Talk:Planking (fad)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge with Planking (fad)?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think the two should be merged, or perhaps the title should be changed to "Planking" and the former name "Lying Down Game" be listed under "history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon23 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As referenced by Mr Fantastic a Plankologist. He stated in a recent entertainment forum know as Facebook and Twitter that it isn't that serious. Don't get caught up in the hype of judging and relating current fads and terms with those of the past. Plank & Go Hard! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFantasti (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not that serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFantasti (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Planking" seems to have become a bigger phenomenon than the "Lying down game" so if it is merged it should be under the Planking (fad) article. J Bar (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Though it seems the lying down game was the origin of planking and this article was created first. Delusion23 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Delusion23 on that. There is a lively merge discussion on the talk page of Planking. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lying Down Game has been copyrighted since 2006, and the Planking group has copied the lying down Game and they know this. Thats why there should be no merge or if there is then The Lying down Game is the Official name for this game as its Copyrighted by law. Sneakybeaut (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sneakybeaut: Please substantiate your statement that "The Lying Down Game" is copyrighted. I do not see how an activity such as this can be copyrighted.—Finell 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The two articles are clearly discussing the same phenomenon and therefore should be merged.—Finell 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Planking" is the more recent term for the fad, and thus should become the name of the title. A person looking for the article on said activity (at the time of this writing) would likely search "Planking" over "The Lying Down Game."

Also, Sneakybeaut, it is highly unlikely that any government would pass a law restricting lying flat. Not to mention the fact that Planking is not a "group" (and thus has no organizational structure with no hierarchal system) which uproots any notion that the Planking fanatics knowingly "infringed" on the "copyright" of The Lying Down Game "group." 69.141.202.106 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

19) Sierra Anway and Jake Fischer are the creators of planking, if you look back on Jake Fischer's Twitter he created planking.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.53.209 (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

In my opinion this article is awful and needs serious revision if it should remain on Wikipedia.

There's something I don't like about the way this article is written. It's too tongue in cheek and seems as if it's written by someone who knows nothing about the topic but is quite happy to reference what other people have said about it (without really reading and comprehending what they've put) or tell stories about it without really explaining it. I also don't understand how this can be considered a "game". It's more of a fad, hobby or something people do for a laugh so they can post 200 pictures about it on Facebook (as opposed to them posting 200 pictures about their trip to the shop to buy a pint of milk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.238 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a game but that's what people have called it so we need to reference it by how it is known. This article merely calls it an "activity". Why do you even question whether it "should remain on Wikipedia"? As for the article being "awful" or "tongue in cheek" you'll need to be more specific because I don't see that at all. Barrylb (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is absolutely awfully written. needs serious modification urgently!86.27.165.221 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So be bold and fix it. Or at least give us some specific objections to work with. Herostratus (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is far too long. Trivial examples of this trivial exercise should be deleted, or moved elsewhere. This craze (i.e. an activity for crazy people) is not a sport. Suggestions that it is should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, "planking" (or "the lying down game") is tremendously stupid and inane, but that fact does not detract from its status as a notable phenomenon. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

tremendously stupid and inane -- or a telling stormcrow of the final collapse of the West? Perhaps this will be the point where future generations say "here is where they finally lost it". Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (June 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Having said that there does appear to be a consensus to deal with moving this to Planking (fad) or Planking (game). Something else that was raised was should the planking stuff be split from this article. This is something the editors here need to resolve and is not addressed by this close. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lying down game → Planking – The lying down game was the original name of this ridiculous fad, but it is clearly not the common name any more. A search of the google news archive gives 2270 results for "Planking" in 2011 (I have excluded all other years, as not every source was talking about the fad), compared to only 124 for "Lying down game" (in the last year) and 70 when searching through the archive. The second part of this RM involves WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I think it's pretty clear from looking at the dab page this is the primary topic. Of the articles listed on the dab, only one, Shad Planking, actually has planking in the title and it only generates 569 results in the google news archive and, as far as I can tell, it is always referred to as "Shad Planking", never simply "planking". Jenks24 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Planking → Planking (disambiguation)

• Support both moves. 'Planking' is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME here - I'm surprised Planking (fad) was merged to Lying down game, rather than the other way around. I also support moving this page to Planking, for the reasons outlined above: it's the only topic we have known simply by that word, and if someone searches for 'planking', it's extremely likely this is what they're looking for. Robofish (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support It does seem this term is the most commonly applied to this incredible lame pass time..Oppose. As per 65.94 and Herostratus. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Definitely the WP:COMMONNAME. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't want to cast an outright "vote" yet, but I'm not convinced and would tend not to support this, for a couple of reasons. First of all, unless I miss my my guess, "planking" is the term used in, and only in (or mostly only in), Australia and New Zealand, which are pretty small countries. Britain, where the game started, is much larger, and so is the USA and France, where (I think) "planking" is not used just as it is not used in South Korea and so forth. Second of all, maybe the nominator has controlled for this but the Google News results may be skewed by the fact that "planking" has other meanings, the main meaning (far outnumbering the game in notability, I would think) being a noun referring an a group of planks (and to a lesser extent the verb meaning the act of constructing with planks (and there is also shad planking, whatever that it, and perhaps other meanings).) (E.g. I'm sure there are many news stories to the effect "The storm surge destroyed the sea fences, scattering planking over the main street" and so forth). "Lying down game" has no such alternate meanings and all references would be to the game. If these objections can be addressed maybe the move should be made but if not, then not. Herostratus (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have only searched for articles from 2011, so as to dilute the problem of more than one meaning as much as possible and I will admit that I only looked through the first 200 articles of the 2000+ given by this search. However, of those 200, only three weren't about the internet meme. Also, if it's non-AUS/NZ sources you're after, I found these in the first 200: Times of India, The Globe and Mail, Daily Mail, Reuters, IB Times, The Daily Telegraph (UK), Autoweek, SpeedTV, WKYC-TV, Wishaw Press, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, AFP, Daily Mail, Pegasus News, Channel NewsAsia, Scotland Courier, The Independent. These are from the first five pages of that google news search. I can provide more if you require it. Jenks24 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the disambiguation page should remain and not be renamed; certainly this page should be renamed, but not the disambig page. the primary meaning of planking is flooring, the stuff that floors are made of, floor, the solid surface beneath your feet. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's certainly true... I don't much care if Planking (game) is a redirect to Lying down game or vice versa, but I oppose changing the page Planking to anything other than a disambiguation page. User 65.94.47.63 is entirely correct, the main meaning of "planking" is "a group of planks arranged in a meaningful construction" (it can be a fence or a path or a roof etc. as well as flooring). Plank roads are planking, etc. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I was not aware that this meaning of "planking" existed, and I have changed my vote accordingly. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. To many people planking is woodwork made of planks laid side by side, e.g. a wooden wall or the outside of a boat hull. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose overriding disambiguation: There's more terms named "planking" (such as applying floorboards and a gym exercise) than a silly kids game (inb4 "hurr I'm 24 years old", I was referring to mental age). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE: Lying down game and (before it was redirected) Planking (fad) are WP:Parallel history content forking pages about the same subject. If Lying down game is moved to Planking (fad), the existing page Planking (fad) will have to be moved first to Planking (fad)/version 2 or something, as it not good policy for a page to sit over a deleted parallel history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment couldn't you just swap the article locations in that case? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• For clarity is would best to keep them under similar names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE. What is needed here is a history merge of the Planking and Lying Down Game articles. This is required when two articles of substantially similar content arise in parallel. (IIFC it's not optional, it's a requirement to comply with the license under which the volunteer editors' work is released, I think.) This is an annoyingly tedious task which only an admin can do. I've done several and would be willing to do it here if I could, but as I said when I was kicked out of the admin corps for (in my opinion) no particularly good reason: "Fine, do your own history merges", so the admin closing this move request can have that pleasure with my compliments. Herostratus (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, a histmerge is not required here, because the articles have parallel histories so merging the histories would just make a mess of the history (ie jumping back and forth between the two articles, but not showing the development of either correctly) and would be difficult to undo. The {{copied}} template is the best that we can do in these situations. That said, I am not (and have never been) an admin, so perhaps I'm wrong. I will ask Anthony, who is probably our most experienced admin when it comes to histmerges, to comment here again. Jenks24 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe you're right, it's been awhile... yes, it's coming back to me now, you may be right about that, history merge is for when essentially the histories don't (much) overlap, maybe, so in that case nevermind... not 100% sure though, could look it up but INMJ. Herostratus (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Page Planking (fad) has text edits from 06:23, 13 May 2011 to 19:24, 30 May 2011 (and a redirecting edit after that). Page Lying down game has text edits from 05:37, 13 November 2010 to 16:12, 17 June 2011, with many edits within the editing period of page Planking (fad). WP:Parallel histories. If these 2 pages have similar text, parts of text may have been copy-and-pasted between these 2 pages more than once and in either direction. History-merge is not possible. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Everyone who actually comments on Wiki is a douche bag.... It doesn't include me.... yall are fruit cakes....

Reediting and need for further expansion

I felt that the earlier presentation was too much prose to take and jumbling of information without giving clear emphasis to what is truly important and what is secondary. See for example a recent status before my edits. [1]. This is the new presentation gives a better presentation. [2] I suggest that more editor colleagues can comment on the two versions before reverting to the earlier copy. Also I think it is high time that the article is developed further with a longer historical presentation and a detailed presentation of teh other versions. As it looks now, as if planking is the major activity, while all predecessors are made as a passing remark making the article imbalanced and tilted towards the last few weeks, a clear example of recentism. werldwayd (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tabular data is not an improvement over prose expression. Atypical wikipedia formatting such as using ";" to format sections, and spelling such as "incedents" is not an improvement. You forked the citation style against WP:CITEVAR by introducing a "Notes" section used to refer to... citations. You've reduced a prose article to a sequence of tabular dataoids with broken formatting, and breaking the citation formatting. These are not improvements. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that no flexibility is allowed on this specific "lying down game" (planking) page despite the obvious weakness of what we have now after your reverts. The present text actually is not about planking itself, but a prose of a series of instances without going into what planking actually is. All we have is a brief paragraph at the beginning about Lying down game, with an odd "Players compete" quotation with the obvious question "competing with whom" and are they competing and is there a prize? Or is this just a personal defiance or personal attempt to achieve something. "Competing" is misleading... Then there is a very brief history tantamount to "name dropping", like "playing dead", "à plat ventre" and "facedown" without the smallest attempt to develop the concepts and how they are different from each other. In the introduction we have "face down" and one paragraphs later "facedown". So which is which? And then all we have is a long (too long) collection of incidents that don't add much to our knowledge except possibly for the death of the individual. Why these and not others. Why are they more significant? Why these were these chosen seemingly at random... except for the tragic death and the involvement of PM John Key. You should not defend the inconsistency and tilted unbalanced article that we now have without acknowledging the need for reorganization, clarity, and further development that I was attempting to do. For example, why "France 2004", but "2003, South Korea?" and "2003 Australasia". Why once a date comes first, and in the following citation, the country comes first. And what does "2003, Australasia" exactly mean. I don't get it. What's so different between 2003 there and a 2004? All we have is a year and a vast geographical area that includes Australia, New Zealand, a big number of Pacific islands, and a huge continent we know as Asia. Do we actually mean that this "Australasian" form of planking you call "extreme lying down" is practiced in Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia, Vietnam, Iran, Mongolia and Uzbekistan? Or you just mean Australia and New Zealand. If the latter, then why not say so, rather than the inaccurate and very vague "Australasia" we now have? And then we have this odd "fact". "Planking: 2011, Australia & New Zealand". So planking as we have it in the article is a strictly new phenomenon in these two countries? How about everywhere else? They don't practice planking in Europe or Africa or Latin America? This article certainly needs to be more accessible to the Wikipedia readers. Collecting a huge number of references is a hindrance more than a help to the general reader. What we now have is a form of university paper or dissertation of sorts and those interested in academia, not the actual practice itself. We need a more accessible informative piece instead of what we have now. I also want to comment on you bringing up back the Taj Mahal photo as a proper "planking" example. This is very inaccurate description with the explanation beneath "Three people plank the Taj Mahal". Actually they are not "planking the Taj Mahal" which would actually mean taking a planking position on the building itself. They are just lying down in a courtyard outside the building. The photo is insignificant and a reader would not be even able to see anything from this, because it is such a dark a photo and the "plankers" invisible for all intents and purposes. All we see in the picture is the Taj Mahal itself and some visitors... It is totally unwarranted on such a page. Yet you bring that photo back too... Clearly we need other editors to express an opinion on all these matters. As to "incedent" instead of "incident", this is no ground for reversal of the full text and you know it. All you had to do was correct "e" to "i" not revert tens of edits "en masse". Separating incidents with dots serves a great purpose in making the text more accessible and less feel of a written paper to some professor. In any case, let other colleagues look into the two versions put side by side and then decide. Let there be improvement on my proposed form as well. I am not the type to insist on my form eventually. On this very discussions page just two weeks earlier, genuine concerns were raised about this article as well under the title: "this article is awful and needs serious revision if it should remain on Wikipedia". These were not addressed either... Meanwhile let your text stay as is, until hopefully we have third parties to take a good look at it and revise accordingly... werldwayd (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The game was really invented by Jake Fischer and Sierra Anway.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.53.209 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Multivits, 3 July 2011

Freestyle planking, a twist on traditional planking. Freestyle planking involves the traditional stance but is peformed while being suspend and not actually lying on something solid.

A type of freestyle planking is between 2 chairs where the majority of the persons body is not on anything solid.

Thanks

Multivits

Multivits (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You will need to provide some reliable sources for that information. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Planking Gallery" to post photos of you and your friends planking

This is a simple topic that already has sufficient photos to illustrate the concept. I'm sure it would be funny to tell your friends, "hey, check out that photo of me planking on Wikipedia!" Sorry. Create a Facebook group or blog if you want an online gallery. Article will be fully protected if the trend continues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that. This is a particularly visual activity, and in fact the creation of a photograph is an integral part of it, so it would make sense to have a gallery section with photographs, I guess. Granted, a gallery section could get out of hand, but that hasn't happened yet (there isn't even a gallery section yet) and I don't know if we can assume that it will happen. Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see some better photos than what we've got. A google images search yields a lot more interesting and clear photos of planking. The Taj Mahal photo is next to useless because you can barely see the people. Barrylb (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the length of the article I don't think we need more photos unless we want the entire thing plastered in images. The Taj Mahal photo was bigger in a previous version of the article, and the persons could thus clearly be seen, but I wouldn't mind if we removed it now, since the other two images currently on the article should be enough. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm just saying that, except perhaps for a single introductory image (the geohashing one or a replacement), the other pics could go in a <Gallery> section, this might be a better way to handle it, and in that case we could include up to a dozen or even a score of pictures without harming the body of the article. Should we have a dozen or even a score of pictures? I don't see why not, if they add useful information, illustrating (say) some of the lengths to which people go, the numbers which might be involved, typical venues (or atypical venues), and so forth. Granted one can get this by following the external links etc., but if free photos can be found to put in the article, why not, if they can be segregated into a gallery section? Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the need for a gallery. It's just going to attract mostly WP:SPAs who want to see funny photos of themselves on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't know. But at any rate we have no objections to SPAs making content contributions -- I suppose a lot of our content contributions are from SPAs who are single-mindedly focused on (say) Yorkshire steam engines of the 1890's or whatever. The objection to SPAs is to when they affect governance matters such as policy discussions and AfD discussions and so forth. So let's be careful in our terminology. I surmise that by "SPAs" you were searching for a nice way to say "idiots", in which case: well, of course. Where would the Wikipedia be without its contributions from idiots. The thing is, though, is the contribution any good. Even idiots can make good contributions (e.g. see List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes etc. etc. etc.) and here seems a subject just made for those of the ah less-than-genius persuasion. And the fact remains that this is a subject that would be well-served by generous photographic examples, in my view, and cries out out for a show-not-tell approach. Herostratus (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Combine the images into one rotating gif animation?AerobicFox (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why my picture got taken down to begin with. It's okay though, leave it out. But this is a visual fad, I think we need the pictures. The page states that "Players compete to find the most unusual and original location in which to play", which Niagara Falls certainly is. You can't see the people in the Taj Mahal picture and the person lying down in a field isn't really helpful. My picture is more relevant than a story about the NZ prime minister or a football player doing it. People come to the page to find out what it is and the pictures help more than the content. And by the way, I don't know the person in the picture. NS39340 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

So, are these valid external links or not:

• planking.me, the self-proclaimed "Official Home Of Planking". I don't know about that (planking doesn't seem to have an official governing body yet), but it does have a pretty good collection of examples.
• plankest.com another planking-culture website, also with pictures and so forth

Are these useful? I guess so. I think the example pictures are useful, and all of the material is accurate, I believe. And the sites appear to be of reasonably high quality and so forth. So I'd say yeah. Other editors might disagree, and there is WP:ELNO, which is a guideline and a useful guideline but not a proscription against adding useful and accurate material to the Wikipedia when called for. So I'm in favor of having these two links in the External Links section. Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

They are photo blogs with advertising and nothing more. I'll be happy to take the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎ for further comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What advertising? I didn't see any advertising. They're not "blogs" in the sense I would use that term (basically a personal journal with dated entries, usually by one person). They are small websites created and run (I assume) by unpaid hobbyist(s), either a small cadre or maybe just a single person. This makes them unacceptable as refs, but does not automatically invalidate them as external links. There seems to be a fair bit of work going into making them useful, accurate, and of good aesthetic quality, so I would think a reader would find them useful. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you use a browser without adblocking, you will see ads. One of them was added by the owner of the site (the user name and the name on the WHOIS record matched). That's a clear WP:COI. Sites like that clearly do not meet WP:EL guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well OK, but the presence of advertising in and of itself doesn't make a site ineligible to be included in the Wikipedia. All major news sources up to and including the New York Times and The Economist support themselves partly by selling advertising, and they are still eligible to be used as sources never mind as external links. If the sites are actually selling a product -- one key marker of this would be if they have a part of the site where you can place an order -- that'd be different. If they're just supporting themselves by selling ad space as does Slate.com and basically every information-providing website in the world -- so what. In fact, the presence of advertising is a marker that sites are "real" sites with some business model, some formal editing process, and some real-world popularity rather than just some guy's random blog. Herostratus (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#External links at Lying down game. Maybe someone else has some thoughts. Herostratus (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, hrm. In this discussion, it looks like it's just me and User:Ohnoitsjamie involved. And the thread I opened over at the External Links noticeboard (it's now been archived, an activity they apparently perform there with a rather severe alacrity) attracted exactly zero commentors (if you don't include me and User:Ohnoitsjamie). So it's just me and User:Ohnoitsjamie in this dance. I'd be willing to offer to thumb-wrestle User:Ohnoitsjamie if he's willing to come to Boston (I can't pay his fare). Failing that, I'm re-including the links on the theory that, given that there's no resolution, it's better to have information than not have information. Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Phoon

150.162.165.151 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Gabriel Marques I've just heard about this topic, but it seem derived from Phoon: http://www.phoons.com/ - or at least the Phoon idea seems older (from the site): "...In 1980, I struck a particular pose for a handful of that summer's family vacation photos. I nicknamed it the "Phoon" (pronounced "foon")." Could be on the history part of this article.

See WP:OR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

EDIT Request

On July 8th, 2011, entertainment blog TMZ.com reported that rapper Xzibit was claiming via his twitter account that "Planking was a way to transport slaves on ships during the slave trade, its not funny. Educate yourselves.", also claiming "Dont get it twisted. I care less where your dumb asses lay face down and take pictures of the sh*t, I'm just telling you where it came from."

Is there any truth to this and can it be added in order that it can be refuted? It seems noteworthy that a celebrity would make such a claim, and if there is any truth (I would hope not) it should have a fair chance of being known, and in return should it be a false claim it should certainly deserve a chance for a public forum where it could be refuted to prevent any further propagation of Xzibit's sentiments..

http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/08/rapper-xzibit-planking-racist-racism-slavery-twitter-bieber-chris-brown-rosario-dawson-internet-crazy-prank/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.80.204 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely that planking was actually inspired by slave shipping methods, and Xzibit isn't qualified to assert that. Gary Clarkson or Christian Langdon could tell us. There is a coincidental similarity, and Xzibit noted that, and this is something that might disturb African-Americans in particular; it disturbed Xzibit at any rate. However, Xzibit's comments are a primary source and not sufficient for us to include this in the article. If more people make this comment and this is noted in a secondary source so that there is created an article in (say) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution entitled "African-Americans speak out against 'offensive' planking fad" or whatever, then we should cover it. Until then, ignore. Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, planking is no more "racist" than lying down to bed at night. Until it's printed in a history book or a strong connection can be made, leave it out. NS39340 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's true. It DOES have it's roots in SLAVERY because to commemorate the original "Brooks Image" of HOW slaves were transported, a few British Institutions actually recreated it with live people; such as Durham University... see links for proof. http://www.dur.ac.uk/durham.first/winter07/slaveship/ and http://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/exhibitions/museums/brookes.html 74.178.243.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Just because some people did a display a few years ago about how slaves were transported, it has NOTHING to do with planking. NS39340 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that this school used live people in a prone position to recreate what it would be like to be held captive and transported on a slave ship, but no where in those articles in there anything mentioned that would correlate those activities with those of the planking fad. The only thing they have in common in lying down which is something I also do when I sleep.. This just doesnt make any real connection at all between the planking game and the unfortunate treatment of slaves. My .02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.240.29 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

xzibit and katt Williams are not qualified to speak on the history of planking. The first two articles are scholarly articles and are about slave ships. However, they do not mention anything about planking, lying down game, or the fad. They don't belong here. Until we get a credible source (not a rapper or comedian) that can say the lying down game has anything to do with the slave trade, we need to leave it off. The second two articles merely talk about someone else claiming something about planking. NS39340 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still unclear as to why there is confusion that planking is racist; but, pictures are worth a thousand words. Just take a look at the pictures of people planking en masse, and then take a look at Stowage of the British Slave Ship Brookes, 1788 A.D., and explain where the confusion is? Obviously, racists are not going to announce their intentions. Also, obviously fools do jump on band wagons. But the pictures make it plain. 98.71.196.199 (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

According to, “Marcus_Rediker, a professor of Atlantic History at the University_of_Pittsburgh and author of The Slave Ship: A Human History...To 'plank' was not necessarily a verb used by slave ship merchants and captains,... But the planks 'of the lower deck are precisely where millions of Africans were forced to lie and sleep on the Middle Passage, in conditions of utter horror that defy description,'. ...No matter what the intention of the founders of the recent fad, there is a connection to the slave trade and it is a painful one, not least because we have been reluctant to face this part of our common history.” Cited Reference - Sarah Anne Hughes (2011-07-08). "Is 'planking' connected to the slave trade?". The Washington Post Blog. Retrieved 2011-07-12.. 98.82.81.220 (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. OK, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that Gary Clarkson or Christian Langdon saw slave pictures and decided Ha ha, look at that, that gives me an idea... (it's even less likely (although nothing's impossible) that they had racist intent.) But in all likelihood one of them simply lay down and said Ha ha, look at me, and the other said Ha ha you look stupid Ima take your picture and it went on from there.

But it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether

1. other people make the connection (whether they ascribe deliberately racist motives to Clarkson and Landgon and/or their followers, or simply note the coincidence (and possibly express a discomfort arising from this), is of secondary concern) and
2. this is reported in reliable secondary sources such to the extent that it's notable.

Well, we have this. It's a blog, but it bears the imprint of the Washington Post. I believe we have a special case exactly for this situation, and in a nutshell it says "reliable, generally" IIRC. And the Washington Post is certainly notable, again granting that this not the main paper but a blog. Is this sufficient reliability and notability to use this ref as a cite in mentioning this issue. It's on the borderline I guess and sort of a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it is. Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Verbatim from one of your "sources"..... "However, any intended allusion to slavery has yet to be proven.". These are blogs talking about rappers and celebrities THINKING it's racist. Even your source says there is no connection. We can leave it up for now, but the fact of the matter is there is no source that says there's a connection. NS39340 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent controversy

Maybe they could add a section called recent controversy? Wouldn't that be okay?98.82.76.29 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section concerning the 2007 Durham incident (which had citations that did not support the assertion) and the comparison between planking and slavery. If someone wants to make the bold assertion comparing planking to slavery, it damn well needs to have better references than a rapper's statement and a couple of web articles. Eli lilly (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The "couple of web articles" you dismiss fall well within WP:RELIABLE. I would also remind you that Wikipedia is not Censored. This is not a biography of a living person. This is an article on a fad, which has been questioned in reliable media sources regarding racial issues. Me personally, I think the criticism is off-point. However, that is my personal opinion, and no matter how objectional it may be to any of us, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. I gave the allegation what it deserves, a brief mention, nothing more, nothing less, and I am putting it back in. Feel free to add any reliable source calling the criticism BS.-RoBoTam^ice 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Straight from wikipedia's policy that YOU posted. Most of those are blogs. So it falls under questionalbe sources. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which RELY HEAVILY ON RUMORS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." None of the sources say anything about planking and if they do, it's about someone speculating it has anything to do with slavery. It is not verifiable. NS39340 (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Read further. "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The only "blog" cited is the Washington Post Blog article, which is peer-reviewed, and edited. theGrio is an edited news source that includes blogs, but is not a blog; the cited article was not connected to a blog. The reporter who wrote the Post article is Sarah Anne Hughes, who is a professional journalist. The writer of theGrio article is Camilo Smith, who is a professional journalist with theGrio and The LA Times. Even if we were to concede that these articles were "questionable sources," they do not cite "contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." The text you wish to omit neither supports nor contradicts the criticism, but merely discusses the verifiable fact that there is criticism, a fact which does not need to be suppressed simply because it is offensive to you and I. As such I'm putting it back in.-199.173.225.33 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, I had absolutely NOTHING to do with keeping out the planking picture that you wanted to insert so badly. Certainly nothing personal against you or anyone else here. -RoBoTam^ice 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It violates WP:SYNTH since none of the sources regarding the Durham event mentions "the lying down game" or "planking". We need specific reliable sources that mentions this fad in connection with this specific event. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian Origin of the name?

the cited reference does not support the claim that the term originated in Australia, and (the article's) support of the claim that it only became a fad in 2011 is fairly weak:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/layabouts-plank-their-way-across-town-in-latest-net-craze-20110512-1ejun.html
Not to say that I doubt the claim of origin, just that the cite does not support it. --RoBoTam^ice 14:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Green invented Planking

comedian Tom Green was the person that invented planking in 1994 on his Canadian TV show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csS_oySjfjU&sns=tw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.52.27 (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Green invented planking in 1994 which is before the currently attributed and self-proclaimed creators of planking (1997). This article should give credit to Mr. Green for doing so. (Huqdonphonix (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)).

Can you cite a reliable source? 121.45.217.195 (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

the evidence is pretty clear. needs to be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.40.218 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is not "pretty clear", since except for the lying down bit there doesn't seem to be much in common with the current fad. Also we need a reliable source stating something specific about this, otherwise it constitutes original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/13/planking.roots/index.html?iref=allsearch http://www.mediaite.com/online/you-know-that-internet-phenomenon-planking-seems-that-tom-green-invented-it-in-1994/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.52.27 (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/tom-green-created-planking-in-1994_n_897258.html

http://clutch.mtv.com/2011/07/13/tom-green-planking/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike10dude (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.28.245.126, 13 July 2011

Please change: Students at Durham University in Northeast England received criticism for a July 2007 re-creation of the image of the 1788 Brookes abolitionist poster, in a manner reminiscent of the lying down game.

To: In July 2007, Durham University received criticism after recreating the image of the 1788 Brookes abolitionist poster with students from schools in the North East of England, in a manner reminiscent of the lying game.

Reason: The original sentence implies that it was students of the University which were undertaking the recreation of the image however the original source given (http://www.dur.ac.uk/durham.first/winter07/slaveship/) clearly states that it was Staff run and undertaken by students of schools. Also the world 'Northeast' is incorrect and should be replaced with 'North East England' or the more flowing text of 'North East of England'.

92.28.245.126 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good point and good edit. -RoBoTam^ice 11:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

“Planking has roots in slavery. Slaves captured in Africa were stowed away on ships during the “Middle Passage” journey during the late 16th century. Slaves used the planks as beds.

The article presented no sources to support this claim. The correct term historically referenced for this procedure is 'packing' or 'tight packing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.103.251 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The article is, as of right now, unprotected so you are able to make the edits yourself. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entire Durham section. The two articles cited do not support (or even mention) the Durham re-creation. The link mentioned above does discuss the Durham recreation as part of an outreach program. There is no citation indicating that there was any sort of controversy and no citation comparing the incident to planking. I was not able to find any reference to support the claim. Since the claim is inflammatory and unsupported, I have removed it. Eli lilly (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding "no citation indicating that there was any sort of controversy" regarding Durham, I submit, from the Brookes commemoration footnote: "Unsurprisingly these events have attracted criticisms, foremost being the obvious question of whether it is appropriate to render the image IN SUCH A FASHION [emphasis added]. Asking individuals to replicate a scene depicting extreme cruelty could be labelled morbid as it can be seen as particularly insensitive both to the memory of those enslaved and their descendants today."
  

( http://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/exhibitions/museums/brookes.html )-RoBoTam^ice 13:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Robotam, the article doesn't mention planking or the lying down game at all. It doesn't belong here. Period. NS39340 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't directly mention planking. It mentions and pictures students in North East England lying down to commemorate the "Brookes" abolitionist poster and receiving criticism for doing so in such a manner during 2007, during the same time period that the alleged North East England fad became popular beyond that area. The other articles mention planking and the perceived (and in my opinion, incorrect) nexus between planking and the Brookes poster. -RoBoTam^ice 17:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Robotham, the problem is the conclusion "in a manner reminiscent of the lying down game". The idea that the Durham re-creation is reminiscent of the lying down game is an original conclusion, is NOT a verifiable conclusion, and the statement flat-out does not exist outside of Wikipedia. It has no place here. Eli lilly (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to spread all over this talk page. To avoid confusion I want to note that I just commented with the same conclusion as Eli lilly a couple of sections above this one. I also think it should not be included in the article as it violates WP:SYNTH. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, Saddhiyama & Eli, I'm fine with removing the portion related to Durham. -RoBoTam^ice 18:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect photo?

I don't mean to be a killjoy, and I freely admit I know nothing about "planking" beyond what this article tells me. But given the article's text, it's my current understanding that about the only rule of the "lying down game" is that both hands must be by one's sides. And one of two photos in the "gallery" (and the only decent one -- sorry, but the Taj Mahal photo's underwhelming, given how small the people are) is of a man "planking" a streetlight, and his right hand is clearly gripping the lamppost -- you can see it. I grant that this is a necessity for him to remain in that position, but I'd submit that either we need to change the article text (clarifying that it can be planking if one hand's doing something else but you look badass while doing it), or else find some more illustrative pictures. Just a suggestion. 71.197.146.198 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think the article needs changed. The gallery is not that great. I don't think that either photo should be removed unless new photo owners come along and submit their own. My suggestion is that the streetlight photo may stay, but the Taj Mahal photo should be removed (or replaced preferably) with a better photo. Koolkarl2011 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (July 2011)

• Closed as move to Planking (fad). Clear consensus. Closing now in order to complete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owling (Game). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lying down game → Planking (activity) or Planking (fad) – I don't think anyone calls it the lying down game. If they do then they probably read Wikipedia too much. "It might get confused" is not a policy-based reason for not moving. Marcus Qwertyus 01:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC) comment: this is valid. I was confused about it being called the "Lying Down Game," because everyone knows it as planking.

• Comment I think this is a valid request. There was a Requested Move less than a month ago, so another so soon could be seen as being out of line. It's not, though, because that earlier request became confused by the side issue of the fate of the disambig page Planking. A clean Requested Move, just of this page to another name, is in order. I'm not prepared cast a !vote yet but I do think it's a reasonable request. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for setting this up Marcus. I'd been meaning to start a new RM ever since I botched the last one, but had plain forgotten about it. I also agree with everything Herostratus said, except that I am willing to cast a vote (sort of). I support the article being moved to something with Planking in the title, but have no real preference between Planking (activity) or Planking (fad). Jenks24 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It will stay 'The lying Down Game' as its the official name for it and theres a copyright in place by the creators of the game. Planking is just a slang word for it for when the 'Lying Down Game was copied by the planking group on facebook...so maybe planking in brackets underneath or something similar. There are so many people complaining about people calling it planking as its not the proper name for it and its a reference to racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.86.77 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Planking is not the proper term it is 'the lying down game'. Planking is just a nick name or slang name for it totally oppose and know thousands more who would aswell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakybeaut (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Official names. It is not a reference to the slave trade. That has been de-bunked. Marcus Qwertyus 02:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject. Planking is undeniably the most frequently used and most recognizable name. BlueGold73 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree the page should be renamed "Planking (Fad)", if you google "planking" this is the first page that comes up. So, either way. NS39340 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Seems like common sense. Steven Walling 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's currently clunky, artificial and doesn't reflect the popular terminology. Support Mdnthrvst 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Even if the original name was The Lying Down Game, the popular name seems to be planking now. Koolkarl2011 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support prefer Planking (fad) . 70.24.248.237 (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

space after comma

(2003,South Korea) - a space after comma is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beniamin1 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)  Done Marcus Qwertyus 11:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo correction request

Footnote 17 is broken. Please remove the first (bolded) '>' to fix it:
<ref> name="Staff_20110513_Planking_Telegraph">[Staff] (13 May 2011) "Planking the latest net craze" The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW) p. 9.</ref>
24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done I think Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

History-split

• At 03:00, 31 May 2011 User:Barrylb text-merged Planking (fad) to Lying down game.
  • About 15:50, 22 July 2011 someone made an undesirable history-merge of Lying down game to Planking (fad), although these 2 pages were WP:Parallel histories due to that text-merge.
  • At 17:05, 22 July 2011 User:Jenks24 asked me to try to reverse this. So I deleted Planking (fad), called for selective undelete, marked all the edits that I could identify as being in a particular one of the 2 parallel histories (Lying down game as before the textmerge), undeleted them, and moved them to Planking (fad)/version 2. I then undeleted Planking (fad). I apologise if I have left any edits in the wrong page history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for fixing this up, Anthony. The page histories look 100% correct to me. Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)