Talk:None Pizza with Left Beef

On 6 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from None Pizza Left Beef to None Pizza with Left Beef. The result of the discussion was moved.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Food and drink: Foodservice Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is supported by the Foodservice task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Why is there no picture?

http://www.thesneeze.com/2007/the-great-pizza-orientation-test.php 66.214.68.49 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@66.214.68.49 Please see WP:IUP Skipple ☎ 03:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Genuine question, Is this article notable enough to be its own Wikipedia Article? I am genuinely wondering as it seems to be a niche or otherwise irrelevant article itself. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to what. jp×g 04:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's notability guidelines but as far as memes go, this is one of the all-timers. It's about 16 years old now and people are still talking about it. krytton (a) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources?

Moved from User talk:Fourthords#Removing sources?

I appreciate the expansion, but the source removal confuses me -- it went from fourteen to eight? This one, for example; sure, it's a passing mention, but passing mentions aren't bad. They don't confer notability, of course, but they don't detract from it or anything. jp×g 05:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I looked at all the ones I didn't carry over, but lemme run through them again and double-check.

This BuzzFeed article just summarizes Molaro's original post, notes that time has passed, and then lists a gaggle of disparate social-media posts. Nothing here is unique or valuable that isn't already covered in in better sources.
This Yahoo! post literally just notes that ten years had passed since October 19th, 2007, and then links to the BuzzFeed article.
This post from Film Daily not only doesn't feel like a reliable source on its face, but is just a listicle saying, 'one of our readers remembers and enjoys NPWLB'.
This article from the University of Rochester's student newspaper can only be cited to say that NPWLB was once shared on Tumblr? That's if it should be cited at all; I'm not sure about our stance on student newspapers. (Besides, the vlogbrothers further-reading link touches on Tumblr and NPWLB much better, if not exactly encyclopedically.)
This article from The Outline is (a) saying that NPWLB happened, and (b) links to the Gizmodo article.
BlogTO is just a Toronto-area blog, not really a reliable source, and their article says, 'NPWLB was funny' and links to Gizmodo.
In this Slate article, the reference to NPWLB is just a parentherical aside, at best possibly saying the meme exemplifies pizza's embodiment of freedom of choice? It's unclear at best, and doesn't tell readers anything additional about the subject.
The Mutually Human link is dead, but archived here. It's one person's perspective on the meme, and their application thereof to sell the reader data-analytics services or software. Not a reliable source.

The links/articles/posts that don't handily fail as reliable sources, they don't offer anything new or novel to the article that isn't already covered by other better sources. Most of them are basically just saying, 'hey, this is a thing that happened, and here's a link to Gizmodo to read more.' Does that make sense? We'd essentially need the article to have a sentence saying, "[NPWLB] happened, was funny to some people, and was written about in Gizmodo.^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]}" — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2024

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None Pizza Left Beef → None Pizza with Left Beef – On 5 November 2024 at 19:18 UTC, Red Slash (talk · contribs) moved the page in the other direction without discussion. This is in contravention of 7/7 of the reliable secondary sources cited in the article, the further reading link in the article, 6/8 of the marginal/unreliable sources above, and our policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, which says, Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 references here. All 7 say "with". 3 also have some instances without "with" but even they primarily use "with" including in their article titles. What does Google think?

"none pizza with left beef": 27,200 results

"none pizza left beef": 7,460 results

This is a no-brainer. The WP:COMMONAME includes "with" and the move should be reversed.

I appreciate that the mover tried to check the prevalence of the terms but clearly that was not a good way to check because it gave a completely misleading result that would be revealed as obviously incorrect if it was checked in other ways. I don't know why Google Trends got it so obviously wrong but if the move had been discussed in advance then the error could have been pointed out but instead we have a mess to clean up. DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could have been reverted as an undiscussed move. But since we're here... I think that there have been eras of time the "with"-less version was the most common one used in discussions, even if not in sources. I'm not sure if that's still true or if the google trends data is glitchy in this particular case. It's possible this is a case where common name for people discussing it differs from common name in sources. I think since the original post uses the "with" one and the majority of our sources have "with", we probably should move it back. Skynxnex (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.