Talk:Ligma joke

Requested move 4 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ligma joke → Ligma – A previous discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ligma_(disambiguation)) resulted in the consensus that the ligma joke is the primary topic. Please move this per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. EditorEpic (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  [Weak] oppose: Being a primary topic for a term does not imply using that term as the article title (a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is perfectly OK, such as the redirect from Einstein to Albert Einstein), so the provided rationale is not directly relevant. To me, the current title seems more natural and recognizable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is about a fictional disease used as part of a joke, not solely the joke itself. It doesn't require disambiguation, natural or otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "Ligma" is a WP:TEASER. It's deliberately omitting the clarification necessary to identify the topic. Wikipedia doesn't do spoiler warnings or teasers – it tries to directly tell the reader what it is talking about. The subject is a joke that takes advantage of the sound of an unfamiliar nonsense term. Rather than teasing the reader with just the nonsense term, Wikipedia should just directly tell them the subject is a joke. This is similar to the principle used for naming articles about consipiracy theories, which directly identify the topic as a conspiracy theory in the title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Along the same line as my previous comment, see also the last sentence of Manual of Style/Writing about fiction: "'Teaser'-style or incomplete plot descriptions (e.g. ending a plot description with 'In the end the family makes a shocking discovery…') should not be used." and the template hook and the commentary about its use in Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Ligma" (and its variants) are a sort of unstructured knock-knock joke to provoke the response, "What's ____" rather than "____ who?". The article isn't about a fictional disease any more than it's about a fictional narcotic (hoax claim that Machine Gun Kelly died from an overdose), or a fictional Italian cuisine (used with bofa).  The common theme is that it's always a joke (whether or not you think it's funny or not), and so "Ligma joke" is the best page name.  "Ligma meme", possibly, but is there any memetic usage cited in an RS where it's not also a joke?  I agree also with @BarrelProof's WP:TEASER argument.  Cheers!   BBQ  boffingrill me 19:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Internet culture has been notified of this discussion. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:12, 11 November 2023 (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.
 * Oppose. As closer of Talk:Ligma (disambiguation) nom mentioned above, I think a conservative interpretation of the COI section of WP:RMCI strongly discourages me from closing this RM, so I'll comment instead. The question here is: what is the subject called? And this thing is not called a ligma; it is a ligma joke. Compare with the other RM's primary concern: when people are querying ligma, is there a topic they are overwhelmingly looking for? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Should "Internet" be capitalised?
@TheGonkInQuestion: Internet meme is inconsistent - in some places it uses "Internet meme", in other places it uses "internet meme". I can't see a mention in WP:MoS about "Internet" specifically, but there is a wiki page about it: Capitalization of Internet. The consensus seems to me that it is outdated to write "Internet". I would suggest that internet is more of an adjective referring to the general medium of communication here - so "internet meme" - rather than referring to the specific network. If you share a meme on e.g. a LAN network, it is still arguably an "internet meme", even if it has not gone through the "Internet" (i.e. the world wide web). BobEret (he/him) (talk) BobEret (he/him) (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Grabahan" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grabahan&redirect=no Grabahan] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Rahul Ligma seems like a good example to merge to support the content of this page; the key reason is for for context. Note that the alternative target for Rahul Ligma was recently rejected in favor of this proposal, which is why I'm starting a new discussion here. Klbrain (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The best presentation of the material is in its current form, which is: (1) An 8.3K article on the Ligma Joke, which includes coverage of the "Deez Nuts" humor lineage, a link to the eponymous 2016 presidential candidate, and notable variations on the theme (bofa, Grabahan, etc.); (2) An 19KB article on Rahul Ligma, the fictional character name that was involved in fooling multiple news outlets in October-December 2022 where the "Ligma" name was one component of a culture jamming media prank. Currently on Ligma Joke we have a brief summary of the "Ligma-Johnson Hoax" and a "Main article" link to it; but if all 19KB of content were moved to the 8.3K Ligma Joke page, it would become a lopsided mess with obvious weight issues. The last Merge proposal was a thinly-veiled attempt to delete substantial content where two previous AfD's showed that there was not consensus for deletion (one ended in no consensus, the other as keep). If this isn't just a fourth rerun of those failed WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletion attempts, please explain how a merge, preserving all existing content, would be an improvement on the status quo. As page creator(s). BBQ  boffingrill me 22:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Rahul Ligma received a short period of coverage when it happened, and since then has received no WP:SUSTAINED/WP:LASTING coverage, and is therefore not notable for a standalone page. It should be merged here. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The two aren't synonymous, even if they intersect somewhat. Not really seeing the reasoning. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No discussion of Updog (and other variants)?
I was surprised that "updog" isn't mentioned on this page, since it has the same structure. I checked, and there also doesn't seem to be a separate page for the updog joke. Really, I think all of these jokes, sexual or not, should be on one page, and I'd argue updog has just as much cultural influence, if not more, than ligma (e.g. "updog" was featured on an episode of The Office). Seems odd to have a page for ligma (and the other variants discussed here) but not for updog. Sensorfire (✎&#124;‽) 00:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you can find a WP:RS for updog, that that would be a welcome addition to the page, along with The Office episode link, as, truly, updog started the lineage but there is more findable sourcing for ligma. BBQ  boffingrill me 04:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Best Topic I’ve ever read.
I love this amazing ligma topic. I have been sadly diagnosed with ligma though. Gyattrizzlersigma (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)