Talk:Skibidi Toilet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gabriel A. Álvarez N. (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 1 October 2023 (→‎Does this really need a page?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Doesn't this draft already exist?

Draft:Skibidi toilet 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

look i think they should add more stuff Flopybunny (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There still a lot of information to be gained from the listed sources. Why not contribute? :D Ca talk to me! 07:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's more stuff to be added, then add it yourself. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 17:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yaeh I dont wont to either 50.185.25.65 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skibidi toilet is a toilet and a head! Made by daqak!!?boom@JalapeñoHong Kong 2A02:C7C:FA06:4C00:D4B4:7F8A:E9B6:28C (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what it is. That was not the topic. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 17:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really need a page?

I get that we don’t have a consensus on proving the notability of internet memes, but the lack of an evident lasting impact and consistent reporting seems to lean towards this not being inherently notable. While the sources aren’t unreliable per se, they are primarily fluff pieces devoted to padding out their respective publications that basically boil down to “hey, check out this meme!” and a bunch of links.

There’s already minor edit warring and vandalism by IP editors, and I just don’t really think that’s worth keeping a page with dubious notability up. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to WP:AfD it if you think there is notability issues. As the creator of this article, I thought this draft easily met WP:GNG, so I expanded it and sent to mainspace. However this is just an internet meme; I place less burden of notability to uncontroversial topics because there is little room for NPOV issues to arise. Ca talk to me! 08:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_viral_videos
They should be under viral videos. There shall be no favouritism or drama or we'll get slippery slope arguments about other memes getting their own pages. It is not necessary to be trigger happy yet, ultimately all memes could end up on other wikis but it all started with "kilroy was here" and we're stuck with this mess.
Once it's established and made an impact on people and culture long enough then it could be notable enough for it's own entry in it's own right. 81.102.26.118 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paragon Deku Yeah, I agree, the dignity and reputation of Wikipedia is damaged by this article. This article is just bullshit trash. I remember a page called "fandom", where every game had its Wikipedia interface-based Wiki, exactly like wikipedia, but exclusivly for games. This articles should be there, and not in Wikipedia. Still, this is just an opinion and I understand that there are many articles of games and videogames characters, but the fact thar this shit is about Human toilets simply creates a sense of disgust all over my body, and the pain is worse when I remember that it has its own article in Wikipedia. Gabriel A. Álvarez N. (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of notability, the article already mentions that for a month the series was the most viewed in the entire world. So it certainly is notable, however your other concerns are certainly interesting. Panamitsu (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But then, we should create an article of every single video of any relevant youtuber. Gabriel A. Álvarez N. (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets GNG for me. Skyshifter talk 11:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? The reporting only creates a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. Per WP:LASTING, I would argue that this is only demonstrably a flash in the pan without sustained notability. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paragon Deku Except this isn't an event? Ca talk to me! 11:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barring specific consensus based guidelines for memes, events are the best way to describe them as cultural moments. Meme reporting tends to act similarly to news reporting, and unless there’s a demonstrable sustained amount of reporting, it seem hard to justify it more as a KnowYourMeme style page. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a web series. Skyshifter talk 17:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A web series whose only claim to notability is as a trend. 75.9.245.130 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A web series that received significant coverage on multiple reliable and independent sources. Skyshifter talk 20:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any more discussion here would be productive. I recommend WP:AfD. Ca talk to me! 22:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article sounds really unofficial

It's like a child wrote this 188.172.111.190 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide constructive criticism by pointing to specific parts that may be improved. Ca talk to me! 09:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article missing origin of ”skibidi”

For someone who hasn’t seen the series, the article doesn’t explain where the name “skibidi toilet” comes from, specifically the “skibidi” part. It already mentions the 2 songs remixed but I think it would be worthwhile to add a line like “the name is one of the lyrics of the first song” or even something in the header paragraph like “the name comes from one of the lyrics of the theme song of the skibidi toilets” Hexbugman213 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be necessary. At this point, it WILL get deleted, or maybe be shortened. I think there are too much unnecesary pages and we should focus on making the pages we really need. Flobeigor (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the correct date

the correct date was Feb 7, 2023 Rhydian27474 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn’t even deserve to be on this encyclopedia

Tbh (to be honest) there are minors under 10 that find this funny and I think this should be deleted because that this has to do with something that’s with Youtube Shorts, and it does not belong here. The reason is that people have something against it because they think it is ruining children and it is not entertaining for children. 2601:406:4200:8E90:E900:81FA:C77B:7A27 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally none of those is a factor in Wikipedia's wp:notability criteria. Ca talk to me! 00:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please make the following change to the article:

−
Skibidi Toilet have.
+
Skibidi Toilet has.

164.47.74.1 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think, the request is not 100% clear. Shapeyness (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of information about Male_07

Removed since it's both unsourced and it's just trivia. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the text The most notable of the Skibidi Toilet models (pictured in infobox) uses the head of a Civilian (Male_07) from Half-Life 2. suitable for inclusion within the article?

I am posting here because an information about the character model Male_07 has been added repeatedly by Sigehelmus, but was deleted by me and Jalapeño.

Ca talk to me! 14:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I do not believe this information warrants inclusion. The first two additions were removed because it lacked a source, which is a violation of the WP:Verifiability policy. This time a source was included, which do satisfy the policy. However, I still think it is undue for inclusion, because it is sourced only to a primary source, without a proof of relevance. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that we shouldn't include every piece of information. I think that a secondary source is needed to prove relevance within the article. Also, claiming something "most notable", without a good reference is probably WP:editorializing. Ca talk to me! 14:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is why I removed Sighelmus's edit. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed this as excessive detail. I don't see the encyclopedic value, just seems like trivia. Shapeyness (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, why would anyone actually reading an encyclopaedia care about what model in what game the head of the toilet is? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 11:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jalapeno's content removal

I have to admit: this isn't my best work on Wikipedia. But unfortunately I don't think how Jalapeno is trying to fix it is really better. I'll go diff by diff in chronological order and show my thoughts on it.

[1], with the edit summary YouTube can't be used as a source, and the USAToday source is a Q&A source. YouTube can be used as a source if a reputable outlet or person is the one that posted it, or in WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. Here, the YT link is to DaFuqBoom's own videos. While there are questions about WP:DUE, it at least verifies the text. Secondly, I am not sure how USAtoday being in a Q&A format makes it suddenly unreliable? It is just another way of writing the same prose, just mixing it up a little. Suboptimal sourcing should be tagged with [better source needed], not met with deletion that leaves now-unsourced text.

[2], with the edit summary "opinion". There is no guideline that says opinion sources are automatically unreliable. WP:RSOPINION says opinion pieces should be used with care. However, I don't the Boston Globe piece is self-published. Even as an opinion piece, it is published in a reputable outlet, and I think for simple details like Date of Birth is fine.

[3], with the edit summary Newsweek is unreliable. Per consensus, this is not 100% true. WP:NEWSWEEK is only marginally reliable. I think for simple facts like this one, which is supported by another source other than newsweek, it is fine to be included.

[4], with the edit summary unencyclopedic content. I am not sure details about the series' production sourced to independent, reliable sources is unencyclopedic. It's not traditional for sure, but it's got be to be expected for an internet meme.

[5], with the edit summary A random Twitter account saying something shouldn't be added to an article. Yes, a random Twitter post gaining this much prominence is unusual, and it is not something I would include in an article in usual circumstances. However, nearly every source discussing this series in detail has mentioned this tweet in some form of another. As silly as it is, I believe it is WP:DUE for inclusion as it is a major subject that was discussed.

[6], with the edit summary "unencyclopedic". It is debatable. It depends on whether we consider the analysis to be WP:EXPERTSPS or not.

[7] - removed citations for WP:BLP details.

[8] and [9], with the edit summary Self-published and generally unreliable and self-published sources and content. This is the edit that confuses me the most. None of the removed sources seem to be self-published. A 2021 discussion on TubeFilter didn't yield anything conclusive. Maybe the amount that it is cited is WP:UNDUE, but none of the sources were ever deemed "generally unreliable". It's commentary about a silly internet meme. We don't need WP:MEDRES sort of sourcing.

In summary, I don't think this series of edits improved the article because it removed major reception and content sourced to in-context reliable sources and left a lot of unverified statements just hanging around. This is not to say this article is perfect, it needs improvement, but I don't think this is the correct approach.

Ca talk to me! 15:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why the official YouTube blog was removed. Skyshifter talk 16:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please speedy keep

please dont delete it 174.66.101.236 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be kept? Because its “funny”? Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skibidi_Toilet&oldid=1178089440"