Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture/Archive 1

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article suggestion
I'm not very familiar with how these projects work, so I don't know if I can go ahead and add the banner code to articles that I feel are appropriate, or if I'm expected to suggest articles here and leave it up to a vote, or something like that. Anyway, the point of this babbling is that I think that the O RLY? article is a prime candiate for this sort of thing. It's probably not "good article" material, but the subject matter is definitely relevant. - Ugliness Man 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Exploding whale FAR
Exploding whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
I have now officially proposed a merge between WikiProject Internet culture and WikiProject Internet pop culture as both projects cover the same thing. I understand that IPC has more members, but this name makes the scope more broad and (hopefully) there will be less disputes over what is in and what is out of the scope (ie. "That wasn't popular! I have never even heard of it!"). Greeves (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ~ As stated above -- $$\sqrt[\tfrac{_{32^\circ\mathrm {F}}} {^{0^\circ\mathrm {C}\;\;}}]{_{\infty}}\approx\tfrac{\sin('d) ^{\underline {\flat y}}}{\mathbb {Z} y+\Re_{\varnothing}\!{n!}} \otimes$$ user | TALK 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged
I've merged WikiProject Internet pop culture into WikiProject Internet culture, and updated lots of the project page. Don't hesitate to edit the project page, to do box and whatever else as you like. --h2g2bob 02:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment scale
I've added an assessment scale to Template:WP Internet culture. This is basically a rip of Wikiproject Books' (and many other WikiProjects') article scale. This may help identify articles which need to be improved. --h2g2bob 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

 * New article - Scieno Sitter, let me know what you think on the talk page.  Heavily sourced.  Thanks for your time.  Smee 06:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Good job, Smee - perhaps you should suggest it for good article review? --h2g2bob 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet brigades
I'm not quite sure if this is within the scope of this project, but I thought I'd ask just in case.

Some help is needed in making a potential article over here - about the alleged flooding of the internet with information by secret police used by a few governments (currently the Russians and the Chinese have been alleged of doing this). Some notable sources are available in the references section.
 * Internet brigades(english language version)

russian language version

cinese language version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.163.172 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The original article (which was very problematic and was deleted) was purely based on the FSB allegations, and an attempt is being made to make the future potential article more international. It is currently up for deletion review over here, where there is a tie of votes (9 to 9) between those who endorse its deletion and those who want it overturned and relisted.

This is a very controversial topic, but in my view there seem to be enough notable sources to make a decent article out of it, so I hope that someone here may be able to help. Esn 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, but what do you think yourself? I remember that you made some reasonable changes in the article. Since then more sources have been included. A rather questionable segment was about a possible editing by CIA people in wikipedia, with references to BBC and Reuters (now deleted). I guess that was a reason for one of the users to start AfD discussion (he first deleted the CIA part over my objections).Biophys (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia belong here?
Is Wikipedia in the scope of this project? What about Digg? Pizzachicken 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes. Bl a st  [ improve me ] 14.05.07 1426 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes too --h2g2bob (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video bloggers?
Are they covered here, in blogging, or neither? There almost seems to be enough of them to sustain their own project: YouTube celebrities. Ichormosquito 05:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We sort of cover everything :D. There is WikiProject Blogging but it seems a bit quiet. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhain Davis: Internet meme?
I've come here per a recent AFD, I don't dispute the reasons given for deletion as he hasn't made a senior appearance BUT I believe that he is as an Internet meme in the similar vein as Peter Oakley. This BBC article seems to suggest that he is, saying that his video was watch on YouTube by 3million, implying this earned him a contract. I was wondering if anyone had any imput in this seems though this is the wikiproject that deals with this kind of thing? Englishrose 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tay Zonday
Pull some strings, he needs a page on wikipedia. You guys can do it! Come on, he's a huge meme at this stage, everyone knows about him.


 * He's already got one, man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Zonday Belfunk (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullet proof baby viral video
I have created an article for the bullet proof baby video and website that launched the viral video as part of a guerilla marketing campaign for the movie Shoot 'Em Up. I would appreciate input and expansion efforts. --rxnd ( t | &#8364; | c ) 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject_Internet
I'd always been shocked that there was no WP to organize even the basic Category:Internet standards. Apparently one did exist, but was simply inactive. I and at least two other editors have recently expressed an interest in reviving it. Anyone else want to help? The tubes are hurting for attention in many cases, given the wild variance in format and content and the vast number of stubs in just the protocol articles alone. MrZaius talk 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong link in the Template?
I've spent the last half an hour trying to figure out what to do about the fact that at the moment, the link to the "importance scale" actually goes to the "quality scale" on the WP Internet Culture template (the link to the quality scale also goes to the quality scale). I don't have the time to figure out the parser functions required to edit a template. I noticed this last week also and am surprised that no one has noticed this before. This raises a question for discussion: does anyone actually use or pay attention to these scales? If they do note the template and it's important to them, do they understand what they think that are paying attention to? DPerkel 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Blogology

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Thread hijacking

 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Adoptables
The article that is the subject of the AFD below would appear to describe a part of internet culture:
 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: MadV

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Web snacking

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Webisphere

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: KitchenBug

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Page widening

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cassiopedia?
May I suggest an article on the now defunct wiki encyclopedia Cassiopedia? Is it notable? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Hakluyt bean (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Importance Scale Assessment for Anonymous
The Importance Scale Assessment for Anonymous should be raised to the highest possible. Anonymous has been a crucial element in bringing the Intellectual Community together, on the Internet, to fight for what matters most. Hopefully, as time progresses, Anonymous' Projects will grow in size and significance, eventually enlightening the entire Internet Community of the true evils of our Society. Anonymous seems to be the most important thing on the Internet these days, and it should be the most important thing on WikiProject_Internet_culture.

--HockeyInJune (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update on The Internet Portal

 * – Update: Portal:Internet has recently become a Featured Portal.  All of the articles at Portal:Internet in the "Selected article" section are of Good or Featured Quality Status.  Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material!  Keep up the great work getting articles to WP:GA and Featured Quality Status !  Cirt (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Google
I've included this article to your project. Note also that there is an AfD debate at Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BlogTV
This article is in desperate need of improvement. Please can you guys help me make it a better article?

Thanks

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Serdar Argic disagreement
A disagreement has arisen over the use of the words denial and refute in the Serdar Argic article. Personally, I feel that refute is inappropriate because it can mean "disprove" and I am unaware of any proof that Serdar Argic gave that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen. Autarch (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 291 articles are assigned to this project, of which 136, or 46.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC at Christian the lion
A user has opened a RFC on a page which is under this project's scope at Talk:Christian the lion. Any input from this project's members would probably be appreciated. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Caitlin Hill at AfD
Caitlin Hill, a minor YouTube celebrity is up for AfD. You can view the discussion here. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous
Who is Spidern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahum Reduta (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make Culture
There are a lot of entries on Wikipedia that are listed as culture but the only reference I've seen use is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there to record culture not make it. It's not culture unless the majority of the people use said entry on a regular basis. As it stands right now Godwins Law is entry is being used to spread the use via Wikipedia thats not culture thats propaganda. Everuntested (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Network neutrality
This article could use more coverage of network neutrality outside North America. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Futaba Channel (http://www.2chan.net)
Futaba Channel has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Game"
Why was there the words "The game" partially hidden at the very top? I removed it, if that was there for a reason, please put it back. Thank u. R i k i n g 2 7 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Some help with Caramelldansen origins
I could use some help with getting Popotan to GA status by finding any source, Japanese or English that could meet WP:RS or WP:WEB for the original flash animation being combined with the speedcake remix and the visual novel's opening. Unfortunatly, 4chanarchive does not go back that far and I have yet to find anything really. The best perhaps being Bubblegum Dancer which appears it might only have 1 editor for "peer review" and a blog. <font color="black" size="2px">じん <font color="red" size="2px">ない  22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

42: Proposed deletion: Internet Meme
Please read the section on [Internet Meme].

The rules on neologisms are quite clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEOLOGISM yet the concept of Internet Meme seems to be held as a curious exception.

The introductory paragraph is its natural undoing:

The term Internet meme (pronounced /miːm/) is a neologism used to describe a catchphrase or concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet, much like an [inside joke].[1] The term is a reference to the concept of memes, although this concept refers to a much broader category of cultural information.

Please note the bold text of 'inside joke' in that paragraph.

Being both a neoligism, that is by and large confined almost entirely to blogs and social media sites, this word is not referenced in academic sources alongside the Dawkins-created '[meme]' (of which it bears little relation), which would be enough in itself as a description of what the proponents of the use of the term 'internet meme' are intending to paint with an all-inclusive brush. Memetics, if given any proper distinction at all, is memetics, regardless of whether it relates to the internet, the televison, chats in public houses, or in the school playground.

In all cases, either the term 'meme' or '[inside joke]' should be enough to describe the various topics covered in the internet meme page. In cases where a topic has evolved over time, regardless of whether its on the internet or not, the term 'meme' would suffice. However, on the internet meme page, you will notice that none of the references pertain to memetic or evolutionary principles. Star Wars Kid, Chocolate Rain, and so on are not 'internet memes', nor are they 'memes'. In fact, the references to them are nothing but in-jokes, fads, and parodies (which again, have no need than their own description to warrant further reference to memetics) and while they may spawn imitations, they remain intact and the original point of reference, unchanged, regardless of their popularity producing inevitable parodies. They are not memes, neither does their ubiquitous appearance over social internet sites warrant that notion.

Chocolate Rain is a song by Tay Zonday. Chocolate Rain is not a meme, neither is Tay Zonday. Chocolate Rain has spawned parodies. These parodies are not memes, nor can memetic principles be applied to these. Chocolate Rain is still intact, as a song, so is Tay Zonday. The parodies and imitations are part of an overall humorous reaction to the original material, ie. an in-joke. Chocolate Rain could have happened on the TV, or in the school playground. In fact, many in-jokes from the TV (Dick Emery catchphrases, Little Britain catchphrases, sports commentaries, etc) would warrant being called 'Television Memes', but of course, they aren't, nor should they be.

To summarise, 'internet meme' is a neologism (and the Wikipedia rules are quite clear on that). The term 'ganking' was removed on the same principles. Whereas 'ganking' was an original term created as a necessity to describe a unique phenomena within MMORPGs and the community involved with that, it has been removed from Wikipedia on the grounds of being both a neologism and only being referenced in blogs and social internet sites. 'Internet meme' is actually a crude and rather innapropriate reference to the proper 'meme', and bears little relationship to memetics in principle. Where 'ganking' is still referenced out of necessity (as there is no other way of describing the concept succinctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test), the term 'internet meme' can be supplanted much more appropriately by terms such as 'in-joke', 'fad' and 'parody', or just not used at all. I even saw an entry for discussion stating that 'Tay Zonday is a meme'. Tay Zonday is a human being.

--Tinyclaw (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Million Dollar Homepage
The Million Dollar Homepage has been nominated at FAC (Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage). Any neutral reviews from Wikiproject members would be appreciated. Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error in the Scope Section?
One of the bullet items currently reads, "Internet freedom and the intenet." Is this supposed to read this way? I think that maybe the author means for something more like: "Internet freedom and their intent", or maybe "Internet freedom and the Internet in general." It doesn't seem clear enough to me, in its present form in either case. --Sawta (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Bale Out
The article Bale Out is currently at peer review, comments appreciated at the subpage, Peer review/Bale Out/archive1. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wat
4Chan is clearly more important to internet culture than Exploding Whale. It should be at least high importance. --74.92.133.10 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people just plain don't like 4chan. Fortunately for them, whoever cares the most wins at Wikipedia. User:Aar Aar  ►  20:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Needed on Ning
There has been some dispute over the Controversies section of the Ning article. This dispute can be found in the talk page.

Please review this dispute and help resolve it by weighing in whether Charting Stocks is a reliable source here. While there are multiple issues beyond WP:RS, this seems to be the biggest point of contention at the moment. Thanks. Kangaru99 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Internet homicide
Some input here may be useful. Current topics of dispute include how much is original research and where (or whether) the sources suffice, whether the page ought to be an article, a list, or a disambig. Whether the article should be renamed and/or the scope of the article changed. Шизомби (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ItsJustSomeRandomGuy Peer Review
Peer review/ItsJustSomeRandomGuy/archive1


 * Yup, there it is... I wasted literally two whole days improving this article. The biggest work was the tables. I have some questions like "should I state the length of the videos?" or how about "should I seperate the tables to another article?"... It's troubling me.  Raaggio  15:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Netrek
Netrek has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Twitter
I have also posted this message at WikiProjects Internet and Blogging.

In an attempt to get Twitter to Featured article status, it has been suggested to me that the article gets an independent copyedit check from an editor who isn't involved. As a Top-importance article in your WikiProject, I wondered if some of you would be willing to read the article through and correct any copyedit errors you come across. Thank you! <b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Peer Review
I've requested a peer review of Wikipedia to see if a FA bid would be advisable. If anyone has time to do the review, it would be much appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 21:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lolcat peer review request
I've requested a peer review of Lolcat in order to see how its quality may be improved. If anyone would be interested in and has the time to do the peer review, it would be much appreciated. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bale Out
Hey all. I've nominated Bale Out for a featured article status. If you don't mind taking a look, comments would be welcome! Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

New Member
I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Armor of God Broadcast
Please help make improvements on this syndicated internet radio proram article. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fark
This article has been a GA since September 2009. I think it's getting close to FA? Does anyone want to take a look and see what needs to be done to bring it up to FA standards? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)