Talk:Liopleurodon

Pronunciation

I'm sorry if this has been settled elsewhere but the pronunciation for all of the BBC materials says that it is pronounced liˈplʊrədɑn. Are they interchangeable? Is it a dialect thing? Or is it just plain wrong like many of the Walking with dinosaurs facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.56.47 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy Violation

This edit was almost certainly a copyvio. It matches exactly content from [1] which doesn't look like a WP copy at all; besides, Google claims its cached version dates back from May 1, 2004 [sic]. Even one year later, it would still be older than the edit above which was made on May 26, 2005. Rl 21:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate reverting to an older version if so many editors (including myself, in this case) have worked on it since then. It wasn't a huge chunk of text, either, but it was an obvious copy-paste job without attribution. Since no one else seems to take an interest in this, I have reverted to the last version before the copyvio took place. Rl 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Charlie The Magical Unicorn

We keep getting edits refering to this particular video, but, do we need to make a page for it even though it already had a page that was deleted? Or should we post some sort of note to future contributors to stop referring to it?--Mr Fink 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to see why exactly it was deleted, albeit I figure it is simply because it is an internet video and if wikipedia had an article about it, it would unleash a torrent of other similar trivial wikipedia articles on videos. Personally, I'm slightly in favor of having a page for the video because I've been out and about and have actually heard people (who I've never met) quoting it--and I've heard similar accounts from some of my friends who have seen the video. Granted, I don't feel that that rationale in and of itself is good enough to make an article of it. On the other hand, if there was a blurb in TIME magazine or something about it then it would be article-worthy in my opinion. But yeah, I'm in favor of posting a note to stop referring to it, while trying to confirm the reasoning behind deleting the article. b_cubed 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, the page was deleted because it was simply not noteworthy from Wikipedia's standpoint. Maybe we could just put a link of it to the original website in the external link section and thus, circumvent the need to ressurect the page?--Mr Fink 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Carlos Mencia isn't noteworthy either, but that doesn't stop him from getting his own page. Plus, no video of him has over 10 million views. Damaband (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing, then, that Wikipedia doesn't base its coverage on how many YouTube views a page gets. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I just put in a note to tell people not to wikilink it. It's alright if the blurb stays in the article, I figure it will be better to keep it unwikilinked. b_cubed 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a youtube video, it's a flash video originally that was put on to youtube. I also guarantee you it accounts for over half the hits on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.93.202 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If any one of those thousands of people would simply write an article talking about the importance of Charlie the unicorn to the study or popularization of Liopleurodon, we wouldn't be having these discussions... Maybe instead of coming here to pat themselves on the back about recognizing the name of a prehistoric animal in a cartoon, and then whinging about it, they should be more proactive. Or maybe nobody in a position to do that actually cares. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Further Stuffs On Charlie

Is it possible to get this page protected to keep these dimwads from posting references, or posting vandalisms in reference to Charlie the Magical Unicorn?--Mr Fink 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

the video has about 5 million views. why not just accept that it actually IS a mention in "popular culture" of a Liopleurodon?

Then why has the video's article here in Wikipedia been deleted twice in a row?--Mr Fink 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Because people like you, who tend to be wikipedia editors, tend to hav a hard time accepting that there is stuff out there that is not necessarily serious but can still be notable phenomena. Additionally, i really don't feel like the video necesarily merits an entire article, but maybe just a mention as a "popular culture" appearance of a Liopleurodon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.169.106 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I've seen the video. It's funny. But the Liopleurodon is mentioned once and shown for about 3 seconds. We can't go adding pop culture refs to the video for every single thing depicted in it. Why not in the culture section for candy, or magic? A mention in Unicorn (or better yet YouTube), if anything, would be enough. Dinoguy2 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the point of an encyclopedia that anyone could edit was that "we" don't have to add everything. If the mention has been requested multiple times, is factually accurate, and refers to a genuine cultural phenomenon (and it is hard to argue that Charley does not qualify), what is the problem? If the video turns out to be a flash in the pan (as it most likely will), then in a few months the reference can be quietly erased, no problem. I'm pretty sure that it's not worth threatening people with banning over... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.63.34 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps if you didn't spitefully demand that other pop culture references be removed simply because it's been decided that Charlie the Unicorn was not worth mentioning, you wouldn't have been warned.--Mr Fink 19:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And as such, why is it that a 3 second inclusion in an internet cartoon must be referenced in the article?--Mr Fink 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess because it's popular culture, and there is a section on popular culture here. Most people who see this video don't know what one is, and tend to look it up. 192.195.234.26 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But those people don't need to be told it was in Charlie the Unicorn, obviously. Contrary to what (apparently) a whole lot of editors around here think, pop culture sections are not meant to be dumping grounds for lists of every single minor appearance of a creature as a toy, cartoon, in an ad, on a cereal box, etc etc. It should be limited to important or notable appearances as dictated by the Wiki policies on those things. Just look at the travesty of an article that was Pterodactyl (now moved to Pterodactyls in popular culture, but which probably should still be deleted completely or totally re-written). Dinoguy2 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As a third-party observer, I would like to propose some form of compromise. I think that both sides to this debate have equally valid points. I do not believe that Charlie the Unicorn itself merits an article, however, I do believe that a reference to it should be allowed on this article. As long as the reference to the internet short is terse; something along the lines to:

In the internet short Charlie the Unicorn, a magical Liopleurodon helps to guide three unicorns to Candy Mountain.

I do not see why it cannot be included. A) It will help solve this mini controversy. B) I cannot help but find it odd that a Land Before Time reference is allowed to stay in while a terse acknowledgement of the internet short is not allowed. I have no solid statistics to back me up, but my gut-feeling tells me that more people have seen this short than have seen the 9th Land before Time video. (who knew there was 9?--and doubtless there are more!) C) There is nothing wrong with including a one more tidbit of popular culture in a Liopleurodon article. (Dinoguy2, I totally understand your concern. There is many articles I've had to rewrite or create separate articles for just the popular culture section, e.g. to kill a mockingbird, of mice and men, Risk (game), etc. However, do you really believe that there can be much more pop culture references to Liopleurodon?) This all being said: I think a terse mention of the short should be included. It will stop the 'vandals' who keep trying to add it in. However, the persons maintaining this article should not let people just add nonsense about it. b_cubed 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Land Before Time 9 has been allowed to exist--Charlie has not. If you can convince other editors that Charlie is notable for a Wikipedia article, I'll concede it's notable enough for inclusion here. Or, alternately, somebody can maybe write up an article explaining why the appearance of a Liopleurodon in Charlie the Unicorn is significant, preferably to the subject of Liopleurodon itself, and publish it, and then reference it here. That would create real, tangible, undeniable notability, and would probably be enough to even warrent a full article on Charlie. It's the fact that Charlie has, appearently (since nobody has presented cites) been totally ignored in popular culture and the media that you guys are finding it is not notable. Loads and loads have been written on other YouTube phenomena, and the fact that Charlie has been left out indicates to me that it is not the phenomena average users seem to think it is, or at least lacks any kind of distingishing notability outside itself. Dinoguy2 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was one of the main people behind deleting any Charlie the Unicorn article that cropped up (along with other internet phenomena articles). As I said before, I don't think it merits an article but simply because something doesn't merit an article doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in one, right? I don't see the sense in having a popular culture section in the article if you aren't willing to acknowledge an aspect of Liopleurodon pop culture. Besides, by acknowledging it in this article you will cut down on the reverts that are continually being made. b_cubed 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Back when Charlie the Unicorn was mentioned in the article, most of the reverts concerned removing the childish vandalisms fans of it who were trying to make it more entertaining to the detriment of the entire article.--Mr Fink 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up for Charlie supporters--CtU and Liopleurodon were mentioned in Over the Hedge, apparently.[2] Might change its relevence slightly for article consideration. Dinoguy2 15:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

From my observations, everybody that I meet, whether at school or online, seems to know about this video. What's more, they know about the liopleurodon IN the video, and can probably recite several lines relating to it as well. If that many people know about it, why can't at least a sentence of mention be put in this article? 67.185.21.47 (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read the article, you would have seen that there is already a sentence about Liopleurodon's appearance in the video. And having said that, there is nothing about it that merits more than just a sentence in this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. But I felt like putting my two cents in, since it has now been deleted again. In fact, it was deleted a day after I said that. If it's still controversial I felt I needed to give my imput on it, so I did. And now that it's out it should be put back in. Like it or not, Carlie the Unicorn is known by more people then the 9th Land Before Time Video, and if that gets a mention then Charlie surely should too. 67.185.21.47 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It was decided that a three-second inclusion in an internet video, and alleged popularity are not are not valid reasons to merit inclusion in the article. Being mentioned in a series of movies that are put on tapes and DVDs, on the other hand, is a valid reason for mentioning in the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems rather crazy. This is an excellent article however, without Charlie, it is incomplete. More living people on this planet know about the animal via Charlie than via any other means! 22 MILLION views and still you want to say its not significant?? A single line reference to this video needs to go in to this article. I actually referred two fans of this video to this page in order to make sure they spelt the word correctly and was dumbfounded to see it not included as a reference and even more shocked to see the argument over the issue. The debate smacks of the sort of intellectual snobbery wikipedia is famous for removing from the process! People are NOT dimwads Mr Fink, for wanting this included, what you are doing is defining 'popular culture' as a category that excludes the very medium in which wikipedia itself exists. All it needs is a single line! 203.214.124.198 (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, please provide citations for the significance of the impact of Charlie's 22 million views on Liopleurodon. Furthermore, given as how 95% of all of the Charlie-related edits have been extraordinarily inane vandalisms, and how 4% of all Charlie-related edits consist of rave-review exaltations of the movie without actually focusing on the impact a 3-second long non sequitor had on the plot, I think I'm justified in my "dimwad" snarkness.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What can a person learn about Liopleurodon from mentioning it was in Charlie, other than the fact it was in Charlie? Candy was also featured in the video. Why no mention of Charlie there? Becuause there's nothing to learn about the topic at hand. Liopleurodon should be mentioned on a Charlie article so people can learn more about Liopleurodon. Charlie should be mentioned on a Liopleurodon article so people can learn more about... what? Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this entire argument is ridiculous, but I'm going to chip in my .02 on the side of including a line about Charlie. I don't see how it will ruin the article. To the argument that since Charlie included candy and unicorns it should be referenced on those pages too: Candy and unicorns are extremely common and have been mentioned in millions of things. Liopleurodons are most definitely not. It might be useful to somebody somewhere to find a pop culture reference to such a bizarre animal. Charlie is a massively popular short, and even though it probably doesn't deserve its own page if there is any reason it should be noted it should be for exposing millions of people to this previously-unknown animal. --Themegmeg (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Except thatLiopleurodon was previously featured in the insanely popular Walking with Dinosaurs, and I guarantee more people know about it from that show than from Charlie. In fact I bet the makers of Charlie found out about it that way too, since the Liopleurodon in the short is clearly a screencap from WWD. If anything, this should be on the WWD page.

Here's the thing: There's nothing to say about the appearance in Charlie, other than "it appeared in Charlie." If somebody wrote an article in say, The Onion AV Club or some online magazine about the effect of Charlie on pop culture, and discussed Liopleurodon, there would be more to say and, more importantly, something to cite. Right now, the only indication that Charlie is very popular are YouTube stats, and the only indication that Liopleurodon is well-known or popular because of Charlie is that people on wikipedia say it's so. Find or write a popular article on this to demonstrate some outside relevance, or you will always get resistance. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Related, I found this: [3][4][5] Seems like the Liopleurodon has become something of an Internet meme... But still, isn't citable. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Fink deleted both of my comments and one of his. I realize they were a bit long, but I don't appreciate them being deleted from a talk page without asking me with the cited reason calling them "useless" and "squonking". I have shortened my comments with ellipses so they don't take as much room, the full versions are still in the history. There should be no reason to take them off now: Jackwimberley (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point that a reference in Charlie the Unicorn is too trivial to mention in this article. However, I think its much more worthy than the reference to Walking with Dinosaurs, a television show produced for educational purposes. It is no more a popular culture reference to Liopleurodon than is the description of the animal in the show's companion book (also entitled Walking with Dinosaurs), or for that matter any book or work describing Liopleurodon in a descriptive or encyclopedic fashion. . . Jackwimberley (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Liopleurodon in the Charlie video is nothing more than a second-long non sequitor with almost no further affect on the plot, while in Walking With, they take over 20 minutes in an attempt to discuss Liopleurodon. Ergo, this is why Charlie is not worth mentioning, while Walking With is. Or, can you explain why a second-long non sequitor is more "worthy" for mention" than an actual discussion?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs is an educational television show, not popular culture. Perhaps there is a book entirely devoted to Liopleurodon; read aloud, it would be well over 20 minutes. Would this book be in the popular culture references section? Of course not. Looking through your user page, I see many drawings of extinct creatures. I'll take your interests in art and ancient fauna as evidence that you're a great fan of WWD, appreciating it not only for its informational content but for the high level of artistry in its realistic portrayal of dinosaurs, Lio, etc. You may think of the show as a work of art, which could fall under the category of popular culture. . . .Jackwimberley (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the Walking With (to be frank, I'm not keen on the CG texturing, and I find a lot of their fact-checking appalling), and this is indeed useless squonking, as you have yet to explain why Liopleurodon as a 3-second place-saver in a viral video is of more cultural importance than Liopleurodon as the subject of a television-show episode that's trying to demonstrate how it was the top predator of the Late Jurassic. Furthermore, Walking With is included in the popular culture sections because it is not a scholarly work.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a popular book on Liopleurodon would also be discussed in the pop culture section, if it's not primary or secondary source science (Raptor Red is a good analogy, see Utahraptor). Popular culture doesn't just mean YouTube and Family Guy, contrary to 99% of embarrassingly schlocky Wikipedia articles that include such sections. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the show WWD. I own the companion book, which is a secondary source illustrated encyclopedia of a lot of the animals featured in the show, and I assumed the show was similar in nature, perhaps like a Nova series. Also, I normally look at math articles on Wikipedia, and in these the "external links" section is not reserved solely for scholarly works (they often contain links to math-specific internet resources such as Wolfram's MathWorld and Planet Math, which I put in the somewhat the same mental category as WWD). If I was wrong, sorry for my confusion. In that case, Liopleurodon's appearance in Charlie is not of more cultural importance than WWD, just more popular. Jackwimberley (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WWD depicts a fictionalized account of the behavior of prehistoric animals, presented mainly as fact, so in that way it's not too different from novels like Raptor Red. It's hard to draw an analogy with math, not many ways to add fiction or speculation to that ;) I also think you'd have a hard time arguing that Charlie is more popular than WWD, which was a highly rated TV program in several countries and has sold millions of DVDs etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me, the reasons against mentioning Charlie are:

1. Charlie the Unicorn is not significant enough to warrant its own article.

2. The liopleurodon has virtually no significance in the overall plot.

In response to 1, as has already been dealt with, just because something is not significant enough for an article doesn't make it not significant enough for a mention. It does also seem to have had an effect on the visibility of the liopleurodon, with about.com's dinosaur expert linking a surge in views of the liopleurodon page and Charlie's popularity[6]. In response to 2, while the lio doesn't advance the plot, it is a very significant moment, just as CATS saying, "All Your Base are Belong to Us", is significant in the Zero Wing opening sequence. It is oft-quoted when referring to Charlie, and the makers offer t-shirts referring to the liopleurodon- click on the merchandise bit; wiki block cafepress.com links. I think the reference should go back in. Darimoma (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're making a common mistake in logic here. Liopleurodon is significant to the topic of Charlie the Unicorn, no doubt. Liopleurodon should have a mention in any article about Charlie. That's a no-brainer. I'll repeat: Liopleurodon is significant to the topic of Charlie.

Now, in what way is Charlie significant to the topic of Liopleurodon? Other than the fact that it appeared there. A note saying, in effect, "Charlie is significant to this topic because this topic was mentioned in Charlie" is completely circular and makes no sense. Do you see the difference? This is actually clearly spelled out in the Wiki guidelines on pop culture sections, so it's not just my opinion.

Contrast this to Walking With Dinosaurs. The note there, in effect, says "WWD is significant to this topic because WWD purported to show how the animal behaved in life and what it's environment was like, which can be contrasted with reality in this way. It also gave basic facts about this topic, such as maximum size, that are now known to be incorrect." Mentioning the outside topic actually contributes information to the topic at hand, rather than simply being self-referential. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I argued for the significance of the liopleurodon in Charlie is because its alleged lack of significance has been given as a specific reason not to mention it in this article. While the significance of the liopleurodon in Charlie alone is not enough to warrant a mention here, the attention given to the liopleurodon amongst non-academics has risen, significantly enough for about.com to have written a (brief) article about it.

Are you sure the WP guidelines on pop culture state what you claim? I've had a look at them, and can't find it in there (which, obviously, doesn't mean it's not in there). Darimoma (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, read the section on connective trivia: [7] Edit: A blurb about the about.com article might be ok to include, actually. This is an independant source talking about Liopleurodon as an internaet meme, and mentions Charlie as the source. A short summary of that article would be fine for the pop culture section. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else object to that? Darimoma (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable as a blurb: no objections from me.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in. Darimoma (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it I'm the only person who objects to this being in the article? Most of my friends haven't even heard of the Charlie the Unicorn internet cartoon, let alone taken an interest in Liopleurodon via it. When ever I meet non-palaeontologist they know it as the the big water monster (or most usually, aquatic dinosaur, <sigh>) from WWD.

Anyway getting back to my objection. I hardly think someones blog should be used as a reference in any WP article. Which lets fact it, thats all the about.com page is. For me pages like the DML & personal blogs by academics aren't reliable (WP) sources and I've always removed them when I come across them. By extension this is an even less reliable source, and I think should be removed. Mark t young (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: Review WP:SPS. Blogs as with other self-published sources, are largely not considered acceptable. It also does not fulfill the criteria for inclusion under acceptable cirumstances. Mark t young (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My original objection to inclusion of Charlie, et al, was that it inevitably attracted editors who thought it would be cute to reenact the entire video in the article, to the article's detriment, or simply attracting Charlie-themed vandals. I have no objection to something like "Liopleurodon was featured as a humorous non-sequitor in the viral video, "Charlie Goes to Candy Mountain,"" however, I will object to edits that attempt to wax poetic about the profound cultural affects without appropriate references or resources. So, in other words, I don't see the harm in a brief mention of Charlie Goes to Candy Mountain, but, we should ditch the about.com reference, and leave it at that.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I ditched the about.com ref, and reworded the Charlie bit. I'm happy to leave the Charlie mention in the article on the same grounds as Mr. Fink. Mark t young (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the statement in now unsourced - would people object to citing the original cartoon as the reference? Darimoma (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Mr Fink and Darimoma's tweaked version, and the ref too. Hopefully this will stop all the edit wars over this in future! Mark t young (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Without a reference it's non-notable and should be removed entirely. See arguments above. We're creating notability here. Why is it not ok to cite a blog, but ok to treat this article as if it is one? I was ok with the about.com article because it made the claim for the video's notability. The video itself does not make a case for its own notability so it shouldn't be used as a source. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The about.com reference violates WP guidelines so it cannot be used. If anyone can find a reliable source for notability then please add it. I'm happy to leave it as it is, as it is no worse than many of the 'pop. culture' sections in other palaeo articles (not that that is defensible, but fact). In addition, it would lower the vandalism count for this article, as many IP editors do want to add Charlie information.

As a compromise how about this. If in one week, someone can find a reliable reference for the inclusion of Charlie, we keep it. If not, then it is removed, and this discussion thread is used as evidence of consensus that it should not ever be re-included (without supporting references). Mark t young (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not behind that. I'm not convinced the blog is an unreliable source. It's not a self-published source (as it's written by an employee of about.com, and published by about.com itself), and so doesn't fall into the SPS guidelines. Darimoma (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion began a year and a half ago. If nobody's turned up a good source by now, what makes you think anyone will in a week? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Does article content actually have to pass a notability guideline? Darimoma (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if we want it to look professional. Because of all the pointless pop culture articles, people have this impression that Wikipedia is supposed to be a random collection of all the useless trivia it's editors can think up. It's not. This may come as a surprise to many, but it's actually supposed to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are edited: we are editors. Our job is to decide what is important and whats not, so we don't have a collection of every bit of info possible (which, by definition, would be unedited, making us collectors of trivia rather than editors of anything. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability guidelines, however, specifically state that they only apply to what articles exist, and not to what content should be on the pages. Is there another set of guidelines which state what counts as notability for something to be in an article? Darimoma (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but this seems like common sense to me. If we went around listing every cartoon or book or show or whatever a given animal appeared in, these articles would be reduced to random noise, useless except to... well, people trying to put together similarly useless comprehensive lists elsewhere. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's cool. But if there's no guidelines (that we know of), then I don't see the harm in using the about.com reference to justify Charlie's inclusion in the article, even if there's some disagreement over whether or not it's acceptable as a source in the article itself.Darimoma (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The about.com citation fails WP:SPS and related guidelines, as I stated above. Thinking about it, perhaps the Charlie reference should be removed unless someone comes along with a citation that doesn't violate WP guidelines. Mark t young (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-published, though, and so doesn't fall under the scope of the SPS guidelines. Darimoma (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog entries are covered by these guidelines. Mark t young (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual text of those guidelines states:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

The reason blogs are largely not acceptable (i.e. the vast majority of blogs) is that they are self-published, as the guidelines state. This guideline does not apply to a blog (such as the about.com blog) where the author is not the publisher. Darimoma (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we discuss the removal of Charlie? The argument against it seems to be that the About.com article is from a blog, and thus falls under the SPS guidelines. However, my objection that the SPS guidelines only refer to self-published blogs hasn't been addressed. Darimoma (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to discuss the inclusion of Charlie before we discuss its removal. If you're going to add it back in using About.com a source, don't simply say it was featured as a humerous non-sequiter, but paraphrase the article regarding its subsequent popularity because of Charlie. The write-up needs to be relevent, even with a valid source. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about using the about.com source, and putting a wee note in the references, explaining the article's content? People have previously objected to "waxing poetic" about the About.com source before. Darimoma (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't tihnk it's that hard to put together something appropriate. Maybe some thing like "According to a 2008 article written for About.com, the popularity of Liopleurodon, which had previously been more obscure in popular culture than other well-known pliosaurs such as Kronosaurus, experienced an upsurge following its mention in the online animated short Charlie the Unicorn.(source About.com link)" Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Anyone else object? Darimoma (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As no one's objected, I've added it in. Darimoma (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking around Wiktionary I've gathered that "lio" means horse, pleuro means "to the side/laterally," and don, of course suggests a dinosaur. This may very well be a coincidence, but I find it highly unlikely that SecretAgentBob chose a rarely heard dinosaurs name and placed it in his video while horses of sorts are to the side of it. If this isn't true, I find it to be one of the biggest coincidences ever. Anonymous- 02:31, 4 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.7.108 (talk)

You would be right, except lio means smooth and don means tooth. So you'd be right if the video featured two smooths (maybe Fonzies?) next to a giant tooth. (For the record, lio means horse in Hawaiian. The name of the pliosaur, not a dinosaur, is derived from Latin). Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the response man. I still find it interesting though, because there still is a potential relationship, if you know what I mean. I guess it just is a coincidence, a rather amazing one. I was unaware that Hawaiian was a language. I mean, I thought there were just Hawaiian words. You don't hear about people learning Hawaiian anyway. Anonymous- 10:36, 4 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.7.108 (talk)

Um... if the debate is longer than the article, can't people just add the sentince and stop this debate from never ending?70.70.240.252 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stretosaurus

I found an old (1959) reference for a 3m skull for L. macromerus, and added it to the atical. However its described as being 'possibly' under Stretosaurus. Whats the current thinking on Stretosaurus as i found a paper (havn't read it) 'A new species of Kimmeridgian pliosaur (Reptilia; Sauropterygia) and its bearing on the nomenclature of Liopleurodon macromerus' and i think it suggests its still valid? Steveoc 86 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'Pliosaurus macromerus is the type species of the genus Stretosaurus. Tarlo (either under that name or Halstead) later transfered Stretosaurus macromerus into Liopleurodon (thus giving L. macromerus). Noe et al., 2004 found Tarlo's assumptions which he based this transfer upon to be invlaid, thus restoring L. macromerus to Pliosaurus. As the species macromerus is valid, then the genus Stretosaurus is itself valid. However, until someone undertakes a systematic revision of the Callovian-Tithonian pliosaurs, Noe et al., leave most species within Pliosaurus. This doesn't preclude Stretosaurus being resurrected in the future, but for the moment it is a junior synonym of Pliosaurus. Mark t young (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I took the liberty of semi-protecting this article. Recently there has been a high number of IPs vandalising this page, or putting Charlie the Unicorn references. Hope this was okay. Mark t young (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which has been bot-removed. However, I do believe that it should be retained. Mark t young (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to add page protection; see WP:RPP for instructions. J. Spencer (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Mark t young (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid sources

As the discussion of Charlie the Unicorn above has demonstrated, there is a low threshold of sources being used in this article. At present I am referring to this source: [8]. Although, I trust Richard's analysis, the source is not permissable under WP guidelines (find for external links section). I've recent up-dated the 'Monster of Aramberri' section to Marie's 2003 ref, thus not needing the website.

However, the other four citations in the article require proper, defencible citations. If anyone can help out with this, it'd be most gratefully appreciated. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlie the Unicorn (again)

There is currently an edit war going on concerning Charlie the Unicorn. Darimoma keeps inserting a paragraph in the popular culture section about Charlie sourcing it with a blog entry from about.com. The source somehow links the surge in popularity of its Liopleurodon article with Charlie through a tip given by one of the blogger preteen pal. There is no demonstration of the causality and this is at most a point of view of the guy who wrote the blog, and not a serious study linking the two (Liopleurodon also appears in the BBC walking with Dinosaurs series and this might be as well the source of the number of hits). However Darimoma seems to think that this is enough to assert the notability of the youtube video. I have several problems with the insertion of the paragraph in the wikipedia article (that's why I've reverted it twice not to break the 3RR rule): 1) Liopleurodon has just a mere appearance in the video and the fact that it is a Liopleurodon is not important to the storyline (It could have been anything). 2) The about.com source is just the opinion of a blogger and not a study asserting the notability of the video 3) I haven't seen any single mention of Charlie the Unicorn in any mainstream media article. How could this be considered as notable? I think we need an administrator to look into this ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This reflects my view on the subject as well. Charlie the Unicorn has been the subject of quite a few attempts to insert it and/or its filmmakers into Wikipedia for some time now - not once has anyone managed to establish any kind of notability or major independent coverage based on reliable third-party sources on the subject, and this continued insertion with the flimsiest of citations is very troubling. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me three issues have been brought up against the section:

1. That its source is a blog - I think this has been resolved.

2. That the source and article don't match up - I think they do, but if you think they don't, feel free to offer your thoughts on how to make them match.

3. That Charlie's not notable - I certainly agree that, as yet, Charlie the Unicorn has not been established to pass WP:NN. ::But WP:NN refers to what articles can exist, not what articles can say. Obviously, we don't want just any old Youtube video which mentions liopleurodon being included in the article, but Charlie has at least some notability. It has been mentioned in the California Chronicle, The Times, the SFChronicle and The Taipei Times. There is also the About.com reference, and its inclusion in Weezer's Pork and Beans music video.

If the concern is that the liopleurodon in Charlie the Unicorn needn't have been a liopleurodon, I don't see why that would mean it should be removed from the article. Darimoma (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I love Charlie the Unicorn, and would be very happy if we could get a Reliable Source - I will see what is out there. Note we really need a reliable source though....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1) A blog is not a reliable source as it is not peer-reviewed. The only exception would be a blog published by a recognized expert in the field (like Tetrapod Zoology). It doesn't matter if it self-published or not.

2) Your entry explicitly links the surge in popularity of Liopleurodon with Charlie the Unicorn. The about.com article doesn't, it just hints that it might be a possible explanation. The two views can't really be reconciled.

3) If Charlie is not notable enough to have its own article on wikipedia or on any other mainstream media (it has just been mentioned as a popular user created youtube video), I don't see a reason why a secondary character of this video should be mentioned here.

4) A mere mention should not warrant an inclusion in the article, for the same reason that we do not allow to list every single occurence of raptors in video games, books and movies in the Velociraptor article. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've checked Darimoma's links above, and there's only a brief mention of this "Charlie and the Unicorn" thing in each of them; sometimes not even a full sentence. I'm not convinced it's notable enough as a meme to include in this article, despite the YouTube popularity. Are there other sources for the info, outside of the blog? I'm willing to click around, Dari. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does not meet the criteria for notability. My advice to Charlie fans would be to quit these pointless edit wars and make friends with somebody who writes for a magazine or something, and convince them that Charlie is notable and popular enough to warrant as actual story. Only that would provide the notability for inclusion here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable (see WP:V). The section in question does not claim that there is a causal link between Charlie and the surge in readership of Liopleurodon. I'm not entirely sure why you think the About.com and the WP article don't match - could you elaborate?

As WP:NN only governs which articles can exist, Charlie would not necessarily have to pass the Notability criteria as spelled out there to be mentioned in liopleurodon. Agreed, not just any Youtube video would warrant inclusion in this article. But Charlie is, in fact, quite well-known; as mentioned above, it's been mentioned in a number of publications, including The Times, The Guardian, etc., it was on the Pork and Beans "meme" video, it was the 3rd most searched term and the 17th most watched video on Youtube, it's had views in the tens of millions, and there are further mentions in Time, Yale Daily News, and in this video from Attack of the Show!. This is not just some small video with a small group of fans - it's a video which gets mentioned in national publications and television shows. Perhaps that wouldn't be enough to establish its notability enough to start up an article of its own, but this is simply a mention in an article - it doesn't have to fulfil WP:NN. Darimoma (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Time article you mention is a perfect example of a trivial mention - the article is not about Charlie the Unicorn; it's only mentioned as an example, and nothing more - no claim of notability, prestige, nothing - it's just mentioned. Same for the Yale Daily News article, and the other links above. They certainly don't have anything to do with Liopleurodons.

Now, as to the text you keep trying to add - it states: According to a 2008 article written for About.com, the website's article on Liopleurodon received a noticeable increase in readership following the creature's mention in the online animated short Charlie the Unicorn. But that is NOT what the blog post (not article) claims. The writer claims that he noticed views of his profile of Liopleurodons was up. Then one if his kids showed him Charlie the Unicorn. He comments on the video, and that is all. Nowhere in the article does the author claim that the viewership went up because of the video. I don't know how much more clear we can be. The text you have tried to insert is incorrect, regardless of the notability (or lack of) of Charlie the Unicorn. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted, most of the links I've provided are trivial mentions. But they are still mentioned, and it is still listed as 3rd most popular search, 17th most popular video. As I say, I'm not trying to establish WP:NN here. Just that it's a big enough to be mentioned in this article. The section in question does not claim that the readership went up because of the mention in Charlie. Darimoma (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources, including blogs, need to be reliable as stated in WP:V. Blog would be acceptable as mentioned above, if its written by a recognized expert (now you have to prove that the about.com blogger is a recognized expert considering that he is neither a paleontologist nor a specialist of Charlie or of media impact for that matter). If the paragraph you are for some reason so adamant to include is not suppose to prove that the popularity of Liopleurodon is due to Charlie the Unicorn, then it has even less reason to be included in the article. The popularity of Liopleurodon actually started with its depiction in the BBC series "Walking with Dinosaurs". The authors of Charlie would probably never have thought of a Liopleurodon without the series (also note the suspiciously strong resemblance of Charlies' Liopleurodon with the one in the BBC series). Now for notability, if a simple mention on some blogs and newspaper articles is sufficient, a hell lot of peoples (including myself ;))should be considered notable. Once again cameo apparition does not warrant inclusion in an article. otherwise all the video games that display packs of velociraptors would have to be mentioned in the Velociraptor article, because they appear in the video games at about the same level of importance than the magical Liopleurodon appears in Charlie the Unicorn. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Butting in to agree with Arthur. The Liopleurodon mention is entirely random and pointless in the video; it's not like it's a viral video about Liopleurodon (although that gives me an idea... :P). As there's basically nothing to say except a line stating it was in Charlie the Unicorn, I don't really see what the fuss is about it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to reliability, I've looked over WP:RS. It says: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The blog post is credible, it's published (and not self-published), it has a reliable publication process (about.com has editors), and, with respect to the subject at hand, he's trustworthy. Bearing in mind that the claim we're dealing with is something fairly non-dubious, an extremely reliable source (such as a peer-reviewed journal) is not necessary.

Regarding notability, a mention in Time, The Times, The Guardian etc., inclusion in Pork and Beans (Song) and YouTube Live, #3 search term and #17 most watched YouTube video is not enough to establish WP:NN. But for an inclusion in this article, I think it does establish it's more than some obscure video, and enough to be mentioned in the article.

With respect to the relevance of Liopleurodon to Charlie, About.com is the only RS I have at the moment. But the liopleurodon scene in the video lasts about 1/7 of the whole thing - it's not just a passing mention. Darimoma (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet you are still avoiding the subject of one of the main objection to your addition: you want to say (I am paraphrasing you) that Liopleurodon became more popular thanks to its mention in Charlie the Unicorn and try to back it up with a source who does not say this. If this is not the message you want to convey then the addition becomes even more completely pointless and does not add anything to the article just as all the depictions of Deinonychus in video games are totally unconstructive for the Deinonychus article. The notability of Charlie the Unicorn does not even need to be considered here. Should we mention in the article all the popular prehistoric animals books that have a paragraph on Liopleurodon? I think not, unless it is an authoritative monograph specifically on Liopleurodon. If we start to allow messages like "a Liopleurodon appears in Charlie the Unicorn", then we will soon end up with an awful list with sentences of the same kind such as "Liopleurodon is depicted in the popular World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures by Dougal Dixon". ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be absolutely clear - the section is not trying to assert that Charlie caused a surge in popularity, merely that a surge in popularity followed the mention. If it were asserting that, then it would be more significant to this article, agreed. But that it doesn't assert said claim does not make it "completely pointless". If nothing else, it's a reliale 3rd party source which attests to the fact that there is a liopleurodon mentioned in Charlie.

Mentioning Charlie in a liopleurodon article is not the same as mentioning all games/books etc. featuring liopleurodon. As pointed out, the liopleurodon scene makes up approx. 1/7 of the overall short, it's talked about in the about.com post (as well as in this high school paper), it's on the Charlie merchandising, and there are countless blog posts indicating that the liopleurodon is a considerable part of the meme. It's not simply that it gets mentioned in the short, but that it's a big part of the meme. Darimoma (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unicorns, I reckon, takes up way more than 1/7th of the video. I reckon Candy is mentioned in every scene. Or candy for that matter. Yet there's no mention of Charlie in the articleo n unicorns. If it's not important enough to be included on the unicorn page, why try to include it on Liopleurodon? Because this is an easier target? As an aside, you've gotta love that we're actually dicussing how important an internet meme is to a science article. Wonder why Wikipedia has credibility problems. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Charlie is neither mentioned in the internet meme article nor in the Youtube article. I wonder why? ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlie should be mentioned/not mentioned in this article based on its own merits, not on whether or not other WP articles mention it. Incidentally, though, for an indication of why I'm not trying to put this on Unicorn or Candy, see Google hits:
Hits for "charlie the unicorn" liopleurodon divided by hits for liopleurodon: approx. 12%
Hits for "charlie the unicorn" unicorn divided by hits for unicorn: approx. 4.5%
Hits for "charlie the unicorn" candy divided by hits for candy: approx. 0.09%
Darimoma (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the discussion's gone cold, I'll reiterate the main points of my argument:

Charlie the Unicorn is not notable enough to merit its own article, but it's significant enough to be mentioned here - it was the third most searched term, and 17th most watched video on Youtube, in addition various mentions in big magazines/newspapers.

It's significant enough to be mentioned in the liopleurodon article specifically. Liopleurodon is mentioned in the context of Charlie the Unicorn in this Over the Hedge strip, this Columbia Daily Tribune article, the About.com article, and this college newspaper article, and this high school paper article.

The About.com is a reliable source. However, if people object to using it, I am happy to use a different reliable source, whether 3rd party or simply 1st hand from Charlie itself. Darimoma (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the video for the first time the other day. I've checked the links you provided, and all of them are somewhat trivial mentions of the Liopleurodon in the vid; sometimes it's not even a full sentence. The fourth link looks like a reader's submission, not even an article. The third link has only a single sentence (which is missing a verb). The links don't indicate notability, just existence: "Just about every member of the [local cross country team] has watched Charlie and his unicorn pals seek directions from a magical Liopleurodon and traverse a bridge on their way to Candy Mountain." I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem noteworthy to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're saying Charlie's not noteworthy, or whether you're saying Charlie's irrelevant to liopleurodon. If it's the former, Charlie was the 3rd most popular search term and 17th most watched video on YouTube, it was in Youtube Live, Pork and Beans etc. If the problem is that it's not noteworthy with respect to liopleurodon, I disagree. About.com's liopleurodon article received an upsurge in hits following Charlie, the above articles mention lio in connection with Charlie, the Charlie merchandising has liopleurodon on it, there are countless blogs out there which link the two, and "Charlie the Unicorn" is mentioned in 12% of the Google hits for liopleurodon. I know Google hits and blog posts don't count towards WP:NN, but it's not against policy (as far as I'm aware) to take them as an indication that there really is a case for including a sentence-long mention. Darimoma (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the about.com article does not say the "Liopleurodon article received an upsurge in hits following Charlie", there is absolutely no causality effect and no study supporting the claim. The upsurge might be due to something which has nothing to do with Charlie. The upsurge is not even quantified or dated, how this could be taken seriously? Now for the rest about the relevance of Charlie to Liopleurodon, this was answered many times by many editors here. How would a secondary character (who does not even need to be a Liopleurodon) of a video posted on youtube which fails to pass notability guidelines add anything important to the scientific content of the article about Liopleurodon is the real question. Everybody here is opposing the insertion of your paragraph so may be it is high time for you to drop the case.ArthurWeasley (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Inclusion in the article should be argued on its own merits, not how many editors are for or against something.

If you're absolutely dead set against using the About.com reference, we can avoid using it - we can use another source.

The liopleurodon bit of Charlie is a popular part of a popular cartoon. I don't see why it being a secondary character which doesn't need to be a liopleurodon of a video which fails WP:NN implies it shouldn't be mentioned. WP:NN is a guideline relating to which articles can exist, not which facts may be presented in an article. As I say - it's a popular part of a popular cartoon, and it mentions liopleurodon, an otherwise relatively obscure creature. It seems bizarre to me to claim it's not noteworthy, especially when we have reliable sources attesting to the mention. Darimoma (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The blogs, high school newspapers, etc, aren't reliable sources. The remaining sources barely mention the Liopleurodon. It's just not noteworthy. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedia is not a democracy and decisions are based on consensus. In the present case, it looks like no consensus can be reached so Dari, I am afraid you'll be debating forever against a number of editors ;) And as indicated by Firfron, all your sources are problematic as they just make a mention. Why would we put a mention of a mention in a wikipedia article. ArthurWeasley (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached, and that's why I'm continuing to discuss. We would make a mention of Charlie in liopleurodon, because it's a significant part of a popular cartoon, and we have reliable sources. I have argued that the blog is a reliable source. The Columbia Daily Tribune is a reliable source. The high school newspaper - I don't know. I don't know whether it can never be considered a reliable source, or whether in making certain non-controversial claims (such as Charlie the Unicorn contains a liopleurodon) it is considered reliable. I simply don't know. I've looked at a lot of WP policies, but I certainly haven't read them all. As far as I'm aware, there are none which state that an article should omit information which is only briefly mentioned in reliable sources. I believe it's in WP:NN that a subject should not be considered notable if it is only breifly mentioned, but WP:NN doesn't apply here. The policy on inclusion of trivia is somewhat ambiguous (from WP:Handling_Trivia):

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some degree of selectivity should always be used, but the criteria for inclusion are complex, because the "importance" of a fact is subjective. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. That said, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, and refer the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found. The overinclusion of an exhaustive list of unnecessary details detracts from this goal.

I don't think the inclusion of Charlie would be overinclusion. Darimoma (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one. Myself, ArthurWeasley, DinoGuy2, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, and Firsfron of Ronchester all disagree with you. You keep repeating the same talking points, and have convinced no one. Please see reason (as well as consensus) and drop it. Charlie the Unicorn is not notable, and this article does not need, nor is it helped by, a reference to this minor internet short. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the subject of this article, an otherwise relatively obscure creature, being mentioned in one of Youtube's most popular videos, where liopleurodon takes up 1/7 of the video, and is on the short's merchandising. We also have About.com stating that its liopleurodon article received more views after the short. We also have liopleurodon mentioned in Over the Hedge in connection with Charlie. It's also mentioned in a few reliable 3rd party sources. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the objection to this is that the mentions in the article are brief. That's true. But that does not appear (again, correct me if I'm wrong) to be a reason, according to WP guidelines and policies, to omit some information (although, of course, brevity indcates less significane of the subject than a longer mention would). If you can show me a policy that does say that brevity of mention in 3rd party sources is a reason to omit information from an article, I will - scout's honour - end this discussion, until I become aware of a more thorough 3rd party source. If not, however, then it remains to be addressed why a metnion in one of YouTube's most popular videos is not noteworthy enough to warrant even something brief like "A liopleurodon appears in the internet short 'Charlie the Unicorn'." Darimoma (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on.....what a non-issue. This is a science article! It's shocking that this talk page only contains 2 posts about the science of Liopleurodon. Create your own article, Cultural depictions of Prehistoric creatures, were you can add all the trivia you want. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As the person who wishes to include the information, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that the short is notable, not on us to satisfy your need to change the form of the discussion. You continue to assert that trivial mentions are not, you misrepresent the original about.com article, and you appear to be the ONLY one who wants to include this information. Why? Did you work on the video? Why is this so important to you? It's a trivial mention in a trivial cartoon, and does not belong in the article. You seem to be the only person who does not get this... MikeWazowski (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::I have given evidence as to why the short is noteworthy. People have objected to my evidence, but without telling me why it goes against WP policy. My reason for thinking Charlie should be mentioned in this article is that it is a significant part of a very popular short. There have been objections that mentions in 3rd party sources are brief, but I do not see why this makes it non-noteworthy. I'd agree it indicates that any mention of Charlie should be kept to a minimum, but not that it shows that there should be no mention of Charlie. Darimoma (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I'm quitting. I still maintain Charlie's noteworthy enough within the bounds of WP policy to be mentioned, and for the reasons mentioned, but I'm quitting WP. Darimoma (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're leaving, and especially sorry you're leaving over the silly Charlie the Unicorn video. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

i actully came to wiki looking to find out if it was a real creature or not. charlie should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.144.198 (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Clearly, you already knew about Charlie if that's what directed you here... Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

to see if it was a real creature or not. point is i went to wiki looking for information about it. the only way i confirmed it was the same creature was by looking at the discussion page to confirm charlie was involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.144.198 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is noteable because over 20 million people are familiar with it, and because I guarantee that more people have heard of the animal from Charlie the Unicorn than from Walking with dinosaurs, and the obscure novel (that somehow got through, and into the popular culture section) combined. The argument presented that it is not necessary to the storyline and could be anything could be applied to almost any given subject. Take spongebob squarepants as an example. Why is he a sponge? Why not a shark? Why square? Why not a round sponge? Why is he friends with a starfish? Why not an angelfish? It gets redundant when the argument is applied, and is just as redundant here. The fact that a couple people decided to delete the article is not a valid argument, as anyone could easily delete any article, and it's inclusion in the argument is incredibly arrogant. I can't really say anything that Darimoma didn't already argue, he's made all the points for it that could be made. The only point against it is "reference". The only arguments against the references are incredibly thinly vailed "No, I don't want it, so it's not going in there" statements, that all boil down to personal opinions. From the WP:CITE page: A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. By that definition, a link to the video in question is a source, it's the origin of the character. There is nothing whatsoever in the entire sources page that says that it can not be a reference, so the argument that there are no sources is, again, invalid. What other possible reasons does anyone actually have with including this reference? I've already pointed out that thousands of people only heard about the animal from the video, but appairently that's not good enough for some people, and the over 20 million people who have seen the video on youtube alone appairently doesn't make it popular enough. Again, what possible reasons could anyone have for not including it that I or Darimoma have not already covered? B10Reaper (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, in "Walking With Dinosaurs" and "Meg," and unlike in "Charlie the Unicorn," the featured Liopleurodon is discussed indepth and is a crucial character to the storyline, and is not merely a talking novelty prop that's featured for only one second and never mentioned again. That, and as was mentioned by ArthurWeasley in April, if "Charlie the Unicorn" is not notable to deserve mention on unicorn or internet meme, and the only references to the Liopleurodon in the video consist of brief mentions in some internet blogs, "Charlie the Unicorn" really isn't worth mentioning here.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Google "it's a liopleurodon charlie" and you will get a load of mentions of that single part. it's interesting how such an insignificant character gets so much attention, hmm? It was also pointed out that it is people like you that are the reason charlie isn't mentioned in unicorn or internet meme, despite it's popularity, and that it isn't really a fair or valid argument to do so. It was also pointed out that more people made the association of Liopleurodon with charlie the unicorn, than with unicorns and candy combined. The only reason it is worth mentioning is because of how many people make the association, which makes it relevant. The association has been mentioned in a movie, in magazines, and in newspapers. What more do you need to make it relevant? A full length motion picture called "Charlie the unicorn: The Liopleurodon chronicles"? B10Reaper (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning, that lolcats are not in the meme article, despite being a long established meme. It only mentions 6 internet memes specifically, completely skipping "chocolate rain", "Numa Numa" and many other fully established internet meme's. It's a severly crippled page, making the argument that it is not mentioned a moot point, as not many things are mentioned. B10Reaper (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another noteworthy point is that there are NO mentions of any unicorns in any movie, book or videogame in the unicorn section, despite there being many mentions and main characters that are unicorns. What did you do, look for pages (without any references) that had anything to do with the movie and put them here? B10Reaper (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it should be in all articles. Wikipedia isn't a random listing of connective trivia, no matter how badly people want it to be. We already have one TVTropes.com. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then can you provide some reputable sources that discuss why the Liopleurodon in the Charlie video is so popular in depth?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And, rather than continuing to blame us, why not try editing the internet meme article to add mention of the "lolcats," "chocolate rain," and "Numa Numa"?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you are reaching, you can't make a coherent argument so you need to change the direction? I've read the requirements for citing references. There is absolutly nothing at all whatsoever that says that the origin of the character or statement can not be the cited source. What you are doing here is making up your own rules, and then pushing them onto other people. Putting in a blurb about the appearance in charlie the unicorn violates no rules at all, in any way. Suggesting that I go and edit a meme page is simply misdirection, and you are missing the entire point: There are almost no actual specific references to any memes on that page when compared to the overall mass of memes on the internet, and saying "well it's not on there" is an entirely invalid argument for anything. I could also argue that the land before time links to various dinosaur pages, and yet they have no references to main characters in the movies, save 2. Does that mean they aren't noteable? no, it means that someone somewhere decided to go against consensus and delete the blurb, just like here. The argument isn't that you need sources, you've got your sources, and you are trying to overcomplicate things by deciding which things about the video you want discussed. All a citation has to be is proof that what was said in the article was true. A video can be a citation, by the rules, as it is simply proof that it was there. If there was no room for any trivia in the articles, none of them at all would have it, but as it is, wikipedia includes trivia, both in the form of "in popular culture" sections, and "trivia" sections. If you want to argue that these sections should not exist in any articles, go for it, I would enjoy having most of wikipedia tell you that it does indeed have the right in the article, and that they are indeed noteworthy. You don't need any article to tell you that it is popular, you don't need any discussion of the video, you don't need anything but the source of the statement, being the video. There is nothing in any rule on the entirety of wikipedia that says that this blurb can not exist but the ones you have made. I've read them all, so please, point out where in the rules it says that a trivia blurb about the subject of the article's appearance in a popular video that has raised awareness of the subject can not be included, and I will retract my statements and drop the subject. We have the blurb, we have a source, and we have nothing but 4 stubborn editors that say we can't have it, compared to all the unique posters who have argued for it. So please, show me where this resistance is based in the rules of wikipedia, and I will leave. B10Reaper (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is yet again: [9]

"There are three types of connective trivia. Some is important to all of the subjects it connects... Some trivia is important to only some of the subjects; much trivia appearing on Wikipedia is of this variety. The second example above is of this type."

The Charlie thing is clearly connective trivia of the second kind. Important to Charlie itself, not important to Liopleurodon. It's also worth pointing out that nobody even thinks Charlie is notable for it's own article, let alone mentions in articles about totally unrelated topics like the scientific knowledge of a whole genus of animal Charlie used as a 2-second joke. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the "nobody wants it" is being used, and again I must point out that the same "nobody" who wants the article also wants the liopleuradon mentioned here. In the case of this page, "nobody" outnumbers the ones who don't want it in there. I haven't been over to the charlie the unicorn discussion page, if one exists, but I can almost guarantee that there are many people who are for the article. Saying that nobody wants it just because it doesn't exist is kind of a poor discussion point, as everyone wants teleporters to take to work but they do not exist yet (on that scale). It doesn't mean nobody wants them, it just means we don't have them.

I Agree with you on the connective trivia thing, I see that charlie falls into that catagory, but that raises questions about having the novel mentioned. Is the leopluradon a main character? Is it just as unimportant as it is in charlie? It could have been a plesiosaur, or any water dwelling dinosaur, yet it remains in the article. Why, exactly, is that? it seems like the same kind of trivia as charlie: it could have been anything, and it isn't even scientifically accurate, nor does it attempt to be. What is the difference that I am missing? The length of time it appears? B10Reaper (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. I don't know how prominant it was in that novel. Maybe somebody can let us know. Anyway, it does have at least a little more notability than Charlie because it actually discusses Liopleurodon and makes (sometimes inaccurate) claims about it. For example, if in Charlie they had stated "Oooh look Charlie, it's a magical Liopleurodon, a marine dinosaur!" Then, the popularity of a meme with inaccurate information would probably qualify a mention to debunk the false claim that Liopleurodon is a dinosaur. Similarly, if in the Meg book, there were simply a scene where a character were looking for the shark and said "and also we saw a Liopleurodon", that would be non-notable to the same extent that Charlie is. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In the novel Meg (the latest one), the Liopleurodon is one of the major stories. Basically, the whole theme of the book was the process of capturing the Liopleurodon and using it in one of the UAE's new super-large aquariums. Of course, Dunkleosteus and Leedsichthys, and Angel's pups are also mentioned, but Liopleurodon takes up a major chunk of the novel. Of course, in the novel, the Liopleurodon was "isolated" in the ancient sea since the Jurassic, and since evolved to a solely aquatic lifestyle with gills. Of course, this is a novel, and that sort of thing probably wouldn't have happened. (Like the C. megalodon, if they had survived that long, they wouldn't be the same species, let alone retain the same basic body form and appearance. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Charlie is in List of Internet phenomena in the "Animation" subheading. Anyway, my take on all this is that Charlie does deserve a brief mention in the "popular culture" section. Afalbrig (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate citation

Does anybody have an appropriate, full citation for the para on WWD? The cite right now is "Disc two of WWD DVD". It totally fails to specify what version of the DVD (if there are multiple versions), where the information came from (the narration? commentary track? Documentary?), etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The DVD has a 'picture in picture' special feature which contains some commentary by Tim Haines. It does say that the scene was inspired by orcas it shows video of it an orca attack as well. My version of the DVD it's on Disc One. I'm not sure what other info I can give regarding the version of the Disc. Its PAL and on the side it says 'BBCDVD 1016'.Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That should do it, thanks. Just wanted to confirm it was from DVD commentary or whether it was mentioned in the paleontologist segments included in the original show, or what. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture references

I just wanted to point out that pop culture references should be guided by WP:POPCULTURE, not WP:NN. The latter concerns new articles, not "in popular culture" sections in existing articles. -Splitpeasoup (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to relate this to Charlie, the WP:Popculture page states this even more clearly: "Exhaustive lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject." Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)