Talk:A Minecraft Movie

At this thread, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is it okay to create a page on the Chicken Jockey trend?, it's suggested to split Chicken JockeyChicken Jockey into a separate article. Toarin (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Notice: the content of said thread has been moved here.Toarin (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be in it's own article, along with the Gentleminions trend, and the Rocky Horror "effect", or maybe just an article for physical responses to media. EmsSV (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I have never heard of either of these two trends personally. Toarin (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

So will Chicken Jockey become a article or not? I just removed because i thought this discussion was finished. ~2026-21528-38 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment Chicken Jockey automatically redirects here like it’s the only place the creature exists. Should there not be an official redirect to the Minecraft page, or a split page that includes both? At worst… Eg224 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that the "Chicken Jockey" trend is important enough to be moved from the "Minecraft Movie" page into its own article. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added {{Split|Chicken Jockey}}}} to the top of Minecraft Movie article. Hope that helps. Toarin (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I will create the page, you transfer the content. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Whether it's 'important enough' is immaterial; do you have good sources providing significant coverage of the meme by itself in order to justify a standalone article? Athanelar (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Why yes! The sources in the respective section of the "A Minecraft Movie" article will be transferred together with the text. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. You need sufficient sources of sufficient quality to justify a standalone article. The threshold for inclusion as a section of another article is lower than that of a standalone article of its own. Athanelar (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

For example, you'd need articles specifically about "Chicken Jockey" for it to warrant an article; not just a passing mention or a paragraph. The reason "significant coverage" was added to the criteria for notability was so that you couldn't create endless articles about various aspects of a particular topic just because it was mentioned in a source, and so that you couldn't use things like obituaries as nobility-proving sources (that's not relevant here though.)

If you can find sources that don't just give it a passing mention, and fit all the other criteria, sure, you can start working on such an article. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the problem here. There is sourcing for it. The problem is WP:SUSATINED and WP:NOPAGE. The trend lasted a few weeks and died off. It's given four paragraphs worth of coverage in the article for the film; why split it out? Does it benefit the film article or coverage of the trend at all? I don't think it does. There's no reason for it to be separate. λ NegativeMP1 23:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not. It was an inconsequential internet meme caused by the film. It's relevant to coverage about the film, but it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Especially since it was so short lived. You don't have a case here for why there should be a separate article besides just wanting to split out text for no reason. See also: WP:10YEARTEST, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:LASTING. Your draft is also almost a complete copy of the text from the section on A Minecraft Movie, but without the sources.

As a result of the above, I have rejected the draft submission. I'm almost removing the split header on the page because this is not a proper split discussion; a proper one would take place on the articles talk page. λ NegativeMP1 18:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lemurik the Historian Do you have any other arguments supporting the proposed split? Toarin (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It was a wide-spread meme and lived for more than a month, the same time that Italian Brainrot memes lived. According to your logic, Mr.Negative and Mr.Toarin, Italian Brainrot shouldn´t have its own page. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The lifespan and popularity of a meme has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia includes it. That is based purely on the quality and quantity of coverage in reliable sources. Athanelar (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lemurik the Historian: Firstly, "this other thing has an article!" is not an argument that helps your case. But regardless, here's a difference between those two: I can find coverage of Italian Brainrot from reliable sources from as recent as a couple of weeks ago, and also had a greater impact on culture with things like Steal a Brainrot. There's also just more coverage of it in general. It has a proven impact. The chicken jockey meme does not.

It also helps that Italian Brainrot was a fully separate phenomenon not inherently tied to something else. There is nothing to say about chicken jockey that can't be said here. There is no benefit to having a separate page; in-fact, I'd argue it'd make the coverage of both the movie and the meme worse, which is a big part of WP:NOPAGE (which you ignore). You have no rationale for a separate page beyond "it was popular", and in the drafts you have "made" (copying over content and making it worse by removing sources), you haven't established that there is more to say about the meme than what is already said here.

@Athanelar: Up to a point, it does, per WP:SUSTAINED. If something is only covered for a couple of weeks or a month, or only gets routine coverage (e.g. "this is happening" and not much else), or is just in general a very clearly blink-and-you'll-miss-it trend, then it probably fails SUSTAINED. λ NegativeMP1 20:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

But then again, the Lalalalava, chichichichicken song has a page. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

"Firstly, "this other things has an article!" is not an argument that helps your case". λ NegativeMP1 19:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A song 39 seconds long should not have its own page, but yet it does. What article will be created next? Random dude farting for 53 minutes 33 seconds straight? Lemurik the Historian (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

a song's length is generally not a direct factor in its includability. actual factors include notability and coverage in reliable sources. if a Random dude farting for 53 minutes 33 seconds straight recieved sustained coverage in reliable sources, then not only would it no longer be a random dude, but it would be fine to have an article. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 14:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The song is actually independently notable, but I won't entertain you blatantly ignoring my comments again ("Firstly, 'this other thing has an article!' is not an argument that helps your case").

Anyways, it's very clear that this conversation isn't going anywhere. You are yet to make a case as to why the meme should be an article. What could be said about it outside of this page. Why it warrants splitting. Rather, you keep repeating "this other thing has an article". λ NegativeMP1 17:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don´t say just that, i say "if less important things related to the movie have articles, then this important thing related to the movie should have an article too". You are ERASING my words here. That was not what i said. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

That's still an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I erased nothing and this is the exact argument you are using. Your addition of one thing seemingly being more "important" than the other is not relevant, it's still that type of argument. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If the page "Bill Clinton" exists, the page "Abraham Lincoln" should have a page too. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

…how is that even related? regardless, please listen to what NegativeMP1 is saying. both have articles due to being notable in their own right, not because the other does. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 17:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If a page x, which is less important than section y exists, both describing a phenomenon correlated with page z, than section y should be split from page z.

z(y>x)=(z≠y) Lemurik the Historian (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If you comment another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thing (after being told multiple times that you're wrong) I'm gonna flip out Skyshiftertalk 16:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERLESSIMPORTANTSTUFFRELATEDTOTHISTHINGEXIST Lemurik the Historian (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're not deliberately trolling, then you deserve the 2026 WP:IDHT award.

"A different thing relating to this movie has its own article" is not and never will be an argument for why something else relating to the movie should have an article. If OSE doesn't convince you, then try WP:NOTINHERITED; subjects do not inherit notability from being associated with other notable things, no matter what their subjective 'importance' to that notable thing is. Athanelar (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna close this discussion. Multiple editors have pushed back against this proposal and I'm convinced the original proposer is trolling at this point. Even if he isn't, there's no chance this passes per WP:SNOW; no actual arguments have been given after over a week. @Skyshifter, Athanelar, Toarin, and Oreocooke:, thoughts? λ NegativeMP1 18:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 sounds good to me User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 18:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Skyshiftertalk 18:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No objections. Athanelar (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

OBJECTION! Lemurik the Historian (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No, i am not a troll. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no arguments in favor of splitting Chicken JockeyChicken Jockey into a separate article. Toarin (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This whole debacle has devolved into an incredibly stupid argument that is going absolutely nowhere. Just close this per WP:SNOW. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCavers To be fair, I've seen way worse talk page discussions than this, such as Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Toarin (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

There’s nothing seemingly wrong with any of those headlines? Eg224 (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)