Talk:Pannenkoek2012

"Background" section

This new section needs information about pannenkoek2012's background. One thing that would be an interesting read is the etymology of his username; i.e. why "pannenkoek" and why "2012"? (I know why "pannenkoek", Dutch word for "pancake", but still why 2012?) Some other interesting facts might be some things about Scott Buchanan as a person, or his online activities outside of Super Mario 64. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, but... we don't know. Pannenkoek has honestly been a mystery for the most part, we really don't know all that much about him. He's never really been interviewed and reliable sources never really talked about these things. I hope such a source will come up at some point in the future, though, because a 'Personal life' section would be great. ~Mable (chat) 07:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Pannekoek was also the name of a dutch communist economist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7402:7701:3DD0:78E2:672:8D95 (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Watch for Rolling Rocks in 0.5x a presses

As of now, there is only one mention of Pannen's Watch for Rolling Rocks in 0.5x A Presses video and there is no mention of the meme. Fix? Kbimbatti22 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It actually does make mention of the "memes", though not using that word. The current article says:

In a notable case on January 12, 2016, pannenkoek2012 uploaded a commentated video for the "Watch for Rolling Rocks" objective.[7] Highlights in the video include an explanation of his "half A-press" notation, his use of "parallel universes", his methods to manipulate the motions of the Scuttlebug enemy, and many other techniques that are almost never experienced in regular playthroughs, to obtain the star with only 0.5 A-presses. It took him thirteen hours to complete the challenge.[8][9] After its release, the video was critiqued and spoofed online.[8][10]

I'm not sure what it means for a video to be "critiqued online", though, so it may need a bit of an edit? I think saying that the video has been spoofed a lot is fine, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

On the "Conversation Initiation Proposal" section

I'm seeing some back and forth on the "Conversation Initiation Proposal" section. From what I can see, the section is only tagged as Undue Weight simply because it's poorly written. A rewrite should help clarify its significance. An informal YouTube interview with a major YouTube creator is often grounds for a section on personal life or political beliefs. Perhaps the section needs to be renamed as well? Ultimately, I'd prefer people give their thoughts before this turns into an edit war. --Robitussinqueen (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I can not find any reliable sources writing about this topic, so I don't see how we could include it in the article at all. This seems to be original research. Why should we have a whole section on an unlisted video only 120 people watched? If I wanted to include original research in this article, I'd pick an actually public video at least, like his no analog stick videos or his videos on Mario's sleeping and blinking. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the "Conversation Initiation Proposal" section should be restored. Proposing a method for completely changing how two-party conversations work is notable. Also, the reach of the reference is irrelevant. If your only source for some information was an obscure book that only sold 120 copies and is out of print, it doesn't make sense saying that the source shouldn't be included. The same is true here. -Shicky256 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That argument would make sense if you were suggesting this information to be included in the article on conversation, though seeing we are also unlikely to include information from such a niche book in that article I don't think this video has much of a place either. Notability isn't about impact and it isn't about reach. It is pretty much purely about whether it is discussed by third-party sources. No independent journalist or academic seems to be writing about this video, so as a result we can conclude that it is relatively unimportant to Pannenkoek's career thus far. I'm happy to add this information to the article once Pannenkoek's theory is published in a peer-reviewed journal or written about in a copy-edited newspaper article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconding Maplestrip and also noting that if you listen to the video provided as a source, it's clear that it's Pannen and his friends messing around and recording his silly idea explicitly "so it can go on Wikipedia". Sorry, having a Wikipedia page doesn't mean you get to put whatever you want on it. It's there to record relevant information about your person for the interested public to access. Pannen's random goofy ideas are not relevant, as a total lack of independent coverage clearly shows. A2soup (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Birth Year

Nowhere in the citation given for his birth year does it make any mention of knowing his birth year. This should be removed.Thestickman391 (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the comment :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pannenkoek2012

The audio file is hilariously wrong and obviously not provided by someone who has much, if any, knowledge of the Dutch language.

In the audio fragment 'koek' namely is pronounced like 'ko-ek'.

This is wrong. 'Koek' in 'pannenkoek' is pronounced much like the English word 'cook'.

As a general rule in the Dutch language, 'oe' is pronounced similar to 'oo' in English.

Heres an example of the proper pronunciation for 'koek': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nl-koek.ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a211:2381:da80:2044:deb1:9deb:648b (talk) 18:58, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

The odd English pronunciation is how pannekoek himself pronounces his own name. I did include a Dutch-language pronunciation to this page as well, but I am still not sure if it should even really be there... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Dutch pronunciation should absolutely not be there. Pannen isn't Dutch and nobody pronounces his name the Dutch way. 75.72.52.186 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Reasons pannen quit

I cannot find his FAQ Google Doc, but in that document he did state that he quit because making the Rolling Rocks video took him many sleepless nights. Yes, the memes played a part in his decision to quit, but he quit because he spent so much effort on the video, only for it to be memed into oblivion.

JGcodes2020 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Here is said FAQ, linked on UncommentatedPannen's Youtube profile. Relevant section is "13. What’s the story surrounding the rolling rocks video?", page 22 onwards.

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that the article should go into the reasons why Pannenkoek "quit", i.e. rarely uploads to the Pannenkoek2012 channel anymore? Your comment reads like the article is already wrong about the subject, even though as far as I can tell it does not mention it at this time. codl (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A button challenge separate article

I think we should shorten this article and move most of the content to a separate article about the A button challenge, which at this point has gained enough notoriety to warrant its own article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekcrisp (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should've written this article originally based on the A-button challenge, rather than Pannenkoek specifically. Do we have any sources about the A-button challenge that aren't also about him? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The SM64 A-button challenge probably doesn't need it's own WP article. Ukikipedia is a better place for that. Should we mention that you can jump 0xA under very rare circumstances? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzUEzHk-ioQ 2600:4040:208F:2A00:758B:9C21:C0DC:8CFA (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow this is a completely unfamiliar mechanical quirk for me, here I thought I knew everything at this point! But no, there's an infinite list of mildly interesting things in this game and we only document those that were picked up by reliable sources (indicating a broader interest). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have started an article for the A button challenge, but it doesn't have much information. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Super_Mario_64_A_Button_Challenge&redirect=no I am not sure if I should try to finish it, as I am having some trouble with the sources. I think the A button challenge should have its own article, but there is already one on Ukikipedia, so it would probably be similar. Have any thoughts? Tall Tall Mountain (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ukikipedia and Mario Wiki are better places for technical and general SM64 stuff than Wikipedia. JoshuaAuble (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Watch for Rolling Rocks is now doable in 0 A presses

A recent console verification stream confirms that Watch for Rolling Rocks is completable in 0 A presses, by taking advantage of the behaviours of enemies and a red platform to transport them. The video is not out yet, but the strategy is confirmed. JGcodes2020 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite cool! If reliable sources pick this up as a story, then we can include the fact in the article. It's probably not of wide interest though, so I doubt it will be relevant for Wikipedia. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)