Jump to content

Talk:Dat Boi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poison dart frog?

[edit]

the claim that dat boi is specifically a poison dart frog probably needs a [failed verification] on it - 109.224.247.180 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

never mind; it is sorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dat_Boi&oldid=880966248 109.224.247.180 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

[edit]


Current Requested change
Dat Boi is an Internet meme originating from an "Animation Factory" animation of a green unicycling frog. Dat Boi is an Internet meme originating from an animation of a green unicycling frog from the clipart website Animation Factory.

Reason: It's not explained that "Animation Factory" is a website, the current wording with the quotation marks makes it sound like we're saying "originating from a mass produced animation of a frog".

46.140.184.114 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thanks. Dmezh (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

[edit]

in the See Also section, change link from Toad worship (Chinese internet subculture) to Toad worship, article was moved 87.138.137.208 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done avoids a redirect Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man

[edit]

The Pac-Man featured in the original Dat Boi meme originates from a Bloodhound Gang fan video called "Here Comes Pacman" by YouTube user haakor. The source given lists it as being "the" computer animated Pac-Man, when it is not an official Namco model. While the article does do a decent job, calling it "a different meme featuring a computer-animated Pac-Man character", I think a better source should be found and the line should be reworded to something among the lines of "a different meme known as Here Comes Pac-Man". BubzieBobkat (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AP Physics 1 Essentials from 2013?

[edit]

Is there any source for the "textbook published in 2013"? I found nothing about this in the article cited for the image's first usage in the textbook. Also, it doesn't really make sense, considering that the first AP Physics 1 exams were in 2015. I feel that it would be best to remove that phrase, but I'll leave this comment on the talk page in case someone disagrees. Two, twicetalk 23:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]