Jump to content

Talk:Rickrolling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 210.243.112.139 (talk) at 03:48, 11 April 2008 (→‎Reuters). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconInternet culture Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

This page should redirect

The page should redirect to Never_Gonna_Give_You_Up#.22Rickroll.22_Internet_meme, the portion of the article which actually explains the Rickroll. Zchris87v 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. --OnoremDil 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May need to be updated, if the section title changes, but otherwise sounds good. Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No210.243.112.139 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can people please stop adding this info in to this article without sources, or just adding a link to YouTube as a source? This is a violation of WP:OR. We need a mention in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to add this to the article, and I'm sure there will be mention of it at some point soon. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a valid source is required, but I'm not surprised that there isn't one: it just happened. However, it's fairly easily verified by going to the site. *shrug* It's something that can be fully/properly addressed in a couple of days. EVula // talk // // 05:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to a new External links section - hopefully someone will remove the blatant violation of WP:OR in the text. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with putting in a citation for this is that YouTube has not made a press release or anything for this (and they shouldn't be expected to as that is the nature of an April Fools joke). We can verify this personally by clicking on one of the featured videos on YouTube but that is all the citation that will be available until a news source reports on this joke (very likely since there is usually a story about Google's April Fools joke and this will probably be mentioned in anyn such story as YouTube is a part of Google). Diemunkiesdie (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, youtube has rickrolled the masses. If that isn't a good enough reason to keep this article, nothing is. 71.8.72.63 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not an adequate cite for YouTube

Can someone please remove this cite? YouTube is not an adequate cite for YouTube itself - Can we just write an entire article on YouTube and source it solely to YouTube links and YouTube videos? No, we can not. The same applies here, and this is why a cite to YouTube for something happening on YouTube isn't really the best cite. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geezus dude, don't get your panties in a bunch. I only added the "cite" because someone over on the Google hoaxes page used it. I'm sure there will be plenty of news stories about this tomorrow, so there will be suitable cites for this thing. As for now, I don't think anyone is going to challenge this "fact" just because I didn't add the "appropriate citation." If it makes you happy, I found a news story about the UK YouTube april fools day joke... I can add that one if you like? Naah, who cares about the UK? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, please, what is this cite you have about the UK YouTube hoax? I'd certainly like to add that to the article. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go... and no, its not a rickroll. [1] --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ErgoSum88 (talk · contribs), thanks! I replaced the direct cite to YouTube with that cite you just gave, hope that's okay with you. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Although this page seems to be getting a lot of attention right now, so good luck to you. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At least the AfD is over. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best AfD ever. Z00r (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

I have added some additional sources that could be used in the article, formatted properly as cites, to a Further reading section. As these get incorporated into the article the cites can be moved to the article text. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Sources

BBC News - April 1 2008. [2] SomeNonaSaint (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times interview with Rick: [3] 75.57.190.1 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fark comment thread with link to "Muppets Blooper Reel": [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.254.35.75 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gamefaqs april's fools

www.gamefaqs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.200.166 (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Rick Rolling. Doshindude (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the rickroll

I seem to recall a sentence or two talking about the family guy episode Meet the Quagmires which first aired May 20, 2007 but it's not there anymore. The episode finished with a "Never gonna give you up" montage and I think it was that episode that reminded people of the song and led to it being used as a rick roll. People who saw the episode recalled that scene when they were rickrolled and ensured the rickroll comments stayed alive.

Similarly, shouldn't the Meet the Quagmires article be changed to indicate it led to the rickroll phenomena rather than being an homage to it.

So is that part of the origin, or were rickrolls around before that episode? (keep in mind that the episode would have been produced several months before airing so I don't know about it being a homage to the rickroll phenomena).--Will2k (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy generally doesn't create jokes like this; it comments on them. The article itself says "By May 2007, the practice had become widespread", which definitely fits with your example. I'd be happy to see the link put back in, if it can be sourced. EVula // talk // // 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Family Guy couldn't have commented on the joke, as it takes about six months to create an average cartoon episode. Either Rick Roll'ing was inspired by the episode, or it was an incredible coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.42.250 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that as if there isn't a third possibility. It's quite possible that the episode was inspired by the phenomenon, and not the other way around. Family Guy is fairly well known for its social commentary and parody or imitation of existing culture, so it's unlikely that it was pure coincidence. Garonyldas (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rickrolling comes from 4chan's /v/. The Family Guy episode was a complete coincidence, as it was aired after the GTAIV trailer came out (a fake link to the trailer was the first Rickroll).65.6.213.12 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It came from 4chan's /v/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.122.158 (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ebaumsworld, yeah? --MAdaXe (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 4chan originated this one; Ebaums stole it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.44.175 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proof that Rickrolling predates the Family Guy episode: the episode in question aired on May 20th of 2007. The term Rickroll appears on the following usenet message on May 14th of 2007. http://groups.google.com/group/wowshamanclass/msg/d1f5ee8243f122e5?dmode=source --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western countries only?

I checked jp.youtube.com (Japan) and tw.youtube.com (Taiwan), which do not redirect featured videos to Never Gonna Give You Up, so apparently the joke is limited to western countries. Will I require sources, as some Wikipedian purists are gonna nag about Original Research (Wikipedia, this is why I hate you), or is this considered obvious enough to just add this info? Vindictive Warrior (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last night (USA time) it was the other way around, with some of the international sites having the joke but the US site being normal. I think they set it up so that the joke would be active during April 1st local time. So, since it's already April 2 in East Asia, the Japanese and Taiwanese sites are back to normal. Dave6 talk 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of podcast, is it notable?

I removed the following line from the article with the reasoning "Is this section now an indiscriminate list of times the song is used on podcasts?".

On the April Fools' Day episode of the music review podcast Have You Heard (episode 17), after discussing Rick Astley's reaction to rickrolling, the hosts rickroll their audience by repeatedly cutting to the song throughout the episode.

It appears to be a non-notable podcast with a relatively small number of episodes and doesn't have a wiki article. My edit has since been reverted, though I'd like to discuss. What makes this "active participation of the phenomenon" notable? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles, only topics for articles themselves. Still, I don't think the podcast belongs in this article. Z00r (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...what about Carson Daly?

Are we allowed to mention Carson Daly's Rickroll attempt on his show or is Anonymous still pissed at him for taking credit for the meme? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carson who?--Father Goose (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XKCD Verification

In response to the "Verification Needed" referring to XKCD comic #389, I plugged the music from the comic into Finale NotePad, and sure enough, it's the intro to the song, "Never Gonna Give You Up." I'm new to verifying anything on Wikipedia, so I don't know what should happen next... 72.71.241.7 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Rob[reply]

We ask you to get a shrubbery. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

We need more citations for the NYT hoax. I found this one, but I dont know how to add them to an article. 71.214.100.52 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best source I've ever seen in my life - but I'd like to hear what others think after checking it out before adding it to the article as a citation. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'd like to see a few more opinions before just adding it. Too bad April 1 has already passed, otherwise I'd make an RfC for it. ;) EVula // talk // // 04:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters

  • Hasty, Katie (April 5, 2008). "'80s singer Rick Astley latest Web phenomenon". Reuters. Retrieved 2008-04-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This has made Reuters, nice. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO NOTE The article seems to claim the youtube prank was setup as a promotion of sort to increase songs being bought or what not? someone check that? And add it to this article? sorry, in a rush. cheers Nesnad (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the article is saying that the youtube prank was allowed as a promotion. That is, youtube and others did it as a prank, but they likely got permission from the copyright owners of the Never Gonna Give You Up video first, and the owners of the video/song allowed it as they're making money from increased sales due to rickrolling. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the very point and purpose of Rickrolling it's possible that they're allowed because they are an effective parody and so fall under fair use. Garonyldas (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of a parody is wholly incorrect. How is putting up an original, copyrighted video -- in its entirety without any changes -- a parody? It's not. The act of linking to it, even if the people that followed the link thought they were getting it, does not make it a parody. So, technically, you would need the copyright holder's permission to do this and, technically, all the millions of views of the Rickroll video were, in effect, violating copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.8.188 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I agree that parody is the wrong term, and feel compelled to mention that this is all speculation. My point was that the context of the video adds something to its original purpose, which may qualify under fair use. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am only familiar with fair use in the vaguest sense. In any case, at this point the video itself is not usually a standalone, but part of the cultural phenomenon that is Rickrolling, which is why we've got this article. Also, I've never heard of Rickrolling being done for profit, so...that's something too. Considering that this was about the posted article, it sounds like cooperation was sought from the copyright holders so that the Youtube April Fools prank could be carried out without having to worry about upsetting the artist. Garonyldas (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded with permission? Are you kidding me? Hell no it was never uploaded with permission. The only recent approval of it being there is Rick Astley's rubberstamp of opinion, which doesnt mean anything btw 210.243.112.139 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]