It's not nessesary must be Chuck Noris. It can be Batman, for example. Or Lenin.
DO NOT PURSUE LU BU![]()
Chuck Norris is pretty much the codefier of this trope. When I saw that image, I quickly thought "Oh this about pepole like Chuck Norris, Mr.T,Saxton Hale and the like."
And I think image gets across fine, even if you haven't played the game, it still shows the memetic part. You may be able to find a funnier picture that gets the point across though.
edited 13th Nov '10 2:35:50 PM by DrStarky
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova ScotianJust slap a picture of Vin Diesel up there. He was inspiration for the Chuck Norris jokes before Chuck Norris anyway.
edited 13th Nov '10 2:39:52 PM by DRCEQ
The current pic is just fine. The trope is suppose to show how a character being a badass has become a meme. Just slapping a picture of "Insert Badass character here" wouldn't convey the meaning of the page and would just incite an editing war over who is most deserving.
Having a Trading card with Chuck Norris on it is perfect.
I don't see a problem either. Even if people haven't ever played or heard of M:TG, the description on the card is self-explanatory; you instantly win the game, so symbols on the card or whatever really don't have to mean anything. Besides, if we're going to change this with the reasoning that the M:TG card format makes it too obscure, we might as well change the picture child for The Ace while we're at it.
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of somebody to blame for it.

It can be easily agreed upon that Chuck Norris needs to be depicted on the page in some way.
However, there's a bit of a dispute going on. I think a decent picture of Chuck himself looking sufficiently badass (such as this one
◊, though it doesn't have to be) would be more effective than the current Magic The Gathering one, which is confusing to those not familiar with the game and (in my opinion) not all that funny anyway.
Thoughts?