Talk:Rickrolling

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)

Makes sense to me. --Onorem♠Dil 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

May need to be updated, if the section title changes, but otherwise sounds good. Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually this page should redirect to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.209.139 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

April 1st, 2008 and YouTube featured videos

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

World of Warcraft Bard Class - April Fools Joke uses Rick Roll Chords?

Can someone verify if the World of Warcraft April fools joke uses the Chord progression of "never going to give you up" and is, infact, also a rick roll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.54.70 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Here you go... and no, its not a rickroll. [1] --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks. At least the AfD is over. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Best AfD ever. Z00r (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Potential Sources

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

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

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)

• [5] news.com c/net article "All your baseball are belong to Rick Astley" AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

gamefaqs april's fools

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

No. 4chan originated this one; Ebaums stole it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.44.175 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Although it impossible to verify now it did indeed start on 4chan's /v/. Upon the release of the first GTA4 trailer the servers got so much traffic they crashed for a short time. During the down time someone asked if the video had been uploaded to youtube yet. One Anonymous posted the link to "Never gonna give you up" which went from a few hundred hits up to a few thousand later that day. Later on the video was deleted I believe because of copy right issues and if the original video wasn't deleted you could mark the swift change in comments from reminiscing Astley fans to "OH ONDORE" and "The niggers in GTA4 sure can jump high" and other 4chan style comments. It's sad to see family guy getting the credit for the phenomena but I guess that's just one more of wiki's short comings. TheRedCometMS06 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently some Australian news report now incorrectly credits Family Guy with this meme. Apparently they're above researching on Wikipedia. 68.231.214.169 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Did you even read the article? Garonyldas (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Timesonline.co.uk discusses rickrolling the NY Mets DigitalC (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Philadelphia weekly covers the rickroll DigitalC (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN video

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/04/11/west.uk.rick.rolling.itn

Note: the video erroneously state the meme began with family guy. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We should incorporate this into the article in a way that insults CNN. 68.231.214.169 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Torch?

I removed the following from the article - this section was commented out. I've made note in the edit summary.

I'd like to add to this section a little bit before having it show up in the actual article, it's kinda short, even though I think it was a notable sighting, there's just not enough information available aside from the Youtube videos. does anyone have anything else or any more information to add?

On April 9, 2008, the torch of the 2008 Beijing Olympics was rickrolled as it passed through San Francisco on its way around the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTTK8YpTBFg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5AVqL13gvQ

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Photoshopped"

Follow the link to "photoshopped" and it specifically says it is slang. This leads me to believe that a term such as "digitally edited" would better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.144.234 (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Photoshopped" is a commonly accepted neologism - the link leads to part of the photo manipulation article, so I think it's fine. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

London, 11th April train station incident

From BBC news - "Fans of pop star Rick Astley descended on London's Liverpool Street train station for a "flashmob" event."--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

also mentioned here, in a great article about rickrolling. See under reuters for two more sources that may have been overlooked. timesonline.co.uk2 DigitalC (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I took this out when I converted the April Fool's day section to a list. The text is still there in comments if it is deemed notable enough to have it's own section. Wcudmore (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's back after some reverts. Needs moving into its own section. It's noteworthy enough due to the size of the event and the number of people required to pull it off.Wcudmore (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Browser Crashing" Rickroll

Just now I've commented out the link on the page to the "Original Browser Crashing" Rickroll. I don't really consider it responsible to link that site, regardless of its potential encyclopedic value. Mendaliv (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't crash my browser, but it is really annoying. Even with disabling Javascript from moving the window around it takes a while to get passed all the messageboxes to exit the page. However if it is decided that it is useful to include in the article as it is the origin, it should probably have some sort of warning. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that internetisseriousbusiness.com you're talking about? I agree that it's not a good idea to link to it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed this external link along with a couple other. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that answers my question. Yeah, it's a bad idea to link to it, but shouldn't it be mentioned? I think it's pretty significant.147.226.231.172 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Lurker

If we can find a good encyclopedic source that mentions this method of rickroll, I think we'd be good to include a link to that source. But as to actually linking to sites like internetisseriousbusiness... I rank that as just barely better than putting a link to an IM virus infection page in an article about IM viruses. And about the same as putting a direct link to an active phishing website in an article about PayPal. Mendaliv (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Widespread by May 2007? How widespread? I've only seen it outside 4chan in the last couple of weeks. 88.109.27.103 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you check the google trends link? Your personal anecdotal experience regarding this meme is not sufficient to change that date in the article AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup on April Fool's Section.

I think the best way to handle the cleanup is to give each April Fool's instance a single sentence in a bulleted list.

The April 11 flash mob should be moved into it's own sub-section as it isn't really an April Fool's Day rick-rolling.Wcudmore (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This section should not be a list. It should be prose, not bulleted. I am reverting your change. We can discuss how to further improve the section here on the talk page, because it does need cleaning. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the reverted version is harder to read than the previous? This section is merely a list of "sightings in the wild" on April first. Since it is a list, it should look like a list. Don't attempt to make something that is clearly a list of single small points into prose. It just doesn't work, and ends up sounding like a 9 year old reciting the plot of a t.v. show. Wcudmore (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't recall saying that. However, WhatI am saying is that the section needs to be re-worked into several cohesive paragraphs, and expanded. Putting a bulleted list in the middle of an article doesn't make sense in this case. There are several different types of instances that occurred as well, across the spectrum of the internet and traditional media.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I was typing the last response, you reverted my edits. Please dicuss here. No consensus has been reached, and I ask that you respect this discussion before you make changes to the article AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes you made to the previous non-bulleted version. Please do not revert again until others can discuss this here on the talk page. And a consensus can be reached. Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with several small incidents here. I doubt that any single one is noteworthy on it's own (Leaving the noteworthiness of this entire article to another discussion altogether.) I do not think that this sub-section is worth expanding. For Example: "Social blog website LiveJournal announced on the same day that they would be adding a new member to their Advisory Board, linking members to the journal "rickastley", which contains a Rickroll." is a single, complete description of an instance of RickRolling that really shouldn't be expanded. The Scientology, and New York Mets RR are both significant in their importance (Scientology) and Scope (Mets) and warrant their own subsections. The AfD RR's are all small, and short lived incidents, that go to support the larger point of the sub-section which is simply "On AfD 2008, a bunch of stuff happened. Here are some examples: list here."

In order to prove this larger point, a list is the appropriate way of providing evidence. Expanding these small points is not worthwhile, nor would it improve the quality of the article. Take a look at the history (Go back to one of the reverted edits) and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Which version is easier to read?
2. Which version is gets the point across more clearly
3. Which points would be worth expanding beyond what is already there?

Certainly the list could benefit from some re-writing after the fact, but it seems clear to me that listing examples of AfD RickRolularity is the best way to go. Wcudmore (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a response to you about this in a bit. I did want to note it may be confusing to use "AFD" as it also stands for Articles for Deletion - for a moment there I wasn't sure what you were talking about. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed a youtube link for the E! Talk soup line. It violates wp:copyvio. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How can a link be copyright violation? It's not like Wikipedia is hosting it. I think that's a bit overzealous. Is there a policy on this issue? Wcudmore (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. In addition to wp:copyvio, please see wp:Copyrights. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. wp:Copyrights 1.2 is unclear on the whole Youtube phenomenon. On the onehand it approves linking to copyright material in citation, but also cautions against using material that is illegally hosted. Linking directly to an 'E!' clip would be fine. However, seeing as E! doesn't host archives of this show, it's likely that the Youtube link is the only way to reference this item. My feeling is that the copyright owner has a clear path of redress via Youtube, and that Wikipedia is not exposed to significant liability by linking to a youtube video even if it is infringing. Without the youtube citation, the item needs to go unreferenced, and therefore deleted.Wcudmore (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the rights owner (E!) approved the posting of the content to youtube. It's likely they did not. To err on the side of caution, I still believe the link shouldn't be there. Additionally, I think a reliable written source would much better serve as a reference. Perhaps you can find one?AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this:http://www.afterelton.com/blog/lylemasaki/i-heard-a-rumor-rickroll-homophobia but I doubt it's up to reliability standards. Wcudmore (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion: I'll point you at the goatse page as an example of a bulleted list in a similar context.Wcudmore (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to visit that article when I'm home ;-) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is safe for work. Just don't click any links. Wcudmore (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This still needs cleaning up. At the very least, the second paragraph should be split into 3 independent paras. Right now, it deals with 3 unrelated instances. The subsequent paras each deal with one instance each. I will not be doing this until some consensus is reached as to what to do with this section. Wcudmore (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the actual content. Current discussion regarding the format of the section should have little bearing on the content. Also, It's April Fools' Day, watch the apostrophe. I'm pretty sure I missed it a couple of times, and fixed it in the article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sightings section and Notability.

This section is growing out of control very quickly. Leaving aside the April Fools section which will be resolved separately, there are several changes that need to be made.

1. April Fools should be its own section (format aside). Non-AfD links need to be moved out.
   1. April 11 subway(tube) RR is significant, and should be turned into it's own sighting. (Justification: 500 people involved.)
   2. April 4 'E!' sighting is likely not significant enough for its own section. -- I can't see this being expanded beyond what it is.
2. EYU Basketball, Pittsburgh Pirates - Combine these two under "Sighting at Sporting Events"
3. "Radio" Change to "Radio and Television" Move the April 4 'E!' incident here.
4. XKCD I'm not sure what to do with this one. Allowing it to stay means that every one gets to put their favourite link up as a subsection. However, the inclusion of a RR reference doesn't make it notable. Perhaps it could go under Radio and Television, renamed to "Mass Media".

The following should remain unchanged (as far as being sections go)

1. Scientology. This has political notability.
2. New York Mets. This is significant due to the massive response it got on the web and its success.
3. April Fools. Needs Cleanup, being discussed elsewhere but this section should show that RR-ing was a big phenomenon on April 1 2008.

Furthermore, We need to develop a guideline as to what a suitable RR for inclusion here is. The number of people rolled is a factor. Wcudmore (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the Pittsburgh Pirates game, it was just recently added, and I couldn't find any news coverage associated to it. (edit: I've cn tagged it) xkcd, is significant I think. It's a notable source which has on several occasions referred in detail to rickrollings. Also, it is good representative sample of the overall impact and the increasing ubiquity or rickrolling. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes as mentioned. (Exception -- moved Mets into Sporting Events) There were some edit conflicts. Check your recent changes. Wcudmore (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also left xkcd as is, but I think the lower-case title makes the page look bad. Any suggestions as to how to fix that? Wcudmore (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Officially, xkcd does not feature capitalization [6]. I'm not sure what the wp:MOS has to say about it but, thexkcd article itself is lowercase AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the flash mob should be incorporated into a section which speaks to "public gatherings" - the scientology section could also go there. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Scientology was a protest with social significance. The flash mob was just a prank. I think Scientology is notable enough to warrant it's own sub-section. I'd leave it for now, perhaps it can be changed later when there are more incidents.Wcudmore (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I've put in a request to semi protect this page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

E! "The Soup" incident. - Citation Policy.

I'm having problems referencing this incident. There are many posted videos of the actual incident which would be excellent citations. However AtaruMoroboshi feels that these should not be used for copyright violation reasons. He may have a point, but this limits us severely. All other references I can find are blogs. Why are we forced to choose unreliable secondary sources when perfectly good primary sources exist. I also take issue with AturuMoroboshi's (Good Faith) assertion that a published citation is better than a link to the actual event.

If we cannot resolve this citation issue, this incident needs to be removed from the page, which is unfortunate as it goes to the ubiquity of the Rick Roll. Wcudmore (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify. I think in this particular instance, as it is of broadcast television, it's best the link is not placed. For the same reason clips of anime from youtube, shouldn't be used as references. I understand your concern, and we'll have to get others who are normally involved in removing potential copy violation involved in the dialog. Additionally, I do not assert published written work is better than video - this is a specific instance, where I believe a TV rip of an event that happened on a pay cable entertainment channel uploaded to youtube may have copyvio issues. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I recognize your concern, and acknowledge that removing the link is a good-faith edit. I also agree that we need to appeal to higher authority to resolve this issue. I do feel that if we can't go with the youtube link, we're stuck with nothing but unreliable blog posts and comments in forums. Perhaps that means that the incident is not notable enough for inclusion. The difference between this issue and the anime issue is that here we are merely trying to document that it happened, and there is no more reliable source than the video of it happening. How do we get the higher deities involved in this?Wcudmore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pray? I Know there's a formal process -- I'll have to dig around. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have prayed. Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Links_to_Youtube_video_as_Citation. Wcudmore (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A little known fact... TV shows can be used as a primary source. Simply make a cite that shows you saw the episode, thats good enough. Most people seem to assume you need a secondary source when dealing with events of television shows, but that is false. Read WP:PSTS:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; autobiographies, original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Therefore, this information need only be cited from the actual episode. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Simply make a cite that shows you saw the episode, thats good enough."WP:PSTS says: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. Which is correct? (Thanks for the response) Wcudmore (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is just citing an episode of a TV show as an example and not providing any critical analysis (original research), then the {{Cite episode}} template can be used. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support using the {{Cite episode}} template, in lieu of directly linking to a youtube video . AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get around to it in a bit. Got marking to do now. Wcudmore (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wcudmore took my words a little too literally. What I meant was, create a cite showing that the information was taken directly from the episode... like the "cite episode" template above. Drawing on personal experience is not the same as citing something which in essence means "you" personally read the book, website, or watched a tv episode upon which you are drawing the information from. Its true, you can't "cite" personal experience, however, reading a book or watching an episode is a personal experience upon which you can draw from to cite sources... there is a difference. But I'm sure you all figured that out by now. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin - removed content from lead

I've temporarily removed the following unsourced statement from the lead:

The prank originated when Rockstar Games first released the trailer to the game Grand Theft Auto IV on their website in March, 2007. Due to the game's anticipation, the site received very high traffic, including most of the users from 4chan's video game forum, /v/, and went down. Someone on /v/ posted a Youtube to the Rick Astley song "Never Gonna Give You Up," saying the trailer had been recorded and posted there. The joke quickly became a meme and was constrained to 4chan for a brief period.

Was this actually the case? If so, hopefully someone can produce some sources and then it can be reintroduced to the article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this article from The Guardian that states 4chan is the source, but it doesn't specify the exact details of the first use. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There are a couple of sources in article that support the statement that it originated at 4chan already. My concern is specifically with statement about the circumstances in which rickrolling arose. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how how likely it will be to find a source for this, since nobody on 4chan kept a comprehensive, detailed thread archive when it happened. However, this is how it originated, as I was on /v/ when it happened. I just wish I could find proof. mattlittlej (talk) 18:12, 17 April, 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, because I think it's good information if it were verifiable. Maybe, I'll take a look at some other 4chan meme articles and see how they handle it. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's little dispute as to that being its origin, leave it in, but leave it with a {{cn}}. Consider it eventually verifiable but presently unverified.--Father Goose (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the meme origin is 4chan. That has been established, and is currently sourced in the article. The portion of the statement that has not been verified are the specific circumstances in which it arose. As, mattlittlej said, it may be difficult to ever source that, since there is no archive of 4chan. Because of that, I hesitate to support reintroducing it into the article AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a Gawker.com article that says that /v/ is the origin and has pretty much the same description as above, but it says the info is from the Encyclopedia Dramatica. Normally Gawker can be used as a reliable source, but it's basically just repeating info from a Wiki. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up....

This page needs ALOT of cleaning up.... the london rick roll could be expanded upon... not to mention that last sentence in the mets section is a personal view not a fact