Talk:List of Internet phenomena

Q1: Why isn't (insert meme name here) mentioned in this article?

A1: Wikipedia is not an infinite repository of indiscriminate information; we cannot mention those phenomena which do not meet a standard of notability and verifiability.

Q2: What does it take to make a new addition to the list?

A2: Memes must be proven of being notable for inclusion, using reliable sources that are verifiable.

Q3: Why do all additions need sources?

A3: This is an enforcement of Wikipedia policy, to ensure that only factual detail is added, and to prevent synthesis and original research, which may pose problems such as factual errors and conflict of interest.

Q4: Finding sources is boring. Can't somebody else do it?

A4: The burden of finding sources is on you, as the contributor, not on any other editor. Contributors are required to find credible sources on their own, and not rely on other editors in obtaining sources.

Time to pare this down

This page is getting out of hand again. Innumerable entries are either unsourced or (worse yet) consist of later interpolations inserted into sourced material such that it looks like the unsourced additions are sourced by the citations already present, when they really are not. Original research is like a flood on this page. Some of the entries, like "Creepypasta" are basically just wanky gibberish. Seriously, about 60% of this page should simply be deleted. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is required for inclusion, and I see only entry presently unsourced (Badger Badger Badger, but as that has an article, I'm sure we can pull a source from there). This is not speaking to the quality of the sources, but I know since I've been watching the page, I do vet the additions for appropriate sourcing. The Creepypasta thing is a case where it's hard not to deny inclusion but we also have editors that want to make it more than it is, and that's probably an exception than the rest here.

Now, there is a legit length concern and if that is a problem, we can easily make the split by taking the Videos and some of the music sections into "List of viral videos" (or some similar name), since that's about 1/3rd of this page. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the inclusion of x or y at all, but the wanky commentary on why x is allegedly important, or what y really supposedly means. This article largely reads like it was written by twelve-year-olds. The sourcing problem is more about the importance and interpretations and differentiation and "specialness" and "real" meanings asserted by successive waves of fandom editing, than about whether simple mention of a particular meme is sourceable at all. It's all the add-on cruft that is not actually supported by the sources. I repeat that about 60% of this article is immediately deletable per WP:V, because it either is not sourced at all, or it is not actually in the sources that the citations claim, because later editors have inserted assertions into passages that were sourced, originally, for very specific, narrowly defined facts. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would easily agree that there are likely a handful of the entries on this that do stretch the intent of the sourcing (before I was watching the page), and I would also be willing to make the sourcing requirement a bit harsh, requiring that at least one significantly reliable source being an article that is primarily devoted to said meme/phenomena (several have this, so it is not a stretch to expect this). But I would also argue that as this is a list, we should be explaining why - briefly - what each entry is and why it is on the list. However, I think 60% is a far aggressive number, because most of these entries are, by common sense, Internet phenomena. There's plenty more we could add but we need to be really selective here and hence why I'd not see a problem with requiring at least one source fully dedicated to the topic as mandatory for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the creepypasta entry, I've re-added the Slenderman meme as its own entry separate from the creepypasta meme. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

McGeddon, your rewrite of the lead and your comment, "cut apparently meaningless "Search engines may also amplify the propagation of these phenomena" is unhelpful. Search engine propagation is essential in the spread of memes through the Internet. (And if you apply your logic on the example list, then the whole lead paragraph should be deleted as it is unsourced). The sentence, "Search engines may also amplify the propagation of these phenomena," is not a topic of the article, but rather an example for the list describing how these phenomena are spread. It is definitely a notable aspect of the spread of Internet phenomena. I can guarantee you that if search engines didn't exist, all of you would have never discovered more than half of what these memes are. I've also found a ref for citing this whole paragraph (someone can check for more info on Google Books), so I've added any info that was not addressed due to OR reasons. The lead paragraph needs to be paraphrased and copy edited to remove off-topic info, since I tried to add all content related to the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment in full was "cut apparently meaningless "Search engines may also amplify the propagation of these phenomena." which is not addressed in the article". The source you use there seems to be about "memes" in the more general sense of "information", rather than the "internet phenomenon" that the article is about. Given that you've copy-and-pasted the content word-for-word from your source, I've removed it for now, but it'd be good to see a source that talks specifically about the LOLcat type of internet meme and what part (if any) search engines play in their spread, rather than the "use of the atomic bomb during World War II" examples given by your given source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentences to prevent copyvio issues, and it still needs copy editing, but what the sentence says is mostly true. I don't know anyone who hasn't used Google, YouTube search, Wikipedia's search function, or another search engine to find what he/she is looking for even when the person doesn't have the full, exact title of a song, video, or meme, etc. For the ref, it seems to be an old publication from the late 1990s or early 2000s, and like you said, it refers to memes and how they spread via the Internet, but Internet memes and "memes spread through the Internet" aren't much different. These two types are both memes, hence the usage of the term in Internet meme? Whether or not they should be grouped into a single category is s discussion for another time, but Internet memes are still memes, and can be described by general descriptions of a meme. For your comment about the atom bomb example - that's not even related to your removal of the content; that example given in the source refers to "regular" memes, but it doesn't matter because that part isn't mentioned nor used in this article. If you know what to add to the article to improve it, then add it in. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the lolcat-style "Internet meme" is a subset of "meme which is spread on the internet", which is a subset of "written meme", which is a subset of "meme". If a source is discussing a broader category of meme, we should be careful that it's not redundant or misleading to apply it to the more specific ones. The atom bomb documentation is the only example given by your 1990s source, which suggests that the source is talking about memes-as-information rather than memes-as-funny-cat-pictures. --McGeddon (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably try to cut the lede back to avoid duplication of content with the main internet meme article, per WP:LISTS. The second paragraph of the latter article is already unnecessarily duplicated in full here, and there isn't any need to go much further than simply defining the scope of the list. --McGeddon (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

should Creepypastas get thier own page?

i've started the works of researching cite-able info on the popular meme creepypastas.(none posted to my sub pages or sandboxes yet) however AFTER reading this page and your sound arguments id like to request your OPINIONS on starting a new page for creepy pastas. it would however and foremost adhere to wiki-pedia rules/regulations. if someone has already begun this project, (i did SOME searching to be sure someone else wasnt working on it but havent found it)id like to assist anyway possible. wiki suggested i should ask here in a related talk section FIRST.Zriddle (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You basically need to show that CP has been significantly coverage in secondary sources, per our notability guidelines before you can create an article. CP's been mentioned in articles as to make it includable in here, but I don't think what we have source-wise at the present is enough for a separate article. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Planking, stealth disco, yo dawg meme

Should planking be an entry in this list? It was spread/popularized through social media, so it's some sort of Internet phenomenon. This source used "Internet phenomenon" to describe planking, yet I don't think any other sites have. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I was searching through the archives and there's a section from March 2010 on stealth disco and the "Yo dawg" meme.

So adding on to this section, should stealth disco also have an entry on this list? And while planking is a sort of fad, stealth disco seems to be more of a funny joke/prank similar to ghosting (following behind someone as close as possible until the person notices). Here's a mention on the Guardian and a Gawker post on stealth disco. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Yo dawg" meme may have enough RSs to be listed. Here's a post on Opera browser portal, and here are some entries on Mashable, and TheNextWeb. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Polandball

Information about Polandball should appear in this article (and in general, in english Wikipedia). Polandball, also known as countryball, is a user-generated internet meme that follow the lives of ball-shaped creatures representing different countries and poking fun at national stereotypes and international relations. I've tried to add this information in english Wikipedia, but I find that the information I put is deleted. Does anyone know why? If anyone has an answer, please post it in my talk page. I don't wanna think that "Polandball cannot into english Wikipedia". Greetings from Colombia. --Babelia (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why it isn't on this list is because there are no good reliable sources, and it is somewhat trivial compared to memes such as the rage comics. If you can find more than one reliable source, then feel free to add the entry in. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

why locked?

Why is this locked, my dinners? 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.119.45 (talk)

I'm guessing that it is locked due to non-registered and unconfirmed users adding memes that they consider notable, but didn't provide a reliable source, or the meme is not notable on Wikipedia altogether. ZappaOMati 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

ill take a potato chip...and eat it

shouldn't the "ill take a potato chip...and eat it" meme be on this list.Shinigani (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs reliable sourcing for this beyond the fact it exists. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)