Talk:O RLY?

Reliable sources

O rly? Remove the "non internet uses" section and you're left with what? A "reference" from a web forum? This needs to be sourced per WP:RS and WP:V or deleted. --kingboyk (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Picture

This is what Wikipedia's come to. It won't even allow a picture of the very subject that's being talked about because of its damn copywrite codes. Talk about a stuffy beaurocracy. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn Straight, I want it back! --58.106.209.135 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The new ORLY sucks, might as well just delete the whole article, it's meaningless without the great true one original ORLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.164.122 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"This is what Wikipedia's come to." — what the hell are you talking about? Are you really that appalled that Wikipedia actually tends to abide by its own rules and standing law? Shocking indeed. — Mütze (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable whether the picture is really ineligible for Fair Use. As far as I know it was removed due to an intransparent decision by some lawyer who thought it wasn't worth the trouble. Criticizing that should be allowed. --memset (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do wish they hadn't removed that picture, because the one they have is NOT the real thing.I have an image of the real thing, but it, if I put it on, will just get taken down again. Zippy117 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section

I'm fairly sure most of the content in the section tagged as trivia isn't actually trivia, just a list of occurences in popular culture. The tag isn't dated, so I don't know how long it's been there. Zchris87v 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake owl picture

The article currently contains a picture that is not the original image macro but a fake created using some random owl picture. I think this violates WP:NOR and is misleading for readers expecting the real owl picture, worse than no picture at all. I removed it, but it was added again. -- memset (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a picture of an owl, similar to the original. It's better than no picture at all, and at worst, does no harm. Though perhaps the subtitle could say why the original picture cannot be posted on Wikipedia. Kevin (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the Lolcat phenomenon which uses many different photos, the "O RLY" owl that a part of this article describes is always about the particular owl photo, and most of the image macros created in reference to the original (with some exceptions) also use that photo, or a completely different picture (no owl). The only way to adequately illustrate the article is to use the original image, if we can't use it because it's not eligible for Fair Use (because of the low article quality or notability or whatever), then we should leave it without a picture, like a lot of articles we don't have free pictures for. Wikipedia is not a place for self-made "tribute" pictures to anything, and I think it does do harm because it suggests that the owl photo is replaceable similar to Lolcats. -- memset (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just thought the O RLY owl was a Spotted Owl because that's what the "tribute" picture shows (and no, it wasn't me). See the confusion the picture creates? -- memset (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a Snowy Owl now :) Kevin (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya srsly, the current owl image was made with fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.37.161 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh fine, delete it. It's this sort of analness when it comes to picture copyrights that drove me away from Wikipedia for everything but academic purposes. Kevin (talk)

Grabbed an image off Commons

So I've read through the rationale for not using the original image. Fair enough. But I'm agreed with the sentiment that not having an image at all for an image macro article is ridiculous. Policy is there to keep the project ticking over, not the point of the project itself. I've grabbed a lesser image from Commons which at least illustrates the point. Let's see if two years later we can agree on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the same picture we had previously until May 2nd, 2008. The same picture Memset deleted from the page. If you want to put it back, you'll have to take it up with Memset (unless he/she has lost interest in the page). Kevin (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like it, but I guess I'm outvoted now. -- memset (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the consensus in the previous section was to remove it (kevin, memset and 24.127.37.161 all seemed to agree to this). I certainly think it should be removed, "O RLY?" is understood to refer to a particular image macro (or modified versions of it), putting a completely different owl is a bit like putting a cartoon version of the Mona Lisa in the article on that painting. Better to have no image at all than a misleading/wrong one. Hypnosifl (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. An adequate illustration is always going to be better than none at all. I shouldn't need to make analogies to all the other situations on Wikipedia where this is true. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like my analogy that's fine (though I would prefer an actual argument to 'no, it really isn't'), but "O RLY?" does refer to a specific image (or modified versions of it), not to any owl with "O RLY?" written on it. The current illustration is worse than nothing, because it's actively misleading. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, for a published article which backs up the claim that "O RLY?" is associated with that specific image of a snowy owl rather than any owl image, see this column from The Independent Tiger Weekly (the student newspaper of Louisiana State University, admittedly a pretty obscure source), 1/18/2006. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i just found this page randomly, and WHAT ARE YALL THINKING? That photo is VERY misleading! It's like putting a photo of Donatello's David in the article for Michelangelo's David. It's a graphical work of art, and you're completely misleading people by putting up a picture that doesn't even resemble the original.Eganjt (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading image

I Think the lead image should be removed, it doesn't represent the true O RLY? owl, and will probably confuse or mislead people new to the concept. It isn't even that good as far as they go. We should at least directly link the original image. I find it ridiculous that nobody is be able to put the original O RLY? owl on an article in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be able to have it here. Sure, the photographer complained a couple years ago, but Wikipedia's fair use policy overrules that. I mean, C'mon, it's just a photograph, and it's been posted millions of times on just about every message board on the internet. The idea that these uses are fair while Wikipedia's use is unfair is just absurd. I'm removing the fake image, but I won't put up the real owl (yet.) TheOtherSiguy (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. CrashGordon94 (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. If there's a single picture that the general Internet community collectively "owns," it has to be the original O RLY? Owl image. I mean come on; Symantec used it on their site here without crediting anyone...and we can't put it on a free encyclopedia? This is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luinfana (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BRING THE O RLY OWL BACK!!!

Why was it removed? Copyright????? IT'S A BEAVER DAMMED OWL!!!! (And O RLY)

PUT IT BACK PLZ!!!!!! --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did put it back, but my page edit was reverted. And I linked to a website that had the owl, I didn't actually upload it. What's going on?

Read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. As the image of the owl is under copyright, it's owned by John White, and it can't be linked to. So the site you linked to is violating his copyright. More information is at File talk:Orly.jpg. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the copyright holder complained (otrs:2006040210006114) and the image was taken down. It won't be reinstated without the author's permission. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags

This article seems to be a perennial target for drive-by tagging (either with notability or trivia tags). If you wish to add these, please explain why. --- RockMFR 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoop da Whoop

If we have a page for this, why isn't there one for Shoop da Whoop or "Imma Firin' my Lazer!". It's really popular, especially on YouTube. any opinions on this?Mwakin21 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that has nothing to do with this article. See Wikipedia:Talk page for more information on the use of talk pages. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoop da whoop and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoop Da Whoop as to why it doesn't exist, and Wikipedia:Notability. It's "lazor". CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla

Eh, it's a polite question. The long and short of the matter is - staying away from notability, as I do whenever possible - that we couldn't offer readers anything more reliable than the word of a wiki. What good is that? The owls at least meet that criteria; contentiously, but they do. --Kizor 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Misleading image 2

The current image is NOT the "O RLY?" owl, and is thus misleading because the reader is left clueless as to why that picture became a phenomenon. In sharp contrast to the hilarious original image, I might add.

So I removed it per previous discussion. Please don't add back an image of any old owl; it's the specific image's specific owl's facial expression that is key to understanding.

Instead, I'm asking the Wiki pros to add a link to a site legally displaying the correct picture. Failing that, I propose we construct a link leading to the google picture search - searching for "O RLY" currently displays the correct owl as the #1 result.

Ta, CapnZapp (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:O RLY?#BRING THE O RLY OWL BACK!!! and several other things. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I read that of course. But my action has nothing to do with the original bird; my point is that the replacement picture was actively misleading. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a quick answer as to why I can't see the original picture? I mean, I can't be the first person asking this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandybrigwell (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See the thread above, #BRING THE O RLY OWL BACK!!! - (At a glance, it seems like the original owl photograph was stolen to make the macro-image, and the photographer made an official copyright-complaint to us, therefore, we will never be able to display it. i.e. Lawyers ruin everything. (Except the stuff they protect us from ;) ) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

O FRLY?

I was wondering if File:Ofrly.png is a good free equivalent after reading the leading page advice? It is currently used in the ja,ko,zh and pt language Wikipedias. Thanks. --Marianian^(talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I happen to run across your thread after I deleted that image from Chinese Wikipedia. Though I'm not familiar with this Internet phenomenon, I don't think it would work as a replacement for the original O RLY? picture. "It is used in other Wikipedias" is not a valid reason, especially when you are talking about the English Wikipedia. This phenomenon originated from English forums/sites, and, as far as I know, it is not used in Chinese or other non-English speaking forums/sites.(because the lack of "O'Reilly" pun?) Therefore, English Wikipedia should have the resources that other versions of Wikipedia would reference to. I would suggest take down this picture from other versions of Wikipedia (if appropriate), with reasons discussed in threads above.Kovl (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the issue is with the specific "O RLY?" owl picture. This one doesn't have that, so, while it's nowhere near the original one, it's still better than nothing and not prohibited under copyright. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ofrly.png is a derivative of File:Bubo_scandiacus_01_by_Line1.JPG, which is also GFDL. Hence I feel that the status of the image I suggested is irrelevant to the status of the widely used and specific O RLY? image, and therefore a suitable free alternative as long that it is an original image and it is licensed appropriately for Wikipedia use. Trying to re-enact the owl's expression for Wikipedia from scratch, with slight variations as courtesy, is perfectly fine, but for carbon copying an meme based on a photo used without permission: not so. --Marianian^(talk) 11:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

no picture at all is better than a fake picture

I get that the original O RLY? owl picture is blocked by copyright. But the picture up now is awful and useless. It would be better not to have any picture than a picture of some random different owl with the wrong expression, wrong text font, wrong everything. Please just have no picture. 122.59.197.52 (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is the current image "aweful and useless"? From what I've seen it seems to have just the same impact on reader's ability to comprehend the subject as the original image might of had. I other words we should keep the image. Feinoha ^Talk 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the original image has an owl doing an "O RLY?" facial expression. If anything, this owl has more of a "deal with it" facial expression. If this were the "deal with it" owl that would be fine, but it's not. It's the "O RLY?" owl. That this image has survived on this page for so long is ludicrous. --Muzer (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on O RLY?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708230037/http://www.crn.com.au/story.aspx?CIID=37699 to http://www.crn.com.au/story.aspx?CIID=37699

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)