Talk:Badgers (animation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

AfD discussion[edit]

The below is a record of the discussion following this article's being listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion on March 17, 2004.

Badger Badger Badger[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. whkoh [talk][[]] 06:42, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Alexa rank is 31,000-odd; on the other hand, might be a valid piece of internet culture. No vote, just a comment. Meelar 06:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are you ready to put every dancing fat man and chicken that crosses the road into a separate article about internet culture? Mikkalai 07:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! I love that website... Agree that wikipedia is not a web directory, but it has become a very famous part of internet culture. Undecided, neutral -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It'll be forgotten in a year. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Weebl and Bob - it's one of many one-offs by Weebl - David Gerard 17:07, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Weebl and Bob for the moment. Famous enough for that, no more for the moment unless someone can come up with biographical notes on the authors (and ones that they are happy to release). Andrewa 19:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly, yes, but it's a real thing and a documented phenomenon. I can easily see a future scholar researching web memes and finding this useful. Jgm 21:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Jgm. Lupin 01:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Me too. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it'll be forgotten in a year, all the more reason why it needs an article now. Everyking 22:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Badgers? Badgers? WE DONT'T NEED NO STINKIN' BADGERS!!!
    • Sorry, that was obligatory. :) seriously, I've seen it in dozens of IRC chat rooms. Keep. Fennec
  • Keep. Famous enough. Fredrik 16:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An old fart like me needs this sort of stuff. This is hilarious! Kd4ttc 04:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - famous meme - Texture 19:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I just have to comment that I think keeping entries about web pages is absurd; if I didn't know what Badger Badger Badger was and wanted to find out, I'd go to the site myself, not look it up in an encyclopedia. Bearcat 08:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The thing that makes it worth an article is the comment about the social phenomenon that it spawned - Badger bouncing - described in the article. Just seeing the site is not the same as knowing there are individuals that do the Badger thing. Kd4ttc 23:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I love the flash animation. Ivan 01:37, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Weebl and Bob and redirect. I don't think that enjoying the flash animation is really a valid reason to keep this as a separate article.Ivan 01:37, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not add any more votes. The above is a record of the discussion following this article's being listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion on March 17, 2004.

"Badger Badger Badger has proceeded a worldwide following, with dancing competitions in Australia and widespread coverage in Asia (complete with conspiracy theories)." - I would desperately love to hear what these conspiracy theories are. Anyone know? :) Bryan 00:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I reckon it's BS. -- anon 02:02, 20 May 2004 (BST)
Magic Magic Magic Magic... Mushroom Mushroom[edit]

Some websites say that the voice is actually saying 'Magic Magic Magic Mushroom Mushroom' etc. Is this true? BillyH 16:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That is so blatantly badger! You need to hit them over the head with a spanner. *rhymes* 07:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While he is saying badger, the way he's saying it makes it sound very close to "magic". Then there's a mushroom, which as depicted is of the amanita muscaria variety, which does have hallucinogenic properties. Next, he's freaking out about a snake (bad trip?). --Thoric (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that Jonti has said that it's "Argh snake argh snake". Can someone verify this? Where did Jonti say this? It doesn't sound like "Argh snake argh snake" at all. -Branddobbe 01:58, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you listen carefully, when the words "argh" appears and the snake sequence starts, you can hear him say "Argh snake! Argh snake!". A.K.R. 04:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure that "Santa Santa Santa" is non-Weebl? Not only does it link to, but it was also one of the movies in the Advent Calendar (day 24).

My bad! I didn't notice the advent calendar and I didn't see it in the regular list of animations and just assumed it was yet another derivative work. It did seem to be a particularly good reproduction of the original voice... I should have guessed better. — Saxifrage |  11:08, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

The original link for the Harry Potter badger spoof ( no longer works. I've swapped in a working link (, but I don't know if this mirror is condoned by the original author of the spoof.

The .edu site under which this was hosted is still active, but looks like a commercial web site started by a bunch of students now. --Christopher Thomas 16:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the non-direct link page, and I feel foolish now (looks legit). --Christopher Thomas 17:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell is the crappy Harry Potter one not done by weebl have it's own section? I mean a link is okay, but do you need an entire paragraph about the crap? No. GET RID OF IT.

Ninja Ninja Ninja?[edit]

The video "Holy Shit! Ninjas!" (linked to from the Real Ultimate Power page) contains, among other things, a scene that is obviously based on "Badger Badger Badger", featuring guitar-playing ninjas. Does anyone know if there is a complete "Ninja Ninja Ninja" parody? If so, please add link to it. SpectrumDT 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That flash toon has several brief parodies and tributes, referencing many many fandoms and memes, and it appears that most of them were created for that particular toon. In other words, the badger-like guitar-playing ninjas were more than likely created for that scene only, rather than lifted from a longer video. Even if there was a "ninja ninja ninja" parody, they probably wouldn't be playing guitars (the guitars were part of the motif for this specific toon).
However, the reference/tribute is noteworthy, in my opinion, and should be mentioned in the article (but should not be included in the list of tributes under External Links). - Ugliness Man 18:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Zombie cartoon was not done by the same guys who made the original Badger cartoon. Actually, I find it's a really awful tribute/parody, but I won't bother slathering opinions all over the article. However, if someone could find out who actually did the Zombie toon, it should be mentioned in that paragraph of the article, so people don't think that Weebl and Bob had anything to do with that piece of crap. - Ugliness Man 04:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - 01:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Argh Snake Argh Snake"[edit]

The article claims "Jonti himself says that the line is "Argh snake! Argh snake!"" Is there a source on this? We should really have one if we are going to keep this claim in the article; if one is not provided the line should be removed. -Branddobbe 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me[edit]

"The audio doesn't match up exactly with the visuals. This becomes plainly discernible after 30 minutes of continuous playing. At this point, the audio is at the twelfth "badger" in the first line while the visuals show the mushroom. Over the next few hours, the visuals continue to play faster than the audio, achieving maximum separation at 4 hours 12 minutes. Thereafter the gap begins to close, and becomes synchronized again at about 8 hours 30 minutes. This process continues cyclically."

Did someone actually play this for that long? If so: why?! You're all crazy I tell you :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. Somone has WAY too much time. In fact, it's, somewhere in West Lafayette, Indiana. Heh, in the midwest no less. --AK7 08:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ju-ust sayt ther watchin' the badgers... Although I must say that whoever wrote that actually has a very educated writing style... Dan 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be possible to test this simply by comparing the length of the sound to the length of the animation. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back when it was newer in particular, I find it hard to believe that anyone could stop playing it before 30 minutes had passed. Indium 05:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website change?[edit]

"It is currently unknown when between December 2005 and January 2006 this change happened."

Surely, if it was between December 2005 and January 2006, it must have snuck into the leap second? — sjorford (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means "between" in the inclusive sense. Perhaps it should be clarified.  — Saxifrage |  23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the SpongeBob SquarePants version of the badger animation once, but now it won't work. Does anyone know what happened here? —Gm1121983 10:13 pm, 11 February 2006

Overdue for a trim?[edit]

So a racist parody was added awhile back, and removed. I don't object to the removal, I think it was a good decision. It does, however, make me wonder if it's time to start trimming off the really bad parodies. The racist one was deemed unfit because it was offensive (and really not that funny unless you find racism funny in and of itself), but I think that the "zombie" and "roger" parodies are just very poorly made. The fact that they're voices with no music almost misses the entire point of the original, and they're just not all that funny.. It's started to become another version of "all your x are belong to us", where people feel that inserting anything in place of "x" is sufficient parody. My opinion is that, now that there are a fair share of parodies to choose from, there is no longer an obligation to report and list all of them, if there ever was one.

I'm removing them for now, and if anyone wishes to object and put them back on, I feel you should at least comment here.

On an unrelated note, I just want to say how terribly amused I am that next Friday will mark the two-year anniversary of DJ Clayworth's assertion up above that this will "be forgotten in a year." This comment isn't meant to mock Clayworth, it's just interesting how you can't always predict the stamina of things like this. - Ugliness Man 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree. Awful, non-notable imitations aren't worth keeping here. — Saxifrage 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I simply do not see any logic behind the removal of rogerrogerroger. Keep your opinions to yourself, you do NOT represent the total population who will view this article. I am sure that many people will want this article and indeed the whole encyclopedia to be as diverse and interesting as possible-deleting links under parodies and questioning their extistence is in direct contravention to this. On the whole this site is mostly very anti-little guy and does not welcome most articles, this only retards the development and evolution of the encyclopedia. Delete if you will, but remember what I have said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenunity (talkcontribs) 19:08 15 March 2006 (UTC).

It's because it's your own site. Wikipedia does not condone people adding links to their own personal sites to the encyclopedia because they have a conflict of interest. If your site is sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion according to Wikipedia's notability policy, then enough other people will know about it and might include it. This way, a truly notable site will get added by someone other than the site owner, and non-notable sites will never be added.
As for being "anti-little guy", yes. Articles about non-notable people are not welcome, especially if they're written by the subject of the article. — Saxifrage 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please read WP:SPAM. - File:Ottawa flag.png Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 04:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a persecution complex, buddy. There's no mass conspiracy to keep the little guy down, and we're not against development or evolution. It's simply a matter of quality over quantity. Face it, the "parody" sucks, and doesn't deserve to be included here. If at some point in the future a new, seperate article is created with a list of parodies and tributes, then I will fully support it being added to that list, along with the zombie and racist ones as well. However, when the list is part of a small External Links section of the main article, there needs to be a bit of quality control. The list, when included as a sub-section to the main article, can not be "here's every parody and tribute that we know about", it needs to be "here's a few noteworthy parodies and tributes", and whether you like it or not, that stupid roger thing is not noteworthy when compared to the others on the list. - Ugliness Man 06:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, well replied. =) I shall therefore make a parody page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenunity (talkcontribs) .

It appears that Greenunity did go ahead and create Badger Badger Badger Parodies to showcase his "rogerrogerroger" and other animations that have been rejected from this article. I nominated it for deletion because none of the "parodies" that are listed are notable and Wikipedia is not a links directory. Because few people know about the page, the votes are very few so far on its Article for Deletion page. Anyone with an interest is invited to contribute their opinion here. — Saxifrage 21:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Anyone remember The Simpsons' espisode featuring ? Is it related to Badger Badger Badger? Ewlyahoocom 16:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be related. — Saxifrage 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. This is from when Lisa had to do a report on badgers and she went to that website to find out, well, what they eat. --DancexwithxmexXx 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's really important, but she wasn't doing a report on badgers - there was a badger in Santa's Little Helper's dog house, and she and Bart were trying to get rid of it. (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

We really don't need five links to the same site. - brenneman{L} 09:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are they not relevant? The article is about five different animations, surely we should link to them. — Saxifrage 18:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they are different variations on the original. If the links were to unrelated toons like "Choccy" or "Chase Me", I'd understand their removal, but the toons in question are all specifically badger variations. Maybe we should have a seperate "chronology" section so that the official weebls-stuff variations are segregated from the parodies and tributes. - Ugliness Man 04:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
brenneman, you can point to the guideline page a dozen different ways, it doesn't explain what part of the page you think is being violated by linking to the different variations. The article is about the badgers toon, the links in question are variations on the badgers toon. Why would parodies and tributes be acceptable but variations not acceptable. And if you have an actual answer to this question, please give an answer, instead of simply adjusting your method of linking to the guideline. I read the page, I couldn't find anything that supports your objection to the variations. - Ugliness Man 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, how about a little AGF, mate? I am in the middle of composing a response, and ratcheting up the tension isn't really helpful. The guideline was linked in my edit summary but wasn't yet linked in this section. - brenneman{L} 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first words on that page are "Wikipedia is not a web directory." There is clearly a need to link to the original, but what's actually added to the article by linking to the variations? Only slightly further on it says "a certain number" of links is valuable, and follows that closely with "small section containing a few external links." Clearly, limiting the number of external links is considered a good thing.
  • Further, What should be linked to says that "meaningful, relevant content" is to be linked to. It's a tenuous argument that these variations are relevent. They may be described in the article as it stands, but if pressure was applied to follow the verification guidelines, that could change. Do we have evidence that these have been covered by reliable sources?
  • brenneman{L} 06:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be a misapplication of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Arguably the descriptions of the animations in the article itself are original research, but I don't see how linking to the animations is research or subject to verifiability criteria.
So long as the animations are treated upon in the article, links are required. We can hardly talk about something that exists online and not link to it, especially when it is the actual subject of an article or a section of an article. — Saxifrage 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed. As a reader of the article, I didn't know the variations existed until I read about them here. If the links had not been included, I would have been extremely annoyed. Also, the discussion of fan variants lends credence to the claim that it has become an Internet meme, so my personal opinion is that it's appopriate for them to be discussed. --HunterZ 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft variation[edit]

There's a variation called "Badges, Badges, Badges!" that is a satire on grinding for items and reputation in the MMORPG World of Warcraft. I don't know the official/original web site, but here's a working link to the flash animation:

--HunterZ 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it's a hacked version of the original animation, copyright violation and all, I don't think it's significant enough to warrant mention. — Saxifrage 09:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found only one mention of copyright on the weebls site: "all characters copyright sumo-dojo". What about the music? —Simplulo
It's a common misconception that the lack of copyright notice means no copyright. It's actually the opposite: not copyright-protecting something requires a notice to release the automatic copyright everything has. So, the music is copyright to Weebl. — Saxifrage 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted addition[edit]

I've reverted the following from the opening section of the article:

The voice however came from Madison, WI and is that of Janson Olson who with his friend Tom Leary who were testing a new sound program. Janson was listening to headphones blasting ABBA while randomly chanting. If you listen close you can hear that what is said is " Badgers Badges. Also during the snake part you can hear a can of coke open.

It was reverted once before, and I think it should be discussed before re-adding it for the following reasons:

  • Needs a citation. The previous reversion (not by myself) labeled it as "dubious".
  • Grammar needs to be cleaned up.

I'm also not sure why the paragraph following it was removed. --HunterZ 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine Run[edit]

Just wanted to point out that I've seen people adding and reverting references to something called Porcupine Run at least three times now. I think it would be good to have a discussion on it in hopes of reaching a consensus as to whether it should be in the article. I'm currently neutral mildly in favor of removal. --HunterZ 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not related to Badger Badger Badger in any significant way, it's not a parody, and it's not notable. At best it's an attempt to promote a political group by advertising on this page. — Saxifrage 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was inspired *directly* by Football Badgers, which I am quite fond of. I gave the developer specific direction on making equivalents to every FB element, without actually duplicating anything. Tribute, parody, and copyright violation are separated by a thin and subjective line, and I wanted to stay well clear of it. I can say that nearly everyone who watches PR makes the connection to the FBs. It is obviously and unashamedly an attempt to promote a group (which is emphatically not political, though its community members share a general moral philosophy), but then the original FBs had a promotional purpose as well. As to whether this animation was notable, well, go ahead and hurt my feelings and those of the young developers here in Moscow, but throw us a bone. This animation is no worse than Potter Potter Potter, and its connection to the original no more tenuous. I suggest that your decision to retain PR or not should depend on whether or not PR hurts or enhances this article. In my opinion it does no harm, and it at least expands the BBB sphere a little more. Has there been any other recent action or innovation here? —Simplulo
If you were personally involved in some way with the creation of PR, then it's not really going to go over well for you to be the one promoting it (see Wikipedia:Five pillars, and more specifically Wikipedia:Vanity page). In cases where I've found myself in this situation, I usually just post on the Talk page and leave it up to the community to decide whether to add it to the article itself. --HunterZ 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally conceived of this project, posted it on, selected a developer here in Moscow, and paid them out of my own pocket. If this constitutes "vanity", then so be it, but my motivation (and political views) *should* be as irrelevant to you as whether or not you support England's football team. The essential question is whether or not this is useful, relevant content, and I believe that it is by any objective assessment of the rest of the article (again, I refer you to Potterx3). The bias should be towards inclusion until clutter becomes an issue. I'm frankly rather surprised that people are willing to spend their time kicking over other people's sand-castles. —Simplulo
For starters, you should stop referring to Potterx3. Your comparison is insulting and rather forced. The connection between Potterx3 and Badgerx3 is not tenuous at all, but the connection between FB and PR is a vague "inspiration". Aside from the sortakinda techno music, and multiple copies of a single animal appearing (almost) in time with the music, there is no other connection.
First, the song in PR has no vocals. One of the most predominant features in Badgerx3 (and its variations and tributes) is the repetition of the name of whatever is appearing in time to the music. Second, the lack of vocals prevents another predominant theme, the appearance (and possible relationship) of three different things. Badger, Mushroom, Snake. Potter, Weasley, Snape. Footy, England, Goal. PR only has porcupines running, and a bunch of scattered messages. Third, the porcupines are running. In all Badger variations and tributes, the main object is standing in one place, bouncing.
Besides all this, the animation is subpar (I'm sorry to hear you actually paid for it), and you can play semantics all you want with the terms "moral", "philosophical" and "political", but PR is clearly a politically motivated, and comes rather close to propaganda. Further, the mention of it in the actual article is more than a mention or a summary, it's a promotion. The final statement is a political concept stated as fact, and just screams of bias. Altogether, PR might be noteworthy in related political articles, but doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this article any more than the Zombie and N--ger cartoons which have also been removed. - Ugliness Man 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update: In spite of my general distaste for the piece of crap, I realize that it may deserve at least some mention. In an attempt to be fair (and omit bias), I restored a mention of it in the "Other references" section, but removed it from the external links. This is probably better than it deserves, but I'll leave that up to admins if it comes to such a thing. - Ugliness Man 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] must do quite well on the Analogies questions of IQ tests. I'm sorry to have caused such a fuss. Go ahead and remove it if it really bothers you that much. I didn't want to put down Potterx3, as it is fine for what it is. I take no pleasure in criticizing others. But you are clearly biased in your low assessment of PR, and your high assessment of the other "tributes". —Simplulo
That seems like a feeble attempt to accuse me of being "the man" and trying to "keep you down" as a matter of perspective, or some other such nonsense. I mentioned my bias and put it out in the open, but in the end I gave concrete and specific points, none of which you have dealt with. I don't know whether you're delusional or just a troll, but you're not going to win this one. - Ugliness Man 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before the personal attributions thicken into personal attacks and incivility, let's restrain ourselves and keep the discussion only to those concrete points. — Saxifrage 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted "there is no other connection," but you did not mention one of the primary analogues: the maps and the promotion of places on them. FB promotes England on a map of the British Isles, while PR promotes New Hampshire on a map of New England. There was to have been an element equivalent to the snake, but the developer had trouble with it and ran out of time and resources. You said that the creatures should be bouncing, not running, but do you notice the porcupines actually *moving* on your screen? Again, I ask you all to reconsider the fine lines between tribute, parody, plagiarism, and copyright violation. Yes, bouncing creatures is one parallel to draw, but there are others. Personally, I was not impressed by the other badgerx3 variations, and thought that I chose more essential elements to parallel: furry animals (same in number and sequential appearance), a sport, and promotion of a place over its neighbors. —Simplulo
I can see on the history page that at least three separate editors disagree with your assessment of its relevance. Also, your motivation for adding it to the article is quite relevant, as taking advantage of Wikipedia for vanity/self-promotion purposes cheapens the site. Thanks for your honesty though. --HunterZ 18:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my motivation that cheapens the site, but the quality and relevance of the content, which could be poor even if submitted by someone with the purest of intentions. My motivation is relevant because it biases my opinion of the quality and relevance of my submitted content, as does the fact that I invested considerable time and resources. I freely admit that. But my bias also acts to make my opinion more valid: because of my interest, I am willing to invest more time in the subject. Lacking this interest, your editors were not willing to invest the time to grok the animation, and thus missed key elements. But I suspect that your editors have biases of their own, to which they are not admitting freely. Their responses have been needlessly aggressive and erroneous, as I have demonstrated. Errors in facts and logic I can deal with, but outright hostility is something else. Simplulo 06:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)simplulo[reply]
You really, really need to read Wikipedia:Vanity. You are in a very obvious and simple conflict of interest, and as such ought to remove yourself from editing on this subject. If Porcupine Run is significant enough (see Wikipedia:Notability) and relevant enough, someone else among the 6 billion people on the planet will see fit to include it in the article. So long as the only champion of its inclusion is one who has a personal stake in its inclusion, Wikipedia's best practices dictates that their opinion on inclusion can safely be disregarded. — Saxifrage 08:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --HunterZ 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A recent edit switched the order of the opening sentence to read, in part, "Badger Badger Badger (aka Badgers)". I understand why this was done, after all, the title of the article is indeed Badger Badger Badger, mostly because that is how people often refer to the cartoon and the resulting "pop culture" phenomena. However, the actual official title of the cartoon itself is simply Badgers. So whether or not this article should perhaps be moved to "Badgers (flash cartoon)" or something like that (with "Badger Badger Badger" redirecting to that) is not within my realm of expertise, but I do know that the article should reflect the fact that the cartoon is in fact called Badgers, and Badger Badger Badger is actually the "aka". - Ugliness Man 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point! I was under the impression that the title was Badger Badger Badger so I didn't even consider that the article title might be the part needing correction. I think you're right that it ought to be moved, though I'd go with Badgers (animation) as a more general description. — Saxifrage 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links[edit]

Information icon.svg

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Megatokyo #462[edit]

The "bots" look more like Domo-kun to me. --Ampersand2006 ( & ) 02:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of badgers[edit]

Why the article is not telling the main point, what is this badger movie about? Is it intended to be fun, and how? Does "badger" resemble some nasty word? Is there a joke somewhere in the movie? What feature of this movie has made badgers so popular? 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious? It is bizarre and strangely memorizing. Sometimes thats all you need for a meme. See: Preved


I think that there should be mention of PETA's recent plagiarism of this concept ( Taken from "Weebl Vs Peta. Jonti had a falling out with the animal rights charity over their plagiarism of his Badgers video. I spent most of yesterday fighting with Final Cut to edit this into a video, however we've been over-taken by events and Peta has agreed to remove the work. (Although, haven't actually done so yet.) Anyway, watch the vid simply because I enjoyed making it." Brooza 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

football football football[edit]

I clearly remember a version that was about soccer...

It was removed [March 21] and nobody restored it. - Ugliness Man 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is a version of the video at - I take it this website is not owned or run by Jonti (the original creator). Anyone able to clarify this? Cheers brob 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I see that this page has been tagged questioning it's notability since last month. Since the person that did this did not bother to leave any note on this talk page noting his reasons, I am asking any cruising admin to remove the tag. I think any possible objection on grounds of notability was pretty strongly answered in the AfD notes at the top of this page. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish for anyone who doesn't know Badger Badger Badger to not put notability etc, for heavens sake *everyone* know it, so how can it possibly be said that is isn't notable, some people must just get a thrill out of putting rubbish like that on a page without references (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta admit that i first heard about it on Wikipedia, but i have seen it mentioned on some blogs, too.
I suppose that the fact that it has so much parodies and imitations is a bit of an evidence of notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, anyone is allowed to remove the notability take, even you BillWSmith JR JayKeaton (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Own article[edit]

If you wish to have Badgers as an article in its own right, please go to Talk:Weebl's cartoons#Badger badger badger and join the effort to find two, non-trivial reliable sources so that the article meets the notability requirements at WP:WEB. GDallimore (Talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahahaha!!!! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is Chris Hengler?[edit]


So I'm reading about my cartoons on Wikipedia like any self respecting egomanic should when I get to the section on Badger Badger Badger. Apparently someone called Chris Hengler is my friend and scribbled the idea for it on a piece of A4 paper.

Who is this mystery person? I wish to see this mythical piece of A4 in the hope that it may contain more secret knowledge and ideas for popular cartoons. Chris, if you're out there, well done on coming up with Badgers even though we've never met. I'm glad the truth about your valuable input is finally coming out.

That's from the maker himself. Methinks somebody has been writing non-truths again.

Huw Dawson (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed it. It was sourced, but the source didn't look reliable. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tracked down the edit responsible, here. Looks a bit stale for there to be any point in taking action. The 'source' was just a Wikipedia mirror. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the guy that's talking about. It stems from an old edit ages ago which my friend made, that then got copied into the page which was eventually used as a source by somebody else to add it back in. I had nothing to do with badger badger badger at all, and have never tried to take any credit for it. I've added a comment on the website's news entry explaining in more depth what happened. My mind's pretty much blown by this whole thing, I never knew about the original entry until it had already been removed, and had no idea it had somehow made its way back. So, yeah, I'm your guy. Sorry for any inconvenience caused to anyone - as well as the comment on the page I've also e-mailed the REAL creator directly to explain and apologize on behalf of my friend. Hengler (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, thought it would be something like this. Similar stuff has happened in the past (lazy journalist/website sources something from Wikipedia without attribution, lazy journalist/website's article is then used as a source for the original Wikipedia article, confusion ensues). Not your fault, but thanks for the explanation. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] No worries, it's not turning into a repeat of the Seigenthaler incident. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in media" removed[edit]

why was the "in media" removed? (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original submit[edit]

the first occurrence was here: Submitted: 09/01/2003 | 11:49PM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Published 14 February 2003"[edit]

I remember seeing this in my first year at university, which would be 1997/98, so the claim that it was published in 2003 is either wrong, or misleading (if it was released several years before being officialy "published"). Wardog (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. I graduated college in 2001 and this had made it's rounds - including being played at high volume to wake hungover neighbors - during my time in the freshman dorms, so fall 1997-spring 1998. If it was published in 2003, then it was certainly a RE-publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Badgers (animation). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Badgers (animation). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]