Talk:Drop bear

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Drop bear is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Suggestion[edit]

Hi all, can we please carry on the hoax of drop bears. It is Australian culture to remind tourists of the dangers of drop bears and this Wikipedia page ruins this as it is the first page to appear when googling "Does Australia have drop bears?". Several other websites have made an effort to continue the idea.

I hope other Aussie Wikipedia users feel the same way.

Thanks. 94.56.252.49 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it becomes very hard for Wikipedia to maintain a policy towards the truth, but make exceptions for some jokes or amusing hoaxes. Someone else might think it funny to have the article on Birds tell readers that birds aren't real; this could quickly become problematic, and it would be hard for us to draw a line. — HTGS (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A longer-winded explanation at WP:HOAX. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1914 book[edit]

The Drop Bear Task Force is a 1914 book that seems to be based on this hoax. I realize this is OR and not a usable secondary source. --Rpresser 18:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it was actually published in 2014. Google Books had it wrong. --Rpresser 18:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the publication date is late enough to worry about WP:CITOGENESIS. The 1914 date given in the citation appears to be an effort to obscure that. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended description of Bundaberg Rum advertisement[edit]

In this edit, CAVincent removed a lengthy paragraph which described an advertisement for Bundaberg Rum, saying "removing extended discussion of a an advertisement; presumed non-notable". This was reverted by Jack Upland with the justification that "It's a notable pop cultural mention of the bear". But the only source available is a YouTube clip of the advertisement itself. I am struggling to see how that makes it notable, especially how it warrants anything more than a very short mention. As it is, the paragraph mentions "Bundaberg Rum" or "Bundy" four times, which sounds excessive to me. Rather than reverting again and starting an edit war, I would like to canvas opinions - what does the Brains Trust have to say? Gronk Oz (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple notes. One, as noted by Gronk Oz, there isn't any citation establishing notability e.g. say, mention of the advertisement in the media. I've seen advertisements that generate enough buzz for this to happen, and such things clearly can be notable enough for WP "In popular culture" sections. Two, and more the reason I initially removed it, is that such a long discussion of the advertisement comes off as Wikipedia itself advertising for the brand. Seems like something to be discouraged. CAVincent (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be shortened, but I think it's worth including.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps shorten to something like "The drop bear hoax was humorously referenced in an advertisement for Bundaberg Rum." and just leave it at that? I don't think anyone is much enlightened on the article's subject by the play-by-play ad description and knowing that "The ad ends with the entire group, including the bear, sharing Bundaberg Rum at the men's campsite." (I'd not object if the link to the YouTube video was left for WP editors who might get a laugh out of it.) CAVincent (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that there is no evidence that the video on YouTube was owned by the person who uploaded it. It will need a new reference. I've removed it as per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

We ask just to change the description of Fictional Creature to Australian creature and rewrite the first paragraph to go along with the hoax, but then get into that its not real afterwards. If people just google and read the short and not read the full article thats their problem. I think this is a healty balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveoD83 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2024 February 16 (UTC)

No. It's not Wikipeida's remit to help with Australian tourism. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]