Talk:O RLY?/Archive 1

message: I'm just popping in to say that this is a perfectly valid page, although it may be worthwhile to condense it and merge it into a general page on internet memes if it's going to stir up all this.
67.86.38.91 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: According to the first linked site on this article (link goes to the subentry as its a blog) the O RLY? owl died on Oct 2005.  The entry at that same site though points back to the WP article where there is no mention of this. Does anyone have confirmation or refutation of the winged beast's condition? Flawiki 04:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably referring to the "death" of the article, when it was protected blank. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Too bad it's not about hepfulness, it's about notability.  I wouldn't know how O RLY? really fits into "notableness," but I've seen plenty of articles get AFD and deleted because they didn't score up enough Google hits or were determined to be fancruft. Hbdragon88 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cute O RLY owl died in Oct 05? 

message: Interesting and relevant - ergo no need for it to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.62.107.64 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 December 2005  (UTC)
* The YTMND statistics site shows only around 2000 views. A search on YTMND shows that there are over a half-dozen O RLY pages with more views. This is not notable within the context of the article.  Please post a signature when discussing this on the talk page. --DJH47 06:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody link 

message: I have not seen any other animated GIFs on Wikipedia... is it really necessary? FCYTravis 03:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, noticed the addition of the GIF. Seems rather unecessary since no part of the article refers to it. I'd say take it off. Tom Foolery 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe just have sitll images instead of the animation. The "ya rly", at least, should stay.69.114.7.161 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated GIF

message: why is this tagged for deletion?  i had no idea what this meant, i came to wikipedia and looked it up and BAM there it was.  wikipedia is useful once again.  
DON'T DELETE!!
-sparsefarce 19 dec 2005
I had the exact same experience. - CTerry 21st Dec 2005
don't delete internet memes are importent -Alexthegreater 19 dec 2005
Agreed, I think this article should remain on Wikipedia. SSJTOM 22:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please don't delete 

message: Moved this:
*Danish - NÅH VRKLG? JA VRKLG! (Nåh, virkelig? Ja, virkelig!)
*Dutch - O EGT? JA EGT! (Oh, echt? Ja, echt!)
*English - O RLY? YA RLY! (Oh really? Yeah, really!)
*Finnish - IHA TOS? KYL TOS! (Ihanko totta? Kyllä totta!)
*French - O VRMNT? OUI VRMNT! (Oh vraiment? Oui, vraiment!)
*German - O WRKLK? JA WRKLK! (Oh wirklich? Ja, wirklich!)
*Italian - O DAVVRO? SÌ DAVVRO! (Oh, davvero? Sì, davvero!)
*Spanish - ¿O RLMNT? ¡SÍ RLMNT! (¿Oh realmente? ¡Sí, realmente!) or N SRIO? N SRIO! (¿En serio? ¡En serio!)
*Japanese - SOU DESUKA? (そうですか？）
This is neat section, but it's nonsense. O RLY does not export to other languages this way. None of these things Google. Don't invent things for Wikipedia. JRM · Talk 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? :-) I'd think that goes without saying. Of course the phrase "oh really" translates, and I have no doubt the translations are in fact correct. But "oh really" is not O RLY. This has its own page for a reason. JRM · Talk 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only foreign O RLY? owls I've seen are O Vraiment? (French) and ¿O Rlmente? (Spanish). I've never seen any others. --Evice 06:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O RLY in other languages 

message: I personally have never seen that ASCII substitute anywhere before, I've seen another substitute posted in several forums, though, and wondering if it was notable. So as not to flood the page, I'll link to an old post I remember at a forum:
http://forums.kingdomofloathing.com/viewtopic.php?p=1309087#1309087 --71.139.53.83 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O RLY ASCII

message: I added a direct link to the .gif compilation of the original owls. --Shell 18:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone dig up the direct link back into the article. It really sums up the humour of the series of image macros. FlameHead 07:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O Rly? Compilation 

message: Does anyone have a link/reference for the death of the supposed owl at the San Diego Zoo? Shogun 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owls Death 

message: In the first section:
"On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, the owl (named Jonathan) died at the San Diego Zoo from sudden onset of pneumonia. He was 17 years old."
In the next section:
"Almost inevitably, the identity of the O Rly owl is not known."
The owls' death report originated from a joke.  Still funny though.
- View http://i1.tinypic.com/nl63dl.jpg - I have modified the article to suit. Do not revert. Matgraham 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response to this here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One could say that rumours of the O RLY? owl's death are greatly exaggerated. *wink* PeterBrett 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I assume it is being done by the orlyowls.com admin. I'll keep re-adding orlyowl.com (the original site - orlyowls being a spin-off) should it be deleted, and log the vandals. James Kendall 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Within 2 minutes of my edit, user User:66.36.132.32 edited the orlyowl.com to orlyowls.com. James Kendall 23:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User with a similar IP - User:68.228.174.223 moved orlyowl.com down to second place. Can we assume that this is indeed the orlyowls.com admin?  James  Kendall  [talk] 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of orlyowl.com from External links

message: What the hell?  I freaking contacted the San Diego Zoo to confirm or deny the recent report of his death, and my addition was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.247.69 (talk • contribs) 
:Wikipedia is not a primary source. Information must be documented in reliable sources elsewhere before it can be put on Wikipedia, and then the source must be cited. Also, please be civil. --Malthusian (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to that post on SuicideGirls, it's clearly a fake.  What AP article refers to internet sites like SA, OT and Fark as if everyone in the world would know about them? Rory096 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screw Whoever Deleted My Addition

message: YA RLY is surely notable, and is known.  James  Kendall  [talk] 22:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added 'ya rly' to replace the chair and plane earlier 

message: This article is filled with original research and unsourced claims.  I have asked for citations twice, and the requests have been reverted.  Why should I believe most of this article is true?  --Hamiltonian 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say give it a few days. If claims cannot be cited, delete them.  James  Kendall  [talk] 13:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an internet meme, what kind of citation do you want? --Rory096 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything to do with the SA origin of the phrase and ths start of the photoshopping is available only to people who've registered for the SA forums archives, which costs around $20-30 depending on what parts you register for. It's not possible to link directly to the information in a way that unregistered users can view, which is why I linked to the oldest publicly viewable thread with the phrase (a good 3+ months after the phrase first started being used). Just because the public can't view evidence of origin deosn't mean that origin is uncitable -- I mentioned archives access in the paragraph and that should be citation enough. If you check the SAclopedia on the SA forums (registration required I believe, but archives access NOT required) you can see the users discussing "o rly" from 2004 onwards (mentioning a Bill O'Reilly image macro of the phrase in 2004) and expressing amaze and/or disdain at the popularity of the owl and how much of a dead horse it is (more or less). I can't provide citation for 4Chan generated content (such as the owl itself) because I don't post of 4Chan. Again, if someone were to cite a book as a primary source they would not be required to link to a complete text of the book as citation. Citing a non-free internet forum should be acceptable even if payment is required to view the primary evidence contained in that forum. Some winamp 11:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have gone ahead and removed the citation tags on the SA content section and added a link to the SAclopedia entry in which SA users explain, at the time, the popularity of "o rly?" image macros in 2004 and the resurgence of "o rly?" popularity in 2005 even after it had died out on SA. Most Wikipedia users will be unable to view the content of the linked SAclopedia entry because it requires an SA forum account, but since you requested citation, there it is. I would consider the large shared user base and general trickle of memes from SA to 4Chan common knowledge and not worthy of citation on this page -- I believe the relevant information is available on the 4Chan and/or SA pages anyway. Some winamp 11:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  James, since you decided to re-add the fact tags to the article that I removed after adding citation, perhaps you could explain which elements of the paragraph you beleive are uncited? I linked to a verifiable primary source that contains SA users' comments on "o rly" with accurate dates that place the comments well before the popularity of the owl image. SA forums require a fee for a reason, much like purchasing a textbook is necessary to be able to analyze it as a source. To paraphrase, the link provides the following information which I referenced in that paragraph: (a) That the phrase "o rly?" was widely used on image macros, especially those of Bill O'Reilly, before February 2004 (the date of that post), (b) That the phrase and macros had fallen out of use on the SA forums in early 2004 and (c) that the next mention of the meme in the SAclopedia was a post made in September 2005 talking about the newfound popularity of "o rly?" outside of SA due to the relatively new owl image. If you aren't more specific about which parts of the information you believe is uncited, I'll go ahead and remove the tags again, because I believe they cover pretty much all of it. I'll also add mention that the link in the article requires registration to view. Some winamp 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The claim of it being popular on 4Chan after dying out on SA. Citation would be a links of it on 4Chan (ie a large discussion or search evidence of 'O RLY' on there) and the same from SA. This would show the popularity on 4Chan compared to SA. Otherwise it's just a statement.  James  Kendall  [talk] 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't help with 4Chan, but the linked SAclopedia page refers to SA moderators banning anyone that uses "o rly" or associated image macros in early 2004. Once a catchphrase or meme becomes bannable on SA, its use pretty much stops completely. 4Chan, I think, doesn't keep archives or have a search feature, but since the invention of the owl image is accredited to them and first appears in 2005 can we not infer that "o rly" must have remained popular on 4Chan at a time far later than "o rly" became bannable on SA? Of course, that logic only works if the earlier claims in the article of the owl image being created on 4Chan are verifiable. I'll remove that portion for now unless someone from 4Chan can show use of "o rly" from 2003/4 on through 2005. Some winamp 17:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct; 4chan doesn't have archives (though a few people screenshot things that seem like they'd be worth keeping), and /b/ in particular marks posts "old" after about an hour (and they often get deleted sooner than that, especially if people are flooding the board to hit a milestone or GET). I lurk there, and I remember seeing the O RLY owl showing up on 4chan about a year ago; before then, I hadn't seen it mentioned on 4chan at all. -lee 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Take a look at the original:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/12/obit.keiko.ap/
Took me less than five minutes of Googling to figure out it was just a fix up of the AP's Keiko obit. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning that alleged AP story about the dead owl, yes, it's a hoax 

message: On Planet Zebeth, there was once an interesting O RLY? owl, the O BLAARGGAG!? owl.
I'm not sure if it originated there or not, but it seems to have shown up on YTMND and other sites.Should it be mentioned?
--SheeEttin 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O BLAARGGAG!? 

message: I support  Jorgemachado's inclusion of 'No wai'. Can't believe it hasn't been added before.  James  Kendall  [talk] 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO WAI! 

message: Both these picture have no licence on them. --Falcorian (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YA WAI and NO WAI 

message: The similarly themed companion picture of the white owl with the text "Buttsecks?," should also be included, as it is very nearly as common or popular as the original O RLY? owl. CNichols 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buttsecks?