Talk:British Shorthair

Changed Image

I changed the intellecutually vandalized image back to Happycat because I believe that Happycat represents the species better as a whole. Also, Happycat is not copywritten or trademarked. If you can find me the company that uses Happycat as its logo, then I will revert to the other British Shorthair. Goldenclaw 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really. The old picture was better. Why did they change it?

Who gives a flying shit if it looked 'scientific'? It was the same kind of cat, except it was having fun!

The picture of the cat didn't look very scientific, so I changed the profile image. Xioyux 02:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, but I'm afraid nothing can save this wikipedia entry now. NEDM.--Mikejoyce 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the first image better and I don't see why we can't acknowlege the internet meme --Stilanas 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree,the first image was better. Yet it's not even doom music.

Image isn't free read Wikipedia:Copyrights.Geni 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to be afraid!

There is no need for Wikipedia to be afraid of YTMND! Without them where would we get our useless facts in life? Its great that the picture was the happy cat before, no need to be super scientific! Just inteligent with some humor and joy here and there.

the image isn't free we can't use it.Geni 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not afraid of NEDM, YTMND or whatever you think we're afraid of. We can't use the image because it's copyrighted by that Russian cat food company. If you want to change the image to something like Happycat, have someone take a picture of a British Shorthair that "looks happier" and upload it to the commons. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think they're afraid... http://fearnotwiki.ytmnd.com/ After they saw what happened to myspace? No doubt.--Snake Liquid 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

People have tried attacking us before. Block them often enough and they go away.Geni 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. An image of a cat is so much of an 'attack'. Get over yourself.SashaNein

Nothing to get over. The image is not free thus we cannot use it. End of debate.Geni 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think she means the whole "Edit Not Guaranteed" fiasco, and the other things YTMNDers do to Wikipedia.

Its a pic of a cat...Not free my ass SgtSimpson 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably copyright happycat.ru. It is unlikely that it is PD.Geni 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Free as in "open source" free. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This "Happycat" is ruining a good article. Kill the redirect to SomethingAwful and Make a Happycat article with the humor tag if you want more NEDM, YTMNDers (and then watch your article get deleted). I propose full protection of both the article and its image. --Targetter 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, better. If someone wants to write about happycat, they can do it here. Just like Safety Not Guaranteed, this too will end. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

Separate article? Not a chance. I already deleted two. I will move from semi-protection to full protection if they keep vandalising this article. I will also block any vandals, because like you I have had more than enough of this idiocy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If this s**t doesn't stop, Max is gonna get a very nasty (but still professional) e-mail about what his community is doing to the intellectual community of Wikipedia. Go home, YTMND Soldiers.Targetter 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Targetter, you're best sending a PM to max instead. Most legal threats to YTMND get posted on the site and in turn get mocked. Look, Not all YTMNDers like what's going on here. Funny enough I don't see this as a vandalism problem (given they don't write NEDM somewhere on the article) but a content dispute over the better looking Non-free image verses the boring/outdated/ugly free image I see all over Wikipedia. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy advising the use of free images over non-free ones whenever possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I already know about the Fair Use criteria, but there's many problems with people's view of the term "free". YTMND deals more with pop culture than animal species, so their views on things are different. I know of at least two articles which have a similar edit war. I've already noted the problem above. Even when it comes to celebs, the commons may have an outdated half-decade old pic, but people still want to put a fair use pic that was taken 6 weeks/months ago. Unfortuently, WIKIPEDIA DOESN'T OWN IT! NOR DOES IT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELL IT IF THEY WANTED TO. Having it on here, then having the Wikimedia foundation sell a hardcopy of Wikipedia with the Happycat image would be as bad as eBaum. People making money off other people's work without royalties or credit, isn't that what YTMND DOESN'T WANT? My best advice in that case is for people to take their own pictures, or get permission from the original copyright owner to release it under GFDL or Creative Commons. If British Shorthairs are so known for their smiles, how hard is it to take a pic that at least resembles Happycat? Either that or go to http://www.happycat.ru and ask them for permission. There's a reason why we have copyright policies. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a big war here, I wonder what the final result will be after this war is over, hmmm.... 24.188.203.181 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We obviously prefer Happycat.

Most of the users that posted in this comments page prefer the image of Happycat over that other cat, and denying information about the meme in the article is just uninformative. We want Happycat. Don't let Wikipedia turn into a totalitarian death camp because of a couple of elites' ideas on what should and shouldn't be displayed on a public webpage. Goldenclaw 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I will block for vandalism any user who uploads an image of Happycat over the existing image, and will delete an unsourced Happycat image on sight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were a democratic group of persons, not a facist one. --Snake Liquid 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

you might want to see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy. In any case copyright law isn't decided by wikipedia but rather the goverments of nation states.Geni 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about user conduct and listening to other people instead of outright ignoring what they say and doing what one wants because they think they're some sort of elite. --Snake Liquid 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening. As and when you or anyone shows that the image is PD, GFDL or the right type of CC it inclusion in some form can be considered. Until then It will be deleted on sight. Uploaders would be wise to consider that blocking policy allows us to block people who upload copyvios.Geni 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See? That's more like it. People could learn from your example when it comes to article moderation.--Snake Liquid 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If somehow the happycat image passes through copyright, which picture goes into British Shorthair? Clearly, I support the non-Happycat & more-encyclopedic picture, but YTMND (and I've seen this in the past) could easily gather up enough support for users to signup for Wikipedia and vote for the Happycat version, and sorting out the YTMND-biased votes will be very, very difficult. --Targetter 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that would happen but the article is currently long enough for both to be included.Geni 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth putting both pictures in, though? Isn't one picture of a cat for encyclopedic purposes enough? YTMNDers just want their picture in because it's a popular fad of theirs. A common user would probably not be too thrilled with such a picture (although they might get a good laugh), and the picture certainly wouldn't make it into a paper wikipedia, compared to the current one. --Targetter 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the Happycat image is not free. When a free image is available, it should be used in place of the copyrighted image. We've more than established that. Secondly, Just because the fad made its way around SomethingAwful and YTMND does not make it notable enough to be included in a breed description. You Lose! Good Day, Sir! --Targetter 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(message deleted)

• Isn't that attack block worthy? Targetter 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We haven't established anything concerning the origin of Happycat. You keep chanting the mantra: "Itz a russian cat food cat, lol", when there has not been a single link, picture, or article supporting this claim. Therefore, one could only conclude that Happycat is not copywritten. Goldenclaw 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, where did You find the image, and where did your source find the image? It has to belong to someone? It's a matter of where the image originated that'll determine whether it can be used here. --Targetter 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

link happy now?Geni 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"We" refers to the hundreds of YTMND users who saw this page through their webpage, and now some decided to go to this article. You don't actually care about the article itself at all, or any other related article. The opinion doesn't refer to actual people who would search for "British Shorthair" on wikipedia. You just want the first image there for your own strange reasons. You have your own "wiki" for YTMND, if you like you can go make a "British Shorthair" article there and you can put as many "happycat" pictures into it as you like. Not many people would object! Xioyux 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is only one reason why we are doing this, there was nothing wrong with the first pic, it was change for no reason to a crappy pic Sgt Simpson

Whether To Recognize The Meme Or Not

Whether to recognize NEDM and Happycat in the article will undoubtedly create another revert war. In an effort to prevent a second war over this article, I'm bringing the discussion into the talk page. A user has entered the NEDM information into the famous british shorthairs section, which I am putting up for debate. --Targetter 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Polls Are Evil. The results of any poll, which will probably be completely overwhelmed by YTMNDers, are of zero relevance per policy and guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of NEDM in this article in all forms, as the NEDM internet meme is not notable to anyone outside of the internet meme community (more specifically YTMND and SomethingAwful). If you were to ask a common person about NEDM, chances are, they won't know. Wikipedia is not the place for out of nowhere, meme-related, YTMNDcruft. Take it to your own wiki, where your users care. --Targetter 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to "NEDM" being mentioned or represented in this article. It is completely irrelevant, and it is restricted to one or two internet communities, and in no way related to the outside world, or to the internet outside of the YTMND (and, perhaps somethingawful) website. NEDM and "Happycat" simply have no place here. I'm sorry to YTMND users, but these things should be placed in the YTMND wiki, not in Wikipedia. Just because it is known to you does not mean it is important to anyone outside the community. Xioyux 05:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per above. If the happycat somehow makes it to TV, or major motion pictures then maybe a sentence about it in a trivia section. But as an internet meme, especially a YTMND one, it belongs on the YTMND fad list. However, the list has been moved from Wikipedia to YTMND Wiki, so that's where it should go. BTW, Happycat is still a short article. Best time to update it. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Transient fads on YTMND are of little if any interest to anybody outside the YTMND community. When the fad has been noted in non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources then it might become relevant. Coverage of YTMND fads can safely be left to the YTMND wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the symbol, but I approve the vote. There are plenty of cross references in articles, when a noun appears in something else entirely unrelated to it, as a form of trivia or otherwise. Why shouldn't it be placed here?--Snake Liquid 08:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a tick. I thought we weren't supposed to have formal votes like this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIkipedia_is_not_a_democracy#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy--Snake Liquid 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. It's a debate. Even if YTMND gets a bunch of people together to support Happycat, the admins have the final say. --Targetter 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Support The NEDM happy cat is clearly the most recognizable example of the breed to the internet community, and as a well known meme it's culturally relevant as well. --NEMT 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no way this cat has any cultural difference outside of the internet fad/meme community. I think a common person would see the non-NEDM cat as a better example of the breed, since it has not been photoshopped or edited at all.(Stricken comment retracted) --Targetter 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How has the happy cat image been photoshopped/edited? --NEMT 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Support Happycat is a popular meme and it also is a good representation of the breed. There is no reason to favor another picture of a cat over Happycat, and in denying this you are kindling an ember of war within YTMND users. Just go with Happycat. Goldenclaw 02:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, your cat's popularity is restricted to within the YTMND community. Put it on your Wiki, not on a professional encyclopedia. (Stricken comment retracted) --Targetter 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a professional encyclopedia, it's a free encyclopedia - no one is getting paid to contribute. --NEMT 03:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"kindling an ember of war within YTMND users": What is this implying? What kind of war can YTMND possibly wage on Wikipedia? Just curious. --Targetter 04:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In the past YTMND users have flooded sites and harassed them into getting rid of/changing material that has offended them. With wikipedia they'd probably mass vandalize random pages. That said I don't think any such war will occur even if YTMND doesn't get its way. In all other situations YTMND attacked sites threatening legal legislation against them/ stealing YTMND material. This time the dispute is over whether YTMND's image is copyrighted by someone else. I think the majority of YTMND users would recognize the difference. --AFink 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Various groups have attacked us in the past. We deal with it. Ultimately we know more about wikipedia and how to protect it (and have powers to do so) than they know how to hurt it. We also tend to be somewhat more crazy than they are which helps.Geni 12:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is non free and can't be used.Geni 12:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Support I support adding a one sentence mention of Happycat under famous british shorthairs. Even if happycat was confined exclusively to YTMND and Something Awful, which it's not, the simple fact is there are over a hundred thousand people who have seen the image. --AFink 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I have followed the NEDM fad carefully, and its defining aspects are 1) opposition to humorous portrayal of animal cruelty 2) musical references to DOOM and Coburn and 3) Chapstick. The British Shorthair breed is not even a significant element of the fad (except that the most common image incidentally appears to be a British Shorthair mix), and the fad is not a significant aspect of the British Shorthair. This is much more appropriate to include on the YTMND wiki. --Ptkfgs 05:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Support: This is about information, and I believe that the simple blurb that NEDM is a shorthair, is valid. Why even bother making a fuss about it? Does it discredit or reduce the overall information on the article? Not one bit, yet there is a staunch attitude against it. This rings of an elitest attitude, and I'm definitely against that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigjake (talk • contribs) .

My concern about your statement is this: You seem to think we're acting elitist by not accepting NEDM as part of the article. I seem to think this is another YTMND-waged war, just like the fight against Bauman, and just like Rude Kitty. I've seen the calls for war, like "Lets [sic] show Wikipedia the error of their ways ... Get on that wiki page and SPREAD THE WORD!" --Targetter 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, but with only 166 views and a low rating, I think that particular YTMND is unlikely to influence many people. The likelihood of a "war" on the scale of the Ebaum controversy seems minimal. --Ptkfgs 11:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate Analysis as of 03:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Anti-NEDM PoV: Here's what I see so far, and YTMND has the right to add to this. I see two users (ironically both from YTMND) and two wikipedia administrators stating along the lines of "Transient fads on YTMND are of little if any interest to anybody outside the YTMND community." YTMND is stating NEDM should be included because it is a popular internet meme. As proven by an image search on google (happycat site:www.happycat.ru), the happycat image is copyrighted by "Гранд-Альфа" of Russia, and not the exclusive property of SomethingAwful or YTMND. Although it doesn't appear to be the consensus of the opposition to YTMND, I would propose a few solutions (select only one(1)):

• 1. The Anti-NEDM members withdraw their complaint and allow Happycat on the article.
• 2. The YTMND members withdraw their complaint and leave the article it is current condition. YTMND should also agree not to further vandalize the page.
• 3. Request mediation from the Mediation Committee
• 4. I would probably permit the following sentence on the article: "The British Shorthair is also the breed of a prominent internet meme, known as Happycat, derived from a picture off a russian cat food manufacturer's website." The sentence will not recognize either SomethingAwful or YTMND, and will not make notice of NEDM at all.

This has gone on long enough. Let's settle this soon, because nothing justifies torturing this article. Not Even Doom Music. --Targetter 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU just made the reference right there in your last sentence! It's a split vote. I say choice #2, with mention of YTMND and Something Awful. Something Awful did in fact purchase the rights to use the image in the US however they wished.--Snake Liquid 04:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever,as long as it's keeping wikipedias policy,it's fine. Oh,if Xioyux and Geni are nominated for admins,they get my vote for clearing this whole thing up,since the beggining. Targeter keep dreaming,since nothing justifies burning cats,not even doom music. --72.50.20.55 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this. I'm offering a compromise and this is the kinda crap arguements I get in return? My reference to NEDM in my last sentence was a joke. You know, Irony? Ha ha? lol? Snake Liquid, could I see a source from SomethingAwful proving either they bought the rights or they asked for permission? It might make a difference. 72.50.20.55, Xioyux and Geni have been supporting me the whole way through this thing. Get your facts straight. --Targetter 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha,lol? So much irony. --72.50.20.55 05:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

YTMND is not a unitary actor, so solutions proposing collective action on the part of YTMND are unlikely to gain any traction. This is clearly not a content dispute, and should be handled as simple forumcruft vandalism. I do not see any need for any of the four proposals. --Ptkfgs 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that YTMND is not really worthy of being included in this article. It's an article about a cat breed, not the YTMND. I think the article should be fully protected. --TheM62Manchester 06:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like option 4. I say add that sentence and then create a new page labeled Happycat and link the sentence to there. Then people can write all they want about the fad where it would actually belong. I'm sure it will get marked for deletion, but so was O rly and that page survived. --AFink 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

there are newspaper articles about O rly.Geni 07:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet if you read the O Rly deletion debates almost no one said "I thought we should delete this until I saw a newspaper article about it. That magically legitimizes the entire thing. The consensus was to keep the article because O Rly was a popular internet meme. Anyway, my point was I'm against mentioning NEDM in this article. I just think happycat should get a brief mentioning due to the image's popularity. If people want to debate adding NEDM and uploading the image then let them do it under a happycat article. --AFink 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My reactions about these proposals.

Why can't we have both on the article? Keep the PD one as the main, and put happycat further down. I've seen other articles use both Free and Fair use images on articles.

In order for it to be Fair use, the image needs to relate to the context; that's where describing the meme comes in. In order for #1 to happen, #4 needs to as well. But the meme is only a fad in YTMND. You can't find it in a google test with "-YTMND". Sadly, it doesn't belong. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 07:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of the Happycat image would only apply for an article commenting on Happy Cat cat food or their advertising. Using their image to illustrate a breed of cat — or to illustrate the NEDM internet meme — would not be an appropriate use of the image. Please review Wikipedia:Fair use for more details. Additionally, Happycat is not even a verifiable example of a British Shorthair, and the photo is of poor quality compared to the existing image.

Again, I must emphasize that "YTMND" is not a unitary actor, nor can "YTMNDers" be considered to act unitarily. The fad turnover at YTMND is fairly short, and the vandalism to this article will most likely not continue much longer. To compromise the integrity of the article to resolve a pattern of vandalism would be an inappropriate decision. Semi-protection (or full protection) and action against individual vandals are the appropriate response. --Ptkfgs 08:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be quite happy to block any editor who reinserts the NEDM fad to this article. WP:NOT a playground for YTMNDers. We have had this discussion in numerous contexts, for example "safety not guaranteed", and it seems to me that there is broad consensus that adding fads to mainspace articles is vandalism unless there is substantial coverage of the fad in mainstream anaylses of the subject itself. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a serious encyclopedia to me,since any user can post useless facts and crap. --72.50.20.55 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to read replies to common objections for some perspectives on that idea. --Ptkfgs 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Does anyone have one single reliable source that mentions Happycat? Has Happycat ever been covered in the news, or another non-trivial mention in a published work? Until the answer is yes, you can vote all you want, but it won't make a whit of difference, because WP:V is not open to negotiation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources, and I doubt that http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Happycat&defid=1406003 is really a reliable source. --TheM62Manchester 08:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You would be correct in that assessment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We now have the usual idiocy, a YTMND actively soliciting YTMNDers to come and vandalise this article. Any who do, I will block. Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling, semiprotection?

It would be nice if experienced Wikipedians would stop responding to trolling and get on with the encyclopedia. Would it help if I semiprotected this talk page? --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Just zis Guy you know? 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Would be very nice. Xioyux 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. I'll keep an eye on this article, but I'll get back to the RC Patrol too.--Targetter 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've semitprotected, since that seems like a smart move. I will remove the trolling, if nobody objects? Just zis Guy you know? 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)