Talk:Planking (fad)

An editor removed a bunch of (mostly sourced) material -- like, half the article -- on the grounds that its not about about planking. And he's got a point, but let's talk about this some. The material covers stuff like "playing dead", "owling", "hadoukening", and so forth: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planking_(fad)&diff=prev&oldid=770013858 here].

So which of these thing do we want to do?

• Keep it like it is, since the material is segregated into a "Variations" section, or
• Remove the material, or
• Rename this article (to something like "Planking and other posing memes" or just "Posing memes" or whatever), or
• Fork the removed material into a new article (named "Posing memes" or something).

I don't have a strong opinion, but I hate to see large amount of referenced material erased, if its arguably encyclopedic. So should we fork it off or rename the article,and what would be a good new name for the article? "Posing memes", or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

:I think "planking" is still primarily what this concept is about and was easily the most notable of the fads listed. I'd be OK with either culling it like in the diff you've provided or spinning out the tangential stuff into a separate article. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

::This article is very cluttered. If we wish to mention "taking a knee" because some people are mocking a political protest there should be political context added to the article and it should be made clear that the intent is mockery. futurebird (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

: Thanks for pointing this out! Shame this material is no longer available now on Wikipedia. Planking is definitely the most notable of all the removed "posing memes", so I would argue this article should keep its title. Would there be strong opposition to re-adding the (possibly abridged) content in a "Derived Fads" Section? Business Insider even has a story on these posing memes: [https://www.businessinsider.com.au/planking-owling-coneing-balling-leisure-diving-2011-7 BI story] Chrisma0 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

: So where did the material end up going? Was it deleted? If so there was no vote. I would like to bring it back here or on another page.--Mapsfly (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

::Right. I had reverted it, but then another person deleted it again later, apparently. Did you just roll back a couple years worth of edits, or put the material back in by hand, or what? I mean it's fine to restore the material but I don't want to do violence to edits on other material done over a couple years.

::Restoring the material is fine. Thank you. It really looks like this is going to be a problem unless we change the article name, I guess. How about "Posing fads"? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

::I have edited and summarized the restored content regarding derivative posing fads in a bullet-list style "Derivative posing fads and variations" section at the very end of the article. I feel this gives a good overview of the topic. I have integrated the edits that were previously lost by the reverts. I think the article in its current form is acceptable and no renaming needs to necessarily happen. Any other opinions? Chrisma0 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed all the football related stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with planking. It was completely out of scope for this article. Planking is fairly singular, all the tangential stuff needs to stay out. Actually, most of it wasn't even tangential, it was wholly unrelated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• :I have it on good authority that the extraneous material was added to emphasize planking's random nature. With this in mind, it could be included here, or in some other article. Also, Camembert. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6162412/The-lying-down-game-how-to-play.html is cited and it includes the claim "palms touching your sides and toes touching the ground" which seems overly specific.

Especially since, if we look at the [http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01440/keep-off-grass-460_1440840c.jpg image they use] the man's toes are not touching the ground.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198572/Find-odd-place-lie-face--Is-pointless-internet-craze-yet.html The Daily Mail article] also uses [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/09/article-1198572-05A6E037000005DC-92_634x474.jpg this] and [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/09/article-1198572-05A6E04F000005DC-708_634x402.jpg this] and [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/09/article-1198572-05A6E22D000005DC-822_634x415.jpg this] image where the feet are similarly airborne.

The "palms" specificity" of the telegraph also seems inconsistent with picture examples in articles. In [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/09/article-1198572-05A6E458000005DC-641_634x447.jpg this Daily Mail image] you can see the palm of the middle person in black shirt pointing upward, not medially into the body. Same with [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/09/article-1198572-05A6E450000005DC-161_634x449.jpg this image]

[http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/09/article-1198572-05A6DFAC000005DC-294_634x324.jpg This Daily Mail image] has feet contact with a platform but the hands are visibly dangling and not in contact with the body.

I'm wondering if we could find any other definitions presented by other sources which might be broader and more inclusive. Maybe something like elbows at the side of the body, body in a straight line, which do not mention "palm" contact or toes needing to be touching ground. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Very good points! The Telegraph definition does indeed seem very specific. I've found additional sources that could be included and contain somewhat better (broader?) definitions:

:* [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/planking knowyourmeme.com]: "a photo fad which involves lying face down with arms to the sides in unusual public spaces, photographing the scene and sharing the image online"

:* [https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13414527 BBC News]: "Aficionados lie expressionless with a straight body, hands by their sides and toes pointing into the ground." Chrisma0 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planking (fad). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-18/tech/planking.internet.craze_1_facebook-group-australian-man-photos
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927011349/http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/31700153 to http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/31700153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the included images in the gallery are of planking from far away or are of fairly low image quality. There are some freely licensed pictures available, which could serve as replacements: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Planking%22+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3Awikimedia.org&tbm=isch&safe=off&tbs=sur%3Afmc Google search].

Also, why does the image in the header have a Google Maps-looking location marker in it? Chrisma0 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

:The header image appears to have some relation to geohashing. I don't really get it either. As for distances, I think the Taj Mahal picture is the only one that's taken from too far away. Planking was a viral meme from the early 2010s, so I think it's okay if the images aren't of perfect quality, because not everyone doing it was a professional photographer. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

::Since there was no response, I decided to remove the Taj Mahal image. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

the sources in the 'controversy' section aren't that reputable, one is just a Google search and the other, while bringing up a controversy, doesn't relate to the text of the article 75.161.199.81 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)