Talk:Man Laws/Archive 1

Merge Discussion

I disagree. If the Budweiser Frogs merit their own entry, this does. In particular, now that individual "man laws" are actually being broadcast, the list of those "laws" will probably end up here. 68.50.29.208 03:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I disagree as well. I think that the premise of manly men figuring out the guiding principles of man law is an independent enough concept to warrant it's separate placement from whichever company sponsored it...

I also disagree. There is a significant amount of material for the 'man laws' that is separate in scope from Miller Lite. As with the Budweiser Frogs, this ad campaign has the potential to become an aspect of popular culture independent of the product itself. Additionally, merging this article with Miller Lite would serve to clutter the Miller Lite article while simultaneously serving as an advertisement for Miller Lite to those who desire more information on the 'Man Laws' topic. Kershner 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As a consensus appears to have been reached and no reason for a merge with Miller Lite has been posted including by the original editor, I have removed the merge request. Kershner 01:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the AfD (and I had nothing to do with it's implementation), I do think the article should be merged with Miller Lite, because it is not a singularly notable ad campaign that stands on its own within the overall culture. The Budweiser Frogs not only stands on its own in that right, but it was a notable campaign that ran over a number of years. This campaign ("Man Laws") has run for only a few months. Using the logic noted here, each and every separate ad campaign would deserve it's own separate WP entry. --Mhking 05:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree and I disagree with the post above that it is not singularly notable and does not stand on its own. Why not? This article contains good information and is expected to grow as the campaign continues. Why delete it now? It's relevant now. If it ceases to become relevant, delete it then. WikiLaw! Hxrealm 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

you're a little late. it's called the style guide 72.9.11.65 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This made it onto Wikipedia too fast. I feel there is something too commercial about this. This should stay on the Miller Beer page.

I took care of the problem nice and easy. No more box at the top.

Notability and Controversy

I think that the 'you poke it you own it' commercial has officially given this series of commercials a bit more notability, given the angry response from the femenist blogosphere. [[1]][[2]][[3]] The basic concern is that 'you poke it you own it' is referring less to beer than it is to women. It seems to have lead to a lot of pissed-off people. 24.62.27.66 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

a good reason to keep it, but also another reason why the blogosphere is full of morons. 72.9.11.65 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets not also forget that since the B-Lock commercial, many football fans have brought Off-Fense and B-Lock signs to games. --Raderick 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Content

"Jon Halaney, professional consumer of alcoholic beverages, and all around bad ass mother fucker"

It was not stated earlier in the article that the descriptions of the Men of the Square Table were "in-universe" descriptions, or any equivalent thereof. To that end, the description above is a Wikipedian one, and is therefore unacceptable. I'd remove it and the one immediately following personally, but I do not remember either of the featured Men they described from the commercials.

I ask that this be cleaned up before we Men have an unfavorable situation on our hands. .Absolution. 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Blu is a member of The Men of the SquareTable. He was in the infamous Double ManLaw spot entitled, "4th Qtr." Mr. Blu asks the question," Yeah, but what if you down by 30 points?" His entry should stand. And any pioneer of "Righteous HipHop" should be recognized.

Dog Entry

I have read this one several times and can't completely understand it. Can someone clarify or explain what it is supposed to mean? I'm trying to a minor clean up of this article, particularly this entry if necessary. So far the research I've done has turned up no record of this Man Law from the actual commercials and based on the content ("nerdy Bud drinkers") I'm starting to believe it may be vandalism. Bsharkey 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Undid edits by 71.141.137.42 on 7 Feb 2007, as these are non-verifiable and almost certainly vandalism. Bsharkey 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Members of the SquareTable

There are a certain number of ManLaw commercials and a certain amount of Actors involved. Rodney Blu IS a member of the ManLaws cast and WAS seen in the commercials. His name should not be removed just because people don't know who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.129 (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)