Jump to content

Talk:Drill, baby, drill

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

Bill Epton Edit

[edit]

This is the most significant edit I've made on Wikipedia; the paragraphs about Bill Epton seemed nonsensical, so I tried to fix them. Please feel free to offer suggestions. Unclevinny (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edits Unclevinny. I think at somepoint we need to further reorganize this info by saying that the root of the phrase comes from Bill Epton, but that sense then the Blank, Baby, Blank phrase has become mainstream. This way we can point out the irony that they're using it, but still examine why they started using it. PDM (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "they" is telling. It answers the question "Why the hell is this a Wikipedia article?" Oh well, it's like pissing in the wind around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.138.117 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Drill, baby, drill" - would be nice title for a porn pic, too, btw. Har har. --Oenie (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who Repeated this phrase

[edit]

Can we get an accurate list of:

  • speakers who used this phrase from the podium at the convention, and
  • candidates and their close supporters who used this during campaign events.

Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

OR tag

[edit]

The Etymology section definitely seems to have some original research, specifically in the second paragraph. I tagged one of the statements with {{citation needed}}, but neither of the other two are properly sourced (I'm making an educated guess about the dead link). They attest to other "Verb, baby, verb" constructions but make absolutely no connection between them and "drill, baby, drill." It may be appropriate to remove this content altogether until a reliable source can be found. --BDD (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drill, baby, drill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drill, baby, drill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Porn parodies

[edit]

I removed a section referencing a Palin themed porn video. This refernce is both inapropriate and too obscure to be included. Not every refernce to a thing should be included in an article about it. Consider for a moment the Simpsons or South Park, which both parody a lot of stuff and are fairly popular. Despite this, mere reference to something in one of those parodies does not warrant inclusion in that article, lest Wikipedia be over run with pop culture references. In this case, the porn which is mentioned isnt even as relevant as South Park, and, as such is not worth mentioning here. !!!!

I note that literally hundreds if not thousands of articles on wikipedia include a mention of when the subject was featured in the Simpsons or South Park... Your argument is ridiculous on its face. This information was covered by what appears to be a reputable source, that means its worthy of inclusion on WP even if you believe them to be smut peddlers or whatever. Talk policy please, I have no interest in entering into a moral debate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia makes it clear that including something in an article should enhance our understanding of the subject, not simply catalog every reference to it. WP:POPCULTURE makes it clear that editors should avoid "Inclusion of unremarkable mentions or appearances" and "Inclusion of coverage in works of minor significance" should also be avoided. This reference is clearly both of those. The most we can really say is that it exists, not that it is of any significance whatsoever. The "reputable sources" you mention are a porn "news" site and an IMDB like site for porn, hardly widespread or important. Bonewah (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AVN (magazine) is a WP:RS even if they cover the porn industry. The article is a feature piece on the parody and not just one which is about something else but contains an offhand mention. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And so what? This is the virtual definition of unremarkable mentions. Bonewah (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No its not... Its a feature article not an unremarkable mention. I'm beginning to think you never actually read the article, do you even know the name of the actress who played Palin in the film? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

proposed merger with Public image of Sarah Palin

[edit]

I propose merging the information here with Public image of Sarah Palin. There is very little information here beyond the fact that Palin said "drill, baby, drill" and the usual media pundits and politicians reacted to it in various ways. I see no indication of lasting significance enough to warrant its own page and no real hope that it will ever be usefully expanded, mostly due to the afore mentioned lack of importance. Per WP:MERGEREASON, there is a large overlap and this article is inherently short text. Very little links here that isnt a result of the Sarah Palin template and few people aside from me visit this page. Bonewah (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drill,_baby,_drill&oldid=1207038129"