Talk:O RLY?/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The best O RLY? variation I have seen

The best O RLY? variation I have seen is a cover from an O'Reilly computer science book, showing owls, and with a question mark added after the O'Reilly name. JIP | Talk 08:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a variant. Most of the non-owl macros were created before the owl one and are what made "O RLY?" popular on 4chan (and other sites) to begin with, though the meme didn't really hit the rest of the internet until someone on 4chan created the owl macro. Deaf-mute 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the O'Reilly computer science book with the owls came first. It was only edited later to read "O'Reilly?" imstead of "O'Reilly". That's what makes it so funny. JIP | Talk 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Worm for Company?

Although it says on the Sophos page that the worm was written for one "company", this worm was actually released in a high school, where it thrashed around on the network for about a day before being eliminated. I'm still trying to scrape a copy of the worm from the school computers, but all I know so far is that it was written in Visual Basic to load Office Document Manager and print through a macro. I'm hesitant to change the main page since no support for my assertion that this virus was released in a school and not a company exists because the school didn't want information about them as the target getting out.

Is it dead?

People keep putting that the owl died in the San Diego zoo, and it's always been reverted as being false. What's the basis here? --Awiseman 22:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

also i think the pic of the newspaper should be changed and the pic of the actual spooning article should take its place

There is no basis, I don't think there is any way to trace it. A lot of white owls look the same. The best thing to do is probably just leave the bit about the dead owl out for good, it's pretty irrelevant anyway. Jon Fawkes 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I sat on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Somethingawful forum link

I just went through all 50 pages (or whatever) of that thread and I didn't see a single owl. Would someone mind identifying the specific page number of the thread? Or -- better yet -- just linking directly to that page? —ptk⁂fgs 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or better still, don't link at all. Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, SomethingAwful started use of the phrase and of "o rly?" images in general, not of the owl image. The owl image came from 4chan. I don't think anyone ever really posted the owl image on SA because "o rly?" had been worn out for a good year or two by then. The article talks about the linked thread as the earliest public example of the phrase in general use in that context in a forum. It's not possible to link to the macros -- or the earliest "o rly?" FYAD threads -- used on the SA forums because they aren't public and almost all of them will be in the archives (see the external link, to the SAClopedia, if you have an SA account for citation on that). Basically anyone around SA in 2003 will remember "o rly?" being run into the ground, with Bill O'Reilly images etc., and then resurfacing on 4chan a couple of years later which is when it became associated with the owl. Deaf-mute 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

O RLY Article Scan

If the use of the newspaper article scan becomes controversial, we can merely link to the article on the paper's website [1]. Just throwing that out there in case there is controversy concerning the image. At the least, you may be also be able to add the linked article to the external links. (Steampowered 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)).

Image Macro?

The O RLY? owl (and others) is not technically an "image macro", it's just an image. An image macro is a specific sequence of BB code used to embed an image. It's also rather obscure... I'd never even heard the term until reading this article. It would be much more encyclopedic to replace all instances of "image macro" in the article with "image", retaining at most a line or two explaining the "image macro" usage on specific boards. Clayhalliwell 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The term image macro refers to an image with text superimposed on it for the purposes of posting on a forum. Yes, the term started as a reference to the custom vBcode used on SA to embed common image/text combos in threads but it remained a reference to the images themselves (and any image in that style) even after the vBcode itself was removed a few weeks later. Deaf-mute 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But where does this usage occur? In years of frequenting message boards, I've never heard this term. It doesn't seem correct to dominate this article with terminology that isn't in popular usage. Clayhalliwell 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The term image macro is a very technical term. Of course it doesn't appear on message boards. It is the correct term to use for this kind of thing though. I'd say it's more encyclopedic to use it Jon Fawkes 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

In the popular culture, why don't we say something like "Many video games feature characters or owls that say something like "O RLY?" Some include..." rather than the list that's there now. I have a feeling there are lots of places the thing shows up, and we don't need to list all of them I think. --Awiseman 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you deleted some variation examples saying that only 4 examples are needed. I can't find the "maximum of 4 examples" rule in Wiki editorial guidelines. I know you're not making up an arbitrary rule, right? Can you help? Thanks. Magonaritus 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule, but we discussed it here. Before there were like 20 examples, which was way too many, and many of which were very obscure. These 4 are pretty understandable to your average joe. --Awiseman 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, 20 is "too many". But now 5 is also "too many" but 4 is just right? Are you serious? How is this not arbitrary and capricious? This is a joke, right?

So in compliance with the Awiseman heavenly edict and Wiki editorial guideline that there be no more than 4 examples, I deleted the Bob Marley reference and substituted the YTMD example instead. Its references to birthdays, Harry Potter, and Time Magazine make it even more accessible as an example to the "average joe". Maybe you'll now revert it again arguing another arbitrary and capricious standard why the Bob Marley example is better than the YTMD example? Magonaritus 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any citations indicating that these specific examples are in some ways important? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Hamiltonian 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... where are the citations indicating that the Fresh Prince, Bob Marley, O'Reilly Factor and french language examples are in some way important? There aren't? So why are they in there? Magonaritus 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They're just examples, there are tons of variations around. I think the fact that there are so many is notable as it shows it's a pretty popular phenomenon. There used to be a list in the article with tons of examples and people kept adding more so it was getting out of hand. I thought 4 was a reasonable number. You don't have to be sarcastic, we can discuss this like reasonable people. Maybe instead of a list, we can just make it a sentence, like "There are innumerous variations of the "O RLY?" phrase, including many puns and other jokes, such as "O WILLY" (with an image from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, making fun of star Will Smith) [2]." Thoughts? --Awiseman 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to add that there are other variations. If anybody has an opinion on adding examples, please say so. --Awiseman 17:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

no wai

I always thought "no wai" stood for "No, why?" and not "No way". I suppose this is because "wai" pronounced in Japanese sounds like "why" not like "way" which would be "wei". Any one else feel this way?

Not really if you think about it "No way!" is an expression of disbelief (can be used sarcastically) but "no why" doesn't really sound like a proper continuation of the conversation. WikiSlasher 13:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? --Tim1988 ^talk 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

YA RLY! - Ugliness Man 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NO WAI ! Hopp 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think he makes a good point about the japanese pronunciation, though. Anime forums and irc channels cringe at that kind of thing. 'AI' = "y" and 'EI' = "ay" -User

See also: kthxbai 75.153.221.227 06:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Appology on the Behalf of the RanixRly.com Community

On behalf of the RanixRly.com Community, I would like to sincerely apologize for the vandalism that occured on the "O RLY" page. Yesterday, a (non-)member of the community performed this stunt in order to try to achieve popularity, among other reasons. Of course, the RanixRly.com members, including myself, were greatly angered by this act of vandalism, for we all respect Wikipedia as a useful information source. In no way was this action endorsed by the RanixRly.com Community. We are truly sorry for the trouble it may have caused. Thank you. Joeyjwc 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ASCII O`RLY Owl

There was one time ascii version. But it disapeared. Why it is not here? I think it belong to this article ... Hopp 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You can find it in the article history, though.

Fixed user:Hentai_Jeff

There have been several versions. One large one I removed for size and encyclopedic value [3]. The smaller versions I was disinclined to add again, since they are uncited as to their notability (as is most of the rest of the article), however they have been added back [4]. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No reliable source exists for the ASCII art versions. Therefore, the ASCII artworks themselves are original research. Removing once again. --- RockMFR 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? I can understand needing to give credit to the creator of the ASCII art, but WP:NOR doesn't apply here, which should be obvious. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed with Alexc3, will be readding ASCII art in 1 day barring any other objection Hentai Jeff (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references?

I just deleted a pop culture reference to a video game because previously that section had been deleted. What do people think about that sort of section? Tons of video games and such mention O RLY?, and before we had been trying to keep the section to 4-5 examples, with a note saying "there are many examples of O RLY? in popular culture" yadda yadda. Do people think we should put the section back? --AW 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

References in popular culture help to show notability of the subject. The things that had been removed before had been unreferenced. I put some time into making sure the Mega Man thing was true (and referenced), so I'm putting it back in. --- RockMFR 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i dunno about policy or anything but there are loads of other articles with long lists of pop culture references (20 or so sometimes). how many to include might be relative to the size of the article though.

actually... there seems to be some confusion about this. references TO popular culture vs references IN popular culture. i think references to popular culture aren't important enough to list (though the article mentions that variations exist and links to a website with examples). references in popular culture should be mentioned though, and if there's too many then create a new article for them as has been done with loads of other articles.

examples of what i mean: Guy Fawkes Night, The IT Crowd

or if there are too many: List of pop culture references in Warcraft

O RLY? 71.244.48.83 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaia Online

I recently removed some trivia about Gaia Online's "ORLY Hat" item. I made an account and checked out their store, and the ORLY Hat item seems to be entirely trivial (see [5] - login needed). I don't care if anyone adds it back in, but make sure you source it with the aforementioned link. --- RockMFR 04:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The trivia wasn't about the item in the G Store- it was referring to the collectable virtual item: http://www.tektek.org/gaia/price/?p=2657 Tozoku 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if the O RLY? Hat would be here, and I think it would be nice to have it here, but where exactly would it go? Ravenwolf Zero 23:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would go with references in pop culture, if there was a section for that. It looks like there's a discussion for that just above this one. Jon Fawkes 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Owl and Excepter cover

Why is that owl relevant? It's not the same type of owl, and mentioning it is speculative at best unless a source is provided (see No original research). --Wafulz 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that fact that there is a track included entitled "ORLY" makes it pretty clear that its a deliberate reference. The remainder of the cover artwork is a reference to "Knock Knock". --Jonathan Williams 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in your opinion it's a deliberate reference. I don't see the connection- to me, it's just an owl on a tree, which is pretty ordinary. If we could get a reference from a reliable album review or something similar, I'd accept it. --Wafulz 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't buy it either... Also the Album is called KKKKK not KKKK. KKKK is the name of a song. -- 68.112.84.219

I can take a photo of the record label tonight. The tracks are a single mix on the CD/iTunes. The band's blog (myspace url needs to be de-spam-filtered) and the 12" list the full track names. You may be right about the number of K's though! Jonathan Williams 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

tracks listed here Jonathan Williams 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does this mention a deliberate reference with the owl? --Wafulz 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to? Jonathan Williams 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because hundreds (probably thousands) of people read this page. If we imply that the owl is a deliberate reference, they'll take it as truth when it might not be. No information is preferred to misleading information. Do you find it ironic that in one edit summary you tell me to Assume good faith, and then shortly after you go ahead and call me a troll. No personal attacks please. --Wafulz 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't own this article and neither do I (cf WP:Ownership of articles). I feel that this certainly meets inclusion standards at least with respect to the verifiability of the claims in the article and personally, I feel that you are taking too much ownership of this article. Anyway, maybe its best if we stepped back and let some other people decide what to do with it. (FWIW, I know quite a bit about the intent of the song, but I am avoiding original research and keeping to verifiable sources, but I feel that everything in the page is obvious from fact-based sources.) --Jonathan Williams 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more important to find out if the song has anything to with this meme. Are the lyrics available anywhere? --- RockMFR 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a noise rock band, so I don't even know if the song has lyrics. --Wafulz 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An even better question — why does Carrots (single) have an article at all? Is Excepter even a notable band? This whole argument could be a moot point if those two articles get deleted. --- RockMFR 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging from some of the crap that passes notability, there's no question. :) --Jonathan Williams 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily we have WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyway, it should probably be examined whether or not the band actually meets WP:MUSIC- if it doesn't, then there's no reason to mention them here. --Wafulz 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stick to writing about stuff you know about? 2 minutes on google show WP:Music is clearly met --Jonathan Williams 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Snide remarks aside, if you don't have any sources about the owl on the cover being a deliberate reference to the ORLY owl, then it will have to be removed. --Wafulz 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have contended that the juxaposition of the owl art and the song entitled ORLY is evidence enough for it to be mentioned. I don't think removing content is productive and makes the article less interesting. If you wish to pursue this further, I ask that you ask for arbitration rather than wasting our time edit warring more. --Jonathan Williams 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please have a read through No original research. What you're doing is taking conclusion A (a song titled ORLY, which is probably about the meme) and conclusion B (an owl on the cover) and personally coming up with conclusion C (the owl is a reference to the song). This isn't something to take to arbitration- unless you can provide a reliable source that the owl is a deliberate reference, it should be removed. Also, it's not an edit war unless we're actually warring through edits on the article- so far we've kept it all to the talk page. --Wafulz 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. (Stop being condescending.) --Jonathan Williams 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was condescending (I didn't mean to be). This isn't a competition though- if you don't present a reliable source giving your conclusion, it will have to be removed per WP:NOR (particularly WP:SYN). Simply disagreeing won't achieve anything except maybe wasting some time. --Wafulz 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree that a simple and obvious aggregation of verifiable facts (album art and track listing) is considered original research. I think that is the crux of the disagreement. I don't think this is a huge logical leap, but let's get some other opinions. Sorry to be cranky. Jonathan Williams 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Jonathan has hit the nail on the head here. There are probably countless mentions of "A is a reference to B" on Wikipedia that don't require verifying because they're not "original research", they're just sort of obvious. The connection of the song title to the owl isn't a stretch. If this is still objectionable, then I think the solution is simply to not report the connection as an indisputable fact, but as being very likely. Say "the image of the owl on the cover is likely a reference, considering that a song on the album is entitled 'ORLY'", or something to that effect. - Ugliness Man 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Iunno, it's still not obvious to me (or the other IP who posted above). It's a picture of an owl on a tree - it's not the same species, it's not the same colour, and it's not making the same expression. --Wafulz 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Yes, owls are common. An image of an owl on an album cover isn't particularly noteworthy, nor does it suggest a reference to anything if no other suggestive elements are present. However, "O RLY" is a much more specific thing, and is directly related to an image of an owl. An image of an owl on an album cover with no other elements might not be noteworthy, but an image of an owl on the cover of an album which also has a song called "ORLY" is very likely a reference to the song title (or vice versa). - Ugliness Man 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, yes, it is a reference with evidence suggested in a song title. In my opinion, it's a stretch of the imagination to say it's a reference. My point is that we shouldn't be basing this on some majority opinion on this talk page- there should be an outside reference. If it's really that obvious, a secondary source (or the band itself) would have mentioned it in some source at some point in time. --Wafulz 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Wafulz, there is no indication that the owl on the cover has anything to do with the O RLY owl, regardless as to if they have a song titled O RLY? or not. The song can be mentioned, however the cover should not be claimed as referring to the owl unless a reliable source reports as such. VegaDark 06:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"If it's really that obvious, a secondary source (or the band itself) would have mentioned it in some source at some point in time." Um... perhaps I forgot to put on my backwards logic hat this morning, but if something is "obvious", doesn't that suggest that secondary sources don't need to mention it?. - Ugliness Man 07:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Going back to my previous point — is there any relationship between the song itself and the meme? Is the name the only connection? Has anyone actually heard this song? --- RockMFR 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to get only original researchy, but to satisfy your curiosity here's some stuff I heard:

"to tell you the truth, the owl is a direct reference to the folk-song, and the ORLY is a reference to the track's position as a musical comeback, as well as playing into a whole knock knock joke/door-answering motif. The orly-owl coincidence is just evidence of a cosmic ineterconnectivity. The cover was designed in '99, well before the internet meme. [...] I think you can trace bird-focused circular logic of the ORLY? meme (orly / yarly / no wai / wai) back to Dumbo's Black Crows (what do you want to do today? / whatever you want to do today) which no doubt probably stemmed from vaudeville. The word-play-as-comeback (oh really? - owl really? - orly?) could even stem from a zing exchange in "Rushmore" (they're OR scrubs... / OR they?) which was released before the meme first showed up and certaintly would find resonance in nerd culture. [...] I forward the idea that the insistent use of the white snow owl in the ORLY meme is a subsconscious act to distract from the humor's origins in black (or blackface) culture."

But of course, we can't cite this, but I think its interesting. So the song is actually namechecking both the meme and the cover. But of course, this is not a verfiable source! --Jonathan Williams 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you citing? And doesn't it directly say the "owl-orly" thing is a coincidence? --Wafulz 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Personal communications" of a sort. The ORLY track is both a nod to the album art, the subject matter ("knock knock joke/door-answering motif" - the track KK on the album means "knock knock"). Again: this source is not ok to use [not verifiable obv.]! --Jonathan Williams 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the quote (whether or not it is reliable). It does a great job making the point that I was going to — that is, the name of the song and the owl on the cover really don't seem to be a reference to the meme itself, or if they are, it isn't obvious. When we write articles on Wikipedia, a certain level of common sense has to come into play. For example, the article on George W. Bush makes use of references that refer to "George Bush" — editors have to use their judgment to decide whether or not a particular source is talking about the same George Bush. The same process can be applied to this article. The references to the meme within games such as Mega Man Battle Network are obvious. It is highly improbable that the "O RLY? YA RLY! NO WAI!" meme could have been independently created by more than one source, so any use of the meme must be a reference to the subject of our article. However, the use of an image of an owl or the use of "ORLY?" by itself isn't obviously a reference to our meme here. So, unless the lyrics (if any) of the song make the connection clearer or the band actually states that it is a reference to the meme, I don't think it should be included in this article. --- RockMFR 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Using "our meme" is beginning to sound like you and some implicit peer group "own" the article. However, the point is that the *song* was a nod to both the owl on the cover and the meme (the songs are ). In fact, it states EXPLICITLY (primary yet unverifiable source) that it is a nod to the meme and the history of the "whole knock knock joke/door-answering motif". Jonathan Williams 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it explicitly state that the owl is a reference to Frog Went A-Courting? --Wafulz 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's the original "O RLY?" image?

It's a piece of art, satirical non-profit image, by itself with its copyright being independent of the original image. On the other hand, there are examples in Wikipedia of using material (though only short quotations), which was originally unlawfully acquired, copied & published on the 'net, because of the general factual availability of the copied content across the internet. For example, the O RLY image is available from a site this article links to clearly showing the image is in general circulation and is generally percieved as public domain and that linking that image here is form of encyclopedic coverage instead of copyright theft.

Secondly: If the taker of the original picture really contacted WP then this should be stated within the article - It's relevant to the image and phenomenon that the person behind the image of the owl (I consider the person who combined the "O RLY?" with an image of the creature to be the actual source of the picture that is the phenomenon) doesn't like the interest and publicity the transformed image has created. At the very least, the name of the picture taker & the place where the original picture was taken should be mentioned for reference, along with the fact that he owns and likes to hold on to the copyright of the unedited image.

Finally: http://images.google.com/images?q=O%20RLY

- G3, 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Carrot/KKKK picture Deletion

I think the Carrot/KKKK image at the bottom of the page should be deleted, because it is irrelevant to the article. There should be a better way to illustrate the owl than up in the corner of a CD cover at the bottom. Besides, I don't even think the cover is real - if you go in to the article of the album you can see it is different.

Wikiburger 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The record is a "split" and the version on the other article has "both sides" of the "record" shown. The art is divided diagonally. (Are you trolling?) --Jonathan Williams 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

About the removal of the Yahweh wikilink.

I had considered restoring the Wikilink to the page, in the into section describing the typical "O rly?" exchange, the response of "YAHWEH!" I do believe that saying YAHWEH in an O rly? exchange is a referance to the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Therefore I say the link should be restored, but I want the community's consensus on the matter. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Without the image, is it worth it?

So, I've read over the old discussion re: the image and why it isn't on the page. Sad, but I understand why it isn't here. I would move, however, that without the image, the entire article is pretty much worthless. Therefore, if we can't have the image, we shouldn't have the article. 70.79.61.158 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just thought I'd chime in here that visual art is considered an interpretation of an image, not a copy. So if someone who draws well was to hand draw the ORLY owl picture it could not be considered a copyright infringement. --SeaFox 02:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But, doesn't Wikipedia have a fair-use policy? We should be able to use the image, nobody has come forward to claim a copyright to the image. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal system of the US has a fair use policy (likely where the copyright is held.) Seriously people, if you can't have an image on an encyclopedic article describing that very image then you're assuming a society with no fair use of copyrighted material at all.66.41.66.213 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If I can find something on the commons that fits the bill...

I could make a "free" O RLY? macro set for you :) ViperSnake151 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)