Talk:Know Your Meme

I will complete this

I will complete this later today. I have a specific format in mind, so please don't mess with it. Faythoffenrir (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding those. They are not official episodes. Faythoffenrir (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check out your user page for my full retort and apology. I don't really want to fight you but I'm telling you that your article is incomplete without those other episodes. I'm just saying, dude. 10:35, 27 December 2009 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.44.213 (talk)

Critical Reception is missing

KnowYourMeme also gets some negative reception inside the internet community. It might be worth to add a few lines dedicated to that. It gets as much negative as positive, both should be desribed --BalkanPolka (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... it's very well written, you communist pig. --65.36.10.201 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin

When I sold the site to Ben Huh, he was confused on the origin and since then, the credits and dates listed on the About page of Know Your Meme (along with this article) were not accurate. Thus, I published the most detailed and accurate account ever put out there, based on facts provided from emails I gathered in chronological order. A link to the post has been linked as the note to Know Your Meme Credits. Meanwhile, an anonymous person attempted to undo my edit so I thought I would clarify the data here. Andrewbaron (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Next: Another anon person has attempted to undo this history citing that the history is 'long established but no one has ever actually put out a detailed history and no one has used email proof. So as you can see from my blog post at Dembot, I have provided the only historical acct online and its documented with email proof. Please do not continue to undo my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated in December 2012

Added in editor / founders / staff credit, created history section for credits & timeline, added more info on research process to website section. All cited with relevant documents on Know Your Meme. Professormeme (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Andrew Baron, I updated this entry with information provided by The Daily Dot. Since the origin story appears to be in dispute among staff members, I think the next logical step is to rely on externally sourced information from third party news publications with little interest in being partial (rather than blog posts or documents hosted by those directly involved in dipute). Or is there another protocol to settle credit disputes on Wikipedia? Professormeme (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

New Season 2017

No clue what they are planning on here, but better start considering how to treat the new series. Note, I can't find any rules for the colors for the seasons so I left it green like the previous season for now. Devilmanozzy (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Went with Cyan for Season 2017. Adding more info in Infobox as it appears this will be more than a trial run. Devilmanozzy (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Link to "Know Your Meme" youtube channel

Please stop removing the youtube channel link. Episodes can't be viewed on the official website and the article itself covers mostly the episodes. While they have a episode section it auto loads all content when viewed. Infact, the official website link needs a warning. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Devilmanozzy. I'll copy-paste from the conversation we were having on my Talk page. -->

Per WP:EL. We don't add external links to Wikipedia articles for convenience. And, we don't add more than one Official link for the subject. People interested in watching the videos on YouTube instead of in the subject's site will follow a link from the listed Official website to their YouTube channel or they'll search YouTube for the subject's name. If the Official website can't be bothered to link to YouTube, then there is no reason for us to do so, either. Stesmo (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Us meaning you. You wont even bother to see the issue. If there is a rule about only one official site listed, then please show such a policy. I know many articles that have lists of links. I see in edit history summary Stesmo notes WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. My reply due to the issues with official websites loading issue is WP:ELMAYBE. Please check out Their Episodes section on their website , before continuing this argument. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Devilmanozzy. Us, meaning Wikipedia and the editors over the years who have agreed to how External Links are dealt with here. As you mention, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is the part of WP:EL that covers only having one Official website link. If the Official website can't be bothered to link to their own YouTube channel, then there is no reason for us to do so, either.

As to the 'I know many articles that have lists of links', you too can edit those articles to remove external links in the body of the article and prune the EL section to meet WP:EL! If you're not sure what should be removed, but it's obvious that the article falls afoul of WP:EL, you can add a {{External links}} tag to the EL section or the top of the article for other editors to tackle later. If you're interested in helping with ELs, see the WikiProject External links. Stesmo (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to start. I don't see a special group you are in claiming to own wikipedia or whatever. But I see someone that is not at all willing to even try a link to see what I'm saying. I want a second opinion as I think it is a special case as the official website can help some people surfing there. I am not quite a Wikipedia master or anything, but I have been online long enough to know when someone clearly has a issue with people. I did most of the current gen edits on the article which kept it up to day. That doesn't mean ownership, but it means I have given a effort to make the article better. You should consider that when coming at me like a third class citizen. I don't believe you are trying to understand why I feel that link should be there. Good look finding someone else to update that. :( Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoting ELMIN: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". So, if the main site does not link to the YT-channel, AND that channel provides info not available on the official website, it is fully appropriate to include both. BP OMowe (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Biased Edit?

It seems i spotted the edit by the twitter user who claims KYM is an Alt-Right. Can someone disprove that? --Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 06:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

KYM is a wiki and mostly user generated content, and unlike wikipedia, does not engage in censorship. Any claim of allegiance would require proof of opposite-sourced memes being DELETED, not just about adding new memes. It's not surprising there will be alt-right memes on it, it only requires someone adding them, and considering there are still memes there is no reason to remove them. Claiming it influenced elections is however plain silly: the memes might, but memes spread through social media, KYM is only documenting them. -- Hkmaly (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the article title still be italicized?

I feel like the main part of KYM is the website and not the video series. Although the KYM project started in September and the website was registered in November, the latter has grown with documented entries, a community, and even some media presence that dwarfs the YouTube episodes. Another reason is that as a meme-based website and not mainly one for news, the current title does not comply with MOS:ITALICWEBSITE. Carlinal (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've begun working on this article and most of the post-2010 media coverage is about the website, so I support this. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)