 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edits edit
ResolvedSee Cat. Domestic cat is different from domesticated. The info about order of events is still in there. 12.34.92.90 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I mentioned that on your talk page, as well as the ambiguity between "feral" and "domesticated". We try to avoid ambiguity at all times. Viriditas (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not into fighting with somone who feels they "own" a page, but I would suggest in the future that you consider edits to be constructive and edit the new wording, rather than just reverting to your preferred language. It's a project, not a property. 12.34.92.90 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I will revert any contribution that does not improve the article. Your edits removed essential information from the lead and added ambiguity. Viriditas (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the video clips of Pinky the Cat have been around a long time. I think it's fairer to say that the 2000s mark the time of it becoming an "Internet Phenomenon" rather than when it became "available" on the Internet. Good summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reverting because: the MSNBC ref does not as claimed make any statement that Pinky was a viral video. It merely states that it was available on the Internet. If you have a ref that clarifies this, please use it, otherwise you are simply relying on your own memories that this was a "viral video" and an "internet phenomenon". 213.1.213.131 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me how this video does not meet the description of "viral video". What the heck does MSNBC have to do with this? The video has been described as a viral by several sources. Please give me a good argument telling me why that is the wrong term to use. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm... it's one of the links? Not sure why that needs explaining. None of the links, and the linked through George Lewis story (which should be directly linked if it was actually useful anyway) justify the statement that this is a viral video. Verifiability is the only standard. Please provide a third party source. I won't follow the Jimmy Wales quote here and just delete this unceremoniously, but... T-1. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The video is classified as viral. What part of "viral video" are you having problems with? I don't understand anything you have written above. Please tell me exactly what part of "viral video" you disagree with here. In other words, why does this video not meet that classification? Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability. Please provide a citation that supports this statement in the article, or it will be removed: "it achieved fame on the Internet as a viral video in the 2000s". The current links only establish that it was on the Internet, not that it was viral in any way. They don't mention numbers of hits or anything about how this video came to the attention of each reporter. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Words have meaning, and the sources reflect the fact that the video went viral sometime around 2006. What is it about the term "viral video" that you are disputing? Please answer that question directly. It seems to me you are creating a dispute where none exists. For example, if you dispute the term "viral video" in this case, please explain how it is that you challenge it. My reading of the sources support the statement. If you are reading the sources differently, then tell what you think. In other words, if it isn't a viral video, what is it? Please answer that question directly. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Burden is on you for verifiability/inclusion... Please quote a section of any single source that supports this, then footnote right after the statement. I've been clear above. You are relying on your opinion, not sources. As soon as we get sources, we're fine to claim this. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I'm relying on what the sources say about the video. Please answer my question above and stop playing games. If the video is not a viral video, then what it is? Please answer the question. Why are you opposed to classifying the video as viral? Again, please answer this question. Merely challenging a statement without explaining the challenge is nothing more than trivial objections. If there is an actual reason to oppose calling the clip a viral video, please tell me what it is. Please do not deflect your explanation by appealing to some other topic as you did above. What is the challenge and objection to the use of this term? A "viral video" has a definition, and by all accounts, this video meets that definition. If you think it does not, then please explain why. If you cannot meet these simple requests, then you have no basis for your objection. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am opposed to using any language, true or not, that is not verifiable. Couldn't be clearer. WP: Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". If you can quote me any section of these sources that states this is a viral video, you'd wrap this up quickly. I presume you continue to press the "Tell me why this isn't true" issue since you agree that the sources have no info on this. If you quote a source that says this out of any of the current ones, or provide a new source that clarifies, we have no further issue. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you aren't listening. The sources make it very clear that this is a viral video. If you are challenging this statement, then you will need to argue why it cannot be classified as a viral video. I suggest you read the article on viral video to see what this means. The claim that you are "challenging" this definition has no substance. You have not provided any challenge whatsoever. What this really amounts to is harassment. This article has basically no outgoing links except for a link to an obscure dab page and a television video, and your contribution history has approximately five edits since 2007, telling me that you found this article by trolling my contribution list, and that your account in all likelihood belongs to a primary account that has some kind of grudge against me. For this reason, I am having a very difficult time taking you seriously. Now, if you can't actually challenge the classification of this video as viral, then you have no business being here. Either explain why this video cannot be classified as viral or remain silent. I've already said that the reliable sources on this subject describe and reflect the viral nature of this video. It is neither a controversial statement nor disputed. You are of course, welcome to challenge or dispute the statement at any time, and I await your response. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am opposed to using any language, true or not, that is not verifiable. Couldn't be clearer. WP: Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". If you can quote me any section of these sources that states this is a viral video, you'd wrap this up quickly. I presume you continue to press the "Tell me why this isn't true" issue since you agree that the sources have no info on this. If you quote a source that says this out of any of the current ones, or provide a new source that clarifies, we have no further issue. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I'm relying on what the sources say about the video. Please answer my question above and stop playing games. If the video is not a viral video, then what it is? Please answer the question. Why are you opposed to classifying the video as viral? Again, please answer this question. Merely challenging a statement without explaining the challenge is nothing more than trivial objections. If there is an actual reason to oppose calling the clip a viral video, please tell me what it is. Please do not deflect your explanation by appealing to some other topic as you did above. What is the challenge and objection to the use of this term? A "viral video" has a definition, and by all accounts, this video meets that definition. If you think it does not, then please explain why. If you cannot meet these simple requests, then you have no basis for your objection. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Burden is on you for verifiability/inclusion... Please quote a section of any single source that supports this, then footnote right after the statement. I've been clear above. You are relying on your opinion, not sources. As soon as we get sources, we're fine to claim this. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Words have meaning, and the sources reflect the fact that the video went viral sometime around 2006. What is it about the term "viral video" that you are disputing? Please answer that question directly. It seems to me you are creating a dispute where none exists. For example, if you dispute the term "viral video" in this case, please explain how it is that you challenge it. My reading of the sources support the statement. If you are reading the sources differently, then tell what you think. In other words, if it isn't a viral video, what is it? Please answer that question directly. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability. Please provide a citation that supports this statement in the article, or it will be removed: "it achieved fame on the Internet as a viral video in the 2000s". The current links only establish that it was on the Internet, not that it was viral in any way. They don't mention numbers of hits or anything about how this video came to the attention of each reporter. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The video is classified as viral. What part of "viral video" are you having problems with? I don't understand anything you have written above. Please tell me exactly what part of "viral video" you disagree with here. In other words, why does this video not meet that classification? Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm... it's one of the links? Not sure why that needs explaining. None of the links, and the linked through George Lewis story (which should be directly linked if it was actually useful anyway) justify the statement that this is a viral video. Verifiability is the only standard. Please provide a third party source. I won't follow the Jimmy Wales quote here and just delete this unceremoniously, but... T-1. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me how this video does not meet the description of "viral video". What the heck does MSNBC have to do with this? The video has been described as a viral by several sources. Please give me a good argument telling me why that is the wrong term to use. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reverting because: the MSNBC ref does not as claimed make any statement that Pinky was a viral video. It merely states that it was available on the Internet. If you have a ref that clarifies this, please use it, otherwise you are simply relying on your own memories that this was a "viral video" and an "internet phenomenon". 213.1.213.131 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the video clips of Pinky the Cat have been around a long time. I think it's fairer to say that the 2000s mark the time of it becoming an "Internet Phenomenon" rather than when it became "available" on the Internet. Good summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Definition of viral video for 213.1.213.131:
"...viral videos are what the name and its biological roots implies. These videos gain popularity rapidly through transmission from one user to the next, ofthen through e-mail or posting on a Web site or blog. The qualities of a viral video frequently include elements of humor...the actual definition of viral video encompasses any video whose popularity spreads widely through sharing on the internet." Fahs, Chad. (2007) How to Do Everything with YouTube. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0071498656
Now, please go to Google and do a search for the Pinky the cat video. How many unique websites carry the video? Thousands? Was the video so popular that it was actually covered by the mainstream news networks and commentators? Has the video spread widely through sharing on the internet?
Pinky the Cat is classified and listed as #24 out of 50 "Classic virals" on Unruly Media's Viral Video Chart.[1] Unruly Media, "the world's leading exponent of viral video marketing", syndicates a list of viral videos to a "wide range of mainstream media outlets, including The Guardian, TVGuide, Sky, and CurrentTV." Unruly Media is recognized as an essential tool by author Greg Jarboe in his 2009 book YouTube and Video Marketing: An Hour a Day (John Wiley and Sons; ISBN 0470459697). According to Jarboe, "Based in London, Unruly Media scans several million blogs a day to see which online videos people are talking about the most. The viral video seeding specialist counts the number of times each video is linked to and the number of times each video is embedded." Jarboe isn't the only one to recognize UM; They have appeared throughout the media, including Wired magazine[2], Reuters[3], Sky News[4] and The Daily Telegraph[5], who describe UM as "viral video experts".
- Pinky the Cat
- First discovered: September 8, 2006
- Total views to date: 1,288,770
- Comments by UM: "This video went really viral, but it's pretty old news now."
Here are the YouTube stats:
Pinky the cat hosted by peanut789 582,071 views - 3 years ago
Jan 21, 2009 First referral from - g4tv.com 2,689 Nov 23, 2008 First embedded on - www.ilovebacon.com 2,345 Dec 29, 2007 First referral from Google search - pinky 4,386 Dec 05, 2007 First referral from - forums.fark.com 2,124 Unavailable* First referral from YouTube search - pinky the cat 82,879 Unavailable* Other / Viral 35,610 Unavailable* First embedded view 34,968 Unavailable* First referral from - www.g4tv.com 24,130 Unavailable* First referral from YouTube search - pinky 20,678 Unavailable* First referral from YouTube search - pinky cat 9,949
Pinky the cat hosted by colberto 469,673 views - 3 years ago
May 26, 2009 First referral from - waxy.org 24,463 Feb 12, 2009 First referral from - www.youshouldhaveseenthis.com 74,849 Feb 12, 2009 First referral from - youshouldhaveseenthis.com 72,770 Jun 15, 2008 First referral from - www.stumbleupon.com 4,554 Dec 21, 2007 First referral from - www.facebook.com 3,747 Dec 09, 2007 First referral from Google search - pinky the cat 4,193 Unavailable* First referral from YouTube search - pinky the cat 48,186 Unavailable* Other / Viral 34,255 Unavailable* First embedded view 3,841 Unavailable* First referral from YouTube search - cat adoption 1,764
Considering the fact that Unruly Media is a reliable source for statistics and information about viral videos, I consider this discussion closed. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It might be more polite to have a dialogue rather than a declaration that the matter is closed, but I agree. I requested either (a) a quote from one of the current sources showing that this was viral or (b) another source showing it was viral. My point was that none of the previous sources really said "viral" regarding this video, instead saying things equivalent to "this is a funny video on the internet". I assume that you found that to be the case too because you've chosen the (b) route and gone to an awful lot of trouble to defend the reliability of Unruly Media. Thanks for that though as it did help wrap this up more quickly, I fully agree on the reliability. Their take on this is a lot better than the less than half a million hits on You Tube, which isn't that impressive and frankly was one thing that made me request some greater support for the claim. I agree this is resolved. I will work a bit later on working the right citations into the right points of the article too. Thx. 98.96.254.102 (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Next issue edit
The lede fails completely to mention anything other than this is a video. There is absolutely no description of the content of the video, which makes the lede pretty weak. Since my attempt to fix this was reverted, if you could please address it that would be great. Otherwise I'll propose the same wording, at least mentioning what it is a video about. 213.1.213.131 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to see how your recent edit even addressed the problem you bring up. I certainly support expanding the lead section. I do not support removal of essential information from the lead as you just did. I'm afraid your comments here and your edits to the article don't match. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)