Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archives/2007/March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Suggested renaming: List of popular Internet memes

Using "phenomena" in the name I think is a problem. Most of these things look to be popular from common sense (but that would be OR to simply say) and thats what the list is--a list of the most popular internet-related... things. Phenomena as a word needs to go. Meme might be better. How about List of popular Internet memes? It's probably the best, most sourceable thing, and we can then limit article to topics that are sources as being popular on the Internet by WP:RS meeting sources. If no one objects I'll do it in a few days at latest. - Denny 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or would List of popular Internet topics be a better thing? This is a general list of "popular Internet things". Having to qualify as a 'phenominom' or 'meme' defeats purpose of list, from it's intention as I can see... - Denny 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we determine if they a popular? // Liftarn
If WP:RS say that they are. - Denny 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the old media determines what is real and what is not. Also, according to that RS article, I have some more deletions to do.70.58.114.69 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't think we should change the title, however, I did not see any definition of the word meme;It's just implied. And rather poorly at that.

I would change it myself, but I've never heard the term before, so I don't believe I'm a very reliable source. Repku 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A "List of Internet memes" would be a retrograde step, back to a "List of fads", which would not suitable for Wikipedia. Chris cheese whine 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars kid

Alright, I'm really confused. Ghyslain's video and all the hoopla that surrounded it, as well as his psychological troubles and the legal troubles that have resulted from it, have made national news, and possibly even worldwide news. I completely fail to see how the existing Wikipedia article on him doesn't qualify for inclusion in this article, considering that it was distribution through Kazaa that got the video spread in the first place. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe it was removed because it wasn't sourced? It's been decided that everything included in this page must have proper references. I'm sure if you add it back with a reference, no-one will remove it. Rawr 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. I wasn't sure what was being meant by "sourced" the first time, but I think I've got myself covered this time. If the link I cited isn't all that good, here's another URL that might work better: [1]
Thank you for sourcing. Star wars kid is now allowed in this article. 70.58.114.69 10:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also got a question regarding sources. How "notable" should sources be? I just did a quick Google search on the Badger Badger Badger meme and got hundreds of thousands of hits, but not many from truly big publications. I remember when this thing hit and it deserves a mention, but if the entry needs to be sourced, how good of a source is needed? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Read through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. If a reliable source can't be found for this particular meme, maybe it wasn't that notable? But it appears that it is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Rawr 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The Badger badger badger meme was indeed enormous and was a global phenomenon for well over a year, with tens of millions of views of the flash movie alone. However, since the old media didn't cover it (and therefore cannot be sourced), it is not allowed on Wikipedia and therefore will be removed if mentioned in this article. 70.58.114.69 10:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that a lot of things that many of us know were massivley popular will be hard to source because the mainstream media didn't spend any time on them. Using the "All Your Base are Belong to us." as an example, that phrase, the video that went with it, they were all immensley popular, and have been for quite a while. People still quote lines of of it all the time online and sometimes even in real life. There are numerous fansites dedicated that that saying and when you google for it you get about 1,740,000 hits. Its popular. No denying it. But despite this, when your looking for a realiable source you just can't seem to find any. Im sure there are some articles by respected news outlets that talk about it, but considering how big it is on the internet its gotten almost no attention from the media. My point is many internet memes aren't going to have a decent source to cite in a lot of casses because its internet culture, and the media tends to do a sketchy job at best of covering internet culture. That is going to make this article real rough to cite, since just looking right below the box where i am typing, "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." Thats my .02 for this page. Cerevox 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

half(or more) dissappeared

Loads of this list just suddenly dissapeared... what happened, i've gone through the edit list and it seems unacccounted for??? Is there any way the previous (longer) list can at least be retrieved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donquigleone (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

You can check the article's history to recover the links to the articles that were removed, or you can look for the Internet memes category. Also, I think that someone made a direct link to a page with all the old links further up in the discussion. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Neurotically Yours

I've searched all of the discussions and see no reason why this one site has been singled out. There have been numerous animation sites, some named (JibJab) while others go unnoticed (Homestar Runner and Weebls). Can we think about removing/adding something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobbie (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).hobbie 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled this entry. The reference was stated as "CNET News", which it clearly was not. On closer inspection, it was an article written by Yet Another Random Student. Chris cheese whine 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Verifiability for the actual things themselves is not an issue where they have articles. We don't need sources on this page testifying to something's existence in that case. Each entry on this list needs a source that verifies its status as an Internet phenomenon, preferably one which doesn't require a leap of faith on our part. Chris cheese whine 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AYBABTU

"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

Is someone planning to add that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.91.145.198 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Alright, who changed the article?

Although the article has been downsized many times, this is a huge change, and many on the list were notable and well-known. Clarify? Raptor Jesus 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're too lazy to read the talk page (it's not that long), I'm too lazy to explain it. Chris cheese whine 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow, including my statement, for a complete discussion of the background and issues. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Put something about OK Go band?

I'm not sure of the rules to let matters listed in this article, Internet phenomena. Just remind the success of OK GO band. But I'm not a good writer so... let somebody to decide my suggestion.

PigTail 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source somewhere saying that they are a widespread phenomenon, it can go on the list. Chris cheese whine 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is bunny

I believe many people have seen this in forums:

(\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

Is this somewhere in this article? If not, is it a good thing to add?

No, it isn't in the article. This specifically wouldn't be good for the article, because there are so many different versions of these, such as "Over X% of people have tried a drug. If you are one of the Y% who haven't, copy and paste this into your signature." However, if you want to add a part about all of these in general, go ahead. JDub90 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)