Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 9

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

Contents

One Questions

hey. how come the websites got taken off? Homestar Runner is DEFINATELY internet phenomena, and I'm not getting sources to prove it, since sources for it must have already been up for a while. Jib-Jab must be good enough too; the "this land is your land" thing was big. And their videos are still current. I'm not getting any new sources for this either. Yes, I know that a lot of people don't think that this article is organized, but things like Rickrolling being mentioned in both the songs section and the videos section is a good place to start.Jpmcruiser (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct regarding This Land is Your Land, and that has been added to the animations section, since it is an animated cartoon. I don't think it's really necessary to overload this list with every single flash animation that JibJab has produced, though It's Good to be in D.C. and Big Box Mart are mentioned in the same bullet point as well, since they came out of This Land's popularity.
Individual websites, however, are not internet phenomena themselves, but they propagate them. That's why they were removed. Some of the more popular websites that propagate memes have been added to the introduction (sites like Fark, 4chan, Slashdot, Youtube, etc). Homestar Runner is a flash animation, and could be added (properly sourced, of course), to the animations section.
"Rickrolling" is actually correctly listed under 'videos', since the phenomenon itself is based on the music video. The song it's based on, "Never Gonna Give You Up", isn't really an internet phenomenon unto itself, so doesn't really belong under 'music'. WTF? (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay! I guess I didn't check the thing about rickrolling as soon as I should of.... Anyways, thanks. Here's some links for Homestar Runner.


Dean, Kari Lynn (June 2003). "HomestarRunner Hits a Homer" Wired News. Retrieved 2010-01-27Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). .75.75.10.6 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Strong Bad Walks in Footsteps of Darth, Lex, J.R.". All Things Considered (NPR). 2004-05-08. Retrieved 2007-01-21.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

(I got the two above from the main Homestar Runner wikipedia page.)

Brown, Scott (December 21, 2009). "Why Some Memes Never Die" Retrieved 2010-01-21.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 75.75.10.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~. Powers T 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Crap. I forgot. It should be good now. So are these links okay?75.75.10.6 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this good enough??75.75.10.6 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, is this good enough??75.75.10.6 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the info about Homestar Runner to the 'animations' section. WTF? (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! thanks75.75.10.6 (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass revisions

Someone came and did a ton of revisions and they blanked out the whole e-mail section. I reinserted it since it's pertinent. E-mail can be considered internet phenomena, especially given how prevalent Webmail like Yahoo mail and Gmail are these days. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that made those revisions and I removed the email section for a purpose, and hence re-removed it. Those items in the email section are not really "internet phenomena" in the same sense that internet memes are. They are, in fact, virus hoaxes and mostly spam emails, so they're more pertinent to an article related to spam. WTF? (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
They are internet phenomena and have been here for years. Webmail=email on the web/internet. I'm reinserting them. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You will be reverted again if you do. They are NOT "internet phenomena". They're spam and junk mail, and belong better in an article such as chain-letter, Spam (electronic), or E-mail spoofing. They don't belong here. WTF? (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
So you're going to edit war in violation of WP:STATUSQUO? If you do that you'll likely be blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No, but you're simply totally wrong on this. I think we need more consensus by other users before that garbage is reinserted. And I don't see how WP:STATUSQUO applies here, especially when someone is just plain wrong. WTF? (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I still disagree with this, but I have self-reverted, re-adding the material back with {{content}} to indicate the dispute. WTF? (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The plain fact further illustrating why you're WRONG about this is that if we include every single email forward, email hoax, or virus warning, this list would far too long to be counted. The ONLY one of those three items that is even the least bit related to the topic of this page is the Nieman Marcus cookie thing, but even that's a stretch. Quite simply, Wikipedia is not Snopes. WTF? (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Email, in the form of webmail, is internet phenomena. Email isn't always and inextricably separate and these three email forwards are a part of internet lore. We're not including every email forward, only the major ones. This list will never be complete anyway. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Burpelson AFB the complete remove could of been received as disruptive it should not have just been removed without a discussion. As before in early edits you made like this one where you had inserted non-free images and i removed them and you did revert my edit. Back to the E-mail section it should stay it dose not cover every single email forward, email hoax, or virus warning as you say it only covers the ones found to be notable and they are sourced. Kyle1278 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Another comment: the lead in to this article specifies that early internet phenomena spread via email and usenet. I see nothing wrong with the email section. I remember people all talking about GoodTimes back in the day and I remember getting the cookie recipe forward from friends. (Tangent: I even made the cookies once, they were pretty damn good). <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see much wrong with the email section, but I'm not the one who edits the article. However, things like the Goodtimes Virus and the Bill Gates Beta email and the cookie recipe are as much internet Phenomena as the infamous dancing baby. Many people have heard of it, and some of them may have been on the news at one time or another. Again, though, as far as internet memes go, email is not the most important. Nevertheless, I feel that it should be (re)added.75.75.10.6 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the content dispute tag and cleaned up the email section, also checking all the reference citations for verifiability and reliability. I've also added a 'see also' link at the top of the section fo virus hoax and [spam (electronic)]] since they seem to be related to those items. WTF? (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad we were able to resolve this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fear of Girls?

I'm surprised Fear of Girls isn't on here. Anyone else feel like it should be added? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything. If you can find some reliable sources, maybe somebody will add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.10.6 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


People category

I really don't consider "people" to be "internet phenomena". While virtually all categories of internet phenomena listed are propagated by people, the people themselves really aren't the phenomena. Furthermore, there are at least three places where such "internet celebrities" (if you'd even go so far as to call them "celebrities") are listed: Category:Internet personalities, List of YouTube personalities, and Usenet celebrity.

I've already been moving several people to more relevant categories, relating to the "phenomena" that they're responsible for starting -- e.g. Chris Crocker/"Leave Britney Alone!" video; Amber Lee Ettinger/Obama Girl video; etc. I think the remaining people currently in the category are best transferred to Category:Internet personalities. WTF? (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Over 9000

...Shouldn't it be on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.65.101 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archives/2009/July#Dragon Ball Z: It's Over 9000!!!!! and the FAQ above, denoting WP:V and WP:RS. Also, sign your posts and place them at the bottom of the talk page. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You're kidding? I always hear the term `over 9000` on the interwoobs. I believe it was also trolled on Oprah's messageboard, it's also constantly seen on 4chan, Youtube, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.65.101 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Over 9000 is near the top of the list in a list of search optiions on my google toolbar from when i type in "Over". it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmcruiser (talkcontribs) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

75.75.10.6 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC) yea this is definently a meme. This should be added to the page. like now. http://whatport80.com/Over_9000 http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Meme These should help.

Whoopdee-bloody-doo, find me a RELIABLE SOURCE. And no, I am not kidding. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 12:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jpmcruiser (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/pages/Oprah-Winfrey-trolls-entire-internet-with-over-9000-comment-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html If it isnt good, just say.

Are these good enough?75.75.10.6 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks more like something you'd read in a tabloid. Not exactly what I'd call a "reliable source". WTF? (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally screwed up on the revert, by the way. Sorry again about that. [1] this doesn't look to bad (I'm still trying to figure out if it is user submitted content and if so if it is properly vetted by the editorial staff). It was good enough for Wikinews but I am not seeing where they found the info.[2]. Techcrunch is reliable from what I have seen but it is technically a "blog" . I am uner the impression that it is more "new media" than blog but am not sure.[3] Network World is a publication and Paul McNamara looks to be a professional writer for the website in a "blog" format.[4] See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and note 3 at the bottom of the page for info on "blogs". Since this isn't necessarily a list of living people, notability guidelines do not directly impact content. It appears to be verifiable.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where did you get the "reliable sources" for all the other crap on here? I really don't recall hearing about Leekgirl in Time magazine. But hey, you know what you doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.48.232 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See Loituma Girl#References. Some of them may not be OK but Public Radio International and a couple others look to be fine at first glance. That could also be considered for deletion if tey are not. Read the wikilinks provided up above about sources.Cptnono (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Over 9000 is possibly one of the most famous memes on AND off the internet. I am now going to search for sources:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-over-9000

Complete with history, statistics establishing notability, reasons it became a meme etc.

35,400 results on youtube, 21,800,000 on google.

Has appeared in: Oprah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stn_XCo_dyg), George Calloway's show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07KfPmCw1Ek) which contains many internet memes in a few prank calls.

G4/TV coverage of the Oprah incidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YInQJxxt9qE

I would be willing to write a non-plagiarised NPOV entry for this if you ask me on my talk page.

I hope this helps, although youtube is far from a reliable source, the content of the videos is of well known TV programs. Jameilious (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

who ok'd this article??

Possibly the worst article I have ever seen on wikipedia. a quite partial list of 4chan and its 'accomplishments' over the years. its incomplete to no end, and i mean CHUCK NORRIS under internet celebrities??? if anything a new wiki should be spun off for internet history. or all history post 1991 maybe :) why does this article exist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_celebrity I expect there are others as well

Sign your posts

Also it exists because it is a very important part of internet culture which needs to be documented. People do not expect wikipedia to just have no knowledge about a subject just because the subject is humorous.

As for being incomplete, I agree no end. This is due to the strange nature of memes making it hard to find reliable sources.

Personally I believe we should create a list of requirements for a meme to get onto this page such as:

A set numerical value for notability (google trends or something similar) Appearance on/in a set amount of major TV shows or newspapers

I know it is copying the idea a bit from "http://knowyourmeme.com" but they look to have good criteria for notability with clear graphs etc.

We could definitely learn something from the way they handle a humourous subject seriously. Jameilious (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Turtles

Segal, David (July 30, 2007). "For the 'I Like Turtles' Boy, 17 Seconds Of Fame" Retrieved 2010-02-07.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Jpmcruiser (talk) 04:48

Is this good enough, or do I need a better source?

I don't mean to repeat too much, but it's not like I can edit the article, so is this source good enough, or do I need a new one?Jpmcruiser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. For whatever reason, I'm not autoconfirmed yet, so if anyone wants to use this link, knock yourself out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmcruiser (talkcontribs) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet memes that are actions

Stealth disco

This was an Internet fad for a few years, mainly from 2003 to 2007, and you can find lots of these videos online. Since it's a meme that led to a class of videos, and not a specific video, what section would it belong in? +sj+ 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Find sources, never heard of it myself is it on Know your meme ? Jameilious (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Not enough search volume for "stealth disco" on Google trends, either. WTF? (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo dawg

This has become quite the internet phenomenon. Rather than a single photo or video, it is something people do to other photos. Where does it fit in this list? If you sum the hundreds of popular spoofs made along the lines of "I heard you like *", it certainly ranks up there with some of the current list members. +sj+ 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This one should definitely be on the list, it has had many thousands of different variations
I think this search says it all with 453k results.
Google trends against other well known memes, seems this one is more of a long term medium level meme, rather than a sudden pop in and out of existence Jameilious (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Epic Beard Man?

Why is there no mention of Epic Beard Man? 63.215.29.202 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source referring to the guy as EBM? There is tons of coverage of the event but so far it is based on the fight or the flood of comments on Washington's youtube channel.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.urlesque.com/2010/02/19/epic-beard-man/ hows this?Jpmcruiser (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Added to the videos section, though with more reliable sources than the one provided, plus a wikilink to AC Transit Bus fight. WTF? (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy

People I am stunned that no one has mentioned the Tourettes Guy yet, he is to this day one of the most popular and influential internet celebs. Hey deserves a place somewhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.51 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourette's Guy is fake. More importantly, however, a quick search on Google News does not turn up any reliable sources covering the meme. Additions to this list must be sourced with news sources that are reliable -- that does not include mention in blog posts, and the direct link to a YouTube video is also generally not acceptable, either. WTF? (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the guy who brought this up. I mean, of course the Tourettes Guy is fake. But he is very popular, and there aren't any sources since most of the stuff is about him "dying" or him in blogs.Jpmcruiser (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

5 seconds movies

I feel that those should be in here, too.

-MR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.198.34 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that can help prove that this is a meme? Kyle1278 18:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No Fred?

If ANYONE at all should be on here, it should be Fredd Figglehorn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.5.204 (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fred is not a meme he is listed under YouTube Celebrities. Kyle1278 03:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It might help to actually read the list. Fred Figglehorn is listed under the 'videos' category. He doesn't appear under 'people' because I moved it -- "people" themselves aren't really memes, they propagate them, and therefore shouldn't belong on this list. I've been trying to move most of those either to more applicable categories, or other pages, such as List of YouTube celebrities. WTF? (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolololo

what about eduard khil whith trololo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.20 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Die Antwoord

They should probably be added too: Die Antwoord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.195.56 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Like only 5 of those are real memes

The rest I've never even heard of. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because you have not heard of them not not make them non-notable. Kyle1278 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Change in format?

I personally feel that the list should be made into sectioned list, allowing for proper expansion where necessary. Otherwise, any notable info about the meme cannot be added otherwise it will be far too big, depending on how much info is added, in comparison with the other entries in the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, there already are several sections of the page. I'm not sure what you mean by this? WTF? (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that there were no sections, I was clearly stating that every meme should have a section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It might help to review the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding sections. Making a section for each and every meme would be serious overkill and not be appropriate. The list is currently divided into categories of memes, each containing a bulleted list. WTF? (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That puts each and every meme on a similar standard of notability; maybe we just need to cover the ones that are notable for more than being popular or funny. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris, and Shoop da Whoop

I am confused as to why this is not included on the page, It even has its own Wikipedia article where it states that it is an internet phenomenon. Chuck Norris Facts / Jokes took everybody by storm at one point with several TV shows and Vlogs even interviewing the man himself. I am certain that Chuck Norris is well worthy of a mention, and I think you will agree with me on this one. I also believe that Shoop da Whoop should be included under the animation section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugar bear (talkcontribs) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Candlejack

...Is anyone going to fix what is obviously wrong with the description? I swear it feels like I'm at Encyclopedia Dramatica. (Not really, but still.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.48.232 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, leave it be. It's nice to stumble across a little bit of light humour in the wikipedia every so often :) And it does illustrate the candlejack meme quite w Hanii (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.250.9 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dancing baby

I though the original version is from Peter Gabriels Sledgehammer video ?!(129.247.247.240 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

WHERE IS CoURAGE WOLF

Or all the other advice dogs for that matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.103.68 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While "Courage Wolf" and other such memes in the style of "Advice Dog" are common on certain websites, they're not very notable on an internet-wide scale and therefore I don't think they should be on the list.217.120.189.148 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
OMG CAPS LOCK MAKES ME SO IMPORTANT, EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, LOL -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Courage Wolf needs to be included if the advice dogs are in discussion. It shoould just be advice dog.Jpmcruiser (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ASDFMOVIES and CHUCK?

I am also wondering as others why chuck norris is not here, this is just ridicolous >< btw, I think ASDFMOVIES could be added to the list. If you never seen one (of the only 2, for now) check it out on youtube! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.138.149 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we need Chuck. Also where are the 'Motivational Posters'?

Motivational posters are found throughout Google searches, and are posted widely on forums. More or less anybody is capable of making a motivational poster and so therefore they are an important part of internet culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.34 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Motivationals are debatable but I don't care either way. Chuck has to be on here there are valid sources all over the net. Jpmcruiser (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Country Bias

The section: "Winnebago Man – Jack Rebney's profane video outtakes first circulated underground on VHS tape before YouTube turned him into an online sensation. The reclusive Rebney, age 80, is the subject of a new feature film, Winnebago Man, that will be released nationally in theaters, Summer 2010.[160][161]" assumes that everyone reading this article lives in the USA or at least the northern hemisphere. Can someone fix this? - Drthatguy (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are Boxxy and Mudkips?

and don't tell me there are no sources, you just need to look them up on Encyclopedia Dramatica or Know Your Meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.176.219 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They're both already on. Sorafune +1 14:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Eligibility of Internet memes

Why is it that the Internet meme "Pingas" has not been permitted to be described on WP because Internet memes are considered non-notable, when there is this entire list of Internet memes in this article? Why is the "Pingas" article locked and edits to the disambiguation page keep being reverted? Couldn't "Pingas" be described in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wykypydya (talkcontribs) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

While some are, most internet memes are indeed considered not notable enough for their own articles, so they're listed here. If the article on an internet meme was deleted and not added here, but should be added here, it just means that no one's bothered to add it yet. In that case, you can add it with substantial references. Sorafune +1 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, we are looking more than just just "memes" but phenomena, memes that have spread widely and have been noted by major sources to be that. Pingas may be a meme, but we need a source to say it has meme or viral status. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 220.236.226.109, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Kate's party - On facebook, kate made a open party which attracted 60,000 facebook users and resulted in many other fan pages 220.236.226.109 (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please insert in reliable sources to back up this statement? BejinhanTalk 13:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Embrace Life

Should Embrace Life be on this list? Its notability has been established (reports about it on CNN, New York Times, Daily Mirror, discussed in UK Parliament, Ryan Seacrest embedded it in his blog etc etc.) Stronach (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also #1 in the Top 10 most underrated virals here [5], #2 Top 10 viral ad for Feb 2010 here [6], in the charts top 10 week after week here [7] and a gazillion other blogs mentioning it. Stronach (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cake Wrecks

Why was it removed? It was properly sourced. The New York Times described Cake Wrecks as a "genuine Internet phenomenon". APK whisper in my ear 15:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Planet Unicorn and The Skeletor Show

Are these worthy of being on the list? A number of episodes have been made. The Skeletor Show, and Planet Unicorn doesn't seem to have an actual official youtube page, but its been uploaded a number of times: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Planet+Unicorn&aq=f --71.131.153.174 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Useryou, 7 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Another internet meme under the "Games" category, which is named Rugalspin. A number of videos depicts the boss character, Rugal Bernstein executing a move that makes him land on his victim's shoulder, and thus spinning him/ her to the ground at high speed while the music "You spin me right round" by Dead or Alive is played. The animation(called Dead End Spinner) was originally taken from the King of Fighters '96, which was cut from the much later versions of the game. This meme parodies another popular meme MeatSpin, influenced by the animation and music.

Original source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7mt8ALcjw0 Meme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsJCnXkkplI&feature=related

Useryou (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Do you have a reliable source for this statement to prove the notability of this phenomenon? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Unnotable meme. SpigotMap 15:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Three Wolf Moon Question

Hey just a quick thought. Wouldn't Three Wolf Moon be better suited under the trading category instead of the advertising category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmcruiser (talkcontribs) 10:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vale Len, 23 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "Up In My Studio" by a contestant on America's Got Talent. Vale Len (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Do you have a reliable source for this statement to prove the notability of this phenomenon? Also, more information would be helpful to determine exactly what you are talking about. :) Avicennasis @ 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Two additions

They need reliable sources to be included.  mx3 (Sorafune) 18:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The first one: an editorial article at http://www.gamesradar.com/ps3/super-street-fighter-ii-turbo-hd-remix-ps3-network/news/guiles-theme-goes-with-everything/a-20100521125621117069/g-200712031411394098 The second one has its own article with refs from TV Guide, Entertainment_Weekly, The_New_York_Observer, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.1 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The link provided does not establish that it is an "internet phenomena". It does provide evidence that apparently, gamesradar.com (which, on the other hand, I don't think would pass WP:RS) is trying to get some sort of a meme going, but that doesn't mean it's started. Best to hold off on this for now. WTF? (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

People category

The 'people' category has been removed, primarily because people themselves are not "internet phenomena". They propagate internet phenomena, but they are not phenomena themselves. If a person is the subject of a phenomena, it would belong under a more appropriate category as well, such as images or videos. Furthermore, the list as it was was incomplete, since there are far more complete and comprehensive lists at List of YouTube personalities and Category:Internet personalities and Category:American Internet personalities. WTF? (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Keyra Augustina

Since this has been removed twice already - can someone please explain the rationale behind not allowing her in under either "images" (since "people" has been removed)? I've used 3 sources, one being her appearance on a VH1 "The Greatest" episode on the "40 Greatest Internet Superstars". Compared to "Ate my Balls", which has one mediocre source from 1997, and "Bert is Evil" - which has no sources at all; I think this is sourced well enough for an entry. I'm fairly confident the images of her "Mystery Booty" or "Hottest Ass on the Internet" would qualify for mention under images as for the most part her fame was gained on pictures alone. Note that I didn't include FamousWhy or EgoTV as sources even though FamousWhy has considerable biographical information, as I don't believe they're reliable sources but here they are anyways [8],[9][10]. --Yankees76 Talk 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since she was promoted by Maxim magazine, her case does not really qualify as a true "internet phenomena", and is, in fact, advertising. The "reliable sources" you've provided above -- famouswhy.com doesn't meet WP:RS, as it's more of a blog, and the egotvonline.com link is 404 not found. WTF? (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense - her appearance in Maxim after her internet celebrity may negate her being a true internet phenomena. I didn't say Famouswhy was a reliable source if you read correctly and the EgoTV link seems to works just fine. Thanks. --Yankees76 Talk 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW how is Famouswhy not a reliable source, but Snopes is? Heineken Looter Guy uses Snopes as it's lone source. This is the issue with Internet Phenomena - everyone knows about them, but how many are simply not covered by what Wikipedia considers a reliable source? Either way whoever added Heineken Looter Guy should consider looking for a better source than Snopes... --Yankees76 Talk 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with famouswhy is that it's not clear who wrote information about a particular individual, nor is it clear when that information was written, how it was verified, or who wrote it. It also has quite a few too many advertisements. It may barely satisfy WP:RS in a crunch, but it doesn't do so very well. Other sources are better than that. WTF? (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on using it, though I don't see how Snopes is any more reliable. I was however going to use the VH1 episode "40 Greatest Internet Superstars" (the same episode used as a source in the Star Wars Kid article) to establish Keyra's notability as an internet phenomenon.--Yankees76 Talk 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, for starters, at least on each article on Snopes, you can see the date the article was last updated, and the site is easily attributable to the Mikkelsons, so we know who authored/maintained/reviewed each item. They also generally provide sources, as necessary, which helps in the reliability department. WTF? (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That still doesn't fit the criteria for a reliable source. It's self published, with no editorial oversight and relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Famouswhy on the surface looks like a blog, but the site has a "Privacy Policy" and "Terms and Conditions" two things that should tell you this is a corporate owned website - though admittidly that information is not available, most likely on purpose. I'm still not saying it's a reliable source, however when Heineken Looter Guy sits on the page with a single source and it being Snopes, a site that describes itself as "The definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation"; while my addition with Maxim and VH1 used as sources gets deleted, you have to wonder. And yes I'm aware Snopes is quoted by news agencies and has a Wikipedia article - but being notable doesn't make you a reliable source - just like Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. --Yankees76 Talk 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because a site has a "privacy policy" and "terms and conditions" doesn't mean it's corporate-owned. Fark.com has both as well, and it's owned by one man in Kentucky -- certainly not a corporation by any means. And Maxim as a source isn't what got the listing deleted, since that magazine/website certainly meets WP:RS. The problem is that the original photos were promoted and/or paid for by Maxim, so that's certainly not an "internet phenomena". That's actually proof that she is a paid model/celebrity by media. WTF? (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I realize that a privacy policy and terms of use are not indications of reliability, which is why I've made it clear (to most, but not all, it appears) that famouswhy is not a reliable source. But then again, neither is Snopes and no one has adequately explained how an entry on this page with Snopes as it's only source has not been removed. At this point, I may remove it myself, though I'm giving the editor who wished to include the information a chance to add another source per WP:V
AlsoThe original photos were promoted and/or paid for by Maxim is incorrect. The original photos appeared on Supertangas.com and Foro Argentino de Amateurs, while her amatuer webcam videos (Mystery Booty)[11] were on iFilm, YouTube and Dailymotion etc. in 2004 - and it wasn't until after the pictures and videos became an internet phenomena that she was shot for Maxim (in 2006). Her apperance in Maxim is a by-product of her internet fame - the same as Tron Guy appearing on Jimmy Kimmel or Winnebago Man being turned into a movie. The VH1 episode "40 Greatest Internet Superstars" (the same episode used as a source in the Star Wars Kid article) should be proof enough that this is an internet phenomenon (and it's certainly a better source than the article in The Onion that is used for What What (In the Butt)). --Yankees76 Talk 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at supertangas.com shows that the site is really mostly a porn site, with links on its main page mostly to videos of semi-naked women shaking their booty at the camera. Yes, I am sure that most of those videos generate massive amounts of hits by people that visit the site -- most porn sites do. But that certainly doesn't establish it as an "internet phenomenon", or else we'd be listing every porn star in the world on this page. You need something more than that. WTF? (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What does the adult content of supertangas have to with anything? Supertangas was the first place she uploaded the pictures - you don't even have to visit the site to see them, and in fact, in a search for Keyra, mystery booty, hottest ass etc., the site barely comes up. Every phenomena starts somewhere. She was featured on VH1 as one of the 40 greatest internet stars - I love how you conveniently overlook that.
Can I get some input from someone else please? I'm tired of having to explain the content and rebuff strawman arguments. It's obvious WTF is against the entry, I get it. However, one editor does not make a consensus. --Yankees76 Talk 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Over 9,000???

Wouldn't the "over 9,000" bit from Dragon Ball Z be considered a pretty popular meme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.1.189 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for it. WTF? (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Heineken Looter Guy

The first source is Snopes, the second a corporate press release. One is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (self published, rumor/urban legend site). The press release doesn't even mention any of the names used to describe the mock ad or the guy in it and says little of it being an internet phenomenon. (This is why press releases are not generally reliable sources). The number one Google hit that comes up when searching "Heineken Looter Guy" is a website dedicated to "Beer Looter Dude" (there are in fact 3-4 common names used on non-reliable sources to describe the individual - Beer Looter, Katrina Beer Looter, Heineken Looter, Looter Guy etc). The main issue I have with this entry is that there are no reliable sources that back up that this was/in an internet phenomenon which probably explains why the name is probably not the same here as it is throughout blogs and self published websites dedicated to the image.
If this was a significant internet phenomenon the coverage in mainstream reliable sources should be more significant (or some at all) than what a Google search is unveiling. To the individual who added this, I'm asking for real reliable sources to back this addition up. Not self published, not a self-serving corporate press release. I'll look too, but so far I haven't found anything. --Yankees76 Talk 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't try and shoot down other items on the list just because you're mad that your entry for "Keyra Augustina" keeps getting reverted because you can't find adequate sources. That's not a good practice to get into on Wikipedia. Snopes is a perfectly acceptable source, and is used in many other articles and not just this one. The editors of information on Snopes are known, material on that site is dated, they cite their sources. Sure, it may not be the New York Times, but then again, even the Times has had their reliability and bias called into question in the past. WTF? (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an inclusionist vs. exclusionist debate with you. If you want to talk about bad practices to get into on Wikipedia, maybe you should try to assume good faith first before you go making baseless and unconstructive accusations about other editors.
I'm looking to improve the article, not WP:OWN it by keeping weak entries that are backed by questionable sources like Snopes and the Onion, while denying any new additions using questionable tactics and strawman arguments. I'm not some Wikipedia noob who can't recognize what a well sourced entry is nor not. If calling out these entries out for improvement bothers you that's too bad - it's better than settling for mediocrity. Again, comment on content, not the contributors and if you're unable to do that - edit elsewhere. Why not attempt to help me find sources for Looter Guy and Keyra or admit when the sources used for existing "phenomenon" on the page simply aren't strong enough or good enough for good article status, instead of fighting me at every turn? --Yankees76 Talk 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, regarding Snopes accuracy and reliability, factcheck.org recently published a study on its reliability for political issues, and found that the information was accurate. The New York Times also seems to be satisfied with their reliability as well. WTF? (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. It's a self published website that prints rumors and urban legends - and if it's such a phenomenon or if the information in question is really worth reporting, surely someone else is likely to have done so? See WP:SPS. But aside from the reliability, the Snopes entry for the Heineken Looter doesn't mention anything about that image being a phenomenon. Where did it start? How many views did it get and where? Who started it? The entry says nothing other than "Collected on the Internet, 2005". What qualifies Heineken Looter Guy as an internet phenomenon (over say Afro Ninja - who has at least appeared in South Park episode, while this has no mainstream coverage at all). Neither of the sources used answers that question - and we should be looking at a number of these entries that are Snopes only sourced and asking ourselves wether or not they are actually real phenomenon or just the opinion of the contributor to that website. --Yankees76 Talk 22:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2204355

A new "meme" seems to be picking up some press. Currently, if you type "2204355" into Google and press "I'm Feeling Lucky", you get redirected to a page of some Dave Chappelle impersonator dancing amidst a rainbow-colored background holding two pieces of fried chicken. Several media agencies have picked this up so far: [12] [13] [14] [15] but no one really knows of its origins yet. The Winnipeg Free Press article is dated back to May 7, 2010, though Google Trends really doesn't show anything before June 25, 2010. WTF? (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Where is show me your genitals in the video list?

there are too many videos that should be there! --68.170.88.253 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If it can be verified with a reliable source, you can add it. WTF? (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

How about Susan Boyle, she garnered like fifty million views on youtube, i guess that counts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.97.181 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't the she's really an "internet" phenomena. Her fame originated on a British television show, and she was a contestant on that show during the spring. While people shared her videos online, and discussed her in online forums, she's really more of a reality television star than an internet phenomena. WTF? (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Double Rainbow

Wondering what length of time and level of popularity a phenomena would need to be listed - e.g. the meme of the week is the Double Rainbow video and subsequent autotune [16], [17], which have reached 3 million and 1.5million views on YouTube so far. 128.243.253.115 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's Weegee and Youtube poop?

You think they'd be on this list, but they aren't. WikiChicken81112 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Hint: Wikipedia is a piece of shit, just got to *censored*. Not to mention, Street Fighter and pingas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talkcontribs) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

End of the world flash video?

One of the oldest and most iconic viral works of flash animation (group X members) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.205.11 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's one more Viral Video as of July 16,2010. Called Yu Dan Goofed! It is Jessi Slaughter crying about people leaving hate comments on her Myspace profile and threatening to assault her. Her father comes in and tells everyone that he is going to report everyone to The Cyber Police. Then he says "You done goofed!" Hence the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.184.116 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

do the barrel roll

No mention on that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talkcontribs) 14:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and it can be added. That part, is your responsibility. WTF? (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,..

you forgot the internet meme relating to ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, found much on the web on it--205.215.88.178 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

carmen winstead

There is currently not anything posted on her. But you could be the first. If you already know the Carmen Winstead story, you should definately be contributing and writing it up on wikipedia. The story has to do with a 16 year old boy that didn't respond

to a chain letter, and ended up dying because of it. It is a famous urban legend that is going around lately. So post a wikipedia article on Carmen Winstead, or she will get you next! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.145.73 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Guile's Theme Goes With Everything

Guile's Theme Goes With Everything has around 2200 videos in a Youtube search. Covered by Buzzfeed, reddit, Destructoid and eBaum's World —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.120 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

none of those are reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Over 9000! followup

Does this one work? :

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-over-9000 Yellow1996 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

KYM is a user-contributed site (I even participate there); it is not reliable. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I'm not really going to bother looking for a site anyomore because I looked for quite a while and that's the best I could find. if anyone else can find a reliable site, that would be great. Yellow1996 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's over 9000!

Don't forget the video where Vegeta takes his scouter and says "It's over 9000!". That is definitely internet phenomenon! Jakeraymin13 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Back up your claim with a source. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 20:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On the it's over 9000 remix youtube page, it says that it has 1,829,170 views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.180.182 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude it is an internet phenomenon.i have bared witness to over 9000/10,000 macros on the internet on various video game forums.besides the march 15,2008, Project Chanology protest that day,well, the overall point of that was to get over 9000 people worldwide to appear in-person to protest Scientology right outside their wind,so you can run and tell that,HOMEBOY!!

A view count on YouTube dose not establish notability see wp:n. You need sources outside of YouTube referencing to it like news articles, etc. Kyle1278 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you supply sources to what you claim? Kyle1278 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


There has to be some way we can back it up. That is internet phenomena if I have ever seen it. Yellow1996(talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an existing reference to the meme in the current phenomena "Ventrilo Harrasment". SirLua (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Leopold Slikk?

lots of stuff I never heard about, but missing...

The xiao xiao / fight.swf flash videos (and games) deserve mention even if they aren't as hot now as they were back when.

basshunter's "boten anna" might qualify.

Also, there may be a few too many youtube things listed; the view count is seductively easy but that itself is not "proof". In fact, if a video's popularity is largely limited to just youtube it's not really "an internet phenomenon". Much like most of YTMND (which is not in this list) never makes it to elsewhere. Might as well list all the things 4chan comes up with, but that'd flood the list. And besides, it only starts to become interesting if it manages to break out and can be found "everywhere else" too, at least for a time.

On that note, 4chan-originated "anonymous" probably does deserve mention, as does probably pedo bear (it did reach mainstream media mention) and a couple of others, though certainly not all things 4chan. 77.164.22.201 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The metric for inclusion here is if the item has been reported by very reliable sources as being an internet phenomenia / viral / meme. Most things that internet users know are memes from 4chan never get covered by major sources, while viral videos tend to be so. Hence why there appears to be things missing or overemphasized, but we can't do anything about that without introducing original research. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Heyitsfem, 4 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Boxxybabbe is nowhere to be found on this page. This is sacrilege I say! Sacrilege!

Heyitsfem (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: You can find her over at List of YouTube personalities. Stickee (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some obvious additions

I was surprised to find out that the Hotel Mario cutscenes, The Legend of Zelda (The Faces of Evil and The Wand of Gamelon) cutscenes, Mama Luigi from the Super Mario World cartoons, Wegee, Angry German Kid, etc. were not on the list. Could we please add them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.111.16 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they referred to as "YouTube Poop"? I agree that they should be mentioned along with those abridged series. 99.249.100.153 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? No Angry German Kid? No Weegee? THIS! IS! MADNESS!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talkcontribs) 13:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Double rainbow

What about, Double Rainbow Guy (and associated song)? I mean, it HAS over 25,000,000 views, was included as a reference to it in COD7's Nuke Town stage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.98.81 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tons of meme's no longer used, missing tons that are used now still.

How is it that half of these are no longer used, and the ones that still are aren't even listed? Over 9000, for example. Somone needs to make some major edits and additions... 76.109.69.66 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Once a source has historically identified a meme as an internet phenoemna or equivalent, the fact that it was an internet phenomena never goes away, and thus we don't historical memes. But to be on this list, we need a reliable source to make that claim for us. Things like "over 9000", while well known as a meme on the internet, has no reliable source (per WP:RS) to make that claim, and thus not included. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Volvic (Land of Volcanicity -George and Alan)

I'm surprised there's no entry for the remixes made of the Volvic mineral water adverts featuring George the Volcano and Tyrannosaurus Alan. I'd like to see this added but I'll have to check how to add a source to the article before I add it in. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Additions: Strong Bad email, Trogdor, Gonads & Strife, Xzibit

A few missing phenomenon:

Strong Bad email Trogdor - from Strong Bad email. If I recall, Strong Bad invents a "half man, half dragon, half awesome" character Gonads & Strife - Flash video in which a hyperactive squirrel sings about misadventures, also mislabeled the "Whee Song": "If you're a kid and you wanna go, "whee", but you ain't got drugs yet, hold on to your life, hold on to your little... gonads. Gonads and Strife..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.161.201 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

Where will the below go?

  • Status updates
    • I WANT THE OLD FACEBOOK BACK - 2009 to present[1]
    • "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick." - early 2010[2][3]
    • "Facebook privacy settings have changed!" - mid-2010[4]
    • "I like it on [where you place our handbag/purse]" - late 2010[5]
    • "[bra color]" - mid-2010[6]
    • "like my status [if/and] [phrase]" - 2009[7]
    • "Daughter Week"[8]
    • drink status - late 2010[9][10]
  • Notes
    • "25 Things About Me" - early 2009[11]
  • Photos

It apparently shouldn't go here but it also doesn't quite belong at

  • Facebook - precisely where would it go (in this article)?
  • Internet meme - about all meme's not just Facebook ones. Also, if you've better sources than Know Your Meme, edit the sources into the above.

Richardc020 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is popular on Facebook does not mean 1) it is an internet phenomena and 2) that Wikipedia needs to cover it. It would be like trying to document 4chan fads. Some break through and are considered phenomena, most aren't. Of the ones above, none of these - including the two sourced to the WSJ and to Time, suggest widespread internet phenomena. Facebook, yes, but that's just a community meme. Thus , none of these should be included. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thus I asked where should they go not necessarily in this article but on Wikipedia. Richardc020 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I said that: I don't think any of these, Wikipedia needs to cover anywhere. They're fads with no lasting influence, and thus unnecessary anywhere on WP. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
By that logic, delete List of Internet phenomena and Internet meme, both of which are "fads with no lasting influence, and thus unnecessary anywhere on WP". Anyone else? Richardc020 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.3.71.88, 14 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the films section, under the 300 bullet, it says that Spongebob Squarepants parodies the film when Patrick yells into the phone that "THIS IS PATRICK." This is not possible. That episode was created way before the movie came out. The episode "Big Pink Loser" was aired on November 16, 2000. 300 was released in 2007. There is no way that Spongebob was trying to parody a film 7 years before release.

96.3.71.88 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Sounds reasonable. I've removed the uncited content per your challenge and WP:BURDEN. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stride Gum

I think it'd be fair to link to Stride Gum instead of referencing it as "a gum company" in the Dancing Matt point. Mentos is mentioned by brand name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.249.187 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

~I concur. Richardc020 (talk)