Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Due to the overwhelming occurances of "rickrolls" including the Family Guy rickroll, I think this deserves a place on the list, if it was on there but I overlooked it, I appologize. PvtDonut 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

im in ur/im in your cats

Is there anything on the im in ur or im in your cats anywhere? -Ritarri 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat covers the phenomenon of humorously-captioned cats. ("Im n ur" is not specifically mentioned in the article) --George100 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additions

I believe The >:3 "JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION GET IN THE CAR" and Longcat memes deserve mention on this page, as both are prevalent internationally in many sites and a simple Google search (69k for longcat and 8k for the LION (whih doesn't include the ">:3" moniker) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

If you can provide reliable sources to attest to their status as Internet phenomena, then they can go on the list. Chris cheese whine 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

...are you a moron or what? Ask ANYBODY who uses the internet. Jesus christ, how can there be the slightest doubt as to Longcat's status as a meme? 10:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of 'meme'

'Meme' is not interchangeable with 'fad'.

I don't really consider these fads as good examples of memes. Yes technically they are memes, but only moderately successful ones. EG. A term like "google it" is far far more successful, but obviously wouldn't be suited to this page since you wouldn't call it a fad. This page actually covers very specific fads that are only successful within small groups (relative to the size of the net). I suggest renaming to "Biggest Internet Fads" or some other phrase that doesn't use the word 'meme'. I'm not sure how meme terminology got on here in the first place. Xep 05:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of fads would not be suitable for Wikipedia. Chris cheese whine 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well this page should just be deleted then. Xep 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion isn't verifiable by the old media, and I will personally delete any and all deletions. 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote. I wasn't suggesting deletion because unverifiable content, but because according to Chriscf, a list of fads is not suitable for wikipedia. This page is obviously a list of fads. Xep 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't supposed to be a list of fads. It is a "List of Internet phenomena", which suggests something which takes the 'Net by storm, to such a degree that someone somewhere has found cause to write about it. Editors who just insert their favourite 4chan meme are doing it wrong, but there's no need to close the pool just yet. Did I really just say that? Chris cheese whine 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fads are a type of meme. --George100 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but not particularly interesting ones or they'd be mentioned on the meme page. Xep 11:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my opinion--if Richard Dawkins saw this use of meme, he'd roll in his grave. If he were dead. We're using the word meme to justify a list of fads, seriously. And that's just not cool. Somercy 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

I'm mystified why this was removed. I realize that Wikipedia has concerns over potential defamation (WP:BLP), but the primary source here is very solid: a state-run online offender registry. There is no reasonable doubt that Peppers does indeed exist, that he is indeed an Internet phenomenon, and that he was indeed convicted of a sexual offense. Perhaps the existence of this phenomenon regarding a physically deformed man is juvenile and/or morally offensive. Nonetheless, under WP:NPOV, it is not our job as an encyclopedia to make such judgments. Our job is to report verifiable facts.

If someone wants to remove this verifiable, sourced material on grounds of WP:BLP or any other policy, please provide a specific citation of the policy language in question. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This has, to say the least, been discussed extensively, in multiple forums across the project. There has been a consistent, strong consensus that this is a non-notable individual and that giving further publicity to these events and providing a platform for mockery of a living person's physical appearance serves no legitimate purpose and is simply an inappropriate thing for what is now one of the top ten websites in the world to do. I am reverting your addition of this material; please do not restore it. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus? I remember "putting my foot down, locking this article for a year". Hardly. Oh, and non-notable? You can say that with a straight face? Please, PLEASE type "Brian Peppers" (sure, including the quotes) into Google. About 160.000? Throw in "sex offender" if you think it is a common name. Compare that to the others listed on the page (e.g. Randy Constan, 500 hits, Jeong-Hyun Lim, 900 hits). Or, try this, if you use Firefox: Start typing the name into the Google bar and see what suggestions you get. You sure you wanna stick to your original statement? 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That's just a count of how many references to Brian Peppers there are on the internet. We don't use crude measures like that. --Tony Sidaway 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O rly?

The O rly owl is a notable contribution as is the shock site. I don't see why these shouldn't be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphim Whipp (talkcontribs) 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It's cool. Found some irrefutable references ^-^
Seraphim Whipp 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a note at the top of the page saying: DO NOT INCLUDE ANY ENTRIES ON THIS LIST WITHOUT SOURCES DEMONSTRATING NOTABILITY AS AN INTERNET PHENOMENA. This means you need reliable independent sources which attest to a given entry's status as a major phenomenon. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Chris cheese whine 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well as you can see from my contirbution to this page, I haven't looked at the whole page's source. I had only edited the section of image, and as a result I had not seen that message. The reference to urban dictionary has been removed. Both the phenomena I have added have reliable sources.
Seraphim Whipp 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This reference mentions o rly as a 'legend'. I'll find some more.
Seraphim Whipp 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To quote another meme, "your doing it wrong". Look up "legend" in a dictionary. Chris cheese whine 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
legend n. 3. an inscription, esp. on a coat of arms, on a monument, under a picture, or the like. [1]. Chris cheese whine 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, I give up. It's an obvious meme, a phenomenom, a craze. Whatever source I provide will not be good enough. O rly is just one of those things that has been widespread; google returns 1,550,000 results. I edit articles to try and make them better, clearly I did not do that. Before I become too concerned with this, I'm going to leave this page alone.
Seraphim Whipp 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as an "obvious" meme. Nobody cares about Google hits - the bottom line is that we need a reliable source which specifically addresses and attests to its status as a Big Thing, not merely in passing. Does this cause a problem for you? Chris cheese whine 16:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have come back to this article to find it's still quite bare. To quote you (Chris) from Talk:List_of_Internet_phenomena#Sourcing:

"Verifiability for the actual things themselves is not an issue where they have articles. We don't need sources on this page testifying to something's existence in that case."

Therefore, why were my edits so contested in the first place? Both of my additions had their own wikipedia articles. Rather than continually removing them, you could have looked for some sources yourself rather than slamming me for trying to improve the article. My edits did not require a leap of faith. I think this article needs to change drastically. If someone adds a well known internet phenomena and it is well known, then it should be left, with a note under the addition, asking someone to find a source for it. It seems utterly ridiculous that this article has been smashed to pieces simply because people would rather remove well known memes and phenomenas, rather than finding sources themselves.
Seraphim Whipp 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? sources: nassau county talking about orly - [2], I would then point to the sources on the O RLY? page already. I believe there is already plenty of sources for the o rly owl. SelfStudyBuddy 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


This is a pretty big internet phenomenon. I think it deserves a spot. There are currently over 500 similar pictures produced in response to the original (which can be found at ). Many of the other pictures can be found at, a website that was spawned as a result of the phenomenon.

  • A funny picture of a cat accompanied by Engrish? Wow that is so original, never seen that before! JuJube 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said about any internet phenomenon. That's the thing about them, they aren't really that awesome, but they just catch on. The "happycat" as it is known on the "internets" appears in many many places and is truly an internet phenomenon. I reference: inspired by happycat)

...I'd say more than just a funny picture of a cat accompanied by Engrish...

  • Let's see what other editors think. I think it takes more than a bunch of links from websites like MySpace and Urban Dictionary... JuJube 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is only for phenomina which have obtained a mention outside of the internet too. That said, Wired News has picked it up.[3] It's borderline, perhaps we should wait and see what happens? --h2g2bob (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The internet is for...

PORN. Come on, how could anyone forget this video? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Only 1% of websites contain porn --h2g2bob (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
He was talking about yet another WoW video on YouTube: The Internet is for PORN!!. I still don't understant what this Wikipedia page is about, but I second the motion to add this video. Maybe what we could instead put an entry on all those World of Warcraft videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruijoel (talkcontribs) 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
It wasn't originally a wow vid, the audio is from somewhere else. It’s not very notable anyway. Xep 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's originally from the Broadway puppet show Avenue Q. — MichaelLinnear 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Original internet meme list?

what happened the original list of meme's in the internet meme page that was forwarded/combined to internet phenomena page?

the current grouping of information on this page is a joke compared to the former list on the internet meme page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brekk (talkcontribs) 06:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Peanut Butter Jelly

This should REALLY be added here, but I can't find any media sources mentioning him. Anyone care to help? Bravemuta 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I managed to find a Washington Post article through Lexis Nexis that called it an Internet phenomenon :D --- RockMFR 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Crazy german kid

Why does this redirect here, yet there's no mention of him? Tarc 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirect doesn't belong without well-sourced coverage here, I've deleted it. --Michael Snow 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kissing Hank's Ass

This one is certainly notable; it has been mentioned numerous times on atheist websites and it's a well-known religious parallel. Should be worth including.--Orthologist 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the list?

theres like 10 freakin memes now, there used to be like 100. man, come on, put them back, they were awesome. this is wikipedia not crappypedia, add the awesome back.

Yeah, I recall that as well. It is still in the history, however. --Proficient 12:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's true - this really used to be quite a wonderful and informative article. Now it sucks ass. Might some brave soul revert it back to how it was a year or so ago? --AStanhope 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I never saw the list when it was that long and there's no way I'm going through to weed out the ones taht could be brought back. If they're not notable then they can't stay, unfortunately. The page does, however, link to the best source for it which has not only over 100, it has literally a few thousand on there. --lincalinca 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've recreated an August 2006 copy of the article at[4] so we can look at it and perhaps tune listings there and then copy the good ones over. This could be done quietly and by people who don't want to spam the list with lame, non-notable things. The list was far more informative and entertaining before than it is now. What do you think? --AStanhope 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against it, but as I said, I really can't be stuffed going through it. I'll give a glance over and if anything there is notable enough, then I'll bump stuff across, but be aware that if anything's not noteworthy, I'll tag it for citation and if citation can't be given within a fortnight, it'll be taken off. BTW: I've changed the title of this discussion too. It's just a bit fierce. --lincalinca 02:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - and agreed. Thanks. I was just poking through the old list - there really are a number of great articles on it that have been discarded. The list is great fun. Something also to consider: internet phenomena needn't be CURRENT internet phenomena. "All your base are belong to us" is old news - but it was most certainly a phenom. --AStanhope 02:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that old version contain most of the stuff that caused the shitstorm over WP:BLP in the first place? Also, as several people have already said, we don't need references in this article which prove something exists (especially if they have their own articles), because this is not a "List of stuff that exists". This is "List of Internet phenomena", so we need references which allude to their status as widespread phenomena. 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, we're not writing articles to be entertaining or informative, they're meant to be neutral and verifiable. 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure - the old list contains a number of the bad articles that caused a shitstorm over WP:BLP. It contains scores of others as well. No - you are not right to say that "we're not writing articles to be entertaining or informative." We are certainly writing articles to be informative, and if they happen to be entertaining as well, more power to them. The best written articles should be both informative and entertaining. --AStanhope 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We can write articles that way, but this is secondary to the core principles. WP:V is not negotiable, even when consensus says it is. 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

notable cat is nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooootable

I don't see why Longcat keeps getting removed from this list. First, he wasn't notable enough to warrant his own article, which is true, so it was suggested it would be moved to a list such as this. Now it keeps getting baleeted, while things like Limecat stay. Longcat is much more prevalent than Limecat, so I don't see why one stays while the other gets baleeted. --Lakerdonald 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it based on previous deletions here for not being notable. Is it notable anywhere aside from 4chan (or whichever site it's on)? -- Jay Maynard 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (i'm surprised that link worked, since ED is a powerword on Wikipedia, and is blocked, and will get me the banhammer).
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
The list goes on. Sure, none of the above are old media, but they just simply go to show how widespread across the Internets Longcat is. I realize that it fails WP:V, WP:NCR, WP:NPOV, and WP:AIDS, but I just ask for consistency: either keep Limecat and Longcat, or delete them both. --Lakerdonald 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Longcat is not only long, but notable too. An entire (flame)war was fought over Longcat as the Anonymous Legion (4chan) vs. Subeta. Link related: -- 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC) desu

Additional info

The 300 fad was started on Newgrounds, in the topic named "photoshop Leonidas" where the first post contained the original image. As you can imagine a lot were there... I actually considered doing an AoM related one, but needed an image editing program. There are some on the chan sites too, mention them(such as shoop da woop, which i don't understand)

I can't judge where 300 became a fad originally, as it has been years since I've frequented Newgrounds. I can say that it has a tremendous, or rather EPIC display on 4chan. To the point, I remember 300 based lines as "Hey guys, where are we dining tonight?" and "Hello? Hell's Diner? I need reservations for 299!" Some may call it madness or blasphemy, but I say "This.. Is.. A Meme!" Also, "Shoop da woop" is the sound made when one is a chargin' their lazers, which is its own meme inside of the chans, but I can't say I've seen it outside of there. -- 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC) desu

Badger Badger

And a few others among it, I would rate Badger high above a few other things on this list (notably the bands) In terms of Internet Phenomena. In addition both Something Awful and 4chan are responsible for a good deal of todays current internet phenomena, or more so play a part. Either way I am curious why Badger Badger is not listed, even with a neutral POV who here can argue you haven't seen it. It is the problem with internet phenomena and an underground or silent movement is there isn't much press.

Then I'm sure you'll understand whene I say "SOURCES OR GTFO".  ;-) Sources of the reliable and independent variety. 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Over 9000/Battletoads/Fresh Prince prank calls on Girltalk

Do prank calls on live television constitute "noticable", or is Girltalk's late night figures too "low brow?" Dr. R.KZ 07:51 AM 12th April

You should add longcat, over 9000, fresh prince and battletoads to the 4chan article. They're pretty much all 4chan original content and not well known outside 4chan's readership - apart from over 9000, which is also known by ytmnd and gue but nobody else on the internet. 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


"The American equivalent to 2chan, it has been a large source of internet phenomenon since it's inception in 2003, such as Caturday and the O Rly? owl." That should be "since its inception" without the '.

The O Rly owls origin is not 4chan based. Rather it is based off of something from Something Awful

While the term came from Something Awful, the image did come from 4chan, where the word "repost" was filtered to "owl," prompting a user to create the macro. ( 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Internet is for porn

It was on top 100 Google videos for 8 months! 9 Million views on one of the copies alone. Yes, bit old now.. but it broke my heart when its entry was removed from Wiki. --Flayed 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request


The following diffs to be backed out:

  • [10] - some random blog is not a reliable source
  • [11] - source article lead makes no mention of this whatsoever
  • The O RLY? owl, which after several months is still without a source for its status as a phenomenon. 13:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
So, carry out the ediuts, then? 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Just wondering, is it/would it classify? - Jigsy 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Madness Combat

Madness Combat not only caps ten million views on Newgrounds, but has also spawned many many tributes. While it currently doesn't have any secondary sources, and thus can't have an article, it would be nice to see it mentioned here.

--Rotaretilbo 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's over nine thousaaaaand!

Seriously, I think this meme should be on here.

I agree with that one. Its power level, I mean, its views on YouTube are over 1.5 million! -- 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC) desu

I agree, it's quickly spread across the net as one of the most recognized phrases, possibly even surpassing the likes of "All your base are belong to us". 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs, another notable meme spreader?

Especially LUE board.


Agreed. GTFO and FOAD actually originated on GameFAQs, for one thing, and GameFAQs has been vital in spreading many meme that may have started elsewhere. Social boards like LUE tend to have their own internalized memes, but are also responsible for the growth of many other memes. Steve McLinden 17:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ins't Wikipedia one of the most notable internet phenomena of all?

Ins't Wikipedia one of the most notable internet phenomena of all?

I lawld. Agreed. --SelfStudyBuddy 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for a Phenomenon

This article upsets me. There are so many other Internet memes that should be placed here. Besides, how does one thing like 2channel qualify for an Internet phenomenon while sites like SomethingAwful and 4chan are not listed? --Jeff Bongi 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means add them! Be aware of WP:Notability. People don't become notable from single newsworthy incidents; Wikipedia is not a collection of lists or a news source. But sometimes the meme itself is encyclopedia-worthy. In the long run this article should morph into a real article on the phenomenology and institution of Internet memes, and we should leave it to the "category" feature to create a collection of them.Wikidemo

How's this justified?

Thanks to an anonymous' edit, this list has no value. --nlitement [talk] 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing Youtube from Star Wars Kid

"distributed through video sharing sites like YouTube,"

The "Star Wars Kid" appeared on the internet in 2003, and YouTube started in 2006, yet the article is written as if YouTube helped to spread the video when clearly it had already been famous for years.

Clown666 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Aleksey Vayner

This has to make it. He and his video "Impossible is Nothing" spawned an uproar covered by many real media outlets, including the New York Times. A true meme if ever there was one.

His biographical article was written, then deleted by a zealous editor on notability grounds but with a recommendation that his Internet meme is probably notable even if he personally is not. Only fitting. So I'll do that.Wikidemo 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking is very bad

The italicized sourced text was blanked yesterday. It is not proper to blank sourced text, so please restore it promptly--thanks!

  • "Little Fatty" — Beginning in 2003, a Chinese high school student from Shanghai named Qian Zhijun () had his face superimposed onto various other images, creating an Internet fad.[1][2] In July 2007 it was announced that plans were underway to cast him in a Hollywood film being produced by New Line Cinema.[3][4] Badagnani 04:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please tell me how this article is relevant to an encyclopedia? 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)crazyreader

That question is subjective, and I don't see any real answer. That is to say, how is any article directly relevant to an encyclopedia? This article serves a purpose by providing a sourced list of Internet meme that have become so popular as to merit inclusion into this article as well as other third-party publications. If you don't feel the article is fit for inclusions, you might want to register your account and place the article up for deletion. the_undertow talk 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was already nominated twice for deletion and the decision was made to keep. Nothing has really changed since then. "List of" articles are always a little less encyclopedic, particularly ones like this that are far from comprehensive. Even with the requirement that the phenomenon be notable and sourced, and people vigilantly removing some of pranks and attempts to insert trivia, it's still not a very good list. But what can you do? If someone really wanted to take the effort they could clean this up a little, but if you want to spend the effort why not edit the now-parent article I wrote on Internet memes? That one is just a stub and there's a little disagreement over what an Internet meme really is, but at least that one is trying to be encyclopedic. Meanwhile this article is interesting to many people, and harmless. Wikidemo 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

David Elsewhere

Should the David Elsewhere popping and liquid dancing video be mentioned? Valerius Myotis 05:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, i think he's mentioned elsewhere...

Angry German Kid

He's also pretty popular, why wont someone add him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If you find a good source, you are free to add him. Don't forget to sign your posts. the_undertow talk 18:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentos & Diet Coke

Mentos & Diet Coke eruptions is listed as an Internet phenomenon in it's own Wikipedia article, as well as in a Houston Chronicle article [12] but is not mentioned here. Dubkiller 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

virally self-replicating content ?=

Does the content really reproduce itself in the same way as a virus? I thought people simply sent the content to friends, and so it gets replicated, or more often just a hyperlink gets replicated. I don't know enough meme-theory to be able to rephrase that in a way that makes sense both to a specialist and a layperson. Any suggestions? --Davémon 08:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's redundant. A video meme is usually the result of viral video, which is where the term comes from. However, virii are self-replicating, so there does not seem a real urgency to tag it as such. the_undertow talk 08:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DragonForce, and Fuck Yeah Seaking

should be added DragonDance 03:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. They are limited to the chans.

Crazy Frog

I wonder if something about Crazy Frog should be included here. It originally started as an MP3 of someone impersonating a two stroke engine and spread virally across the internet before being animated, and eventually becoming the Crazy Frog we all know and hate. --Darksun 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I think 300 with Leonidas is quickly becoming an Internet phenomena. I'm seeing a lot of pictures with him in it S:

Yes, the 300 Photochop is definitely quite a phenomena. However, it would pretty much take confirmation of another source, say CNN, to report it, in order to fit the criteria for inclusion. the_undertow talk 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

300 has been an internet phenomenon, just not good enough for Wikipedia. The ConundrumerTC 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Chocolate Rain?

I have just experienced an incredibly annoying half-hour, trying to discover what is "Chocolate Rain".

Unfortunately, in the Wiki community, everyone seems more concerned with sourcing the term than in explaining it. Ditto with the moronic debate as to whether it deserves its own entry or not.

I would think such considerations are way secondary to the primary goal of explaining and/or defining a term. However, some people seem to think that if there's no source, then it should not exist—and to bad for the shmucks like me who'd just like a concise explanation of a term that is percolating in the zeitgeist.

So, to the community at large, I am asking—pretty-please—with sugar on top—can someone please just tell me what "Chocolate Rain" is? Thank you. --TallulahBelle 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch the video. I think you get the idea exactly what it's about from that. The text proposed for the main page is sitting here in the talk page and you can read that here just as well as you can read the main page. The argument is not moronic. Wikipedia has editorial standards for the same reason every other reference source in the world does, so that things here are as believable and usable as possible, and so we don't become a mess of fabrications, trivia, and nonsense. This page is a magnet for trouble. It gets vandalized several times a day by pranksters, and once or twice a day people decide to add their favorite video. At two a day it would have seven hundred items in a year, mostly useless, and so would every other Wikipedia article. Some of those are hoaxes or people trying to promote themselves, sometimes it is kids or Internet newbies who found something cool and think it needs to be in Wikipedia. Only occasionally is someone putting up a real example that people need to know about. Wikipedia's solution is a brilliant one, really. We keep everything neutral and fair. People don't get to add stuff or delete stuff just because they say so or they say it's important. We have an objective system. If you can find verification from a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, it fits. Otherwise it does not. That does mean that Wikipedia is not as good as Youtube, eBaumsworld, google, or the blogs at finding the very latest thing on the Internet. It does mean that if you find it here you can trust it. If you don't trust Wikipedia itself (and who should?) you can follow the source link to see what they have to say. If the only link here were to the Youtube video, you would have no idea whether it's a real thing or somebody's hoax. Wikidemo 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're wondering about the term, the song is obviously about race. "Chocolate" obviously means people of African descent, and "rain" is meant to invoke ubiquity, perseverance, excellence, and unstoppability. "Rain" as a metaphor for social change is common worldwide, and also in African-American music, where there is a bit of spirituality to it, rain being something nourishing that comes from God. I think there's a de la Soul song on a similar theme. I suspect that's why he worded it that way but I don't know. See, I'm just guessing. I could write that in the article and I would have nothing to back me up. You might repeat it and say that I said it on my blog, and that's still not proof. We're hoping that if you can point to an actual newspaper article saying that's what it means, we're piggybacking on a professional reporter's efforts to be objective and check facts. It still might be wrong, but with the reference citation at least you know where it comes from.Wikidemo 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You just spent about five or six hundred words ranting and raving, and yet you failed to concisely define or describe what "Chocolate Rain" is.
Once again, to any and all, could someone simply and concisely explain what "Chocolate Rain" is? Thank you. --TallulahBelle 02:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I was being generous by way of explanation to a difficult user who seems not to get it. If you don't like that, how about you figure it out for yourself instead of being insulting? Your browser has a search bar, no? Wikidemo 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Choclate rain is a video. Look it up on Ebaumsworld.
oh god, how can people reference ebaumsworld. ffs. anyway, "Chocolate Rain" is the title of video posted on youtube by user "TayZonday". it's pretty much just a video of him singing a song he wrote the lyrics and composed the music for. from what i can gather it's a meme because, like most other memes, it's silly/odd/quirky/whatever you want to call it. also, in the future just try using google. the link to his video is the first search result for "chocolate rain" 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All "featured videos" were Chocolate Rain on YouTube once, guess that's why it's become a meme. --nlitement [talk] 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we currently have a source for Chocolate Rain that I posted above. If someone could write a quick blurb about about it, it can be mentioned on this page. I suggest something like this:

"Chocolate Rain - A song by 25-year old Minneapolis resident Tay Zonday, posted on YouTube. His deep voice makes the song sound like it is sung by a much older man. This coupled with the catchy lyrics of the song and captions explaining that Zonday moves away from the mic to breathe in has led this video garnered over 3 million views after 3 months. It has also led to a large number of remixes and spin-offs."

Also, I found another source for Chocolate Rain, this one here:,,2-2007350800,00.html
Work on the blurb, so we can finally get something about this on Wikipedia. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sun is a good source, no? AOL has it featured this week, so there are reliable 3rd party sources. Feel free to add! the_undertow talk 06:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) So yeah. I added it. the_undertow talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing youtube counts

Any agreement on removing youtube and other hit counts from all items on this list, whether or not the count is accurate or sourced? The problems we're having are:

  • Counts are frequently unsourced because people seem to believe all you have to do is say it. So to verify it you have to go to Youtube, sometimes perform a search, etc. Youtube counts are a magnet for unsourced info.
  • Counts are inaccurate and change rapidly. Every day the counts increase, but sometimes they decrease as videos are deleted. Most popular memes get more than one upload. So the counts rapidly become obsolete. Even if you could get an accurate up-to-date count it's just not worth it.
  • Irrelevant. The number of views is not determinative of the status on whether something is truly a meme, and says nothing about how pervasive it really is, or why, or how it is significant, etc. In a full article about the meme the viewership statistics might be useful, but not in a 1-2 sentence overview of the meme.
  • Inconsistent. A few videos have popularity posted, most don't. When the information is spotty it isn't really much help in letting people know what's going on.
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts and statistics.
  • Misunderstood. People incorrectly believe that posting youtube statistics is a way to establish notability. Verifiable sources do that.

For all these reasons I think these numbers cause more problems than they solve. So I plan to delete them in a few days. Any thoughts, objections, agreement, etc? Wikidemo 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and MySpace aren't memes

While Youtube and Myspace are popular websites, I don't feel they can be classified as an Internet Meme. If Popularity = Meme, then Wikipedia is also a meme, as well as google, and 100,000 other webpages. I submit that Youtube and Myspace should be removed as memes. Engunneer 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although they aren't memes, they are Internet phenomena. There are 3 references for MySpace as being a net phenomenon.
Seraphim Whipp 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, they're not Internet Phenomena. Nor is 2channel . It's probably mislabeling. They are websites where Internet phenomena propagate but they are not themselves. Those sources don't show anything, they just have the word "phenomenon" in the title or article body. This article is a list of Internet memes in the notable sense described in the introduction section, not about phenomena in the common usage of that word. Every thing that exists is a phenomenon. That's not what we mean. Wikidemo 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The references are reliable and discuss in detail how MySpace is an internet phenomenon. They don't necessarily have to repeat a specific mantra of "MySpace is an internet phenomena because...". The title of this article is not "List of Internet memes"; it is "List of Internet phenomena". The distinction should be made for a reason and the content should uphold the articles title. I don't know what discussion has come before or whether there was a debate to change it to it's current title...
Seraphim Whipp 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Phenomena and memes are interchangeable. See the talk history of the parent article, Internet meme. This list is about things on the Internet that are notable but also become popular in the way a meme does. The common usage of phenomenon meaning, an event or a big event, wouldn't make any sense. If this article were just about things that were big on the Internet it would encompass nearly everything, and thereby be completely non-notable.
On sources, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Neologisms like "Internet meme" and "Internet phenomena" have to be supported with articles about the subject, not articles that happen to use the word. That would run into problems with WP:OR and WP:SYN. Of the sources for myspace, this only says that Myspace is a big thing. this one does the same and uses "phenomenon" in its common sense; there is no discussion of the meme-ness of myspace, probably because it has none. It's a platform/service, not a content fad. This one too is just a statement that Myspace is popular and a casual use of "phenomenon" in the common sense. Wikidemo 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
MySpace itself is a fad. Also, if phenomena and memes are interchangeable then MySpace would belong on this list. I have nothing more to say...If you wanna take it out, please do so as consensus leans that way. Thanks for your time :-).
Seraphim Whipp 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic Squirrel

YouTUBE VIDEO should be noted as meme

First. It's a gif. Second. It's not from youtube. It was another one of those 4chan memes on the internet.

It's not from 4chan, my friend runs a website where people submit original .gifs to be put in a gallery, 4chan tends to claim responsibility for memes that they didn't create.

-- 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

what does your friends website have to do with anything? dont post useless comments with nothing to back it up,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 


Itjustsomerandomguy i feel has become an internet phenomenon. He has already quickly become one of the most subscribed people on Youtube with his Marvel/DC videos of which he has 17. He has also even been recognized by Marvel and been interviewed on their website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Sign your post and provide some reference links and it might just qualify.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


ok. im not good with the whole wikipedia editing thing but there is SOOOO much missing from this article such as "you kicked my dog" end of ze world" "you are a pirate" and heaps more. it would be such a large project to list every one so i think it would be a really good idea if someone could include a list of websites that internet phenonemas have spawned from or gained popularity through (e.g. albinoblacksheep and newsgrounds ) 11:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

-- 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Agree. And when this article is unlocked for editing, someone MUST print "Nice shemale pics" ref:( If anything it shows how quickly meme's are spread across user forums and the Internet.

I'm also putting in a nomination for "The internet is a series of tubes!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC)


Would WikiScanner count, it went online on the 14th and within two days, it was on the national news! Henceruns4554 19:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No happy slip?

When I searched for happy slip, it redirected me to this page. I expected to find some information here, but there is none. Is it normal to be redirected somewhere for a search term but not find it on the destination page? 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a blurb about Happy Slip here, at one time. However, the article was deleted. the_undertow talk 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Happyslip Enjoy! Ichormosquito 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I Nominate Charlie the Unicorn goes to Candy Mountain

I just couldn't find enough references to prove it, but Charlie the Unicorn goes to Candy Mountain is a huge sensation amongst kids and even young adults. When I want to "return the favor" for someone making me watch a different internet meme, i "thank" them by referring them to this video, and usually they say their kid walks in and goes "Oh yeah, Charlie the Unicorn". I've met several people that can quote most lines and there are even youtube videos of people re-enacting the video themselves line for line. Annoying video that gets stuck in your head is here: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sadchild (talkcontribs) 17:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Oh yeah! We forgot about Charlie!

We need to find some references. Astro 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be enough*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1


Astro 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Badger Badger Badger

Badger Badger Badger seems like it should make this list.

I believe there should be a general category of websites such was eBaumsworld, Albino Black Sheep, ytmnd, Weeblstuff, jibjab, Homestarrunner, newgrounds, etc

I added it before reading the talk page, and seeing your comment. I too think it should be included but I couldn't find a reference stating its relevance Jlsilva 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Rain notability

It has been discussed before, about Chocolate Rain's notability. Several people already suggested including it in this article, but instead it was deleted due to not being notable enough. Now, it's literally dominating Youtube. Today is Tay Zonday Day[13], and Chocolate Rain is all over the frontpage of Youtube. Is that noticeable enough? The ConundrumerTC 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to fit criteria for inclusion. Check out this link and poke around the net to see if the subject fits the criteria. C ya. the_undertow talk 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just did a quick search...the singer, Tay Zonday, has 143,000+ google web hits and zero google news hits. The song Chocolate Rain has 279,000 web hits and one news hit that is so brief it's probably doesn't help establish notability. If you have your heart set on this one, you can probably find a good source in there somewhere. Hint: no blogs please, and nothing that is merely an announcement that it exists plus a leak. We need something that says it's a runaway Internet hit, or a meme, or a phenomenon, or that everyone's listening to it like crazy for some unfathomable reason....or just wait a week. If it's really that big someone will eventually put it in a newspaper. The guy's got some kind of weird talent. Wikidemo 01:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. It seems Youtube really was hacked, since there's no trace of Tay Zonday Day in their blog, even though the original Chocolate Rain is still featured. I guess it can wait. The ConundrumerTC 12:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah the video is a meme at this stage, chocolate rain has received ober 1 million views. I added it. you guys clean it up or whatever. It just has to be there.

Done. Back in the dead pool -- it's not my place to clean up everything for everyone. If and when sourced, it can go in the article. Incidentally, someone added it to the wrong article today too. Wikidemo 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I put it under Internet meme because thats where it redirects. Its ridiculous that 'chocolate rain' is not covered anywhere in wikipedia.

I don't understand why you consider a meme with 143,000 google hits 'not notable' just because a newspaper hasn't covered it. Most net memes, even the most popular, never will.

In most cases its not even realistic to expect a memeto be backed by 'reputable sources'? Its an internet phenomenon in the first place. It owes its entire existence to blogs, youtube and myspace.

Insisting a youtube/myspace phenomenon be documented somewhere other than runaway popularity on youtube/myspace is overly stringent standard for internet memes. They're defined by the fact they're prevalent on the internet; popularity on some of the internet's most popular sites (youtube, myspace, etc) are the gold standard to evaluate them by, not the online edition of a print newspaper. Many such memes will generate interest among millions of people without getting mentioned in the mainstream media. Jeffjrstewart

I understand the point. The argument you are making is one that others make in favor of deleting this article entirely, and downplaying attempts by Wikipedia to cover current events, pop culture phenomena, etc. Reliability and sourcing is a fundamental issue with Wikipedia and part of its mission. This is not the place for Wikipedia:original research, and conducting surveys, studies, analysis, observation, etc., on the state of the Internet is original research. If someone wants to know what's hot on Youtube, they can go to Youtube and check it out directly. If you want to see what's going on in the blogosphere you can go to the blogosphere. This is the place for something a little more firm, long-lasting, and in depth. Even something as obvious and important as, say, a dam burst or a military victory doesn't get written about here first. It has to be published, and then you can cite the published source. Likewise, if there is a heat wave you don't go to the weather website and report their statistics here. You have to wait until someone writes about it somewhere.
The most I'll grant you is that Wikipedia has a bias against blogs. Blogs are still on the ascendancy as far as people taking them seriously, and we still have trouble deciding which blogs are believable and reliable, and which are not. Unlike papers and magazines, which have a stricter editorial process, anyone can say anything in a blog. Those rules, I think, are still being written. Why should person X be completely ignored for now, then if he or she gets a job with the local paper the next day and thereby moves their comments to the paper's blog, suddenly they become citeable? But right now the problem is people taking things too seriously, not that they don't take them seriously enough. This page and the companion over at internet meme are getting spammed and vandalized up to several times a day, not to mention all the unsourced and poorly written content that keeps creeping in.
Anyway, I don't think you'll get too far here with an argument that any video with enough google hits or Yahoo views belongs in the article. That would create a potentially huge list, hundreds of items long. A more fruitful thing to do would be to identify some specific respected blogs or sources where people are writing about Internet phenomena. There must be some columns, experts, etc., devoted to that. If you can make a case for them, that could be the beginning of a formula or rule by which the more important memes get added and the trivial ones do not. Wikidemo 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede the simplest way for me to deal with this is just to play by the rules, and make a case that it's noteworthy with links. But while we're on the topic, I still think the noteworthy standard on wikipedia is far too high for this type of material.

You mention that one can just go straight to youtube to learn about this type of thing, and that people do not go to wikipedia for every last little thing- but as a matter of fact, I often do. I saw chocolate rain on youtube, couldn't make heads or tails of it, and headed straight to wikipedia for an explanation. I wasn't expecting a well-written, impeccably sourced entry, just a brief word or stump, and maybe a couple links to point me in the right direction. But even that wasn't there, and I thought that for the first time in a long time the site had let me down.

It turned out that as a whole, it hadn't. Many people had attempted to make entries, only to have them deleted by a core group that hate such fads and want to keep this site 'respectable'. In fact, the term chocolate rain has now been 'salted', even banning any further attempts at entries! To me thats just crazy.

The main argument seems to be here that if this can go on, then hundreds of other only marginally noteworthy things could go on as well. To this I say, why not? Doubtless, many such articles would likely be poorly sourced and poorly written...but I hardly see how thats really so bad when the alternative is simply to have nothing at all. I fully appreciate and respect the need to have stringent guidelines for wikipedia on serious topics such as biographies of historical figures, scientific phenomena, etc. But I hardly see why entries about memes, big or small, need to meet such high standards. A quick stub and a link or two is fine.

Every month hundreds of wikipedia entries get deleted due to 'noteworthy' guidelines which basically state, 'well, we can't just put EVERYTHING on wikipedia, can we?" But as a matter of fact you can. And there isn't really any logical reason (cost of labor, space, etc) that they can't be.

There seem to be a lot of passionate wikipedians that want the site to be taken seriously as a credible encyclopedia, and see entries on internet fads as harming that credibility. But this medium makes those entries possible, and a lot of people want them. I know I do. As good as the standards are for 'noteworthy' material, when it comes to quick, useful info on minor topics, trying to ape encyclopedia Brittanica in totality is holding the sites full potential back.

Check out this article about noteworthy standards- Jeffjrstewart

Yeah but chocolate rain made you cross the street the other day.

The logical way to eat soup is with a spoon.

Chocolate Rain should be added to the list, if someone had a problem with it having its own article. This was the case because it was deleted.

How's this for a source?:,22049,22170787-5012327,00.html
If that source is adequate, I guess we can add Chocolate Rain to this list, and ask for the current redirect to be moved from Internet Meme to here. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Zonday is a college student living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Not sure what ethnic origin his surname is (if that's indeed his real name). Badagnani 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's a source. Zonday's time has arrived. For anyone who adds it, please be sure to cite anything using the "ref" and "cite news" templates, like some of the other listings. Wikidemo 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tay Zonday has been interviewed on G4's Attack of the Show and he was chosen for who's having the best week ever on VH1's Best Week Ever. A Google search for "Tay Zonday" gets 780,000 results and "Chocolate Rain" gets 1,260,000. He's freakin notable already! Herorev 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Show is probably not a reliable source. Google definitely is not. That many hits suggests he probably is notable and that a good source is probably available, but it is not a source. You need to understand the difference between being notable, and going through the process to establish notability. If you don't mind spending the time learning, it's a lot more rewarding to build the encyclopedia based on real references that will stand up. People have found the sources at this point and the article is ready to go. Now someone actually has to do it the right way and not just talk about it. Wikidemo 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Miss Teen USA

I think this needs to be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Me too 09:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)  

"Ask a Ninja" videos on youtube

I think "Ask a Ninja" is enought popular to be added here. What do you think about it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Askaninja pwns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Surely caramelldansen classifies as an internet phenomena. - Jigsy 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Roll

Yo gotta add this to the list . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Go possible correction?

Hi there, I think that OK Go's first internet video was "A million ways" where they danced in the backyard of one of the member's house... Not sure about it, but I think that "Here it Goes Again" was done later... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot... here you can see a source for this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yugioh the Abridged Series

I would like to nominate Yugioh the Abridged Series, an online less than ten minute parody series on the anime and manga series Yugioh, to be listed on this page as an internet phenomuna. Under stastistics, it has been viewed far more than even Boom Goes the Dynamite has on Youtube, and single episodes have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. It is a series of videos, so it is more than one immensly popular video. It has had a slight influence on Yugioh GX apparently, as I have heard they have been adding more comedy to the show. (An example is one character suggesting a sleepover where they talk about dueling and strategies, while the other look at him stangely) It has become a controversial case on Youtube, so much the creator's account, LittleKuriboh, was deleted. It has inspired many other Abirdged Series for animes, notable Naruto. The creator's Abridged Series website, here, had gained thousands of members within mere days. The home website also sells items portraying lines from the show on it. I think it has gone far beyond the term "notable", and it has definetly recieved enough fame to be mentioned. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just found out that they made an article about it here. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Needs sources. People keep recreating Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series (under various names) and it keeps getting deleted. It isn't in the Yu-Gi-Oh! article, either. --Phirazo 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Can some1 explain DESU to me? -- 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Rozen Maiden character named Suiseiseki who ends all her sentences with "desu", which a polite Japanese copula (the equivalent of "be" in English). It is a popular meme on 4chan. --Phirazo 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"50 dkp minus" aka "onyxia does wipe club"

This videogame portion of this list is really incomplete without the 50 dkp minus/onxyia does wipe club flash animation from World of Warcraft.

Kelliebellerina 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this list work?

There are many internet phenomena with articles. What are the criteria for choosing some entries over others? Ichormosquito 09:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Sources. Internet phenomena that are noted in independent reliable sources are added, phenomena that aren't noted in are not added. --Phirazo 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Revisions and sourced additions are welcome"

At the top of the article, it says "Revisions and sourced additions are welcome". Normally, self references should be avoided. I have placed it in a {{selfref}} template, but is there a good reason to have this? --Phirazo 03:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Where is Maddox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kojirodensetsu (talkcontribs) 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maddox isn't an internet meme, he's an oft quoted person. 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pregnant

What about the "[14]Mr.Pregnant"? He got pretty popular.

the best source i could find was here...

[<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)