Talk:Kilroy was here/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

Ugg. The picture for this was done in MS paint. Can't we manage better than this?--Crucible Guardian 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You know, if you can do better, please do. However, I wonder why you are concerned which software was used to create the picture. ike9898 20:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek?

Or somehting similar with a laser engraving a rock with the message? Rich Farmbrough 10:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's Asimov's "The Message". --Paul A 02:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

New Image

I added a new image to the page of the WWII kilroy. Its better quality than the drawing at the top, but since the traditional use is grafitti, and this is an engraving, I don't know if it is fitting to be the top level picture. Gaijin42 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Freudian theory?

Huh? What the hell is with that far fetched crok of shit? If that merits two lines, I'll come up with my own wackier theory. --Fizzl

I moved the oedipus thing down. I think its doubtful that anyione (even the author of that theory) thinks Kilroy was created with Oedipus in mind, but the theory may have some sort of subconsious ressonance, and that may have had something to do with the popularity and pervasiveness of the phenominon. In any case, its nearly as playusible as the standard explination, so I have moved it for de-emphasis. Gaijin42 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kit, Weapon & Helmet

Should really be updated to Kit, Weapon, Helmet & Computer.

222.154.185.27 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Poetry

Clap your hands and jump with joy, For you were here before Kilroy.

Sorry, boys, to spoil your joke. I was here but my pen was broke ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.68.238.55 (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

KWH userbox

thought i'd just tell people i've made a kilroy was here userbox. Template:User kilroy was here

KILROY WAS HERE!

Patrick (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this UBX?

User:Pengwiin/Userboxes/kilroywashere Pengwiin 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw something over the weekend on the history channel about Fort Knox. They showed for a moment a "Killroy was Here" with 1937 or 1938 next to it. That would pre-date WW2.--Purpleslog 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kilroy Movers

On my commute to work today, I was stuck behind a truck for Kilroy Movers [1], an East Coast moving company and I noticed that the truck had markings claiming that they were the originators of "Kilroy was here". I don't know whether this is to be believed or not but the claim does exist. --gwax UN (say hi) 14:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a section for all these different theories and claims about the origin of "kilroy was here" and the associated doodle. Vsst 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelly's Hero's Bank scene

...is mentioned twice...fix it if I'm right, please... 76.217.102.155 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 film

Anyone know enough about this 2006 film to write up a page for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emurphy42 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seriemagasinet.jpg

Image:Seriemagasinet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceramic Kilroy decorations

Growing up in the 70s and 80s, my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents always had these ceramics of the Kilroy head and hand peeking over the tops of bookcase and curios (with the nose and fingers coming over the edge exactly like the Kilroy graphic). They called them "room watchers" and said they were good luck. I have inherited one and for a time it "lived" in my apartment. (I think it's in storage right now.)

Anyway, I came here looking for a reference to the ceramic incarnations. Perhaps it was not a widely known thing. I did have a relative that did ceramics for the family and perhaps she just made them for us to have. But, if anyone out there has also seen or heard of this, I'd be interested in knowing and maybe seeing a mention on the page.

If I ever find mine again, I'll try to get a picture taken to be uploaded. Medleystudios72 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious" classification under Urban Legends Section

Classifying two of the urban legends with 'Dubious' is redundant, to say the least.

Being called an urban legend already casts the appropriate level of doubt on the plausibility of the two stories. Also tagging them as dubious has the unintended effect of saying "It's doubtful that this is really an urban legend", as opposed to the intended effect of saying "It's doubtful that this is true." Most readers should be intelligent enough to know that urban legends are seldom true, thus making the 'dubious' tag completely unnecessary (and possibly misleading) in this case. 130.164.66.223 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)BDabbs 8/25/08

And many don't. Is tagging an urban legend with "dubious" inaccurate?  Ravenswing  20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me phrase it differently: by tagging it dubious, are we saying it's doubtful that the legend is historically accurate, or are we saying it's doubtful this is/was an urban legend (as opposed to some random theory someone just came up with while reading the article)? I mean, the legend about Stalin and the outhouse is, at least in my mind, just as likely to have actually happened as Hitler thinking Kilroy was a super-agent, and just as verifiable. Mainly, I don't see why some urban legends would be 'dubious' while others are not; urban legends are inherently dubious, and you don't have to follow the link to know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.164.75.180 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Internal contradiction; inappropriate classification

[Another legend states that the Transit Company of America held a competition in 1946 offering a real trolley car to the man who could verify he was the "real Kilroy". J. J. Kilroy brought his co-workers with him to prove that he was undeniably the true Kilroy. The other forty or so men who showed up were not able to establish they were the "real" Kilroy. Kilroy gave his prize to his nine children to play with in their front yard.]

a) This is not a legend, it is a newspaper article cited by the Wiki author as the most likely explanation of the "Kilroy was here" phrase, itself subsequently merged with the famous drawing.

b) Legends don't 'state' anything, that's their nature. The introductory phrase you are looking for is "According to another legend," a WAF pilot saw this written on the side of a UFO, or whatever. Bear in mind, too, that not all legends are urban legends. Urban legends are pretty much an email phenomenon and have a unique structure and propagation.

c) In the late forties and early fifties we took great pleasure in accessing the most inaccessible places we could imagine upon which to scratch this appealing element of culture. We (of course) included false dates. I, personally, applied this graffito to the end of one of the giant beams upon which the dome of Washington state's capitol rests and dated it with my sister's birthdate of August 21, 1939. We also relished putting it on various structural members of the many new buildings going up in the post-War building boom, the insides of 4' sewer pipes waiting to be buried the next day, the concrete footing of a bank vault awaiting installation, the flagpole on the Smith Tower, and so forth. The joy of the graffito was in drawing it without a horizontal line; rather, the line was implied by the fingers and nose. Sometimes my personal variation added a pot belly and clown feet; further elaboration included shabby shoes with a big toe sticking out, and a scraggle of ramen noodle-y hair.

It isn't ancient history. Read such seniors' sites as "Suddenly Senior" and check out the articles and readers' comments to learn from those who lived the era. Good grief, all y'alls, Bill Mauldin only just died in 2003!

fwiw SeattleSue (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Other countries

The article says this is all over the world. I would love to see some examples added to the article. Any ideas?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so blown out of proportion?

This doodle is given godly status in thsi article. Why? Soldiers would doodle it here or there to let next companies know the area was passed through. What are all these asinine legends around it? If it doesn’t have some sort of citation, just delete it. My god, wiki is trying to fill an entire page with nonsense. "as usual"

What are you talking about? This graffiti is famous. It is not just limited to soilders in WW2. It has been seen all over the world in cities, towns everywhere. It has fallen out of practice in the last 30 years, but for I time everyone was drawing it everywhere. And no need to take the lords name in vane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

-G

Kilroy is on the WWII memorial in D.C.

---

They missed the Styx song,Mr. Roboto. The song ends with "This time has come at last, To throw away this mask, so everyone can see, my true identity... I'm Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy!"

Well, I am sure everything in this article is NPOV and accurate ;) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:14 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Especially as it simply copied from the weblink below - anyone want to solve the copyright infringement by rewording it? - andy 19:19 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I solved it by removing it completely. It was an interesting article, but completely copyvio. Those interested can still read the text at the linked site. —Frecklefoot 19:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Totally Kilroy rocks. I say its the best griffiti ever. If it spooks Hitler, its okay with me. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.195.195 (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always found this guy creepy.

And I don't even get what it is. 216.227.90.154 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Creepy isn't the word. There's something wrong with in some indescribable way.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Anna, and I misread all my live "Killjoy" because he is controlling over the fence. Nowar was here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.199.241 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No Pynchon Reference in Article?

I thought someone would have made reference to Thomas Pynchon's "V". I think the Kilroy reference is in the article of "V".

Is it appropriate to mention this here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.150.147 (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Herbie

It seems that "Herbie was here" was a Canadian equivalent of "Kilroy was here". Herbie was a cartoon character created in 1944 by Bing Coughlin for the Maple Leaf, a Canadian forces magazine. His face resembles Chad, and even used the phrase "Wot, no--?" at least once. The sourcing isn't great so I'm not sure about including this.[2][3][4] Fences&Windows 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kilroy Travels

Kilroy Travels [5] is a Finnish travel agency. Should it be included? JIP | Talk 15:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends. Was the name of the agency based on the "Kilroy was here" phenomenon? If so, then it could be mentioned. Vsst 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering it's a travel agency I think it is. // Liftarn (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian children write "Foo"?

In an edit in 2004, Tannin asserts

Australian children write "Foo was here" under the illustration

I hav livd in Australia my entire life, and hav never seen this. Can enyone verify it? MichaelWard 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Maybe we're just sad... I have seen this image before on pavements and stuff, back in primary school, but I don't remember anyone calling it anything, it was just a bit of cute graffiti. ^Triana_C 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A born Australian I've never heard of Foo. I remember my mother teaching me the drawing as a child, but no mention of Foo there. I'll leave it for a bit. But I'll take it down if nothing happens evedence wise Gohst 06:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As a child of the '80's, I have WRITTEN and doodled all over my home town with 'foo woz ere' but I have no idea how it came about. Sorry... just something that was a big fad in the 70's and 80's in rural Victoria. 203.208.91.192 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rosewart

I can confirm that "Foo was here" was very common in Australia in my youth - but it now seems to be virtually non-existent. Afterwriting (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Foo has been in Australia since the early 1900's. My grandfather, who was born in 1899 drew it when he was a young person. I recall seeing it appearing and disappearing on building sites, convenient brick walls, railway stations etc for at least the last 6 decades.It is definitely an Australian Icon. 60.224.161.196 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Kilroy sighting...

In the Squaresoft (now Square-Enix) game Vagrant Story, there's a room among the dungeon maps that has the title "Kilroy was Here" in it, though I don't remember exactly which room it was.Mimeblade (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

killroy pops up in halo 3 too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.60.89 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in the 60s or 70s I read a computer programming book -- don't recall the name. That book had many instances of a Kilroy cartoon being used to add levity and to illustrate various concepts; that was my first encounter with Kilroy. But when I made some enquiries I learned that it was a WWII remnant that was still part of popular culture of the WWII generation, but only distant echos of it were being passed down/retained by the newer generations. codeslinger compsalot 67.40.8.215 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

British usage

"n the United Kingdom, such graffiti are known as "chads"."

No. No they aren't. Not to my knowledge, anyway. I live in the UK, and I've never heard the thing refereed to as anything other than 'the Kilroy woz here' cartoon, or similar. Either that, or the 'wot, no ___?' cartoon. WikiReaderer 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard it either, and mentioning it to my mother she never had either.--85.183.157.253 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are. I was born in 1977, and growing up in the 1980s in England I knew them as "Chads" or "Mr Chad". I think my mother first told me about them. I'd never associated them with "Kilroy", having only ever seen "Kilroy woz 'ere" as text-only graffiti. I think conflating Kilroy with Chad must be an American thing that spread over here later. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I concur, growing up in the 70s in England they were referred to as "Chads" or "Mr Chad". I also owned a ceramic bookshelf Chad and purchased a secondhand vinyl copy of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" album where the previous owner had written "Chad Woz Ere" on it. I also comment my source code to this day with my name and Woz Ere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.148.141 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor reference under Legends

Currently the last line of this section cites this page: [6] as a source... I'm not sure of the validity of this, as it's a link to h2g2, a user-contributed collaboration which itself cites no reference... granted, I haven't actually read WP:V, but the way I see it you might as well be citing this: [7] as a source. 216.57.96.1 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the cite doesn't match the text. 74.77.208.52 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Chavs, you Numpty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.79.171 (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wagner

Modern military installations have "Wagner Loves the Cock" written all over their porta-johns. This has been reported in FOBs as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as Operation Enduring Freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.101.173 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

pop culture refs

I thikn we need to trim pop culture refs to ones that are particularly notable or exemplary. THis is a very popular phrase, and no doubt has been used in multitudes of places. Every individual tv episode or novel that did a 1 second gag using this is not needed to be mentioned. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture deletions

I have restored material that was deleted as lacking references. Primary references (i.e., the episodes themselves) are fine for simple factual descriptions. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, primary references are not fine, they are against policy in general, unless also confirmed by reliable secondary sources.

Second, the purpose of "In popular culture" sections is to enhance our understanding of the subject of the article. Any item which does not also fulfill this function is trivia and should not be included.

The essay WP:IPC explains all this, and is firmly based in Wikipedia policy. The items which were being removed are trivia only - they do not enhance our understanding of "Kilroy was here". Therefore they are exactly the type of trivia we should not be including. Any mention belongs in the article on the related subject rather than here, so that it can be linked to this article. Now that might be useful. Trivia here is not. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture appearances.

Kilroy also shows up as graffiti in the popular Counter-Strike series by Valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.222.253 (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm loathe to correct such a formidable polymath as Thomas Pynchon, but the circuit so depicted (as a series element) would be a band-stop filter (a notch filter); it could be part of a band-pass filter when inserted in parallel with the load. Rt3368 (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cyrano de Bergerac

The theory that Kilroy was a deliberate nod by the US Army to a 17th century French dramatist was added by an IP sourced to "U.S. Army Slang, 2014, Anthony DiFatta, 2014 Self Published" - I cut it as WP:SPS and it was added back by User:Hungryusa without the source. Has this theory ever appeared outside of a recently self-published book? --McGeddon (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that this looks like a COI issue of somebody quoting their own or their friend's theory with no source, I've cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This was added back again today by User:Hungryusa, now sourced to Gordon L. Rottman's FUBAR: Soldier Slang of World War II instead of the self-published DiFatta book. But Rottman's work is available online and says nothing about Cyrano de Bergerac or the graffiti being used to symbolise "self-doubt". --McGeddon (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, have you considered the possibility before Kilroy was Here was recorded posthumously, the idea sprang from the "learning curve" during WWII. I understand we are at peace with other continents, yet, has America lost it's "learning curve" of a theory of itself "Kilroy Is Here", to the degree that computers and learning curve are available for learning, editing, and correcting? Thank you. 71.80.114.166 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)HungryUSA

Is this meant to be related to the above theory? I'm afraid I have no idea what you're trying to say here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Medieval Kilroy Sighting?

Hi - noob user here!

I made an account just to share what I think might be a very early sighting of Kilroy, at the Abbey of Sainte Foy in Conques, France. An article about the Abbey has a photo of carving above a doorway, thusly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Church_of_Saint_Foy#/media/File:Conques_doorway_carving_2003_IMG_6330.JPG

Today I saw a photo circulating on Facebook, which has detail of that carving, thusly: https://gyazo.com/6cfc5dfefd1e0959981e93d97d6e5763

Hmmmm --Caffieve (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

7th Son Podcast

In 2006 I added to "Popular Culture" an entry that stated "In the Podiobook 7th Son, a computer hacker who claims to be everywhere and be able to find out anything calls himself Kilroy 2.0" This was apparently removed when the page I created on the podcast was deleted. I believe the entry in this article is still valid. Here is the author's page about it which mentiones Kilroy 2.0 as a character, other sources that discuss it are Podiobooks (part one and part two), [http://www.amazon.com/7th-Son-J-C-Hutchins/dp/0312384378 Amazon], and a review on Goodreads. Additionally, author has an entry on Wikipedia (here) and the book is mentioned in the Wikipedia disambiguation entry "Seventh Son". I've had little success over the years of editing pages so I don't know how to add this properly so it is "acceptable" by the community.

Please advise how I should add this entry so it is "acceptable". --Nerdvana (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilroy was here. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818224613/http://www.rafcaa.org.uk/legends.html to http://www.rafcaa.org.uk/legends.html

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: 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) 21:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

TV show is not ephemeral

@Dilidor: In my opinion, the Disney program Kilroy is not "ephemeral" or "alluded to on TV". Yes, the program is over 50 years old. But it's not anymore "ephemeral" than Viereck, Asimov and Pynchon. As I understand it, Viereck, Pynchon and Ken Young only mention Kilroy once. Isn't that the definition of "alluded to"?

(For those of you who don't know what we're discussing, yesterday Dilidor reverted my one-sentence addition about an example for TV to the article's "In popular culture" section. The section had the inline comment "Do not list frivolous and ephemeral examples of how Kilroy is mentioned or alluded to on TV shows, pop songs, advertising, etc.")

The Disney segment took up 4 hours over 4 weeks, is named for Kilroy and is the best TV program (so far as I know) that make references, many times, to the Kilroy legend. Why is that ephemeral? After all, the article itself is about something that happened 75 years ago.

And why should we contributors not list examples from TV, songs and ads just because someone has written an inline comment that says that we shouldn't? Who gave them the overriding authority to say what is and what is not part of the article? It is, at most, advice to one editor from another. Is isn't even signed. I take a different view.

The reason I edited the section was that I felt that something was left out. The article says "Kilroy has been seen in numerous television series and films and in computer and video games." And then it doesn't give examples. Why are essays and sci-fi stories OK but TV and movies are not?

Now if you can think of some other example of a TV program (or film) that weaves the legend of Kilroy Was Here with its story, fine, we'll use that. But if you can't, I think the Disney program should remain in to give an example of "Kilroy has been seen in numerous television series..." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: First, you touch upon part of the problem: your example was one sentence long. If the Disney episode was so significant, then explain why! This is a fairly basic rule of encyclopedic writing. It is insufficient to say this happened and it was significant. The writer needs to elucidate upon why it was so significant and unique. Another issue is that contributors tend to list every single appearance of any allusion to Kilroy that they notice on television, in video games, in comic books, in AlkaSeltzer ads, on billboards, on matchbooks, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Finally, I don't recall whether or not you provided citational support, but that is the sine qua non for "pop culture" listings—no citation, no go. So that's my reasoning in a nutshell. —Dilidor (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: I will tackle your assertions in order.

• First, I didn't say that my added text was significant; I only said it was not "ephemeral" or "alluded to on TV" (meaning "referred to in passing").
• Second, the other, non-TV examples (Viereck, Asimov, Pynchon, Ken Young and the NZ post office) only had one sentence in the article. What makes you think that a TV example has to have a paragraph or more? I think you are confusing notability (see WP:N) for an article with something you just mention in an article. If I wanted to write an article about the 1965 series Kilroy then I would have to prove notability. But not for a mere mention in an article about something else.
• Third, the definition of example means picking one (or some) out of all Kilroy references. I'm not saying that we should list every Kilroy mention that happened on TV. I googled "Kilroy Disney" and a number of citations came up, all about the 1965 series. I picked the one that seemed most significant, mostly because it was published by Disney. If you googled "Kilroy TV", a whole bunch of references having to due with TV would come up. Maybe we should have two examples, one for TV and another one for movies. Or we could eliminate the whole sentence "Kilroy has been seen in numerous television series and films and in computer and video games" even though that sentence has a citation.
• Finally, I did include an inline citation (one of many) for the Disney Fan Club, here [8].

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that "to list every single appearance of any allusion to Kilroy that they notice on television, in video games, in comic books, in AlkaSeltzer ads, on billboards, on matchbooks, ad infinitum, ad nauseum" is bad, at least not in the English Wikipedia. (I understand that the German version has much stricter standards.) As long as every example has a reliable reference, any contributor may add them to his heart's content. If the examples get too long, we spin-off a sub-article, like Popular culture examples in Kilroy was here. Bytes are cheap.

In summary then, I've got to ask you: what makes you so hard on TV and other, non-written works and so easy on examples that are published on paper (by a publishing house)? Does the fact that some references are published by TV networks, movie studios and advertising concerns make them somehow less reliable than those published by Doubleday or the New Zealand government? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: Well, you build a persuasive argument. As I take a step back and another look at the article, I suspect that a large part of my reaction is due to the fact that the article itself is about something incredibly trivial—a graffiti doodle. So I withdraw my objection; feel free to reinsert the Disney example. I would, however, suggest that you beef it up a trifle with some of the cogent reasoning which you provided in your initial post here.

In answer to your final question: yes, quite frankly I do place printed media in a higher category than television and video games (with the possible exception of serious documentaries—perhaps), and books in a higher category than magazines and newspapers. Even books written purely for entertainment are a more lasting and available medium than transitory tv shows and outdated video games—simply for verifiability, if nothing else. —Dilidor (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That's purely speculation

James J Kilroy was the man behind the signature. an inspector, lived in Boston, Massachusetts, served in the Legislature and during World War II worked in a shipyard in Quincy where the famous saying was born. Millions of service men saw the slogan on the outgoing ships and all they knew was that "Kilroy" had been there first. Service men began placing the graffiti wherever the US Forces landed, claiming it was already there when they arrived. Kilroy then became the "Super-GI" who had always already been wherever the GIs went.

That's pure speculation, we should have more theories.

Asking for more theories about the origin of KWH is like asking for people to tell us how they discovered that water is wet. There are already more theories than a person can shake a stick at and Theories interbreed with Speculations; IMHO listing them here is both excessive and futile. PårWöet (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

J. J. Kilroy was a rivet counter. He tagged the panels after counting the rivets so those rivets would not get counted again.

per: Research team at the History Channel.

Ross Perot Image?

How about adding this [9], or at least a mention of it. Not really off topic given what other articles contain.

gary was here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garywasheree (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Styx album "Kilroy Was Here"?

I added the following sentence to the "In popular culture" section:

In 1983 the American rock band Styx released a concept album Kilroy Was Here; beyond the title, there's no reference to the Kilroy meme, rather the album is named after its protagonist, one Robert Orin Charles Kilroy.

References

An editor, User:Skyerise, rolled it back (per WP:BRD, and fine), with an edit summary of "That's what we call a 'mere mention' which doesn't merit a listing, indicated by lack of sources". So here I am, to make a case for this material. So let's see...

• I mean, there is a source? And Rolling Stone is a big publication, and J. D. Considine has an article here, he's not nobody. There are other refs if that one's not good enough.
• Styx (band) is a big deal. See also Styx discography. Kilroy Was Here (album) has an article here and made #3 on the Billboard US album chart.
• Granted, the album is not about the "Kilroy Was Here". But the title is. The title references the meme and nothing else. They could have named the album Kilroy Agonistes or something. Then we wouldn't include it here. But they didn't.
• I mean, the entire section is named "in popular culture" (altho the entire article is about a popular culture a grafitti meme anyway, but whatever), and the entries not much different from the other entries. There's nothing particularly wrong with this entry.

I don't know what the problem with "mere mention"s is but the entire section is mostly (not entirely) made of mere mentions. If we want to delete or severely trim the section, OK, but that's a different question altogether. Absent that, deleting this one entry seems kind of random... I assume it was picked up on a recent changes watchlist, and fine, I use those a lot myself, but in this case, there's no reason to single it out. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:IPC: "Inclusion of unremarkable mentions or appearances ... Depth of treatment in the source is usually a strong determining factor in the distinction between relevance and triviality." and "If a cultural references section is present in an article ... it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance." and:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject (if a person or organization) acknowledged the existence of the reference? 2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference? 3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference? 4. Did the referencing material significantly depend on the specific subject? For example, if the reference is to a specific model of car, did the material use that model car for some reason, or was it just a case of "use a well-known name of a car"?

If you cannot answer "yes" to at least one of these, you are probably just adding trivia. Get three or more, and you are probably adding genuinely encyclopedic content.

Your addition makes clear that this is not a significant reference, it's trivia. "there's no reference to the Kilroy meme, rather the album is named after its protagonist". It's a waste of space which has no significance to the article it's being added to. Rather, it should go in the Styx article, where it has relevance. Skyerise (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the why we don't list mere mentions, even with a mention in Rolling Stone? Take a look at this old version of the article. Skyerise (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oof. Dang. Herostratus (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Earliest Evidence of "Kilroy" Phrases

See the newly published New Yale Book of Quotations (Yale University Press) for the earliest known citations for "Kilroy" phrases. Fred Shapiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.152 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Solid Facts Are Lacking in This Article

There's a lot of urban legends in this article, but it is lacking in solid facts. The most authoritative source for quotation origins is the New Yale Book of Quotations, which has documented citations of "Kilroy" appearing as early as April 21, 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:80:99D0:BC44:F1D8:A11B:E991 (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on whether the Topic Should Be Considered a "Meme"

It is extremely surprising that this question has not been brought up more times on the talk page. Firstly, the word "meme" is a neologism, and should not be used to describe a historical topic. Secondly, the materials cited for this claim are all unreliable info articles, the author even citing "Vox.com" The only reason why I didn't edit this is that I don't think I have the authority to make changes to such an important article without any outside input. That being said, does anybody have anything to say concerning this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.141.103.123 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Meme" might be considered a neologism, but it's not at all wrong to describe a historical subject using neologisms if they're appropriate- eg, much more broadly, the ancient Egyptians wouldn't've had a concept of "religion" as we talk about it today, or someone from Qin-era China wouldn't have much idea of what a "state" is, but it's typical to talk about "ancient Egyptian religion" or the history of "Chinese statehood" or the like, using modern ideas and terminology to describe the subjects, in a language that didn't exist at the time the subjects did. Wikipedia's own definition of meme is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme," and that sounds like it describes Kilroy pretty well; and in any case, Kilroy's explicitly described as a meme in reliable sources. Vox is "considered generally reliable", PBS is generally going to be a reliable source for this sort of topic. I guess I can't speak to the reliability of the others; the assertion that Kilroy is a meme is actually kind of over-cited, making me suspect somebody's tried to ironclad it against reversion thereby. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Religion and state aren't neologisms. Total false equivalency. I do like thinking of this fellow a meme, which he was, but I'd also argue "meme" is no longer a neologism. If meme is a neologism it shouldn't be used here. Thespearthrower (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Kilroy is cited as "one of the first widespread memes" on the current iteration of the Wikipedia page for meme. I see no reason to not describe it as such. I don't think it's appropriate to call it a neologism as it's stuck around in its current form for almost 50 years now (and over 100 if you count "mneme"). LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a meme, the people who drew it didn't think it was a meme, the only reference to it as a meme comes from a magazine article in 2020. It's an absolutely preposterous description. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Originally, reading Kilroy described as a meme sort of shocked me and I instantly thought "That doesn't seem right." But after reading through the sources, it seems a reasonable description. I think that the word "meme" has seriously evolved over the last few years to include many more ideas and characters. I think even though the word did not exist at the time -it does now- and accurately describes the subject. I would vote to keep the meme description.(Although if someone wanted to, I think it could be useful to add a sentence or two explaining how the word didn't exist at the time and has only been used to describe it recently) GoldMiner24 ^Talk 05:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)