Wikipedia. This article deserves its own page, for these reasons. Please help me to do this because I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and I would probably screw it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark D (talk • contribs) .

First, you might want to read WP:OR. And remember, we don't just fluff a topic so that the text itself is large enough to make another article. Wikiality is discussed here (Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality), Truthiness#Wikiality, List of The Colbert Report episodes#ep128, and Criticism of Wikipedia#Difficulty of fact-checking (and Criticism of Wikipedia#Parodies on the same article). The "concept" of Wikiality is not much more than Consensus reality. A topic getting it's "own article" is not a sign of importance, it's just a method of information organization. As it stands now, repeating things that have already been said on these other articles is pretty much needless. The topic has been covered. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scraps

I've rebooted the article to a previous version, then readded any worthwhile content. The scraps I threw away are here... talk:Wikipedia in popular culture/scraps. Feel free to reintegrate any of them as you see fit. -- Zanimum 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

Cross space links to Wikipedia policy is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the use of Wikipedia-specific words such as "vandalism" creates a presumption that the critics of Wikipedia are somehow violating the law by editing Wikipedia and are in the wrong. SighSighSigh 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some vandalism is slander to living people, which I believe isn't allowed by some laws. Not only that, but it violates most if not all ISP terms of service to do such things. I'm no legal expert, but "vandalism" is a word that is not exclusive to legal matters, and I hardly doubt people will be confused on that matter. What does this have to do with WP:NPOV? -- Ned Scott 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is a Wikipedia-specific term that is used to refer to malicious or inaccurate edits to the online encyclopedia. However, the global meaning of vandalism is "the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure or symbol against the will of the owner/governing body." It is hard to argue that there is a tangible destruction of property with edits to Wikipedia. Furthermore, while Wikipedia policy may consider some edits to be malicious, the global public may not (i.e. the audience of Stephen Colbert). This article, which is in the main space, should be written without a pro-Wikipedia bias. SighSighSigh 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedia

Unencyclopedia should be one, right? Julz the wizkid

General
Wikipedia is parodied at several websites, including Encyclopaedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia.
Feel free to expand this paragraph. -- Zanimum 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Colbert Called it

{{editprotected}}On the October 19, 2006 episode of the Colbert Report, news of a Disney vet performing vasectomies on "overpopulated" elephants in Africa prompted Colbert to have another edition of his "I called it" segment. The "I called it" referred to the invented statistic that African Elephants had tripled in population during the last 6 months.

(should go in the "Wikiality" section after the paragraph on African Elephants) jholdaway 00:52 19 October 2006

I really can't understand what you want to change. :) NCurse work 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that is an improvement. Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full protection

Are you f***ing joking? Why is this fully protected- to preemptively strike down Colbert vandals? If there was any indication that his mention of wikiality on last night's show, then mybe I would understand a semiprotect. But FULL PROTECTION?! -- Kicking222 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiality Site

[this http://www.wikiality.com/index.php?title=Main_Page] link was mentioned last night on the Report. Its either a fan creation that was liked and thus mentioned on the show, or was an intentional creation of the show. Regardless, I think it should be mentioned as it is an explicit parody of wikipedia and is relevent to the discussion of Colbert's use of wikiality.--131.104.138.247 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

We should merge the sections that talk about Colbert into one section, possibly called "Stephen Colbert," what do you think? - Peregrinefisher 06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Toucher and Rich Show/Mantown comments removed

I note that someone attempted to add a comment about yesterday's vandalism to the Mantown page. Although the contribution was unsourced, the incident did indeed happen (a number of editors including myself heard it live on the radio), so can the reference not be re-added with a citation-needed tag for now? I would not be surprised if Toucher and Rich themselves post something about it on their show's website.--Caliga10 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Cuban and Wikiality

[Note: It's a safe assumption to say that "Mcuban" was, indeed, Mark Cuban.] When Mark Cuban edited his own page (and talk page) in August, he mentions Wikiality: [1] Is this worth mentioning, or is that even too self-referential for this article (since posting on WP is not, technically, WP in pop culture)? -- Kicking222 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur Comics and Chicken

The Nov. 8 comic for Dinosaur Comics mentions wiki and how the Chicken article should be the only one that gets vandalized so wiki becomes a better site. Ryan North also made a joke website about it and as of today (29 Nov) the Chicken article is still locked. Maybe some mention should be made of this? I know it was covered in at least one newssite.-- 68.148.32.58 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is based on another site. -- Zanimum 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And one just about POV battles

For whoever is working on this article: http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=774. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies on Wikipedia in popular culture

what that mean? if it meant to discuss inaccurate portrayels of wikipedia shouldnt explanations be given as to why it inaccurate? such explanations would probably violiate WP:NOR, tho.

if it meant to discuss people who think wikipedia is inaccurate then it should be clarified. maybe commentary on wikipedia's accuracy in popular culture. 72.36.251.234 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why so many webcomics?

Huge tracts of this article consist of free advertising for various webcomics, with excessively detailed descriptions of individual jokes. It could be condensed into a paragraph or two.--Nydas(Talk) 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've split it off into it's own article. Yes, I agree webcomic appearances aren't very notable. -- Zanimum 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
FTR, Zanimum split the web comics off into Wikipedia in web comics. -- Jeff G. (talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 08:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've merged it back, because there isn't really enough material (or enough significance) to merit a whole new article. It does need trimming down, though. Feel free to do so – Qxz 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Stephen Colbert right?

Although his statement on "The Colbert Report" that "reality has become a commodity" is obvious hyperbole, his assertion that facts accepted unless challenged constitutes a subjective view of reality cannot be denied. Is there a real safeguard against "conventional wisdom" being mistaken for fact on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan4J (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

The need to provide reliable sources. If a whole lot of reliable sources are mistaking conventional wisdom for fact, which is rare but does happen, then the fault lies with those sources, not anyone who cites them – Qxz 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense; but is every attribution validated?

Not yet. And, because of the continually-expanding nature of Wikipedia, we will never reach a point where every source has been validated by multiple editors. But any articles included in the release version, Wikipedia 1.0 will be well-sourced. --Aervanath 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foxtrot dates

{{editprotected}}

When this page is unprotected, would someone please add the dates for the Foxtrot cartoon(s). According to FoxTrot, the first was published on May 7, 2005, and the second on September 7, 2006. - Peregrine Fisher 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A copy of this article is now sitting in my sandbox here, as it needs attention and I've been planning to work on it, but can't now because it's protected, so I'm going to work on it there. I'll add your information to my copy, which should guarantee that it makes it into the article when I merge my changes – Qxz 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Someone should also fix the links Foxtrot -> FoxTrot. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All done. Proto::► 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey.

{{editprotected}}

Can someone change User:Stephencolbert into an external link so it doesn't break mirrors, kthnx. 31337 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note: the easiest way to do this is probably by writing the link as {{srlink|User:Stephencolbert|Stephencolbert}}.) --ais523 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the easiest way to do this is to remove the link. We should not be linking to user pages in articles, especially not ones like this one. It's not as if there's any useful information on the user page that isn't in the article – Qxz 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Link removed. Proto::► 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Friendly Edit

{{editprotected}}

Under the "Wikipedia in web comics" section, the caption under the second comic (UserFriendly) has an extra "with" in it. Simple fix - I'd do it myself if I could. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wadester16 (talk • contribs).

Fixed. Proto::► 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilobbying

Another reference to Wikipedia by the infamous Stephen Colbert, "Reality has become a commodity." A new entry for Jan 29, 2007 should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.209.207.89 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above text was added by 141.209.207.89 in this edit and reverted by Ryulong without good reason. As is seen from this Google search, "Wikilobbying" (lobbying for profit on wikis including Wikipedia) is being widely discussed in the media. It has been discussed in the deleted topic Wikilobbying, and per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikilobbying it is being resurrected as a well-sourced article at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying. It has even been discussed in Wikipedia Signpost: Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms. Why shouldn't it be discussed here?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feb. 2 episode of The Office

See Ben Franklin (The Office episode). Jim tells the camera early on that he thought Michael misused the term prima nocta and confirmed that by looking it up on Wikipedia (it's actually a redirect to droit du seigneur), then went on to explain it.

Can/should this be added anywhere here? It seems like it qualifies as the second U.S. sitcom reference. Daniel Case 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a reference made to it in the article on the episode. Yea, i thoink it should be mentioned here (when I saw it, it was the first thing I thought of (and possible vandalism to office related articles) but that is beside the point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's now in both the article on the episode and in references under Droit du seigneur. Still should be here, because I don't think it'll be the last time this happens. Daniel Case 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And to second my suggestion, I think we should create a talk page template for occasions like this similar to {{onlinesource}}. Daniel Case 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And I bet you're all aware that it was listed as 2006? :p. Can an admin fix that? The entire page is protected. Floria L 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sally Forth

The comic strip Sally Forth has mentioned wikipedia a few times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.164.135 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RoadKill Bill

Why was this removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.164.135 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "American Dad!"

Someone was watching this show tonight when I was on the Internets and I heard something about wikipedia. Wikiquote says:

[edit] Black Mystery Month [2.13]

Steve: Now the world will never know the truth.
Stan: If only there was a place where you could make any outrageous claim you want with absolutely no proof, and millions of people would accept it as fact.
Steve: That's it!
[cutaway to Steve writing a Wikipedia article on "The Truth About Peanut Butter"]

--Indolences 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Rall

Ted Rall has come out with a cartoon metioning Wikipedia and historical revisionism. Here's a link from his main site, so it probably won't be taken down, if someone can work it into the article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace

While I realize that this article has been nominated for deletion and kept, rightly so, you must wonder about the mainspace applicabilities of this article. Is it truly worthy of an article in the mainspace, or should it be moved to a Wikipedia namespace? I really think it ought be in Wikipedia namespace. Opinions? DoomsDay349 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheerios Commercial

For some reason I can't edit this, so I'll just say it here. There is a recent Cheerios commercial where the father is going on a cheerios diet for six weeks while his son has 6 weeks to do a report on Shakespeare. In one scene, it is possible to see him scrolling down the wikipedia entry for Shakespeare. That is all

[edit] What the hell?

Let me know if I'm correct: this is an encyclopedia that has an entry about itself "in popular culture"? This has got to be a joke and a first for the information age. We have a similar page over at Uncyclopedia, titled: nobody cares. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An encylopedia doesn't care whether anyone cares about any of its articles as long as the subject fits the criteria for inclusion. –Pomte 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a question

Why is this page so blindly pro wikipedia. OH RIGHT. Hypocritical self righteousness ftw

[edit] Bremner, Bird and Fortune

Last night, Wikipedia was meantioned in a sketch on the British satirical show Bremner, Bird and Fortune.

The sketch revolved about a news story around the most unread books, and a voice over giving inaccurate the plots to each story, most involving aliens. I think it should probably be entered. ISD 08:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was most popular but people never reached the end, for example war and peace, Goblet of Fire, The Satanic Verses etc. Defently warrents a mention in here in my opinion also Struds 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The office reference says Fourth reference on a fiction-based television series. but it is the Fifth mentioned in the table Akubhai 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, someone beat me to it. I'd fix this myself, but the article's got the big ol padlock o' doom on it. Darquis 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Talk%7EWikipedia_in_popular_culture_c2a2.html"