Talk:Ric Romero

Discussion

Untitled

The reference that the fark cliche is Ric Romero reporting things that are NOT newsworthy is inaccurate. The cliche is that he reports things that are already painfully obvious. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.100.2 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a lock, Farkers are vandalising

Anti-Farkers should knock it off

I know there are what I can only refer to as "anti-Fark" editors who have cut out the "Fark related" portions of this article. This is foolish, as, like it or not, Fark is relevant, and this is now a permanent part of his notoriety. Editing it down a bit certainly would be a better choice, not a complete denuding of the section as was done recently. If five thousand albums is enough for a garage band to make relevance here, 100,000 or so Farkers is certainly more than enough for a mere section of an article of an already well known news reporter. Unfocused 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fark is relevant, but I'm of the opinion that the "Fark" article is a better fit for the cliche related material than this one right here. The entire section seems to be less about Mr. Romero himself, and more about how Fark Cliches are born. - Brother Dave Thompson 17:42, 18 April 2006 (PST)

Fark is the reason why he's famous to people outside LA. It's now part of his fame. Unfocused 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I still don't think it entirely fits, but some explanation behind why his (so-called) fame extends beyond the broadcast range of ABC7 is needed. - Brother Dave Thompson 11:33 20 April 2006 (PST)

Fark is not relevant, BY DEFINITION. Go ahead, ask Drew. I imagine Ric would ask, "famous among whom?" And this sentence is garbage (and I can't fix it): "Romero's name is usually attached to an article where he reports the obvious." (Romero's name is always attached to an article HE reports.) So, what other regular sections are devoted to a "club" of 100K illiterate indignants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.34.130 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Farkers should NOT edit. How about try, "Romero's name is often invoked in reference to an article that reports the obvious." 166.128.54.0 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I am proposing that the disambiguation page be deleted and this page go back to being for Ric Romero only. Calwatch 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 09:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ric Romero is on Myspace! http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=70486333 --God Ω War 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that all the articles that Ric Romero has his name attached to on the website for his station, are duplicated across ALL ABC TV station websites, with different bylines on them

Suggested merge

I hitherto and forthwith state my disagreement with the proposal to merge this article with Fark.com. As has been mentioned numerous times previously, Ric Romero is notable outside of his fame from the "Fark connection." Merging would remove significant content, and detract from the informativeness (is that even a word?) of Wikipedia on the subject. -- Y|yukichigai 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the merger tag as inappropriate: he's famous in LA for being an ABC reporter; he's famous nationally for Fark. Both are notable, and the two spheres don't overlap in a way that allows coverage of either to fully cover his notability. Unfocused 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's perhaps presumptuous. I tagged it b/c Fark is the real reason this guy is known. His notability is associated with that site and a merge is arguably justified, even if you have valid reasons for disagreeing with it. I am restoring the tag to invite debate. If it is consensus that it remains where it is, sobeit. Eusebeus 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I welcome the discussion. However, I would like to warn everyone that as this is a contested issue, and making drastic changes or reverts without discussing the matter first (and I mean discussing, not saying "I'm going to do this now") will probably lead to an edit war. There is no deadline and no timetable for a proposed merger; please take the time to fully discuss the matter before proceeding with any course of action. -- Y|yukichigai 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the scope of Wikipedia include local information? It must, there are pages for just about every US city over 20,000 people. Ric Romero is a local celebrity, given global notoriety by a website (admittedly, fark.com). So he IS an internet meme, but he is also a real person. Much like Mustard_Man. The only difference is that nobody seems to care enough about the real person behind the Mustard Man to create a wiki node about Mike Nahrgang.

Also, the Biography and California WikiProjects have claimed this article. It would be unfair to merge it with Fark.com just because Ric happened to be "discovered" by them -- Preaction 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In practice "local information" seems to be allowed on the basis of the size of the locality. In this case Ric Romero is notable within the greater Los Angeles area, which is the second-largest city in the US. -- Y|yukichigai 22:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Although Ric Romero has gained most of his nationwide notability through Fark.com, he is known first and foremost as a local correspondent for ABC. This article should not be into the Fark.com article. Sharkface217 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My gawd!!!!!!!!!! Think of the children!!!!!! Everything simply MUST revolve around the vile spawn so do only that which benefits the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!! Obbop, childless by informed choice, told yah' this.68.13.191.153 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Internet fame" section and WP:BLP

I'm a little confused as to what the argument is, based on WP:BLP, for removing the "Internet fame" section. The content is not libelous, scandalous, and is properly sourced. It in no way compromises the privacy of Mr. Romero. It merely describes a relevant aspect of his notability, specifically his notability on the internet and FARK in particular, and is properly sourced. There are no other provisions of BLP to address; the section passes all of them just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two of us that feel the same way. Before you start reverting the edits and trigger a 3RR issue, let's discuss. And remember to remain calm in the face of disagreement. Eusebeus 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so, where's the discussion then? Y'know, the argument you are supposed to provide to back up your reasoning? Anytime now would be a good time for you to start. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this - what's the reason for removing it? The first paragraph is well-sourced - though I would like to see the second cut down or removed, for being unsourced. However, it's definitely not a living persons issue. --Haemo 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the problem: Wikipedia does not exist to perpetuate Internet memes. If Fark wants to take the piss out of a living individual, that's their business, I hope they don't get sued for it. This, on the other hand, is a serious encyclopaedia, one of the largest sites on the Internet, and what we say about people has a real effect on their lives. "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" covers this exactly. Fark is a poor source for anything. If you are asserting that Fark is the primary source of notability, or the main reason for this article existing, then it should be deleted. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, Fark is a good source for information about Fark, and specifically the social elements therin. Regardless of your personal bias towards the site, the community of users has adopted Mr. Romero as a meme, so to speak. The information is also notable enough that it is prominently listed in the Fark.com article itself, and has survived numerous attempts to remove it. I cannot understand why you think it is so wrong to include the information here while the same information mentioned in another article is a-ok. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The material is sourced outside of Fark by the Toronto star, and the primary source. I'm all for removing material that's unsourced, such as the Fark "reference". In fact, if you remove (per my recommendations) the unsourced section, there's nothing even notably negative about the commentary.

For instance, here's my proposed revision for that section:

Romero became a FARK cliché in October 2005 after his article effusing about the phenomenon of blogging was posted to KABC's site, several years after blogs became widely popular.[2][3].

--Haemo 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting someone I trust: "An obscure website likes to make fun of him? And this is important HOW?" We do not exist to give Fark notability. This information is irrelevant and should stay off the article. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lar beat me to the punch there. Exactly that: we are about the tenth biggest site on the Internet. If a site somewhere in the thousands wants to make fun of someone, that's their business. But not ours. Fark cliches are important to Fark, not to anyone else. I am wondering whether to apply the YTMND solution here. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not up to us to say what is, and is not, an "obscure website" - that's why we have reliable source guidelines to help us determine when an event is, or is not, notable. As you can see, my proposed revision has:

1. Two citation to print sources.
2. Little to no negative material.

• This is simply not a biography of living persons issue. --Haemo 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll be adding the above paragraph under the heading "Internet notoriety". --Haemo 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fark.com is already notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. You can hardly say that mentioning this would be "making Fark notable" when there's already an entire article covering the site. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Someone deleted the picture of Romero, so I uploaded a new one on 10 June 07 Kokanee 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad link

The URL in reference number 3 (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=consumer&id=3549166) is no longer valid. The link could be changed to:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070217134725/http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=consumer&id=3549166 --Speakermeonce (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)