Talk:The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

Deletion

Honestly, does this really need it's own page? It's was a popular flash, but it barely fits the criteria for a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Boss Inc. (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. This is one of those videos that became popular and did spread quickly through the web2.0 folks but it's surely nothing unique. New videos of this sort pop up constantly and at most they might deserve one article where each one has a small section. Devoting an entire page and trying to justify it with digging up all kind of random popculture references is just lame. Even if this article technically would fill all the notability requirements I would still vote for delete. This video is just about as worthy of an article than MrHands. --piksi (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say, for comparison, consider a poem written in the 1800s which was considered notable at the time. It is short, has made an impression on society to the extent that it is part of the culture, and the details of these references would be lost on future generations if not documented. Compare for example Casey at the bat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_at_the_Bat. And a list of characters is hardly something that makes the article hard to read or excessive in storage space. Ashi Starshade (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I Think This should stay. I also think all the Lemon Demon albums should be made pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.92.68 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

amen Yippee12345678910 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No, never. Wikipedia needs any piece of information. Pages like that should exist. 83.193.125.76 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference in Other Media

The reference in Destroy all humans 2 is indeed genuine. Is there potential for a reference in popular culture section or are they too few and far between?

sign your posts. XM8 Carbine (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a rather popular blog/forum w/ numeric voting based website inspired on the song (i was the first maker-appointed admin =3) 'ultimateshowdown.org' which ceased to exist sometime in 2007-8 (so long ago i can't remember specificaly). does it warrent a mention? XM8 Carbine (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference in other media

I was playing through Destroy All Humans 2 and reached Takoshima heights. I jumped across to the island opposite the tokyo tower lookalike and started fighting three ninjas. While I was PKing one and the others were circling me, I clearly heard a ninja yell "Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny!" The wording and delivery was much too perfect to be mere coincidence. Can someone verify that?

ComedyonStilts 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

External links cleaning?

Shouldn't the external links in the introduction be marked as such?

Discuss:

How do we revise this article to make it worthy of keeping? I say we merely expand it, include more information, vis-a-vis TDCM; that way, it'll be more interesting to people. Maybe a complete script, and a reference list? HubHikari 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it, Christ. It's one of the best flash movies made and very popular. It's not like it's wasting massive resources or something. A lot of haters/elitists on wikipedia lately.

I personally think it is worthy of an article. I wrote one, but paid poor attention to its deletion history. I made the reference list, anyway. ATK102587 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To those who deleted The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny: There wasn't really any point deleting this article, since eventually it will probably gain significant notability, just like most flashes of its nature. If it's going to gain notability anyway, what's the point of deleting it? I was going to put the following list back on the article, but realized there were too many disputes going on about whether or not to keep the article, so I left it on this page. In case someone decides to restore the article, here is some of what was on the original article (this is as much as I could remember, because the article was deleted so fast that I didn't have time to copy/paste a backup) --67.85.2.175

The Ultimate Showdown of Ulitmate Destiny is an animation flash by Batman, under the pseudonym Lemon Demon. It was uploaded to Newgrounds on December 22, 2005 and is particularly notable for inluding many real and fictional pop-cultural characters.

List of fighters
This is a list of fighters in the order that they appear in:

Godzilla
Batman and the Batmobile
Shaquille O'Neal
Aaron Carter
Abraham Lincoln
Optimus Prime
Jackie Chan
Indiana Jones
A Care Bear
Samuel L. Jackson ¹
Mario ¹
Sonic the Hedgehog ¹
Santa Claus ¹
The De Lorean from Back to the Future ¹
Goku ¹
Tobias from Arrested Development, painted blue¹
C3PO ¹
R2D2 ¹
A Jawa ¹
Chuck Norris
Gandalf the Gray
Gandalf the White
The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Benito Mussolini
Blue Meanie
Cowboy Curtis
Jambie the Jeanie
Robocop
The Terminator
Captain James T. Kirk
Darth Vader
Lo Pan
Superman
Every single Power Ranger
Bill S. Preston and Theodore Logan from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Spock
The Rock
Doctor Octopus
Hulk Hogan
Mr. Rogers (winner)
Pac-Man ¹
Han Solo1
Michael Meyers1
¹ Fighters that were in the flash, but not mentioned in the lyrics

After the flash gains notability, you have to file for undeletion and they'll restore the good version. You cannot, for legal reasons, just copy and paste a backup into the article. I do have a backup of it too, but that's for my own use.

I'm a little curious as to why the talk page got deleted too this time. --AySz88^-^ 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

needs cleaning up and expanding

This article really needs to be cleaned up and expanded if it ever is gonna become a good article though how exactly that should be done is beyond me since I don't know what information would be helpful to the article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I significantly cleaned up the information that was already present, but quite honestly I don't know that there is much more to add. It pretty much says it all. Good articles aren't always necessairly lengthy. As long as it covers the information out there, that is all that can be done. --Naha|^(talk) 08:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess we can only expand it so much but at least it's easier to read now that you cleaned it up. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, I love this video/song :) --Naha|^(talk) 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

List of fighters table

I'm not really happy with the 1 markers indicating the fighter was not mentioned in the song. I do think the information should be there, I just don't like the markers. However, I can't think of a good way to reorganise it. Here are my thoughts, please feel free to add your own.

1. Add a third column for "Notes", and have "Not mentioned in lyrics" against the applicable fighters. The Blue Meanie note could also move here. This would widen the table but readers would not be bouncing around looking for footnotes.
2. Add a third column, replacing the 1 markers with a tick/check mark. However, this column would need a heading, or else its just as bad. A heading, unless someone can think of a one or two word heading, would make that column unreasonably wide.
3. Put the applicable fighters in a slightly different background colour. This would have accessability issues.
4. Status quo. Leave it as it is.

Your thoughts? --Billpg 19:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the 1 either, I've been thinking about it. I think everything else is ok, the 1 just needs to be replaced by that little cross thing or something. --Naha|^(talk) 05:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that now I've split the table up into sections, the [1] tags could be replaced by adding "(All seen in the animation, but not mentioned in the lyrics.)" to the applicable section headings. Thoughts? --Billpg 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to say this here, because it may sound kinda like I'm making this up. To the right of the jawas destroying the droids is someone known as Judohobo. He's a common occurance on the Something Awful forums, a google search for 'judohobo' should turn up the picture I'm talking about.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that if you have any suggestions feel free to either make the changes yourself or propose changes here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

So far, we had a couple of facts: the authors also created the anti-eBaum cartoon "Ebaums World Dot Com", and that the Shaq Fu referenced a video game. Perhaps we could search the video for more references?

- Neryon. March 22, 2006: 16:05 PT

regarding the lyrics

We can't have the lyrics since putting the lyrics up would be a copyvio (don't ask me how other sites don't get sued for it) so I have removed the lyrics section. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why?

I do not know the exact reasoning but I know for a fact discussins have taken place and lyrics do not fall under what we can add to an article due to copyright issues. If you search around a little bit you can probably find the discussions and I'll see if I can scroung e up where it's wirten down. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think linking to the lyrics at the bottom of the page works fine and is a good solution. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

I moved them here. Lyrics

[removed copyright violation] External Links:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/28526

Note: about 3 or 4 fighters, who are not mentioned in the lyrics but do appear in flash, were pointed out by other Wikipedians; but when the article was deleted, I couldn't remember some of them (the total added up to 46, now it only adds up to 42.) If anyone knows what those 4 were, say so here. --Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the two in the screenshot here look like Dudley Do-Right and Snidely Whiplash to me, although Dudley's outfit is the wrong color, if it is he. -Charles

I just removed them from the article again. While excerpts of the lyrics are okay for commenting on specific bits of them, including the entire song like this is stretching fair use a bit. Wikipedia shouldn't contain entire source texts anyway. Bryan 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we can justify using small snippets but nowhere on Wikipedia can we use lyrics and that's generally understood. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. We can use in articles about public domain works. Which is fairly few, but they do exist. 169.139.190.6 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not wrong. We can legally put the entirety of a public domain work into a Wikipedia article, sure, but there are constraints other than simple legal issues at work here. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article and verbatim copies of large bodies of source material like this are inappropriate for that (I'd make an exception for source material that was only a paragraph or two long in total but this particular case is way over that threshold). Verbatim copies of public domain source material is what Wikisource is for. Bryan 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where in the flash Dudley Do-Right and Snidely Whiplash are - I've looked through a couple times in the area where they claim to be shown (Before the Samuel L Jackson appearance) and see nothing of them. Also at the end of the pan down that street in the same scene, it appears that Clark Kent is the one punching the "Judohobo"? 12.75.106.71 02:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blue guy

The list of fighters lists the blue guy as "Tobias from Arrested Development" but myself and several friends identified him as a caricature of Kelsey Grammar as The Beast in X-Men 3. It seems likely that I was mistaken, however, as Mr. Grammar is not that bald and I've not seen him with a moustache. I'm not very familiar with Arrested Development - if it's Tobias is there significance to his being painted blue? Also, is the list official or a "best guess" compiled by fans? --HunterZ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely supposed to be Tobias from Arrested Development. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to explain without going in-depth into the storyline of AD, but in a nutshell, Tobias is an aspiring member of the Blue Man Group. --EdenMaster

Not a very good one at that :) Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even watch Arrested Developement and I still recognized that as David Cross. DeathWeed 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that it's Paul Giamatti's Character from the movie Big Fat Liar?

Actually, it looks like Adam savage, But the man is bald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninteen45 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

power rangers

Although the pictures shows only five, the song says every single power ranger fights. Shouldn't it be listed that way in the article? BethEnd 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the singer meant "every single original Power Ranger", but that's not quite as singable.--Agent Aquamarine 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been working on this. I included the line "every single Power Ranger" and transitioned it into the bit about the Green Ranger. This way "The original Power Rangers line up excluding the Green Ranger (originally featured in the Japanese series [Kyoru Sentai Zyuranger]" does not sound like it is part of the lyrics because it is in quotes. 66.69.94.129 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to Neil Cicireaga and asked him myself and he says that what he means is Every Power Ranger that has ever been or will be! 69.246.102.46 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Robin in table?

I personally don't think that Robin should be included in the table, as he doesn't take part in the fight. However, if people think he should be in the table;

• He should appear between Aaron Carter and Abraham Lincoln.
• The man representing civilians should be included as well.

Thoughts? Objections? --Billpg 12:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think he's really neccessary. He wasn't part of the showdown. Dac 08:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Covers and Parodies

Do we really need to link to every cover and parody we can find?--Agent Aquamarine 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see linking to the cover and remix, since they are actually on Lemon Demon's site...and since so far there is only one parody, it probably isn't that big of a deal to list it. - EmiOfBrie 07:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the remix is on Aaron Ackerson's site, but I see what you're getting at. And there are other parodies out there, I could've sworn more were listed earlier. Perhaps I'm mistaken.--Agent Aquamarine 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I got the remix from LD's site, I didn't follow the link from Wiki.... LD must have approved and added it at some point *heh* -- EmiOfBrie 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Rogers

It is not Mr Rogers dancing at the end, it is the civilian seen earlier in the movie holding an ice cream.

I'll have to watch the cartoon again when I get home, but I think you're wrong. And please sign your posts.--Agent Aquamarine 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just rewatched it, and that's definitely Rogers. How do I know this? Well, for one, he looks nothing like the kid. For two, Rogers is the only one who stabbed himself in the torso with a sword, so he's the only one who can have gallons of blood shooting out of his chest.--Agent Aquamarine 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that this article on a flash cartoon seems to be longer than the one on The Republic of Congo?--Agent Aquamarine 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content reflects the interests of its readers. However, also bear in mind that the article you point to is a very general overview, with most of the "meat" of the article split off into sub-articles such as History of the Republic of the Congo, Politics of the Republic of the Congo, Economy of the Republic of the Congo, etc. Perhaps once we start seeing analogous articles such as History of the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny we can start getting worried. Until then the situation may not be quite as skewed as it seems at first glance. :) Bryan 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DA CONE?

A google search turns up nothing for this guy, and he's not mentioned in any of the Invader Zim articles. I honestly don't remember him ever having a name, but I do remember him looking almost totally different. I'm removing his mention, feel free to contest.--Agent Aquamarine 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I made this damn flash and I have no fucking idea what DA'CONE is. Why is this article even here? 205.250.249.145 09:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

DA'CONE seems to be a reference to the kid with the chocolate ice cream cone. But since it causes confusion and is a minor detail, I have removed it. User:Colonel Warden 27 January 2007

Da'Cone is definitely an Invader Zim reference (invaderzim.tv). The character here looks somewhat different - maybe it was an unconscious reference. Anyway, putting it back for now that we have a cite. Colonel Warden 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor claiming to be the author of the flash says that the resemblance to the Da'Cone character in Invader Zim was not intended and so he has removed the link from article. No reason to doubt him. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate Orgy

Okay, someone keeps adding a link to a flash movie of the said title. I don't think this is encyclopedic material, and ask that this link be removed on sight. If you have any problems with my thinking, please tell me. bibliomaniac15 00:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The parody doesn't merit its own page but it seems reasonable to mention it here as an example of how the song/video has been influential. User: Colonel Warden 22 March 2007

I agree with Bibliomaniac15. If this was done consecuetively, it would be in clear violation of the three-revert rule. -Diabolos 03:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

?!

Wow, why is there even an article on this thing? What a joke. Wikipedia, for shame...70.50.95.33 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion on this. Try reading the two lengthy talks about deletion before shaming anyone. BoosterBronze 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever dude, just make sure you make an article on every flash video out there.70.48.245.241 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make this article, actually I'm not even sure it should be here, but it's not up to me. There have been to major discussions (linked at the top of this page) about whether or not this article should be here. If you have a real strong feeling about it, understand the channels that are used to discuss article deletion. BoosterBronze 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

NO MORE USUD!!!!!!!!

Oh, sure a few valid sources are present here, but gimme a break! This cartoon is so cheap, unfunny, and lacking in any significance whatsoever, it's not even worth MENTIONING on this website. In fact, the only thing that should be said at all about it is this: USUD is the most r&%#)@*@, g#(!#?, and plain old, ordinary, run-of-the-mill rock-bottom cartoon ever to show its ugly face on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.212.78 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 October 2006

Please keep such comments to yourself; the talk page is not the place to put it. Besides, there have been two AFDs on it. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the same feelings about "Loose Change," but that doesn't mean I have any right to rant about it on Wiki nor does it mean it doesn't warrant a Wiki article. Jinxmchue 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're just jelious because your flashes were never a success. Besides, wikipedia is a place for ANYTHING!

Wikipedia is not a place for anything, but neither is it meaningful to cry for deletion of an article just because you don't like the subject matter. If that were the case there would be no articles on rape, murder, terrorism, etc. because people don't find those subjects pleasant either. -moritheil^Talk 13:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No more speculation on deaths of Mario and Sonic, please

I looked at the animation frame-by-frame (quite easy for anyone to do) during the part in question and the DeLorean vanishes before leaving the screen. It cannot have hit Mario or Sonic. Jinxmchue 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem, however, that Mario's in the pile of dead people at the end. The ponly part you see is the blue pants and shoes , but (aside form another body) the only ones with blue pants are mario and Superman, and Superman's feet are the wrong color. 71.249.1.49 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "only one will survive" and the winner was Mr. Rogers, then both Mario and Sonic (along with everyone else) must have died. Cut and dry. Useight 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seppuku

Mr. Rogers did not commit Seppuku. He simply impaled himself with his sword; he didn't go through the required process of Seppuku. Seppuku requires stabbing ones self in the left side of the abdomen at a level equal to the naval. Next, bringing the sword across to the right side of the abdomen; then turning the cutting edge of the sword 90 degrees to be facing up, and bringing the sword up to just below the collarbone. Removing the blade, and then stabbing ones self again in the center of the abdomen at a level equal to the top of the other vertical slash, and slicing all the way down until one reaches the waist. Finally, one must remove the sword and stab ones self in the jugular. That is Seppuku; all Mr. Rogers did was impale himself. -- THL 07:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that the lyrics don't say he even stabbed himself. It's only in the animation. So it's questionable whether or not he did it at all. It depends on if we consider events that are solely in the video (and not the song) to be "canon" for the story. The Combatants section of the article differentiates between people mentioned in the lyrics and people seen but not mentioned. So I would say we should remove the Seppuku reference entirely. Sephalon1 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong reference

I believe the reference for Samuel L. Jackson to be wrong. His character in the animations is not the one from the movie Snakes on a Plane, but Derrick Vann from the movie [The Man]. In these two frames you can see the match.

Possibly but the snakes then attack him, which would suggest it was from snakes on a plane. The similarity between the two frames you show could easily be coincidence, but I fail to see how the snakes could be coincidence - 172.201.232.13 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The animators probably hadn't seen any pictures of what Neville Flynn would look like, so they just plopped Derrick Vann there instead. The movies were released close enough that one could assume Jackson would still have that hairdo in Snakes on a Plane. He didn't. It happens.DeathWeed 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say: pro - hairstyle/beard, radio, clothes. against - snakes. Maybe snakes actually are a reference to the latter movie, but the character seems to be Derrick Vann 130.243.141.147 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Parody

There is a parody of this, "The Ultimate Orgy of Homosexuality", but I'm not sure it even warrants a mention. –Xoid 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If i am not mistaken this has been added and removed repeatedly before, and its hardly encyclopedia material. - 172.201.232.13 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. Only 30 hits on Google and 11 of them are repeats. --Raijinili 00:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the tables?

This is a short song; do we need to list every fighting detail? It's a bit copyright infringey. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. A novelty song shouldn't have that long of a description. BoosterBronze 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Need Moar. 88.96.135.14

I also agree, although I don't believe it would qualify as copyright infringement. If we were to include a list of any kind for something like this, it should not take up 5 times the space of the regular information. Wikipedia:NOT#STATS --David Gardner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.243.75 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan

As there has been some disagreement on which role Samuel.L.Jackson represents, I want to know which roles Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan represent! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.97 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

They are real people you know...

Power Rangers

Another discussion point would be the lyric "every single power ranger". The reason being that several series' of "Power Rangers" are currently available and are supposed to co-exist in different realities making it impossible for every single power ranger to be present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.97 (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

First off, no. Second: every Power Rangers series takes place in the same universe. It's Sentai's series' that don't. ^---SilentRAGE! 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

well, RPM and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie both take place in alternate timelines, which could be considered different universes. Though that doesn't really matter, given the crossoverish nature of the song to begin with 208.110.180.94 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

just realized at the time of your post RPM hadn't come out yet. oh well 208.110.180.94 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of original research

I removed the fighters table and most of the trivia as it was all original research; the {{originalresearch}} tag had been on the article for almost a month. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of minutiae about a marginally notable flash animation. Another wiki, or a fan site about the animation, would be a better place for this information. Krimpet 02:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt the items about Ultimate Orgy and the references in Destroy All Humans 2 (a mainstream video game) being homages to this were simply "original research". In fact, those 2 items' existances are a core reason for the song's notability! Can we at least put those pieces of trivia back in? -- EmiOfBrie 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The passing reference in Destroy All Humans! 2 is already mentioned along with the game's many other pop culture references in that game's article; IMO mentioning it here doesn't really add to this article.

The "Ultimate Orgy", on the other hand, appears to be completely non-notable, unless you can prove that it satisfies WP:WEB as well, which it does not appear to. Krimpet 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fighters are present in the flash. Can hardly be considered original research. They're just there. –Xoid 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how the table can be called original research either, most of the entries in it are explicitly named right in the song's lyrics. However, don't edit war over it. The list is currently stored safe and sound in the article's history, we can discuss its restoration at leisure. Bryan Derksen 08:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The arguments on the talk page above over the "blue guy", whether a guy with an ice cream cone is "DA'CONE", who Samuel L. Jackson "represents", the assertion that everyone else dies in the end despite their deaths "not mentioned", etc.; these are all examples of how this list is original research. Much of it is open to interpretation, and makes claims simply based on interpretation of the flash. It would be best left to a fan site somewhere else (like, say this wiki?), as opposed to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Krimpet 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then leave the speculation out. Remove the original research and leave the explicitly declared particpants in a brief list of 'some notable inclusions are… xxx.' or a table, should there be enough. –Xoid 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How about stopping the revert war by making the participants section into its own page? The article on the Showdown itself would simply have a link to it. This is only an idea, so don't take it too seriously. :) Hellbus 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no way such an article would survive AfD. :) Bryan Derksen 04:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I would delete it. Much of the current article needs to go as is.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The current article is already down to just one paragraph, what else could you possibly want to remove? Bryan Derksen 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm being bold and redirecting it to Neil Cicierega#The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, as I suggested in the last AfD. All the relevant info is already described there and in better context with the rest of the guy's work. If anyone wants to revert it, please first read WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:OR, and WP:TRIV, and then consider: is there really anything more one can say about this flash animation that isn't already covered by the couple paragraphs in Neil Cicierega? Krimpet 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

People have tried to delete this article before and failed. This bogus claim of original research seems to be an attempt to delete it by stealth. Tsk. User:Colonel Warden 27 February 2007

In fact, Krimpet was active in the last AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (4th nomination): result was: No consensus. Having failed to delete the article for the fourth time, the haters now use disreputable salami tactics. For shame. User:Colonel Warden 27 February 2007

That's a rather remain civil and do not assume bad faith. If you believe that the list is not original research, please give a reason. –Llama man^talk_contribs 01:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research is new knowledge, by definition. The cast list of the showdown is not new knowledge because the participants in the showdown are all famous in their own way - immediately recognisable to someone who is familiar with the relevant genre. But not everyone will be familiar with all these genres. For example, someone outside the USA might never have heard of the winner, Mr Rogers, who is almost unknown elsewhere. Such a person will come to the article seeking to fill this gap in their knowledge and the article provides a useful service to such people by listing the combatants and then linking to their relevant pages. User:Colonel Warden 28 February 2007

I explicitly mentioned that I had participated in the previous AfD, and announced and justified the major changes I made and my reasoning behind them. (And please read WP:AGF before calling anyone "haters.") Before simply reverting the article to its huge, messy state without justification, did you carefully read WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:OR, and WP:AVTRIV, like I suggested? In what way do factoids like "The Rock's t-shirt reads 'H*CK YEAH,'" whether or not Chuck Norris is wearing a shirt, and uncertainty whether or not a katana is embedded into or next to Benito Mussolini's back make an objective, coherent encyclopedia article? I'll repeat my main argument again: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of minutiae about a marginally notable flash animation. I don't "hate" this flash, but rather I think it is better covered by the succinct section in Neil Cicierega, as I stated from the outset of the AfD. Krimpet 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on Neil Cicierega is not a satisfactory substitute. As an original consumer of this article, my interest in Mr Cicierega remains low. The article's value is its detailing of the showdown. This is not trivia - it is the essence of the plot, such as it is. If readers want to know more about its creator, they can follow the link. Your other points have been made in the repeated AfDs and failed to convince. Trying to delete the article by other means seems willful and provocative. User:Colonel Warden 28 February 2007

While you may like having a detailed analysis of the showdown plot, unfortunately it is not in the scope of information Wikipedia is intended to cover. As I suggested before, this information would be perfectly suited for a fan wiki. And it would be much more productive to actually respond to all my arguments instead of attacking my motives and assuming bad faith.

The combatant information is not indiscriminate. By providing links to the notable people in the showdown, it provides the 'real world context' which critically illuminates the song/video. Compare, for example, the article on Alice in Wonderland which likewise lists the characters in order of appearance and explains their provenance. Wikipedia is the right and proper place for this information because it contains articles on all these famous characters which are linked in a useful and natural way. User:Colonel Warden 1 March 2007

I am opening a request for comment to hopefully get some additional input from people on this, I invite you and anyone else to add your statement below. Krimpet 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should this article contain a detailed analysis of all the "fighters" in the cartoon and other trivia? Should the article instead just be a redirect to Neil Cicierega#The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny? 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Personally I feel that the "showdown participants" and nearly all of the "trivia" are mostly speculation and OR, and especially indiscriminate information. The article was up for deletion a little while back and I suggested redirecting it to Neil Cicierega#The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, which succinctly describes everything encyclopedic about the flash and puts it in better context with the rest of the author's work. Many people including the nominator concurred, but it ended in no consensus. So I decided to clean up the article to better meet our standards, removing the participants table and most of the questionable trivia. After a bunch of IPs and new users reverted the table without explanation or discussion, I decided to be bold and implement my redirect suggestion, however this was reverted several days later by Colonel Warden, who considered it "an attempt to delete it by stealth", which brings us to the current situation. Krimpet 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• The information is not indiscriminate but to the point. The song/video is clearly notable. The participants in the showdown are likewise notable. By listing them, the article explains and illuminates in a critically useful way. What the article needs now is further critical development to highlight commentary like the focus upon Chuck Norris whose central role provides much of the humour in the middle act. This can't happen if the article is deleted. To reduce the article to nothing but a redirect would be contrary to Wikipedia policy which requires specific reasons for redirection. Neil Cicierega is just one of the authors of this work. His article is not the right place for this material which concerns the work itself, not its authors. It seems that redirection is just being proposed to circumvent the AfD process which the page has passed several times. User:Colonel Warden 1 March 2007

Comments

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now, I'm a great fan of this flash, and think it should still be in the top five at Newgrounds, not relegated to #13. If I worked at it, I could probably reproduce the full lyrics verbatim from memory, and it's been months since I last watched it. That said, this is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. For reasons of sheer injustice, if nothing else.

That table in the middle is longer than the full lyrics of the flash! There are times when a text merits a longer discussion than the text itself, but this is not one of them. There's no excuse for including every character who shows up for half a second in the flash. It's like writing an article on the Home Depot and describing every single size and shape of screw, bolt, and fastener that they sell. You can describe the most important ones in detail, and give a small sampling of the rest to show variety, but listing the entire set is information overload of the worst kind. You've buried the humor in an avalanche of miscellany! By all means talk about Chuck Norris, Godzilla, and the other major characters, but this is nuts. You might be able to get away with a full listing of the characters, if it were in a condensed form, but this table is huge!

An English teacher once described dialog to me as "condensed speech". The same idea applies to encyclopedia writing. Pull out the best and just a few representative examples of the rest, then throw everything else away. Turn the table into two sections: major and minor characters. The major characters can be comprehensive and relatively long, but that won't work for minor characters, there are simply too many of them. The Commentary (better titled Trivia) section also needs liberal use of a weed whacker. Take it down to five or so.

Krimpet : You're wrong, there's plenty in here to make a quality (dare I say FA-worthy?) article, it just needs discipline and more analysis (by other people, no original research allowed!). The section in the author's page needs a link to this page as the main article. I think there's a template of that, but I'm too tired to look it up now, I have school in 7 hours.

Colonel Warden : You're wrong too. Yes, it's notable and deserves its own article, but no, that's not an excuse to throw every little mote of information you can possibly uncover into the article. You'll note that the article on Snow doesn't attempt to document every possible snowflake.

I'm sure I'm wrong as well, but that's for someone else to point out. -FunnyMan 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me or are misrepresenting my position. My points are that the article should continue to exist and that it should list all the participants as links to their pages in the Wikipedia. I say this for a functional reason - that people will want to know who characters like Mr Rogers or Lo Pan are and this is a good way of informing them. The amount of ancillary detail for each character is a matter of taste. I don't have a problem with the current table - space is cheap and a lot of work went into the current format. But a tighter format might be good too. User:Colonel Warden 5 March 2007

By my previous analogy, you're arguing that Home Depot should link to every single product they carry, as "people will want to know" what a 6 1/2 inch wood screw or a 3 1/2" Decorative Cast Iron Steeple-Tipped Door Butt Hinge looks like (the latter is here, if I've made you insatiably curious). As someone pointed out further up this page, WP:NOT#IINFO applies here, and I'd add that WP:NOT#DIR fits too. In fact, if you sail on over to the Home Depot article, you will see that it doesn't even mention screws, drills or doors. Wood is only used as part of a location's name, and metal is nowhere to be found. Faucets, power tools, and ceiling fans only merit a brief mention because Home Depot carries exclusive brands of those items.

If you will pull up Talk:Home Depot you will also notice a distinct lack of comments saying, "Why didn't you link to an article about screws? I came to this page because I knew Home Depot sold screws so I figured I could find a link to an article that would tell me what a screw is." If people want to know what a screw is--or, for that matter, who Lo Pan is--they can go find those articles in peace, they're just a search away. Or they can follow the chain Home Depot->Hardware->Fasteners->Screw. I'd expect a similar chain to work from here once this article is cleaned up.

I take back what I said before, even a concise list of all the characters in here is too much. That's the kind of thing that belongs on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. If you want to create something like that, you're welcome to start your own website. If it's good, you can even link it from here. -FunnyMan 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Home Depot analogy is bogus and your development of it hogs more space than the stuff you're complaining about. First, consider the parable of the mote and the beam. And then consider a better analogy such as the Alice in Wonderland article.

As for WP:NOT#DIR, this does not fit because it says: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List". Looking at the latter, I find that's just the intro to the much longer Master list of Nixon political opponents. I myself recently created an article with a list of 100 items in: Your hundred best tunes. These lists are appropriate because the individual entries are all notable and they are associated with the topic. User:Colonel Warden 5 March 2007

Nice article, just not for an encyclopedia. Could some of this be transwikied somewhere and then have the part of the list deleted? I like the idea of having who's involved in the "showdown", but not who killed them, etc. I don't really like the idea of merging it with Neil Cicierega though. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt the compulsion to comment here. First of all, I believe that it has been well-established that this flash merits its own article. Many people know about it and it has been referenced in non-internet forms of media. Second, I believe that the cast of characters is relevent and should be kept. It is the type of information that someone coming to this article is likely to be looking for. 24.144.151.182 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Survivors list?

Should there be a (short, I Imagine) section listing the survivors? Tar7arus 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the lyrics, there was only one survivor, Mr. Rogers, and he killed himself at the end (though I guess you could argue that, since he lived to the end of the flash, he survived). If you add Robin, the guy with the ice cream, and (probably not, but maybe) Scruff McGruff, that's only four people, tops. I don't think we'd need a list that small, especially since most people could discern this information from the rest of the article.Ye Olde Luke 21:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead Xenomorph?

The list of combatants says that there is a dead xenomorph (the thing from 'Alien') in the pile of bodies, however I looked for it and it simply is not there. Esteemedleader 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Someone nominate this for deletion please, it doesn't deserve its own article. A redirect at most methinks. 91.108.233.246 (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See the prior discussions at the head of the page. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

sam jackson

he may have been killed by snakes, but the movie 'snakes on a plane' was not released until more than a year after USoUD, so his death can't be a reference to the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.14 (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There was plenty of internet buzz about the movie well before it was released. Samuel Jackson's pose was a reference to a well-known fake poster for the film. Thus, it's obviously a reference to the film. Hellbus (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first guy. You can't make a reference to something that hasn't occurred yet. Maybe they both were referencing the same poster?--David Gardner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.243.75 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Is there consensus to redirect this page? It really should be discussed before doing so, as at this point, people are reverting each other. Law _{type! snype?} 08:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, there is no such consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the argument against, then? As I've stated, the page is largely composed of original research. Both the "Showdown participants" and "Influences" sections are completely unsourced and have no justification for inclusion on Wikipedia, and without these, the remaining content would form little more than a stub, which should be merged into the Neil Cicierega article, which is rather lacking in itself. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The work itself is the implicit source for material such as the appearance of Godzilla. Listing the dramatis personae is not original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How is any of it significant, though? Where are the independent sources to show the real-world context of all these otherwise non-notable details? For example, how is the fact that Godzilla's "Tail can be seen sticking out from behind some buildings in the final camera pan." significant? Merely appearing in a notable work does not necessarily make any of these characters notable by themselves; see WP:NRVE. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor who added this detail considered it significant. The article gets 15-20,000 hits per month which indicates a significant readership for these details. The consensus at AFD was to keep the article. WP:NRVE is not relevant as it states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.". Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, readership details do not justify the inclusion of content on Wikipedia; Wikipedia's content is based on policies and guidelines, in which I highly doubt you'll find anything relating to the significance of readership. Secondly, if the editor(s) who added the material have any current views on its inclusion, then they can voice their opinions themselves; an arbitrary claim by you that they "considered it significant" is little more than putting words into their mouths. Thirdly, yes, there was a consensus at the last AfD of over a year ago, but there were also numerous calls for "clean up" with claims like "the massive tables add nothing to the understanding of the subject", "the article contains a load of really unnecessary OR trivia at the moment", etc.. At best, the table should be cut down to a much briefer summary which only states the significant points of the animation's plot, not every minor piece of trivia which independent sources are bound not to cover. Furthermore, the Influences section is completely unverified and not in-universe, so should be entirely removed per WP:OR. Frankly, I fail to see, even after that, how this article will pass WP:N with its five or so reliable, secondary sources. The Neil Cicierega article is lacking in itself, so I don't see the need for this glorified stub to be separate from that article right now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My mention of readership is in response to your mention of the concept of significance. Significance is not, I gather, covered by our policies and guidelnes and our notability guideline specifically says that we do not consider the importance of topics when deciding whether to include them. In considering significance we therefore fall back upon common sense for which readership seems relevant. Also, note that readers may also become editors. In my case, it was this particular article which turned me from a reader into an active editor. I noticed an AFD template upon the article, considered this to be an outrageous proposal and here we are. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like common sense itself, that's just completely arbitrary. We base articles on neither the appeal they may have to potential editors nor arbitrary readership statistics, but their subjects' coverage in reliable, secondary sources, the existence of which must be verified. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arbitrary collection of facts, and we do not base anything on subjective perceptions of "significance" or "importance". To say that "15-20,000 hits per month" equates to notability, and is therefore justification to keep content, is completely in ignorance of the fundamental concept of verifiability, which, per WP:OR, is the only thing that justifies the inclusion of content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is quite easy to verify that Godzilla's tail sticks out as described. Citations are only required for controversial matters, not obvious facts like that. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's insignificant; the importance of each character's manner of death certainly isn't reflected in the provided secondary sources, so what is the justification to list them all here? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, in the case of a short flash movie a click away, do you actually need sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.40 (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, why does it need a completely indiscriminate list of every minor, trivial event that happens in the animation? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ultimate Orgy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultimate_Showdown_of_Ultimate_Destiny&action=history

The Ultimate Orgy should have it's own section but I guess it's kinda pointless to try writing it considering how hard it is to keep a simple external link. I don't understand it, it's a brilliant parody, it has five million views on NG and it's actually better made than the original, no need to comment how good the song is, the animation is also better, while the original has 2694 frames at a rate of 12fps with a big use of motion tweenings, The Ultimate Orgy has better graphics with the animation being done more frame by frame, it has 4418 frames at a rate of 16fps. So, what's the problem with an external link? Anarchistificationer86

Gune keeps reverting for no reason. If you look at his talk page, you can see he got warned and blocked twice for breaking the 3RR. Anarchistificationer86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.241 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is popular or not. It was not created by Neil Cicierega so it has no basis to being inclused. Even if it's a parody of something he created. Also you obviously don't know what 3RR is. 3RR is only for 3 reverts in the same exact day. Gune (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant parodies are always included on a subject's page, have their own sections. I know the 3RR refers to the same day, just saying you like to revert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.242.17 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Robin or Riddler?

Bat Cave, used to say Robin, now says Riddler, which is it? (talking bad grammer in rush) 174.16.194.34 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing characters

Why isn't there a mention of who is punching the judohobo? Looking through the talkpage, someone mentioned it could be Clark Kent, but it doesn't seem definitive that that's who it is. However, something should be mentioned in the article, even if it's 'unknown character punching judohobo,' for the sake of completeness. --Stevehim (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Chart

Is this huge chart really necessary? I mean what purpose does it serve? If you actually care enough to analyse how each character dies in a flash video, watch the damn video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, what's the whole purpose of wikipedia? You care about something go for it, dont come here and read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.82.84 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it certainly isn't about intricate details about flash videos that aren't useful to anyone, such as a giant list of characters that were in a video for no longer than a second, Wikipedia isn't a database for that kind of stuff. That kind of stuff is called fancruft, and is listed in what not to write about in Wikipedia, and it was removed from this article for a good reason.NexCarnifex (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I just feel sorry for the guy who spent so much time on that chart. Mateussf (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he must have no life. Nex Carnifex (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone ought to put together a Warbox for this... Wardog (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move, therefore, moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny → The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny – Full title is "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" and should be moved to that page. Unfortunately, I can't simply do this with the Move function because a redirect already exists there. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support move. The title clearly includes the "the". ONR (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Label=Bandung Recordings=hoax?

This claim was added by anon and persisted for many years until it as removed by User:Casualdejekyll [1] few months ago, at which point it was added to WP:HOAXLIST. I am in the process of verifying purported hoax entries, as many may be innocent errors rather than intentional attempts to mislead. Casualdejekyll claimed such a label never existed but I found [2]. I am not saying this wasn't a hoax, and we still need a source that such a label was involved with this piece of media, but we should AGF things before we call them a hoax (the term error is much more neutral). At the very least, there probably was, somewhere, once, a "Bandung" label. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it could have been an honest mistake, in retrospect. However, "Defunct Progressive House label founded in 2003 by Dutch DJ & producer Harry Lemon aka Lemon8" sounds exactly 0% like Lemon Demon, other then the commonality of Lemon and...

Oh.

BNDG008. The Demon Disco Series Vol 1., artist Lemon8. That's probably the origin of the confusion, actually. Case... closed? Semi-closed? Probably not an intentional attempt to mislead. casualdejekyll (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

“Other versions” section

The 2021 Redux section should be put into a new category for other versions alongside the 2017 version (which it seems to use the audio of). Neither are significant enough to merit their own sections, but together can fill out a new category. I would do this myself but am not familiar enough with Wikipedia style at the present to be able to properly do so. If nobody else does it, I may eventually return if I learn the syntax. Edited by james (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Lyrics

here are the lyrics if you wanna do karaoke 2003:E8:735:400:C48F:2579:5206:FB6A (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)