Talk:O RLY?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the O RLY? article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Delete AFD August 2005 Keep AFD December 2005 Keep AFD February 2006 Keep AFD May 2008

	Internet Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1: Jun 2005 – March 2006

Contents 1 Archive 2 Newspaper source! 3 Holy crap... 4 Another Crappy Internet Trend 5 Sinoc's Factory 6 6 Original O RLY? Picture 7 O RLY Picture 8 AOL advertisement 9 O RLY image (the second) 9.1 Fair use "rationale" 10 Deletion Review of Orly.jpg 11 Link to the image externally? 12 Vandalism 13 A Variation List 14 O WIKI? 15 Changes to the Origin section. 16 The best O RLY? variation I have seen 17 Worm for Company? 18 Is it dead? 19 Somethingawful forum link 20 O RLY Article Scan 21 Image Macro? 22 Popular culture 23 no wai 24 Appology on the Behalf of the RanixRly.com Community 25 ASCII O`RLY Owl 26 Pop culture references? 27 Gaia Online 28 Owl and Excepter cover 29 Where's the original "O RLY?" image? 30 Requesting Carrot/KKKK picture Deletion 31 About the removal of the Yahweh wikilink. 32 Without the image, is it worth it? 33 If I can find something on the commons that fits the bill... 34 Reliable sources 35 Original Picture 36 Trivia section 37 Fake owl picture 38 Sources

[edit] Archive

From the article: "The earliest publicly viewable archives of its use on the Something Awful Forums range from mid-2003 onwards. Older instances exist in the complete forum archives, but a registration fee is required to view them."

Well, if this is true, why don't you take a screenshot? 163.153.27.11 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper source!

The Independent Tiger Weekly - which is used as a "media source" - appears to be an independent paper, serving students of Louisiana State University (hence, it wouldn't be listed by LSU). I included it, because I was unclear about the origins of this newspaper. I'm not actually bothered if it goes in or not - I was just unclear as to how "reputable" this source was. --Hamiltonian 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy crap...

That O BLAARGGAG!? Owl is FREAKY! BTW, wasn't there a part in the article that stated that the death thing was a hoax? The picture I saw might be a fake but... Sprite Master 16:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that rumour was a hoax, but I believe the consensus was that it was unneccesary info. James Kendall [talk] 16:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Crappy Internet Trend

This, my friends, is just another crappy Internet trend that totally needs to be sweeped under the rug and forgotten long with "Numa Numa" and "All Your Base". That's just my two Yen.

...no, I have nothing of value to add to the article and nothing to discuss about it otherwise. Sorry to disappoint ya.

Be that as it may, it's a popular Internet meme at the moment. If and when it does become forgotten, presumably this article will get deleted. Until that time, it's sufficiently notable to merit the article. 71.236.33.191 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It should stay even when it is forgotten. It would be inconsiderte to our descendants to remove all the explanatory articles. Imagine it: generations over generations of future scientific colegia pondering the significance of the cryptic "O RLY?" simply because we opted to remove this article. Pure evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.186.216 (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? - Cyberman

YA RLY. WikiSlasher 08:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No Wai Superme

Srsly?

YA SRSLY! --76.188.148.173 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cry moar. :)69.108.139.192 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinoc's Factory 6

This is completely non-notable. It's some random game with 12 hits on google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amcfreely (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original O RLY? Picture

Why was it deleted? Last I checked it had an acceptable tag on it. VegaDark 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell. The edit summary said copyright violation, which is ridiculous. syphonbyte 05:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And unfortunately image deletion is non-reversible. Someone's going to have to re-upload it. Anyone have it handy? Bryan 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can find no reference to orly.jpg on either Wikipedia:Images for deletion or Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and the deleted image page never had an {{ifd}} tag or other such notification on it. There is no associated image talk page. Given all of this, I'm restoring the image using this source: [1]. If anyone wants to put this image up for deletion please follow proper procedure and actually justify it somewhere. Bryan 05:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The photographer wrote to info-en and complained that it was a copyright violation. The image description page did not identify the copyright owner, and so I deleted it as an unsourced image. There is no fair use case to be made, that I can see, and no meaningful fair use rationale was offered. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The current tag states the following:

"However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "O RLY?"

• to illustrate the object in question check.
• where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information check.
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, check.

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Where do you see the problem? It meets all these parameters. If we aren't going to assert fair use then we should probably get rid of this tag alltogether since it fits the parameters exactly. VegaDark 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't meet all the parameters. The copyrighted work in question in John's owl photograph. We don't discuss it at all, except to mention he took it. That someone else used it illegially it isn't an excuse for us to do so aswell. --Gmaxwell 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How can we have an article of an Image without the image?!? I don't see how we're violating an image copyright if we're not making any money off of it; yes, cite who took the picture, but beyond that there's nothing the creator can do about it. Dozens of people break the image's copyright daily; he should go after them, not wikipedia.--142.177.156.110 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The licence on Wikipedia allows people to make money off of it. Many sites do make money off of it my mirroring the content and adding advertisements. Plus, we would like to sell copies of the encyclopedia one day, so we try to make a product that would be legal for it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus harming the overall usability of Wikipedia as a web site. That's nod a good thing from where I stand, at least not for the users. The more and more articles are becoming image-less, forcing me to search the images in question all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.186.216 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could agree to discuss this at Image talk:Orly.jpg only? It might get confusing having two places. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O RLY Picture

Until it has been decided, I do not believe the picture should be removed. The other two really don't add much, and so they should probably go (I would agree that we have no fair use for them), but the actual O RLY owl is rather important. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Complying with copyright law isn't a matter for consensus. On wikipedia it is standard practice to remove an image until it is clear that it is permitted. This is well aligned with copyright law, because you have no right to distribute by default. --Gmaxwell 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The process for adding the images lawfully has been followed. Your act of removing ALL images before discussion and without new information can easily be seen as vandalism. FlameHead 22:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that that was the policy. Seeing as it is, I guess it stays down for now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A detailed fair use rationale that looks pretty strong to me has been added to Image:Orly.jpg and nobody's disputed any part of it since it was posted a few days ago, it might be safe to add it back to the article now. Bryan 07:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the image (please see my comment on the Image talk:Orly.jpg page under "One Lawyer's View"), the dispute over this image is pretty ridiculous considering all the outright text-based plagarism that's rampant on this website as well as all the bad legal advice being given in the legal articles. Bobak 17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be very suprised at being given legal advice to the effect that 'everyone else does it so don't you worry'! The picture concerned is the copyright of the owner of the image (who also, in this case, was the photographer). He has written to WP and demanded its removal stating that our use contravenes said copyright. Image deleted; there can be no further discussion. Whether there is a "fair use" argument or not is not something that WP has the wherewithal to go to court on, nor the desire to. --Vamp:Willow 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is confusing with the two talk pages. I did not add the most recent addition, post-deletion. I did get into a bit of a tiff with a rather hostile individual on the talk page of the photo page who appears to not understand the concept of fair use. Those speaking on behalf of the higher ups at Wikipedia are not doing an adequate job of explaining themselves --was it an alleged personal email, if so could it be authenticated? Did we get something on legal letterhead that actually confirms that he is who he is? This isn't paranoia, this is how things are/should be done. -- Bobak 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, but I was wanting to ensure both locations had a statement. The image concerned may be 'fair use' or it may not, however WP is not in a position to become a defendent in a possible legal action should that be the result of the original image remaining on the article. The mail received was authentic and there were internal discussions prior to the deletion process. Given that (imho!) one owl looks very much like another this doesn't really seem to be something to go to the walls over. I respect the opinions of others and, in a perfect world where courts were interested in only the truth and didn't cost any money whatsoever then maybe a different outcome would have resulted. But it didn't. --Vamp:Willow 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to hear the English person tell me I'm not a lawyer again. Please, I can't wait. -- Bobak 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL advertisement

I seem to remember an AOL advertisement consisting of an AIM message window and a conversation of "O RLY? \ YA RLY...". Is this erroneous? - Centrx 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O RLY image (the second)

I don't think the current image really conveys the same thing the "genuine article" does, and I'm thinking that it might be better to have no image at all, rather than an "alternative" one. (A real shame overall about the pics, the old version of the page was very useful). Thoughts? Turnstep 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I doesn't convey the point of the original. Actually, maybe the ideal middle ground would be if someone were to just make a sketch of the original owl. It won't quite be the same, but it will convey the O RLY? photo much better than the current photo. An "artist's depiction" may be the route to go, sort of like what was made for Ghyslain Raza. -- Bobak 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The current "alternate" O RLY owl, no offense to SPUI, is terrible in conveying the meaning of O RLY?. The owl's expression doesn't even come close. An artist's depiction sounds like the best idea yet pending the Wikipedia lawyer's review on if using the image is fair use or not, which I have a feeling we will never hear more on. VegaDark 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Any artists out there? I suck. -- Bobak 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also agree, that alternative only seems useful to me as a substitute for non-fair-usage such as on user pages. I note that the original Image:orly.jpg has been deleted yet again, without the current fair use rationale being argued against. I restored the image page though not yet the image itself to see if anyone would be willing to actually argue the specifics. Bryan 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use "rationale"

If you want the rationale addressed, I've pulled out what was on the image page and noted potential counterarguments to it. --Michael Snow 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Purpose and character. Use in the O RLY? article is extremely transformative, as the image is being used to illustrate an Internet phenomenon rather than to illustrate a stuffed owl (and see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music: "The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."). Our usage is noncommercial and for clearly educational purposes. This factor weighs strongly in our favor.
   • Educational purpose, yes. "Extremely transformative" character? It's the same picture with a few characters slapped on, that's hardly transformative at all. Putting the same work in a different context does not necessarily equal transformation. Consider the precedent you're citing; the new work there was a very significant modification of the original.
     • You misunderstand the meaning of "transformative" in the context of copyright law. It deals with the manner of use, not the actual form of the work. A use of a work can be highly transformative even if the work used under fair use is identical to the original work. Campbell summarized transformation as "altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message", something that "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message" (emphasis added). The purpose of Wikipedia's use of the image (to document an Internet phenomenon) is completely different from that of the original photographer (to portray an owl with a silly expression); if the Internet phenomenon concerned an image of a corkscrew instead, for some reason, then we would use the image of the corkscrew for the exact reasons we used the image of the owl, even though the corkscrew photographer's reasons for taking the photo would likely be totally different from Mr. White's.

       That some aspects of the case I cited aren't relevant here is unsurprising and has nothing to do with the relevance of one specific point. The purpose of the Campbell use (parody) is entirely different from that of our use (education). (I should note, though, with respect to this factor, that it would probably be best to consider Wikipedia commercial, because our commercial mirrors should be able to duplicate our images. Still, commercialism isn't a major factor.)

2. Nature of the copied work. The original work was "factual rather than fictional" and was not especially "creative, imaginative, or represent[ative of] an investment of time in anticipation of a financial return"[2]—although it was certainly creative enough to merit copyright, it involved no extensive arrangement of subject matter or other effort, and was much less creative generally than some photographs. This factor weighs in our favor.
   • Excuse me, but what's the basis for claiming that the photograph was "less creative generally" and did not involve significant arrangement or effort? Asserting this does not make it so. If there was so little creativity involved, perhaps someone would like to recreate it, so we have a freely licensed substitute? I would note that the arguments about how essential this particular image is, because of the peculiar expression and whatnot, strongly suggest that the creative factor in the arrangement of the photo is much stronger than admitted by this analysis.
     • As I clearly stated, the image involved less creativity than many others because it involved only selection of a single figure and selection of an angle. Other photographs involve much more elaborate setups, where the author may create a scene out of whole cloth. (I'm no great ornithologist, and thought the owl was stuffed; from what other people say, it isn't, which would increase the effort required a significant amount, especially if the owl was in the wild rather than a zoo, and weaken although hardly eliminate this factor's favor to us.)

       The particular image is not important to us because of the owl's expression. It's important to us because that was the original image used in the phenomenon. It was important to Mr. White for its expression, and to the people who later illegally reused it, but not to us.

       • If the owl was stuffed, then doesn't the person who stuffed the owl have copyright on the expression they put on its face during the process?
3. Amount and substantiality. We are using the image in toto; however, the purpose of our presentation could not be served by any lesser amount (since otherwise readers would leave the article without knowing which O RLY owl was the "original", and whether an image they see might be somehow modified from the original in part of it that we didn't reproduce). According to Kelly v. Arriba Soft, "If the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her." Therefore, this criterion weighs in favor of neither party.
   • The quotation marks around "original" are quite telling. It's important to remember that the "original" O RLY? image with this owl is apparently itself a copyright infringement. Trying to claim fair use of something that is at root still infringing material comes across as a very strained argument. It seems a bit like justifying defamation on the grounds that you're just repeating what you heard from someone else.
     • Um, we still can't serve our purpose as well by using any lesser amount of the work. That's all this factor measures.
4. Effect upon work's value. It is extremely unlikely that our use of the work would in any way decrease the value of the original work. This factor weighs in our favor.
   • Yet another factor handled by assertion, conclusion, no actual rationale, voila, fair use! The photographer's specific objection cited the impact on his ability to market the work, and when it comes down to it, he's the one who will be in a position to know and offer evidence of this. Can't imagine why this might affect the value of the original? The stronger the association of the photo with this fad, the less likely it is that anyone would want to buy it for any other purpose.
     • I was not aware that the author made this complaint. I find it unlikely that there's a large market for low-resolution images of owls cut at a rather unflattering angle (remember the text would have to be cropped by people trying to compete with the original use), and we could scale it down even more, to thumbnail size. You're absolutely correct that he knows the market for such photographs better than I, but he may not be acting on purely profit-oriented motives, and even if he is, that nonetheless might not be relevant (see next paragraph), so his word on this can't be accepted without question by Wikipedia. You do, nevertheless, have a point here.

       Whether or not our strengthening of the photo's association with this fad reduces the market value is irrelevant. Citing again from Campbell, the only consideration as to what reduction a use might have on a work's value is when the use reduces the work's value "by acting as a substitute for it ('supersed[ing] [its] objects')", which reducing its value due to giving the base work negative associations does not.

In summary, one factor weighs strongly in our favor, two others weigh in our favor although not as strongly, and one factor weighs in favor of no one. We have a virtually indisputable case for fair use.

• Or, rather, we have a lot of wishful thinking. --Michael Snow 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Or not. I'll concede that my judgment on the last point may have been premature, but nevertheless, the usage remains highly transformative, and clearly educational, the original work was certainly factual rather than fictional, and we weren't using any more than necessary. Leaving the final and hardest to evaluate factor aside, the first factor remains strongly in our favor, the second at least slightly in our favor (because it's still "factual" and thus inherently a lot less creative than, say, a Picasso), and the third in no one's favor, which leaves us with a good case even if the fourth is slightly against us. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • I won't argue this ad nauseam, just note that the claim that form is irrelevant to transformation is considerably overreaching compared to how that analysis is conducted in the case law. Transformative character is a broad concept that you're trying to limit to a single application because you believe it to be the most favorable to your argument. Suit yourself, but don't be surprised when the other side raises considerations that point the other way, or when a court asks for a response to those issues. Your evaluation still strikes me very much as starting from a desired result and reasoning in order to reach that result (which is what I meant by "wishful thinking"), not a careful consideration of the kind of analysis an impartial court would conduct. --Michael Snow 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm a comparatively knowledgeable layman. I would quite honestly be interested in reading a case that considered modification of the work in favor of the defendant in a fair use case under the first factor, rather than the third, if you had one in mind when you said "how that analysis is conducted in the case law". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review of Orly.jpg

A deletion review of Image:Orly.jpg has been opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Image:Orly.jpg if anyone wants to participate in the discussion. VegaDark 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you're wondering where it went, it was debated and removed. See the last edit before removal. Apparently, the image was reviewed by the lawyer from the Wikimedia Foundation, who recommended its removal. I suppose that settles that. Hbdragon88 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole process had made the "inner workings" of the WP feel like a mystical, mythical world where things happen and we plebes ar left to say "sir, yes sir". In regards to evidence for action, the average editor is told "just believe us (we're too important to show you)." Sigh...change, as they say, begins from within. -- Bobak 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia reaches another low...

--12.20.146.126 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)<('-'<)(^'-'^)(>'-')>

[edit] Link to the image externally?

Okay, it's clear to me that the image is hosted here illegally. However, it would not be illegal to provide a link to an image elsewhere, I don't think. Crazyswordsman 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not illegal, but it is discouraged in WP:EL. VegaDark 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's illegal is an open question. It could potentially be deemed contributory infringement; courts have yet to decide. Regardless, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works says that such linking should not be done, unless there's a fair use case, which there is but let's not go there again. Regardless, we do have a link to http://www.orlyowl.com, which features the original prominently on their front page; it could be a bit more explicitly labeled as such, but then, for all I know someone will take that as occasion to suggest to Brad that links to orlyowl be blacklisted like links to certain other sites. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Be carful on the slippery slope of "could be potentially deemed" illegal or injurous (financial or otherwise)... As a lawyer, let me say that we can find just about anything "sue-able" for the right lawyer fees. Wakka-wakka-wakka! (but serious as well) -- Bobak 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There's been a lot of vandalism on this article lately, I think it should be protected. There have been 8 reversions since May 10th because of vandalism, for example. -- Awiseman 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this version of this talk page that was reverted... while the user who added it was perma-banned for being a troll, the ASCII version of the photo he posted was pretty darned good and he even added it to the right section on the ASCII version of the photo... should it be re-added? -- Bobak 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate in the article. I think he got reverted because he also added it at the top of the article. VegaDark 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Variation List

I'm sad that this article is pointed for deletion though, I wanted to ask if it is possible to change the "variations" paragraph to a list since there are more variations and in that way, is easier to see all of them. thank you Minako-Chan* 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not pointed for deletion. Keep won the last time it was nominated. --Awiseman 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Also, there are hundreds if not thousands of variations out there. How would we decide which to list in this proposed section? VegaDark 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

the most popular and ingenious, of course ^^; so, is this proposal ok? Minako-Chan* 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

People keep adding variations to the list. Either we remain vigilant and only include a few, or we delete that section altogether. Thoughts? --Awiseman 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. Also, a third option is to split off the list into a sub-article, as was done with the "notable examples" section of the retcon article (the list is at List of retcons). You can see how messy that approach turned out though. In any case, I do agree that we need to keep the list short if there's going to be one at all. --HunterZ 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think splitting off a new list is a good idea. Like retcons, I've found that usually turns into an unorganized list of nonsense. --Awiseman 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted those 4 examples as original research. I don't think it's OR, since they're all over the internet and are pretty common. --Awiseman 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In which case it will be trivially easy to produce a citation from a reliable secondary source whicih describes these variations. Without the usual linkspam to something awful and ytmnd. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They're all in here [3] --Awiseman 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had those 4 is because they're the easy to understand and there used to be tons and tons of examples cited, which was pointless. People keep adding more, but I revert them back to 4. --Awiseman 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The total number of individually encyclopaedic YTMNDs is, to a good first approximation, zero. Since not one of those is a secondary source, this is WP:OR. Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O WIKI?

I don't understand all of Wikipedia's innerworkings, but it appears that somehow "O RLY?" can now be used to create the "citation needed" link. Check it out. Is this worth noting in the article? - Ugliness Man 12:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sun of a loaded gun, you're right. It's probably just a redirect though. Still, I think it's pretty funny.

Speaking of which, allow me to add my own personal creation:

--D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the Origin section.

I'm seeing an edit war brewing over the Origin section. Perhaps the person (or persons) who thinks that the reference to SomethingAwful should be removed could start a discussion here about why, instead of engaging in a silent revert war? Thanks. --HunterZ 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The image originated from either SomethingAwful or 4chan. Just put it down as either or rather than one or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.238.127.11 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be reverted to how the article read when I first read it a while back: the image macro came from 4chan. I personally WATCHED the thread where someone posted something like "put 'O RLY?' on it" ...And someone did. --Kakwakas 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the thread still exist? Is it publicly accessible? Would be a great citation link. --HunterZ 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recall this thread (sometime between 1mil and 2mil get I believe?), and I'm sure we've got it in the backlogs SOMEWHERE. I'll have someone search for it soon. tyam 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The best O RLY? variation I have seen

The best O RLY? variation I have seen is a cover from an O'Reilly computer science book, showing owls, and with a question mark added after the O'Reilly name. JIP | Talk 08:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a variant. Most of the non-owl macros were created before the owl one and are what made "O RLY?" popular on 4chan (and other sites) to begin with, though the meme didn't really hit the rest of the internet until someone on 4chan created the owl macro. Deaf-mute 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the O'Reilly computer science book with the owls came first. It was only edited later to read "O'Reilly?" imstead of "O'Reilly". That's what makes it so funny. JIP | Talk 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worm for Company?

Although it says on the Sophos page that the worm was written for one "company", this worm was actually released in a high school, where it thrashed around on the network for about a day before being eliminated. I'm still trying to scrape a copy of the worm from the school computers, but all I know so far is that it was written in Visual Basic to load Office Document Manager and print through a macro. I'm hesitant to change the main page since no support for my assertion that this virus was released in a school and not a company exists because the school didn't want information about them as the target getting out.

[edit] Is it dead?

People keep putting that the owl died in the San Diego zoo, and it's always been reverted as being false. What's the basis here? --Awiseman 22:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

also i think the pic of the newspaper should be changed and the pic of the actual spooning article should take its place

There is no basis, I don't think there is any way to trace it. A lot of white owls look the same. The best thing to do is probably just leave the bit about the dead owl out for good, it's pretty irrelevant anyway. Jon Fawkes 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I sat on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somethingawful forum link

I just went through all 50 pages (or whatever) of that thread and I didn't see a single owl. Would someone mind identifying the specific page number of the thread? Or -- better yet -- just linking directly to that page? —ptk⁂fgs 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or better still, don't link at all. Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, SomethingAwful started use of the phrase and of "o rly?" images in general, not of the owl image. The owl image came from 4chan. I don't think anyone ever really posted the owl image on SA because "o rly?" had been worn out for a good year or two by then. The article talks about the linked thread as the earliest public example of the phrase in general use in that context in a forum. It's not possible to link to the macros -- or the earliest "o rly?" FYAD threads -- used on the SA forums because they aren't public and almost all of them will be in the archives (see the external link, to the SAClopedia, if you have an SA account for citation on that). Basically anyone around SA in 2003 will remember "o rly?" being run into the ground, with Bill O'Reilly images etc., and then resurfacing on 4chan a couple of years later which is when it became associated with the owl. Deaf-mute 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O RLY Article Scan

If the use of the newspaper article scan becomes controversial, we can merely link to the article on the paper's website [4]. Just throwing that out there in case there is controversy concerning the image. At the least, you may be also be able to add the linked article to the external links. (Steampowered 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Image Macro?

The O RLY? owl (and others) is not technically an "image macro", it's just an image. An image macro is a specific sequence of BB code used to embed an image. It's also rather obscure... I'd never even heard the term until reading this article. It would be much more encyclopedic to replace all instances of "image macro" in the article with "image", retaining at most a line or two explaining the "image macro" usage on specific boards. Clayhalliwell 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The term image macro refers to an image with text superimposed on it for the purposes of posting on a forum. Yes, the term started as a reference to the custom vBcode used on SA to embed common image/text combos in threads but it remained a reference to the images themselves (and any image in that style) even after the vBcode itself was removed a few weeks later. Deaf-mute 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But where does this usage occur? In years of frequenting message boards, I've never heard this term. It doesn't seem correct to dominate this article with terminology that isn't in popular usage. Clayhalliwell 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The term image macro is a very technical term. Of course it doesn't appear on message boards. It is the correct term to use for this kind of thing though. I'd say it's more encyclopedic to use it Jon Fawkes 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

In the popular culture, why don't we say something like "Many video games feature characters or owls that say something like "O RLY?" Some include..." rather than the list that's there now. I have a feeling there are lots of places the thing shows up, and we don't need to list all of them I think. --Awiseman 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you deleted some variation examples saying that only 4 examples are needed. I can't find the "maximum of 4 examples" rule in Wiki editorial guidelines. I know you're not making up an arbitrary rule, right? Can you help? Thanks. Magonaritus 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule, but we discussed it here. Before there were like 20 examples, which was way too many, and many of which were very obscure. These 4 are pretty understandable to your average joe. --Awiseman 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, 20 is "too many". But now 5 is also "too many" but 4 is just right? Are you serious? How is this not arbitrary and capricious? This is a joke, right?

So in compliance with the Awiseman heavenly edict and Wiki editorial guideline that there be no more than 4 examples, I deleted the Bob Marley reference and substituted the YTMD example instead. Its references to birthdays, Harry Potter, and Time Magazine make it even more accessible as an example to the "average joe". Maybe you'll now revert it again arguing another arbitrary and capricious standard why the Bob Marley example is better than the YTMD example? Magonaritus 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any citations indicating that these specific examples are in some ways important? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Hamiltonian 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... where are the citations indicating that the Fresh Prince, Bob Marley, O'Reilly Factor and french language examples are in some way important? There aren't? So why are they in there? Magonaritus 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They're just examples, there are tons of variations around. I think the fact that there are so many is notable as it shows it's a pretty popular phenomenon. There used to be a list in the article with tons of examples and people kept adding more so it was getting out of hand. I thought 4 was a reasonable number. You don't have to be sarcastic, we can discuss this like reasonable people. Maybe instead of a list, we can just make it a sentence, like "There are innumerous variations of the "O RLY?" phrase, including many puns and other jokes, such as "O WILLY" (with an image from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, making fun of star Will Smith) [5]." Thoughts? --Awiseman 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to add that there are other variations. If anybody has an opinion on adding examples, please say so. --Awiseman 17:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no wai

I always thought "no wai" stood for "No, why?" and not "No way". I suppose this is because "wai" pronounced in Japanese sounds like "why" not like "way" which would be "wei". Any one else feel this way?

Not really if you think about it "No way!" is an expression of disbelief (can be used sarcastically) but "no why" doesn't really sound like a proper continuation of the conversation. WikiSlasher 13:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? --Tim1988 ^talk 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

YA RLY! - Ugliness Man 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NO WAI ! Hopp 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think he makes a good point about the japanese pronunciation, though. Anime forums and irc channels cringe at that kind of thing. 'AI' = "y" and 'EI' = "ay" -User

See also: kthxbai 75.153.221.227 06:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appology on the Behalf of the RanixRly.com Community

On behalf of the RanixRly.com Community, I would like to sincerely apologize for the vandalism that occured on the "O RLY" page. Yesterday, a (non-)member of the community performed this stunt in order to try to achieve popularity, among other reasons. Of course, the RanixRly.com members, including myself, were greatly angered by this act of vandalism, for we all respect Wikipedia as a useful information source. In no way was this action endorsed by the RanixRly.com Community. We are truly sorry for the trouble it may have caused. Thank you. Joeyjwc 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII O`RLY Owl

There was one time ascii version. But it disapeared. Why it is not here? I think it belong to this article ... Hopp 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You can find it in the article history, though.

Fixed user:Hentai_Jeff

There have been several versions. One large one I removed for size and encyclopedic value [6]. The smaller versions I was disinclined to add again, since they are uncited as to their notability (as is most of the rest of the article), however they have been added back [7]. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No reliable source exists for the ASCII art versions. Therefore, the ASCII artworks themselves are original research. Removing once again. --- RockMFR 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? I can understand needing to give credit to the creator of the ASCII art, but WP:NOR doesn't apply here, which should be obvious. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed with Alexc3, will be readding ASCII art in 1 day barring any other objection Hentai Jeff (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture references?

I just deleted a pop culture reference to a video game because previously that section had been deleted. What do people think about that sort of section? Tons of video games and such mention O RLY?, and before we had been trying to keep the section to 4-5 examples, with a note saying "there are many examples of O RLY? in popular culture" yadda yadda. Do people think we should put the section back? --AW 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

References in popular culture help to show notability of the subject. The things that had been removed before had been unreferenced. I put some time into making sure the Mega Man thing was true (and referenced), so I'm putting it back in. --- RockMFR 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i dunno about policy or anything but there are loads of other articles with long lists of pop culture references (20 or so sometimes). how many to include might be relative to the size of the article though.

actually... there seems to be some confusion about this. references TO popular culture vs references IN popular culture. i think references to popular culture aren't important enough to list (though the article mentions that variations exist and links to a website with examples). references in popular culture should be mentioned though, and if there's too many then create a new article for them as has been done with loads of other articles.

examples of what i mean: Guy Fawkes Night, The IT Crowd

or if there are too many: List of pop culture references in Warcraft

O RLY? 71.244.48.83 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaia Online

I recently removed some trivia about Gaia Online's "ORLY Hat" item. I made an account and checked out their store, and the ORLY Hat item seems to be entirely trivial (see [8] - login needed). I don't care if anyone adds it back in, but make sure you source it with the aforementioned link. --- RockMFR 04:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The trivia wasn't about the item in the G Store- it was referring to the collectable virtual item: http://www.tektek.org/gaia/price/?p=2657 Tozoku 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if the O RLY? Hat would be here, and I think it would be nice to have it here, but where exactly would it go? Ravenwolf Zero 23:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would go with references in pop culture, if there was a section for that. It looks like there's a discussion for that just above this one. Jon Fawkes 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owl and Excepter cover

Why is that owl relevant? It's not the same type of owl, and mentioning it is speculative at best unless a source is provided (see No original research). --Wafulz 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that fact that there is a track included entitled "ORLY" makes it pretty clear that its a deliberate reference. The remainder of the cover artwork is a reference to "Knock Knock". --Jonathan Williams 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in your opinion it's a deliberate reference. I don't see the connection- to me, it's just an owl on a tree, which is pretty ordinary. If we could get a reference from a reliable album review or something similar, I'd accept it. --Wafulz 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't buy it either... Also the Album is called KKKKK not KKKK. KKKK is the name of a song. -- 68.112.84.219

I can take a photo of the record label tonight. The tracks are a single mix on the CD/iTunes. The band's blog (myspace url needs to be de-spam-filtered) and the 12" list the full track names. You may be right about the number of K's though! Jonathan Williams 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

tracks listed here Jonathan Williams 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does this mention a deliberate reference with the owl? --Wafulz 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to? Jonathan Williams 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because hundreds (probably thousands) of people read this page. If we imply that the owl is a deliberate reference, they'll take it as truth when it might not be. No information is preferred to misleading information. Do you find it ironic that in one edit summary you tell me to Assume good faith, and then shortly after you go ahead and call me a troll. No personal attacks please. --Wafulz 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't own this article and neither do I (cf WP:Ownership of articles). I feel that this certainly meets inclusion standards at least with respect to the verifiability of the claims in the article and personally, I feel that you are taking too much ownership of this article. Anyway, maybe its best if we stepped back and let some other people decide what to do with it. (FWIW, I know quite a bit about the intent of the song, but I am avoiding original research and keeping to verifiable sources, but I feel that everything in the page is obvious from fact-based sources.) --Jonathan Williams 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more important to find out if the song has anything to with this meme. Are the lyrics available anywhere? --- RockMFR 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a noise rock band, so I don't even know if the song has lyrics. --Wafulz 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An even better question — why does Carrots (single) have an article at all? Is Excepter even a notable band? This whole argument could be a moot point if those two articles get deleted. --- RockMFR 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging from some of the crap that passes notability, there's no question. :) --Jonathan Williams 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily we have WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyway, it should probably be examined whether or not the band actually meets WP:MUSIC- if it doesn't, then there's no reason to mention them here. --Wafulz 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stick to writing about stuff you know about? 2 minutes on google show WP:Music is clearly met --Jonathan Williams 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Snide remarks aside, if you don't have any sources about the owl on the cover being a deliberate reference to the ORLY owl, then it will have to be removed. --Wafulz 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have contended that the juxaposition of the owl art and the song entitled ORLY is evidence enough for it to be mentioned. I don't think removing content is productive and makes the article less interesting. If you wish to pursue this further, I ask that you ask for arbitration rather than wasting our time edit warring more. --Jonathan Williams 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please have a read through No original research. What you're doing is taking conclusion A (a song titled ORLY, which is probably about the meme) and conclusion B (an owl on the cover) and personally coming up with conclusion C (the owl is a reference to the song). This isn't something to take to arbitration- unless you can provide a reliable source that the owl is a deliberate reference, it should be removed. Also, it's not an edit war unless we're actually warring through edits on the article- so far we've kept it all to the talk page. --Wafulz 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. (Stop being condescending.) --Jonathan Williams 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was condescending (I didn't mean to be). This isn't a competition though- if you don't present a reliable source giving your conclusion, it will have to be removed per WP:NOR (particularly WP:SYN). Simply disagreeing won't achieve anything except maybe wasting some time. --Wafulz 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree that a simple and obvious aggregation of verifiable facts (album art and track listing) is considered original research. I think that is the crux of the disagreement. I don't think this is a huge logical leap, but let's get some other opinions. Sorry to be cranky. Jonathan Williams 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Jonathan has hit the nail on the head here. There are probably countless mentions of "A is a reference to B" on Wikipedia that don't require verifying because they're not "original research", they're just sort of obvious. The connection of the song title to the owl isn't a stretch. If this is still objectionable, then I think the solution is simply to not report the connection as an indisputable fact, but as being very likely. Say "the image of the owl on the cover is likely a reference, considering that a song on the album is entitled 'ORLY'", or something to that effect. - Ugliness Man 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Iunno, it's still not obvious to me (or the other IP who posted above). It's a picture of an owl on a tree - it's not the same species, it's not the same colour, and it's not making the same expression. --Wafulz 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Yes, owls are common. An image of an owl on an album cover isn't particularly noteworthy, nor does it suggest a reference to anything if no other suggestive elements are present. However, "O RLY" is a much more specific thing, and is directly related to an image of an owl. An image of an owl on an album cover with no other elements might not be noteworthy, but an image of an owl on the cover of an album which also has a song called "ORLY" is very likely a reference to the song title (or vice versa). - Ugliness Man 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, yes, it is a reference with evidence suggested in a song title. In my opinion, it's a stretch of the imagination to say it's a reference. My point is that we shouldn't be basing this on some majority opinion on this talk page- there should be an outside reference. If it's really that obvious, a secondary source (or the band itself) would have mentioned it in some source at some point in time. --Wafulz 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Wafulz, there is no indication that the owl on the cover has anything to do with the O RLY owl, regardless as to if they have a song titled O RLY? or not. The song can be mentioned, however the cover should not be claimed as referring to the owl unless a reliable source reports as such. VegaDark 06:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"If it's really that obvious, a secondary source (or the band itself) would have mentioned it in some source at some point in time." Um... perhaps I forgot to put on my backwards logic hat this morning, but if something is "obvious", doesn't that suggest that secondary sources don't need to mention it?. - Ugliness Man 07:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Going back to my previous point — is there any relationship between the song itself and the meme? Is the name the only connection? Has anyone actually heard this song? --- RockMFR 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to get only original researchy, but to satisfy your curiosity here's some stuff I heard:

"to tell you the truth, the owl is a direct reference to the folk-song, and the ORLY is a reference to the track's position as a musical comeback, as well as playing into a whole knock knock joke/door-answering motif. The orly-owl coincidence is just evidence of a cosmic ineterconnectivity. The cover was designed in '99, well before the internet meme. [...] I think you can trace bird-focused circular logic of the ORLY? meme (orly / yarly / no wai / wai) back to Dumbo's Black Crows (what do you want to do today? / whatever you want to do today) which no doubt probably stemmed from vaudeville. The word-play-as-comeback (oh really? - owl really? - orly?) could even stem from a zing exchange in "Rushmore" (they're OR scrubs... / OR they?) which was released before the meme first showed up and certaintly would find resonance in nerd culture. [...] I forward the idea that the insistent use of the white snow owl in the ORLY meme is a subsconscious act to distract from the humor's origins in black (or blackface) culture."

But of course, we can't cite this, but I think its interesting. So the song is actually namechecking both the meme and the cover. But of course, this is not a verfiable source! --Jonathan Williams 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you citing? And doesn't it directly say the "owl-orly" thing is a coincidence? --Wafulz 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Personal communications" of a sort. The ORLY track is both a nod to the album art, the subject matter ("knock knock joke/door-answering motif" - the track KK on the album means "knock knock"). Again: this source is not ok to use [not verifiable obv.]! --Jonathan Williams 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the quote (whether or not it is reliable). It does a great job making the point that I was going to — that is, the name of the song and the owl on the cover really don't seem to be a reference to the meme itself, or if they are, it isn't obvious. When we write articles on Wikipedia, a certain level of common sense has to come into play. For example, the article on George W. Bush makes use of references that refer to "George Bush" — editors have to use their judgment to decide whether or not a particular source is talking about the same George Bush. The same process can be applied to this article. The references to the meme within games such as Mega Man Battle Network are obvious. It is highly improbable that the "O RLY? YA RLY! NO WAI!" meme could have been independently created by more than one source, so any use of the meme must be a reference to the subject of our article. However, the use of an image of an owl or the use of "ORLY?" by itself isn't obviously a reference to our meme here. So, unless the lyrics (if any) of the song make the connection clearer or the band actually states that it is a reference to the meme, I don't think it should be included in this article. --- RockMFR 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Using "our meme" is beginning to sound like you and some implicit peer group "own" the article. However, the point is that the *song* was a nod to both the owl on the cover and the meme (the songs are ). In fact, it states EXPLICITLY (primary yet unverifiable source) that it is a nod to the meme and the history of the "whole knock knock joke/door-answering motif". Jonathan Williams 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it explicitly state that the owl is a reference to Frog Went A-Courting? --Wafulz 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the original "O RLY?" image?

It's a piece of art, satirical non-profit image, by itself with its copyright being independent of the original image. On the other hand, there are examples in Wikipedia of using material (though only short quotations), which was originally unlawfully acquired, copied & published on the 'net, because of the general factual availability of the copied content across the internet. For example, the O RLY image is available from a site this article links to clearly showing the image is in general circulation and is generally percieved as public domain and that linking that image here is form of encyclopedic coverage instead of copyright theft.

Secondly: If the taker of the original picture really contacted WP then this should be stated within the article - It's relevant to the image and phenomenon that the person behind the image of the owl (I consider the person who combined the "O RLY?" with an image of the creature to be the actual source of the picture that is the phenomenon) doesn't like the interest and publicity the transformed image has created. At the very least, the name of the picture taker & the place where the original picture was taken should be mentioned for reference, along with the fact that he owns and likes to hold on to the copyright of the unedited image.

Finally: http://images.google.com/images?q=O%20RLY

- G3, 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Carrot/KKKK picture Deletion

I think the Carrot/KKKK image at the bottom of the page should be deleted, because it is irrelevant to the article. There should be a better way to illustrate the owl than up in the corner of a CD cover at the bottom. Besides, I don't even think the cover is real - if you go in to the article of the album you can see it is different.

Wikiburger 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The record is a "split" and the version on the other article has "both sides" of the "record" shown. The art is divided diagonally. (Are you trolling?) --Jonathan Williams 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the removal of the Yahweh wikilink.

I had considered restoring the Wikilink to the page, in the into section describing the typical "O rly?" exchange, the response of "YAHWEH!" I do believe that saying YAHWEH in an O rly? exchange is a referance to the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Therefore I say the link should be restored, but I want the community's consensus on the matter. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Without the image, is it worth it?

So, I've read over the old discussion re: the image and why it isn't on the page. Sad, but I understand why it isn't here. I would move, however, that without the image, the entire article is pretty much worthless. Therefore, if we can't have the image, we shouldn't have the article. 70.79.61.158 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just thought I'd chime in here that visual art is considered an interpretation of an image, not a copy. So if someone who draws well was to hand draw the ORLY owl picture it could not be considered a copyright infringement. --SeaFox 02:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But, doesn't Wikipedia have a fair-use policy? We should be able to use the image, nobody has come forward to claim a copyright to the image. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal system of the US has a fair use policy (likely where the copyright is held.) Seriously people, if you can't have an image on an encyclopedic article describing that very image then you're assuming a society with no fair use of copyrighted material at all.66.41.66.213 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If I can find something on the commons that fits the bill...

I could make a "free" O RLY? macro set for you :) ViperSnake151 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

O rly? Remove the "non internet uses" section and you're left with what? A "reference" from a web forum? This needs to be sourced per WP:RS and WP:V or deleted. --kingboyk (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Picture

This is what Wikipedia's come to. It won't even allow a picture of the very subject that's being talked about because of its damn copywrite codes. Talk about a stuffy beaurocracy. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn Straight, I want it back! --58.106.209.135 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The new ORLY sucks, might as well just delete the whole article, it's meaningless without the great true one original ORLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.164.122 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"This is what Wikipedia's come to." — what the hell are you talking about? Are you really that appalled that Wikipedia actually tends to abide by its own rules and standing law? Shocking indeed. — Mütze (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable whether the picture is really ineligible for Fair Use. As far as I know it was removed due to an intransparent decision by some lawyer who thought it wasn't worth the trouble. Criticizing that should be allowed. --memset (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

I'm fairly sure most of the content in the section tagged as trivia isn't actually trivia, just a list of occurences in popular culture. The tag isn't dated, so I don't know how long it's been there. Zchris87v 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake owl picture

The article currently contains a picture that is not the original image macro but a fake created using some random owl picture. I think this violates WP:NOR and is misleading for readers expecting the real owl picture, worse than no picture at all. I removed it, but it was added again. -- memset (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a picture of an owl, similar to the original. It's better than no picture at all, and at worst, does no harm. Though perhaps the subtitle could say why the original picture cannot be posted on Wikipedia. Kevin (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the Lolcat phenomenon which uses many different photos, the "O RLY" owl that a part of this article describes is always about the particular owl photo, and most of the image macros created in reference to the original (with some exceptions) also use that photo, or a completely different picture (no owl). The only way to adequately illustrate the article is to use the original image, if we can't use it because it's not eligible for Fair Use (because of the low article quality or notability or whatever), then we should leave it without a picture, like a lot of articles we don't have free pictures for. Wikipedia is not a place for self-made "tribute" pictures to anything, and I think it does do harm because it suggests that the owl photo is replaceable similar to Lolcats. -- memset (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just thought the O RLY owl was a Spotted Owl because that's what the "tribute" picture shows (and no, it wasn't me). See the confusion the picture creates? -- memset (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a Snowy Owl now :) Kevin (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya srsly, the current owl image was made with fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.37.161 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh fine, delete it. It's this sort of analness when it comes to picture copyrights that drove me away from Wikipedia for everything but academic purposes. Kevin (talk)

[edit] Sources

Find sources: O RLY? — news, books, scholar