Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

9GAG

I've restored 9GAG to the article, I do not believe that "9gag is a cheap, poor man's, third-rate, five-dollar knockoff of Reddit" is a valid reason to remove content. Comments? ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen 9gag credited for any meme creation, unlike sites like 4chan and reddit. Propagate, but not create. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's not particularly notable for influencing/spreading/creating many phenomena listed in the article. In fact, I'd argue that 9gag is similar to Funnyjunk and Ebaum's world in their redistributing of original content, although the other sites do fundamentally the same things as well, but maybe not to that extent.- M0rphzone (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Scarlet Takes a Tumble

Why "Scarlet Takes a Tumble" isn't here?Nikinikolananov (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Because no one has thought to add it. If you can find a reliable source in the news media, it can be added. WTF? (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did look and there are sources, but this, to me, begs a larger question. There are a lot of vids that go viral but otherwise that's it. (For example, this weekend, the Ohio State Univ. Marching Band's performance was a viral hit on YouTube) While they technically could meet the basic necessities for being on this list I'd worry we'd start flooding the video section too much with one-hit, non-memetic-type videos. If we're okay with that, sure. But if we can figure out a way to be a bit more discriminate, that might be better. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Xtranormal text-to-speech

How come there is no mention of the xtranormal.com text-to-speech videos that have become quite popular on the internet? They often spoof everyday life, such as issues with work, school and politics. They are quite popular. Someone should add it on here. NBA2030 (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reliable sources on it. Just because it's popular doesn't mean we include it here, we need evidences of it being a phenomena. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually looked for non-promotional sources and did find several (including a WSJ one) that documented the rise of this as a popular application. I can't see how it is not fair game for this page given the criteria we normally use for it. I agree that the original addition was perhaps promotional in tone, but I rewrote and used different sources to get to the basic details. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you losers win this one. Have fun making an encyclopedia that sucks! WTF? (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is the problem? I can understand if someone from Xtranormal trying to force this in, but that's not apparently evident. And even so, once I looked around, it was clearer that there was a phenomena associated with it (to the point there were television commercials using it) so it certainly has merit. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It is so obviously someone trying to insert a link to their website using wikipedia. Advertising is against our policies. WTF? (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how? Maybe the first push, yes, but when I looked for more sources, I clearly found some, independent of the site that noted it's viral aspect (and I have zero connection to the website). The means to get there may be unorthodox, but completely in line when assuming good faith. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a peak in interest around December 2010, but that's about it. The search volume isn't particularly high. I don't know about this one; it doesn't seem notable enough. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If we considered the briefness of how long something was an Internet phenomena, most of this list would go away. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering multiple television aired viral commercials have utilized XtraNormal including the infamous "Sexy Grandpa" Geico commercial, and considering the sheer number of places that this can be found are astronomical XtraNormal is WORTH including. I can give you no less then 10 academic journal/periodical references to the software, numerous of which relate to its use in internet phenomena. While we are throwing around various reasons for deleting the content including several ad hominem attacks. Lets add WP:NOT yet again and point to the paper section. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Slenderman Article Needed

The mythos of Slenderman (otherwise known as Slender Man) has become an important enough fictional phenomenon to warrant its own Wikipedia article. There is a large amount of material out there at this time, with more being created or added at a quick pace. Besides numerous blogs, there are at least five video series and one film online that are popular and of high quality, as well as many other "lesser" ones. Many of these use multiple formats (such as YouTube, live streams, podcasts, blogs, and images) on multiple websites. Perhaps the most important of the lot is the YouTube video series Marble Hornets, which has over 2.5 million views on several of its episodes.

If you agree and know how to make Slenderman's own article, please do so. I'm sure that there will be plenty of Slenderman-mythos-savvy people to add and improve it. Thanks. --W5WMW (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To write a separate article, we need reliable secondary sources - not blogs, not videos, not podcasts. I'm not saying they don't exist for Slenderman, but you can't make an article based on popularity, it needs to be notable, per WP:N. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources do exist (such as they can for any fictional entity) since we're talking about an entire mythos, not just a flash-in-the-pan viral video. It's not the Cthulhu mythos, but it's pretty important, with at least three feature films. However, don't we need at least a stub article to start adding them? --W5WMW (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be created since it has spawned a whole slew of content based on the tale. And you do know that there is a book that mentioned this phenomena right? I've added one more source to the section. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the slenderman needs to have a page. It is a well known internet meme/ creepy pasta (which was apparently justification for a large number of articles such as lolz cats) and the star of a video game that is notable enough to have an article. In addition, it was the inspiration for the minecraft slenderman. I'd personally be glad to help write this article (or make it myself when I have time) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Slender Man is not CreepyPasta in and of itself and is a segregate but related phenomena and the fact that the current redirect to this page points to a section that actually says nothing about Slender Man at all. I would tend to concur that a separate article is called for, and further that the current redirect is patently useless. I am quite certain given the ubiquity of the Slender Man phenomena sourcing is possible. The alexa ranking here is rather high and google lists at this point nearly 90 Million Entries several of which are secondary and media sources and a search via Ebscohost and Lexis Nexis at my institution returns at least 3 scholarly articles that mention the phrase in passing. I am however not familiar enough with the meme to write the article myself and actually came to wikipedia looking for specific information on it after the umpteenth mention of it by one of my students today. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 01:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rickroll

65 million views... Why not here? 203.129.62.11 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Crtl+F. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull Stratos jump

Should we add the Red Bull Stratos jump? According to YouTube, is was viewed live by over 8 million users, setting a record for the "live stream with the most concurrent views ever on YouTube". - M0rphzone (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not appropriate here. The Stratos jump was a world news event, and not really an Internet phenomenon as such. Its live Internet broadcasts (on YouTube and other sites) do not fit this particular article's opening phrase: "a list of phenomena specific to the Internet..." Maybe if a particular video about the event became viral (not likely), it would be includable here. RCraig09 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube record would be good to include in the Red Bull Stratos article itself, if you have a reliable source. RCraig09 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Already there; I pulled the sentence from the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

✔ Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(Fyi: I wasn't the one who added that into the article, but whatever; doesn't matter). - M0rphzone (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney and "Binders Full of Women"

Hot off the press, same-evening:

1. Washington Post: "Mitt Romney’s ‘binders full of women’"
2. CNN: "TRENDING: 'Binders full of women' raises brows"
3. The Hill: "'Binders full of women' goes viral"

These references mention it as a meme and/or as viral. Maybe a little time is needed to test its longevity, before including it in this article. Add comments below. 06:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCraig09 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 October 2012

potentially a grouped summary of all the various memes from this election campaign (Eastwood's empty chair, Big Bird etc.) but I'm not sure. I think we need to sit and wait. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this type of content is more a byproduct of politics than Internet culture. How about creating an article at List of political memes, instead of letting politics seep into this article? - M0rphzone (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And since we're discussing the binder "meme", what about Big Bird and Sesame Street? Obama and Romney both mentioned them multiple times. I don't particularly like adding political content into an article like this, but if we add these, shouldn't we also add Bill Clinton's "It's arithmetic" phrase? Or would all these go better in catchphrase? (which we need to expand by the way) - M0rphzone (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that there's an article on catchphrases; seems like a topical condensation from Wikiquote. RCraig09 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: I think this type of content would go better under List of political catch phrases. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's great to know about the catchphrases article, but that article seems to be directed to serious and memorable quotes, akin to Wikiquote. Though I agree we should wait a bit here, things like "Binders Full of Women" aren't about the original words themselves (as quotes), but rather about how the words have spread and adapted like a meme does, over the Internet--like a facebook and twitter pages, Patrick Swayze saying "Nobody puts Baby in a Binder," etc. RCraig09 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, so that means no political "memes" right? I'm fine with that. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. My distinction was: the words themselves (a quote or possibly a catch phrase) versus a meme (how the Internet evolves the words). Political memes per se not ruled out. RCraig09 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Broader thorny question: if we were to start excluding memes of one subject area (example: politics) then which other memes should be excluded, and on what principle? RCraig09 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys realize that the term "Internet phenomena" mostly refers to Internet culture right? I really don't think politics should be included into this article, since it has been unrelated to Internet culture since the 1980's, although things could change; but then an article on political catchprases/memes would have a more appropriate title/focus. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And also, what other memes types are there that could possibly be controversial? - M0rphzone (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Political messages can easily become memes. For example, I know (but would have to spend time to source) that Obama's "HOPE" poster has been repurposed alot; the meme is not about the political message but just the unique identity of the poster image. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I think we should not exclude memes based on the particular area (example: politics) that inspired the meme, since memes propagate and evolve like biological organisms and species. Romney's "binders" and Obama's "Hope" are two examples. RCraig09 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather think of them as "viruses" (hence the term viral, remember?), since they evolve and propagate so rapidly, but are not living. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ermahgerd!"

When's this going to be added? It qualifies. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that assert it as an internet phenomena? I've searched just now and found nothing obvious. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Why is this week's LOL caption supposedly notable? (See http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/e/f/What-Is-Ermahgerd-What-Does-Ermagherd-Mean.htm for what this crap even means; it's actually funny if that pic is still there). We don't need a whole new article for every LOLcat sub-meme. I don't see a whole article about "Y U no..."/"Why you no..."-type LOL pics, for example, despite there being literally tens of thousands of them at this point. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS: Just because you made up something funny enough to be repeated on a few websites by your friends, or even show up for 2 days as a Facebook meme (i.e. your friends-of-friends, wank-wank-wank), does not mean you get an encyclopedia article here. See WP:GNG. "Ermagherd", and frankly about 60% of the listings already in this article, are emphemeral crap that does does not need coverage here. Giving coverage to any of this Internet spooge simply encourages dwids to invent more of it for the express purpose of getting it listed in Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2012

184.79.239.153 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to specify what edit you would like done. Kyle1278 03:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to pare this down

This page is getting out of hand again. Innumerable entries are either unsourced or (worse yet) consist of later interpolations inserted into sourced material such that it looks like the unsourced additions are sourced by the citations already present, when they really are not. Original research is like a flood on this page. Some of the entries, like "Creepypasta" are basically just wanky gibberish. Seriously, about 60% of this page should simply be deleted. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is required for inclusion, and I see only entry presently unsourced (Badger Badger Badger, but as that has an article, I'm sure we can pull a source from there). This is not speaking to the quality of the sources, but I know since I've been watching the page, I do vet the additions for appropriate sourcing. The Creepypasta thing is a case where it's hard not to deny inclusion but we also have editors that want to make it more than it is, and that's probably an exception than the rest here.

Now, there is a legit length concern and if that is a problem, we can easily make the split by taking the Videos and some of the music sections into "List of viral videos" (or some similar name), since that's about 1/3rd of this page. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the inclusion of x or y at all, but the wanky commentary on why x is allegedly important, or what y really supposedly means. This article largely reads like it was written by twelve-year-olds. The sourcing problem is more about the importance and interpretations and differentiation and "specialness" and "real" meanings asserted by successive waves of fandom editing, than about whether simple mention of a particular meme is sourceable at all. It's all the add-on cruft that is not actually supported by the sources. I repeat that about 60% of this article is immediately deletable per WP:V, because it either is not sourced at all, or it is not actually in the sources that the citations claim, because later editors have inserted assertions into passages that were sourced, originally, for very specific, narrowly defined facts. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would easily agree that there are likely a handful of the entries on this that do stretch the intent of the sourcing (before I was watching the page), and I would also be willing to make the sourcing requirement a bit harsh, requiring that at least one significantly reliable source being an article that is primarily devoted to said meme/phenomena (several have this, so it is not a stretch to expect this). But I would also argue that as this is a list, we should be explaining why - briefly - what each entry is and why it is on the list. However, I think 60% is a far aggressive number, because most of these entries are, by common sense, Internet phenomena. There's plenty more we could add but we need to be really selective here and hence why I'd not see a problem with requiring at least one source fully dedicated to the topic as mandatory for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the creepypasta entry, I've re-added the Slenderman meme as its own entry separate from the creepypasta meme. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

McGeddon, your rewrite of the lead and your comment, "cut apparently meaningless "Search engines may also amplify the propagation of these phenomena" is unhelpful. Search engine propagation is essential in the spread of memes through the Internet. (And if you apply your logic on the example list, then the whole lead paragraph should be deleted as it is unsourced). The sentence, "Search engines may also amplify the propagation of these phenomena," is not a topic of the article, but rather an example for the list describing how these phenomena are spread. It is definitely a notable aspect of the spread of Internet phenomena. I can guarantee you that if search engines didn't exist, all of you would have never discovered more than half of what these memes are. I've also found a ref for citing this whole paragraph (someone can check for more info on Google Books), so I've added any info that was not addressed due to OR reasons. The lead paragraph needs to be paraphrased and copy edited to remove off-topic info, since I tried to add all content related to the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment in full was "cut apparently meaningless "Search engines may also amplify the propagation of these phenomena." which is not addressed in the article". The source you use there seems to be about "memes" in the more general sense of "information", rather than the "internet phenomenon" that the article is about. Given that you've copy-and-pasted the content word-for-word from your source, I've removed it for now, but it'd be good to see a source that talks specifically about the LOLcat type of internet meme and what part (if any) search engines play in their spread, rather than the "use of the atomic bomb during World War II" examples given by your given source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentences to prevent copyvio issues, and it still needs copy editing, but what the sentence says is mostly true. I don't know anyone who hasn't used Google, YouTube search, Wikipedia's search function, or another search engine to find what he/she is looking for even when the person doesn't have the full, exact title of a song, video, or meme, etc. For the ref, it seems to be an old publication from the late 1990s or early 2000s, and like you said, it refers to memes and how they spread via the Internet, but Internet memes and "memes spread through the Internet" aren't much different. These two types are both memes, hence the usage of the term in Internet meme? Whether or not they should be grouped into a single category is s discussion for another time, but Internet memes are still memes, and can be described by general descriptions of a meme. For your comment about the atom bomb example - that's not even related to your removal of the content; that example given in the source refers to "regular" memes, but it doesn't matter because that part isn't mentioned nor used in this article. If you know what to add to the article to improve it, then add it in. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the lolcat-style "Internet meme" is a subset of "meme which is spread on the internet", which is a subset of "written meme", which is a subset of "meme". If a source is discussing a broader category of meme, we should be careful that it's not redundant or misleading to apply it to the more specific ones. The atom bomb documentation is the only example given by your 1990s source, which suggests that the source is talking about memes-as-information rather than memes-as-funny-cat-pictures. --McGeddon (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably try to cut the lede back to avoid duplication of content with the main internet meme article, per WP:LISTS. The second paragraph of the latter article is already unnecessarily duplicated in full here, and there isn't any need to go much further than simply defining the scope of the list. --McGeddon (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Planking, stealth disco, yo dawg meme

Should planking be an entry in this list? It was spread/popularized through social media, so it's some sort of Internet phenomenon. This source used "Internet phenomenon" to describe planking, yet I don't think any other sites have. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I was searching through the archives and there's a section from March 2010 on stealth disco and the "Yo dawg" meme.

So adding on to this section, should stealth disco also have an entry on this list? And while planking is a sort of fad, stealth disco seems to be more of a funny joke/prank similar to ghosting (following behind someone as close as possible until the person notices). Here's a mention on the Guardian and a Gawker post on stealth disco. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Yo dawg" meme may have enough RSs to be listed. Here's a post on Opera browser portal, and here are some entries on Mashable, and TheNextWeb. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Polandball

Information about Polandball should appear in this article (and in general, in english Wikipedia). Polandball, also known as countryball, is a user-generated internet meme that follow the lives of ball-shaped creatures representing different countries and poking fun at national stereotypes and international relations. I've tried to add this information in english Wikipedia, but I find that the information I put is deleted. Does anyone know why? If anyone has an answer, please post it in my talk page. I don't wanna think that "Polandball cannot into english Wikipedia". Greetings from Colombia. --Babelia (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why it isn't on this list is because there are no good reliable sources, and it is somewhat trivial compared to memes such as the rage comics. If you can find more than one reliable source, then feel free to add the entry in. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why locked?

Why is this locked, my dinners? 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.119.45 (talk)

I'm guessing that it is locked due to non-registered and unconfirmed users adding memes that they consider notable, but didn't provide a reliable source, or the meme is not notable on Wikipedia altogether. ZappaOMati 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ill take a potato chip...and eat it

shouldn't the "ill take a potato chip...and eat it" meme be on this list.Shinigani (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs reliable sourcing for this beyond the fact it exists. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Harlem shake

Anyone want to add the Harlem shake? Sources taken from the AfD and article: CBS News, NY Magazine, LA Times, ABC News, Huffington Post, Yahoo! Sports, Daily Mail, Metro. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Added. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Creepypastas get thier own page?

i've started the works of researching cite-able info on the popular meme creepypastas.(none posted to my sub pages or sandboxes yet) however AFTER reading this page and your sound arguments id like to request your OPINIONS on starting a new page for creepy pastas. it would however and foremost adhere to wiki-pedia rules/regulations. if someone has already begun this project, (i did SOME searching to be sure someone else wasnt working on it but havent found it)id like to assist anyway possible. wiki suggested i should ask here in a related talk section FIRST.Zriddle (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You basically need to show that CP has been significantly coverage in secondary sources, per our notability guidelines before you can create an article. CP's been mentioned in articles as to make it includable in here, but I don't think what we have source-wise at the present is enough for a separate article. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Creepypasta has a huge amount of growing material, and I expect there to be an article eventually. I encourage you to create it if you can find the appropriate secondary sources.J1812 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rule 34

Rule 34 should have it's own page, even the website rule34.paheal.net has hundreds of thousands of users, how could it not be notable enough?Enkidu6 (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The rule has no reliable sources to establish notability to warrant its own page. Just because a meme (or rule) is popular doesn't mean it's notable here. ZappaOMati 04:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

This is most definitely NOT an "internet phenomena" and does not belong on this list. The game began WELL BEFORE the age of the internet, and has no origins in any online discussion forums, talk boards, or anything else. It clearly DOES NOT belong here and should not be included here. WTF? (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

While I know that the game *just* predated the internet, the sources given show that the game became more popular in the early days of internet growth, with the development of sites like IMDB, and has since expanded due to the Internet, ergo making it an Internet phenomena, even if its roots were not in that. (Frankly, most of the memes here aren't due to the fact they were born on the Internet, but ideas that the Internet took to heart and expanded on). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite what many so-called "sources" may indicate, the game started sometime in the 80s, well before the Internet made it popular. Wikipedia is WRONG and must be corrected. WTF? (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in how we define what goes on this page that requires the idea to be "born" on the Internet, only that it spreads meme-like on the Internet at some point even if it is a resurgence in popularity from an earlier period. I don't disagree that the game was in the 80s , pre-Internet, but the idea resurged after the Internet found a better place for it. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to put this back, as it unquestionably belongs here. The burden of proof belongs to WTF? to prove how it makes the article objectively worse. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon it is quite clear that newsgroups (Internet pre world wide web) played a major role in the popularity of the Kevin Bacon variant of the game. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Elitist article

This article is obviously elitist, as it lists mostly Internet pehnomena that have appeared since 2005-2005, mostly after 2007. What about pre-2004 Internet phenomena? Sure back thern there was no YouTube, but there were a lot of memes and memorable people. I'm fed up with people behaving like the early 00's didn't exist. 79.100.21.16 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There's pre-2004 stuff on here. The problem is that memes from then weren't widely reported as much as viral ones today are, and ergo there is a reporting bias. But that said, there are certainly pre-2004 memes that continue today on this list. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I also think some recent Internet phenomena are not notable enough to be in the list. I mean the short-lived ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.21.16 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This list isn't limited to long-lived ones. (The only distinction between short- and long-lived ones is the likelihood of having a standalone article to detail the long-lived ones). Our only requirement is good documentation about the meme being big on the Internet from a highly reliable source or two. So there are possibly some memes that had popularity for a week on this but because they got coverage in that week, they stuck. Again, pre-2004, without social media and widespread fascination with the internet, the press didn't really cover all that much. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

One Pound Fish

Like the one above me, I believe somebody should add "One Pound Fish" to this article. It had 2 million views in 24 hours.BoredomJS (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We need sources that identify this as a meme or phenomena. While a # of views over a short period of time is evidence towards that, we can't make that claim and need sources to say that. (The fact the article you include doesn't make any such reference concerns me that this is not considered an internet phenomena). --MASEM (t) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Here ,and here. BoredomJS (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article is more than sufficient now. I'll add in a moment. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Creepypasta?

If the viewer watches those scary Internet phenomena, what does it do the viewer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.237.209 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image additions

Have seen many memes of Willy Wonka or "Condescending Wonka" mostly echoing a question followed by a sarcastic response. It's been going a couple of years I believe, and still going strong. Also, for longer it seems, I've seen Fry from Futurama (thinking hard, eyes squinted) in the same vein. Never seen "Cigar Guy" and a few of the others, however, not saying they shouldn't be there! It's just I've not spotted them on social media yet. Seen a few others which, upon research also seem widely popular, such as, "Overly Attached Girlfriend", "Bad Luck Brian", "Good Guy Greg". They all have a mostly adhered-to character which is reflected in the text. All these, like many on your list have the same mostly white block lettering on a wide range of subjects for one picture. I'm sure at least a couple of these are worth considering. Thanks, Martin, UK (not signed up yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.234.91 (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of these image macros ones really are popular on the Internet but don't have sourcing to support their addition (I just checked on the general class of "advice animals" and there's nothing really usable. We need sourcing from reliable sources to identify these images as Internet phenomena. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for having a look- very quick reply, didn't get time to add to my edit! Was just going to add, "I'm sure at least a couple of these are worth considering, if they reach the criteria as the ones in the article. To me these do, they seem "viral" in the same league as the others." Just thought by doing a search of these characters, with thousands of results (in images), along with a popular social media page, it would be enough to get in. Guess that's not reliable sources, though struggling to get how a reliable source would surface easily with this type of thing. Do you mean it has to have been mentioned in a more official media context with a link, e.g. newspaper or TV, or something with official statistics on the image macro? Thanks again, Martin, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.234.91 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're looking for source in major newspapers or magazines or the like. We can't use sites like Know Your Meme due to their user-contributed aspect. I'm not saying that the ones you suggest aren't sourcable but my first look shows not much initial promise. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense as have seen the memes at user level, along with people sending in questionable pics of who they think the actual person is (with the exception of Gene Wilder). Speaking of which, for "Condescending Wonka" have found this from a writer for The Guardian newspaper in the UK here. Though I understand this is in his blog section, and he's being creative with it, rather than actually reporting on it, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.234.91 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2013

Shouldn't this one have a {{pp-protected|small=yes}} at the top? 81.232.114.228 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done ZappaOMati 19:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 2 on 15 June 2013

From the entry on xkcd:

such as using Wikipedia's^{[[:Template:Citation_needed|<nowiki>[citation needed]</nowiki>]]} tag on real world signs

Since we're talking about the citation needed tag, not how it's rendered, I don't see the superscript as neccessary; it makes it slightly harder to read. Additionally, I want it to lead to Citation needed, not Template:Citation needed (no need to show template documentation to anyone wondering what citation needed is), and I'd prefer the [] unlinked since that's what the official template looks like. The resulting proposal is [citation needed].

such as using Wikipedia's &#x5B;[[citation needed]]&#x5D; tag on real world signs

(Yes, I know this is two requests in twenty minutes; they're for two separate things, there's no valid reason to combine them.)
-81.232.114.228 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything you said there makes perfect sense, so Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 04:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2013

A few changes should be made to the description of Heavy Rain, in the "Gaming" subsection: "A 2010 game developed by French game company, Quantic Dream. The game's second level has turned into a meme because of the protagonist, Ethan Mars, losing his son Jason in the middle of a busy mall. The game allows you one choice, which is to press X for Ethan to shout "JASON!" in an attempt to find him. This later returns in a level in the middle of a train station. The game is also famous for Ethan shouting the name of his second son, Shaun, after losing him in a park." 100.40.53.165 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done plus some further copyediting to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, I saw that this entry was sourced only to KYM, which, per our requirements for this page, is nowhere near sufficient. I'm fully aware of this meme within the video game community and have actually written to it elsewhere, but not of the sources elevate it to the level of "Internet phenomena" which is required for inclusion here. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2013

Add Category:Internet-related lists. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of this should be removed,

In fact, all of it should be deleted. This page violates sources it's not even funny. I support deleting this page. --209.188.51.223 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how? All the entries are sourced to describe them as Internet phenomena. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonka memes (etc.)

They may not have been cited by the 'reliable' media, but they are so heavily present across the net they surely deserve a mention? The ordinary people of the world have given them the wide presence they have, so why shouldn't they be mentioned on the page of the people's online encyclopedia? It seems silly to require a little number in square brackets to link it to something official, when some of the ones in the article are less well-known (in my circle at least). Wonka, Picard, Sean Bean "one does not" and many others seem to have a lot more results on an image search (internet phenomena proof?!)

A bit more flexibility, or at least the ability to acknowledge these in a seperate section if necessary would be a great idea. Martin, UK (my circle!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.101.204 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, period. There are so many possible means that I know are widespread but not sourced, but we can't allow them on our word because that would be the slippery slope for any "meme" someone feels is notable. Most of these, like the Wonka memes, are really limited to the 4chan-like corners of the Internet and don't reach widespread use by the more casual Internet user and thus why they never get sourced. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Fair enough, I understand, and guess it would open a large can of worms. Realise Facebook isn't a 'source' where I see them posted all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.131.226 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Guile's theme goes with everything

Hi, in music topic there isn't Guile's theme and the fact that it goes with everything. It's all known as an Internet phenomena and I think you can include it. Thank you

--Tar Des 61hb (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2013

Hi. Please change

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon – A trivia/parlor game based around linking an actor to Kevin Bacon through a chain of co-starring actors in films, television, and other productions, with the hypothesis that no actor was more than six connections away from Bacon, similar to the theory of six degrees of separation or the Erdős number in the scholarly field of mathematics. The game was created in 1994, just at the start of the wider spread of Internet use, populated further with the creation of movie database sites like IMDb, and since has become a board game and created a new branch of science.[91][92][93]

by removing the I think ludicrous claim that this game created a new branch of science. I read the article (a BBC news piece) that is linked to, which doesn't support the claim. Also "scholarly" is unnecessary.

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon – A trivia/parlor game based around linking an actor to Kevin Bacon through a chain of co-starring actors in films, television, and other productions, with the hypothesis that no actor was more than six connections away from Bacon, similar to the theory of six degrees of separation or the Erdős number in the field of mathematics. The game was created in 1994, just at the start of the wider spread of Internet use, populated further with the creation of movie database sites like IMDb, and since has become a board game.[91][92]

Thanks :-) Adam Ponting 58.109.82.249 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article is titled "How Kevin Bacon sparked a new branch of science", [1], so the claim is not wholly wrong. But it probably isn't that it was created by it (since Erdos predated that) but it did show applicability of it. I'll fix it up but removing the claim outright is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Shoes" (Kelly's Song)

Wouldn't Liam Kyle Sullivan's "Shoes" videos rate under the "Videos" section of this page? They were hugely popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.14.187.162 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I know the video was popular, but I'm having a difficult time by our "strict" rules that it would appear here (not a lot of news sources to affirm it an internet phenomena), though we know that it won a People's Choice award, so it definitely had some popularity. Some of the sources that might have info are behind paywalls so I can't really affirm. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Fox by Ylvis?

Surely, after 100 million views, this is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.50.192 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Check under Music, it's already there. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"But Can It Run Crysis"

I'm well aware of this phrase's existence, but the problem is that the sources being used to include it only reitereate the phrase and do not discuss the phrase as an "internet phenomena" (in the stricter manner we require for this list to provide every tiny meme from being listed). I've looked for sources and the only ones are those that jokingly use the phrase to talk about a game's system requirements. It is for all purposely equivalent to inside video game jokes like Time to Crate, and we need much better documentation to include it. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia trying to imitate KYM?

You should honestly put this in the FAQ. I find it highly disconcerting this list page almost seems to try too hard at finding every single meme out there and proving it's notable and/or verifiable or whatever, and there's less checks on this page when there should be more, and also emphasis on more concise and higher quality of encyclopedic content than the stuff allowed at KYM. The indiscriminate collection of memes into a single database is already done by a website the popularity of which is rapidly increasing almost to Wikipedia's level, so unless its encyclopedic why would we even try imitating them? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We do require a higher threshold than KYM; the meme has to be shown significance by a mainstream press, while KYM can run based on forums and social media posts which we cannot. So no, we're not trying to emulate them, and they aren't trying to emulate us. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Gary

As of now, the only stuff I'm finding for him ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ is on places like KYM and DeviantArt (and the obligatory forum posts), but we might want to keep our eyes out for this guy. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Split videos out to "List of Viral Videos" with same inclusion requirements

Considering this length is getting long, I'd like to suggest the possibility of splitting out the Video sections to a List of viral videos. Importantly, this list would have a similar requirement, where the video must be considered "viral" by high-level reliable sources; eg if it wouldn't be included here now, it wouldn't be included there. This importantly means videos with a large number of views are not automatically viral, simply that they are popular. (as the Viral video explains, lots of views over a short time is more what makes a video viral) This might also have a view of the videos under "music" brought into that list if the music is only famous for the video aspect (eg I would bring OK Go over with that, since it's not the music, moreso their interesting videos).

Any opinions on this? --MASEM (t) 23:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that we should split this page up into a new article for each section, but I'm not sure how we'd handle the smaller ones or what we'd do with this one. Turn it into a category page maybe? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Pepsi MAX & Jeff Gordon Present: Test Drive

Considering I've seen quite a lot of reliable sources, along with its 41 million views (13M for its sequel), does Pepsi MAX & Jeff Gordon Present: Test Drive seem worthy enough for inclusion? NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 21:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Watching for "Hail Hydra" as meme

There's enough sourcing at levels just below the high-levels we expect, not enough for me to confidently include it, but this is one to watch for. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014

put herobrine there, in gaming, talk about him 50.131.1.129 (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick check on sourcing shows the character limited to fan coverage, and not covered at all by major sources. Not added. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

To add Australian Comedy User FriendlyJordies for insight on Australian Bogan culture/humor Scondralitus (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Luigi Death Stare

since the release of Mario Kart 8, a new gaming meme has added called "Luigi Death Stare" was featured in many videos on the internet, how is not added yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.176.199 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We need high-quality reliable sources reporting on it. It's only been a week so it's hard to tell if it has reasonably lasting power. I am watching for sources, but I don't see it yet. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I found some sources surrounding it from Independent and Kotaku, the latter also being considered a reliable source by WP:VG/S. Zappa24Mati 02:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not use a video game source to support a video game meme, but the Independent one is good enough. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Watching for Dashcon/ballpit

As it's only been a few days, I'm holding off on this but watching for any sources that show the popularity of the fallout of the Dashcon event. It has potential if it has sticking power. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for opinions on splitting out "Viral videos"

To help manage size here, I would like to entertain the idea of splitting videos (many but not all of what is listed in the current Music and Video sections), requiring the same type of coverage we'd expect for inclusion here, and ideally specifically aiming for those that are called "viral" or equivalent. These should be single videos so some of what is in Music and Videos, though we'd need to have something for like OK Go videos (they are viral , but not singular). There will still be some Music and Video things that don't get moved over (eg YouTubePoop or Literal Music Videos). And of course, there would be linkage at the top of each section to help guide ppl to this second article. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Would SCP Foundation be considered relevant enough?

I'm having a bit of a hard time finding multiple independent sources (currently found reports by The Daily Dot and KnowYourMeme, but those may not be considered reliable enough), but there seems to be a very active community, considering the amount of fan material that pops up whenever one googles "scp-[number of popular object]". I know that notability is not inherited, but given the fact that the Containment Breach game got a page of its own here, I think that this may have gotten coverage. 201.190.31.192 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014

I am requesting to edit this page, and wish to add a bullet/topic to the Animation and Comics section. I want to add Polandball/Countryball as a bullet. The Polandball meme has gained much traction in Reddit (over 100,000 usersubs) and other places among the internet (including a YouTube channel dedicated to animating Polandball Comics), and it seems odd that Polandball has not been added to this page of significant Internet phenomena. Also, an image to accompany the subject would be nice as well.

The text I wish to add: Polandball is a cartoon character drawn in the shape of a ball with the color schemes of the Polish flag (white & red). It was originally featured in the multi-pane comic series that became popular in /INT/ (international) board on Krautchan, a German-language imageboard community similar to 4chan. These user-generated cartoons typically follow the lives of ball-shaped creatures representing different countries (also known as Countryballs) and “international drama” surrounding their diplomatic relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceorangeX5 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Thank You. SpaceorangeX5 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We need a third-party, very reliable source that establishes it as an internet meme (not Reddit/KnowYourMeme); we do not have such yet. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Polandball has been discussed many times in the past, but I have no inclination to go through the archives right now. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Fuck her right in the pussy

Insufficient reliable source coverage to justify an independent article. - MrX 19:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge Arguably fails the inclusion guideline for this list too (we need at least one non-"KYM"-like source that affirms it is a meme or the like, that isn't here. Deletion may be most appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Have added such a source from The Guardian Bogger (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about this, that's really not strong enough for this page (just says a meme and then points back to a gawker site, not really strong enough for us). --MASEM (t) 22:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Merge or delete (via AfD), seems to be very "one-event". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on subsequent comments by other editors, I'm willing to reconsider my own comment. In particular, I note that more sourcing is being added, while at the same time noting that the sourcing may not be quite enough to really establish the meme's importance. Consequently, although I'm not yet persuaded to actually endorse keeping things as they are now, I would be fine with waiting a while without a merge, and then, after some time has passed and we can better evaluate the available sourcing, make a more informed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • At this time, I'm not really seeing that many new sources of sufficient reliability, however. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep By the nature of the phenomenon, mainstream sources will be resistant to document the meme, but there are a few sources showing it's notability Bogger (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep (as-is, do not merge) I have added sourcing from NY Mag, and the Daily Dot. There are plenty more sources out there, including Sports Illustrated and the Gawker articles. Masem's argument at first states

  we need at least one non-"KYM"-like source that affirms it is a meme or the like, that isn't here.

  but then after the Guardian piece is added affirming this as an Internet meme, Masem states the source is "not strong enough" despite conceding that the article "just says a meme" [sic]. There are other sources available, including Sports Illustrated, if more sourcing is needed, but recent events have expanded coverage of this Internet meme, and it is unlikely to stay deleted or merged at a deletion review. Eddymason (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I have clarified my position. Eddymason (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We are generally looking for more than "it's a meme" from these articles, actually documenting the viewership #s or the like for it. Both the two "good" sources have have been added, Guardian and SI, point back to the claim of the meme-ness to KYM and Gawker, both which are "internet news" sites, and would not qualify for inclusion. Note that I'm not opposing because of the vulgarity of the statement, but simply due to lack of strong evidence of this being an internet phenomena compared to the other things we have here. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that this discussion is conflating three separate issues: should the standalone page be merged into this page?, should the standalone page be deleted? (cannot be decided here), and should this page cover the topic at all? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If this page cannot include the topic, then the "merge" of the original article doesn't make sense, and then it becomes a question elsewhere if the topic is notable for its own article (that itself a separate discussion). The "merge" discussion and the inclusion discussion are necessarily connected; deletion is a separate issue. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It is unclear to me whether the editors arguing for "keep" are making such distinctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Gotcha; this should focus on "merge" or "not merge" , deletion (keep/delete) as a separate discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please add Fuck her right in the pussy in the list of memes. Since the article had some list of famous memes. - Fowl_vet

• Oppose merge. This is a list article, not a dumping ground for content for other articles deleted as non-notable. The point is to cover representative, significant examples of memes, not to list everything that happens on the net. If that article is kept we can consider a wikilink and short description, per the formatting of this article, if it is helpful to the reader in getting a comprehensive understanding of the subject (which is a little dubious, because this one just looks like youthful exuberance, nothing particularly special) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck her right in the pussy. — Cirt (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian sleep experiemnt

redirects here so where is the information?--Juandev (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

00:13, 1 December 2014 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page The Russian Sleep Experiment (No information on the target page.) Eddymason (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Permission to edit

Please add this

MLG culture/Parody montages - Parody montages are fake frag/gaming montages that parody Major League Gaming culture (Mountain Dew, Doritos, Call of Duty, etc.) as well as gaming sniper clans (FaZe Clan, OpTic Clan, etc.) Popular parody montage artists include AncientReality, Senpai Kush, Snipars, and more.

to "Gaming"

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

The Wealdstone Raider - Viral video of a drunk English football fan gained widespread notoriety in 2014 for it's memorable quotes, including "You want some? I'll give it to ya". It has been the subject of hundreds of popular parody videos.

Andy Tate - Another UK football fan, Andy Tate, had been the subject of a lot of parody videos also for his passionate comments regarding Manchester United's poor 2013/14 season win an interview for an online fan channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.184.65 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New section for people?

There seems to be a lot of entries about people, especially in the "Videos" section. Would it be a good idea to create a new section for them, or should we leave them as is? Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 20:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Never say no to Panda

Have you got "Never say no to Panda"? I'm sure that is a famous phenomenon. 115.188.176.132 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Azeem's flute recital

Should this be added to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.0.24 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[2] Looks like we can. Will try to add later. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pepe

Pepe on imgur at a/U2dTR.--97.80.250.167 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. There could also be an article for it I guess. Also I think the list is of ridicolously poor quality: it seems like people really want to just include the worst-quality, most-unknown and most-marketed memes...for example it doesn't even feature the "I know that feel"-guy or Spurdo Spärde. If you add some info to the list I'll try to help you out. --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We are including only memes that are discussed in high mainstream sources avoiding only those that cover internet culture in detail. Know Your Meme is explicitly disallowed for this purpose (in addition to being an SPS). Unfortunately, what that means is that the memes that bubble up are generally the ones most readily understood by the general population, and the more long-standing memes that come from inside jokes are lost. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well as I said. This list is ridicolously bad and focuses on manufactured memes that are made for profit, not those actually popular and widely in use. It's not just "inside jokes" that appear to be left out but some of the best-known ones. I see your point if you prevented whole articles being dedicated to them. But here's a list that should focus on its title-topic.

Just take a look at it: "LowerMyBills.com – Banner ads from this mortgage company feature endless loops of cowboys, women, aliens, and office workers dancing" - nobody on the Internet ever heard of that. It's called advertising not "Internet phenomena". Also as a sidenote: Internet phenomena (again: the title-topic; it's over-present in the younger generation's lives for a single article to feature all of it to begin with) inherently are to some degree "emergent" from Internet communities/culture and usually don't "get established" (including whatever form of "notability" this may implicate) by brands or alike. --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Internet phenomena is not just memes. LowerMyBills is on there becuase it was one of the first cases of a business using stupid-silly dancing animations to catch your eye and proved successful per the reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)