Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)/Archive 1

Untitled section

Wikipedia's turning into a dirt clump. What's the problem with seperate, real quality pages? Not everyone knows about Bulbapedia. ~Guest

• You're right, that's why we have link at the bottom of the page. Stop complaining and just go there, Wikipedia is supposed to be general info for people that know little or nothing about the subject. TheBlazikenMaster 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• For what it's worth; I agree with 'Guest' and others. There was some excellent information on the original format pages which has been replaced by vague and uninformatively brief paragraphs. There is a difference between a 'game-guide' and a transformation in to something resembling a footnote. It's a pity. Mebirdo 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are all of the Pokémon articles being bunched up together? It seems as if a large amount of information was lost in the transition. Registered99 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell is all the information?--Unsigned

Why the hell does nobody sign and I have to put that thing there to show I haven't said that? Oh well... The whole new system seems to be in shambles, basically. Some Pokémon have their own articles, some evolutionary lines have their own articles, some Pokémon are only mentioned in X number-Y number pages, and some aren't mentioned anywhere. At the very least, we need to decide on a complete system. I'd go with evolutionary lines, since it provides a lot of information while shrinking the number of pages...--The last sheikah 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the biggest reason it's in shambles is because the merges aren't complete. -WarthogDemon 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, they're trying to cut down on game guide and original research. Give them the benefit of the doubt. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the mudkip article? Surely that is more noteworthy due to the internet meme? DLS 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a meme is but that's already been discussed on that article's talk page and apparently not important. -WarthogDemon 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The meme has been argued up-and-down on Talk:Mudkip, and consensus is, for right now, do not add to Mudkip's section. May I suggest List of Internet phenomena? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mudkip meme is as old and stupid as "All your base." I don't get why you would want to keep posting about it. Stop wasting your time.--_ZXCVBNM 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's old and stupid and a waste of time to post now? I was unaware of that. Thank you for informing me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.63.202 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt response, I was just asking a question. DLS 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -WarthogDemon 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nolle perspiration. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me again what is wrong with 'original research?' I only saw a bunch of articles which were well written shining examples of midrange quality and now I see a bunch of articles getting penned up into this junk, also despite AYB being an old meme it was a famous one for sure and had an internet impact. Also, I see nothing about this being a game guide. It explains some of the apparently fleshed out details of each pokemon. If small characters from throw-away shows can have their own articles, then why not pokemon? Klichka 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Give an example of the "small characters from throwaway shows" having their own articles. As for what is wrong with original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. If we can't verify it through a reliable, independent source (Serebii does not count; don't even go there), then we can't have it in Wikipedia. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "Wikipedia:Other crap exists" explains that argument. It doesn't matter if a throwaway character gets a page, it's still unencyclopedic. Also, Wikipedia isn't an episode or game guide. The Pokemon anime has, basically, 4% plot and 96% "action," and as such, plot summaries shouldn't be on each Pokemon article. Check out Bulbapedia for the full information.--_ZXCVBNM 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems like a lot of the work done to create the many pokemon articles are now being thrown out because someone went power hungry and decided to merge all the articles together because "pokemon is all action". Well it was an easy way for me to get information on many pokemon, but now it is lost by this merge. Many TV shows give bios to characters, pokemon should be no different. 69.226.254.200 23:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not writing civilly. As we've told countless IP addresses Bulbapedia has Pokemon gameply information. Or if it doesn't you're free to add the information. -WarthogDemon 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Generic Anon post about the merger: A detailed article on every pokemon fails to meet wikipedias Notability guidelines. And it's not just one un-notable it's over 480 un-notable articles. Do TV shows have bios on 480 something characters all with their own article? And another thing, this isn't other articles, this is this article. You may have thought Wikipedia to be a comprehensive resource on all things pokemon, unfortunately this is not what wikipedia is, it's a source for finding out general info about any given subject. SpigotMap 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The merge isn't because anyone's power hungry or because Pokemon doesn't have a plot (it does), but because 480 pages is WAY too many for the characters of a single franchise/series. It doesn't matter how famous it is. I guess I was a little too harsh in my above post, but you can always go to Bulbapedia, which should be in the links section.--_ZXCVBNM 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is shit what happened to all the pokemon having their own articles, this is just confusing most people don't know or care what numbers the pokemon are. 60.229.38.1 10:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just like most people didn't care about the anime info for every single fricking one, the game guide, the redundant physical description, etc. See WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT#INSTRUCTION. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I did 69.226.213.112 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is fail. 24.215.110.172 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then go to Bulbapedia. We are NOT a fan encyclopedia. We are NOT a specific-subject encyclopedia. We are a general encyclopedia. If you don't like that, go elsewhere. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So that constitutes the complete rape of the Pokemon articles? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 24.215.110.172 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read at all. The seperate aticles had problems that violate Wikipedia's standards. Stop complaining. -Sukecchi 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sick of complains. Instead of complaining about what's happening here, make a change here. Oh and it was broke, but just out of curiously, would the article still have been merged even if all the fansite references would have changed into anime/game whatever references? TheBlazikenMaster 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Read, understand, and comprehend everything that's been stated above, please, before you lambaste us. The "arguments" you're giving remind me way too much of the (actual) arguments anons used to try and defend SIHULM - complete disregard of anecdotal evidence, an inability to accept the situation, and borderline civility. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia which anyone searching for information could easily access it, and not go to other fansites such as Bulbapedia to search for what they want. This includes the so i herd u liek mudkipz meme, as someone may be confused on what it is, and not know where to find it, and thinking that Wiki would be a good place, searches here, and what does he get? Nothing.116.15.41.182 13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because we get nothing in terms of reliable sources. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so that means we shouldn't make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia for checking things. Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.41.182 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand what a true encyclopedia is. A true encyclopedia has proven facts, and proof of notability. If we could add every little detail, it would be messy and not very easy to read. TheBlazikenMaster 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

These IPs are only proving my point. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Perennial Protection: Book the Infiniteenth

It seems these anonymous editors, by which I mean "people who edit articles without bothering to use accounts", still seem to not understand that Wikipedia, by which I mean "an online encyclopaedia editable by anyone and everyone", is not a billboard any more than Faltonouc is a saint. As such, a kind administrator, which in this case means users with the ability to protect articles, has decided to temporarily lock them out. -Henreich Fyrgrouse, 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE: Apologies for the Snicket-style narration and the unfamiliar pseudonym)

Huh? Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can tell humor doesn't really work... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand the humor part with the Lemony Snicket business, but I don't yet know what exactly is the "billboard" crime the IP addresses are committing. :/ Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 07:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Mudkip. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 08:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so i herd you disleik the mudkip meme discussions. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They threatened me. They impersonated Ksy92003. They never gave a damn. Given all that, do you think I actually enjoyed constantly rebutting? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 08:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I spent a good deal of time skimming through the archives. If there ever was something good that came out of the merger, it would be putting an end to this silly edit war. But I gotta say, I appluad those guys that defended the Mudkip article. It was rough just reading it. Just so you know, I agree with you guys.SuperChencho 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They still don't seem to get it... That particular one bugged Talk:Mudskipper as well (Here and here). Gave a friendly reminder that he'll hopefully get and understand when his block expires. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ACHTUNG!! Requested full-prot for the article because the SIHULM stuff will not stop. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected - fun's over. If anyone would liek to make changes, use {{editprotected}} - Alison ☺ 07:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, gives everyone a break :D. Maybe some of them will leave, even though it's not good for editors to leave, these don't do anything other then edit war trying to add this cruft. SpigotMap 08:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. Mudskipper's getting a faceful of SIHULM crap, and I'm about ready to ask that it also be full-protted since the semi isn't stopping those adding it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected - fun's definitely over - Alison ☺ 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now really, people come here looking for facts for school, work, or just excited clicking around, soaking in new information in interesting fields (such as myself). Nobody is going to have any use for finding information on "Mudkips" other than for fun (Show me a serious academic report on Pokemon from an in-world perspective and I'll retract that). I see no reason why a section on a fictional blue frog-like cartoon should be held to the same standards as an aticle on Ferdinand von Zeppelin or ENIAC. From what I can see Limecat's deletion discussion, I'd say some Wikipedians have a personal vendetta against internet memes and 4chan in general. Why not include at least a reference to the meme? If anything it would get the trolls and Encyclopedia Dramatica off WP's back.

This isn't to say I'm in support of those who constantly replaced the page with "SO I HERD SOME THINGS..." That really doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and sadly this page does need full or semi protection because of that.--70.191.254.252 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree that the article has constantly been protected because of that, I strongly disagree, borderline flat-out refute, that ED'ers and trolls will leave Wiki over it. In fact, I was trolled two weeks ago because I reverted bad-faith tags and blocked users who were issuing veiled legal threats and bringing off-Wiki disputes here. And ED was not involved - rather, it was students from a British university. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I concede that ED and the trolls won't stop vandalizing while they have the chance. As an occasional troll myself, I don't see trolls ever leaving this article alone. My point is, Mudkip is not a serious subject. I don't mean to sound unencyclopedic, but I see no reason the section shouldn't include a mention of "a minor internet meme" revolving around Mudkips. Reading your section on the bottom of the page on why SIHULM shouldn't be mentioned in the article, I can't really argue with you on that it's a subject that generates a lot of trolling, and I don't really see this page coming out of protection any time soon. But I think there is a definite reliable source for declaring it a meme: this talk page and the edit history of the article. Our own page on internet memes describes them as "a catchphrase or concept that spreads in a faddish way from person to person via the Internet." It's clear from these pages that many, many wikipedians and anons know of this meme, from one source or another, and consider it a fad. I don't quite understand how referencing the meme qualifies the section to be "an indiscriminate collection of information." Nothing listed under that there really deals with this issue.--70.191.254.252 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because once again, Wikipedia editors, Anons, and 4channers are not notable nor are they reliable sources. We're certainly not going to break wikipolicy over something so stupid. SpigotMap 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with SpigotMap's choice of words, WP:V and WP:RS are explicit in that sources that can be edited or altered by anyone at a moment's notice are unreliable, as are blogs (being opinion pieces). We can't trust ourselves, Uncyclopedia, ED (even if we could link to it), 4chan, MySpace, etcetera, etcetera. I will also note that of the established users who know of the meme (User:Ksy92003, myself, User:Sceptre, User:TheBlazikenMaster, User:Alison, User:Muramasa itachi, User:Skiom, User:Kai, User:Zaphraud, to name the majority who have brought it up on either side and/or issued protections), only a few have defended it, and none have produced usable sources (see my list at the bottom of this page). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So I Herd U Liek Semy-Proteksion?

Alison gave us 30 days' worth of IP-reprieve, so I figured I'd start a thread here. How are we going to make it so that they get the message that posting any info on the Mudkip meme here or at Mudskipper is a waste of time and guaranteed to get them warned and/or blocked for disruption? I concur with Alison's protection statement - the fun ended when they threatened me and impersonated User:Ksy92003. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the meme phrase to Lupin's filter. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ho-oh

Isn't it worth note that although it was a 3rd gen. pokemon, its first appearance was in the first episode? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonrc2 (talk • contribs) 21:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Not unless it is out-and-out confirmed. Next! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT... Ho-Oh was a second generation Pokemon, it was on the cover of Pokemon Gold. And yeah, that is confirmed like hell. It's right in the episodeNinja337 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* The bird in the first episode may have looked like a Ho-Oh, but there is nothing official to say that it is. Also, there are a few physical differences between Ho-Oh and the mystery bird (and not even Ho-Oh's shiny is all gold). These differences are the bigger concern, not the similarities. Get me something official that says it was Ho-Oh, and we'll talk. Until then, NEXT! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's confirmed to be Ho-Oh in later appearances. 71.203.209.0 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ash flat-out states it to be Ho-oh, and refers to it as the Pokémon he saw in the early episode. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's later confirmed flat-out that the pokemon is Ho-oh. I'm really getting fed up with random people trying to claim that anything that is obvious to any two year old, especially after it's confirmed, is original research. It's simply ridiculous. The Pokemon is Ho-oh. This was known for some time BEFORE the episode confirmed it. It was probably gold because back then Ho-Oh wasn't completed by the designers. Stop trying to make an argument out of everything and put it in the article.User: Muramasa itachi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.167.143 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also saw lugia is in the list. Isn't it a 1st generation pokemon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.173.89 (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No; Lugia wasn't in the games until Gold/Silver/Crystal. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As "List of Pokémon" is currently arbitrarily divided into twenty-five subarticles, I propose merging all twenty-five articles into a single one. —Typhlosion 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that would be nothing short of impossible because there are 20 in each article, meaning there are almost 500 Pokes to fit into one article. One-liners and/or galleries do not work for list articles around here, and we'd like these articles to at least be accesible to people who still use dial-up. Besides, we already have one. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Way WAY too big. -WarthogDemon 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least merge them into Kanto/Johto, ect sections? DragonDance 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Still too large (151/100/135/112). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mudkips plz

So I've dug through the archived talks and discussions and looked at the (very little bit of) information that Wiki does have on mudkips, and I have to admit I'm disappointed. All I wanted was to figure out why the heck everyone keeps talking about 'moar mudkips' and instead I get pokemon? Apparently someone at some point was trying to post an explanation of them, please, put it back up! 76.105.201.58 02:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Bulbapedia. We've been encouraging everyone to go there (us project members included). -WarthogDemon 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they were more likely than not meaning "moar Mudkipz". Read the most recent archive of this page. By the by, Japanese-based words have no plural. It's still "Mudkip" for more than one, and Mudkip is a Pokémon, like or lump. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? I thought it was best to assume good faith in this case. -WarthogDemon 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not liek mudkips. Meowy 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia tolerates Mudkip, it doesn't liek lack of sources or trolling. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It still deserves some information about how it became a ma

I said it before and I'll say it again, any crap can become an internet meme. You have to prove it's notable somewhere BESIDES the internet, like a movie or a TV show. TheBlazikenMaster 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not know who I am? He must not know who I am. Will ^(talk) 20:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Nice rebuttal, Sceptre. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice in your example a "Cultural influence" section, and I also notice that there is a mention of references of that thing in movies. So your example is useless. TheBlazikenMaster 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it rebuts your argument; the whole thing was a redubbed TV show. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It still deserves a mention of the fact that it's a significant internet meme. Information about how the meme started would be great. 4chan, okay, maybe, but how in 4chan? Why? We can get sourced information on this. Mrmoocow 06:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't even know it started on 4chan; another user stated that it started from a DeviantART PM. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting a history not suitable for Wikipedia. It can be stated maybe on an encyclopedia for info about internet meme, but not here. TheBlazikenMaster 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, Mudkip is a meme and deserves to be on Wikipedia. Admiral Akhbar has his meme on his page, as well as many others. Mudkipz are not pr0nographic in nature, that is only unfunnypedia-fgts being paranoid. Mudkips are simply mudkip in nature. gg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Memes do not necessarily deserve to be on Wikipedia. Provide a source (4chan doesn't qualify). -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 23:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Admiral Akhbar has his meme on his page, as well as many others. " In Soviet Russia, words read you! Also, Encyclopedia Dramatica as well as the entire internet pretty much serves as your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs) 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit ED (and linking to it is disabled here); thus it is not a source. We also cannot cite the World Wide Web for the same reason. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide REAL-WORLD info. Wikipedia is meant to have info that's useful for people that don't know much about the internet. TheBlazikenMaster 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If the mudkip meme is so "not notable" then why the hell are so many people trying to get it on wikipedia? It it needs is one little sentnece in a trivia section. Either mention the internet meme in the trivia section, or do a better job of deleting unnotable content from other pages. I can't even count how many times I've seen unnotable trivia in trivia sections. Most of the time it's stuff I never even heard of! You people are doing a TERRIBLE job of keeping trivia off of wikipedia! You shuld be ashamed of yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.63.202 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Source plz. We can't add it otherwise. By the by, 4chan, ED, D-ART, etc. are not reliable sources; we cannot use them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please see this: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, if there are some trivial items that are unnotable, get rid of them. If it's in a trivia section, try to fit the notable ones inside an article. TheBlazikenMaster 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Anon who said if the mudkip meme isn't notable then why are people trying so hard to add it on? Yes, the meme was originally about schoolchildren inviting people to DeviantArt groups. NO, that is not what it became! Case in point: Mudkip is used as an icon to reference the meme, and as such has spawned so much loev that it is almost a meme on its own, completely disregarding the DA group. I think it at LEAST merits a mention, like Admiral Akbar and Snakes on a Plane have in their articles. Memes have a freaking category in Wikipedia, why on earth is Mudkip left out while others aren't?Muramasa itachi 02:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thought that it might be worth mentioning here to those who didn't know how the meme began. The Mudkip meme officially began when a schoolkid invited a DA user to a pokemon-related group with the invite having the message "so I herd yuo liek mudkipz?" It was 4channed, ED'ed, moarsauced, etc. to no end until the Mudkip loop of Youtube solidified Mudkip's internet popularity. So in short, yes, Mudkip began from a DeviantArt pm. Muramasa itachi 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Muramasa, read the last section on this page. And thank you for confirming where it came from. The reason Mudkip is left out is because there is no evidence it has been used *offline*. Compare to SoaP, All your base are belong to us, and O RLY?. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us came from a video game. Mudkip came from a TV show. You got me on the ORLY one, but I'm sure Mudkip's been referred to at least once in offline-media. Lemme see what I can find. Muramasa itachi 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't know much about Mudkip if you say he came from a TV show. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire predate the Advance Generation of anime. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break Episode 1: The Phantom Meme

Okay okay wait. So in order for an internet meme to be put on the internet Wikipedia, it has to be mentioned somewhere other than the internet? Am I the only one seeing the flaw in this logic?70.138.167.143 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather WP:V be done away with? Both O RLY? and AYB have had off-Internet mentions (AYB, in fact, was originally mangled English from a Sega game). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it isn't mentioned outside of the Internet (it's a relatively new meme) shouldn't nix its verifiability. (This is Muramasa, typing this off a school computer).207.80.142.5 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying it should be mentioned because it's fairly new? A lot of memes unmentioned on Wikipedia are. If or when it has offline sources, it can be added. As of now it's only a meme that isn't very well known offline. TheBlazikenMaster 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One last thing. All your base are belong to us began with a video game, but didn't have any "mentions" outside of that as far as I know. The same goes for Leekspin. Technically, Mudkip started from a pokemon game, but the internet is what made it so widespread, the same goes for any meme. Likewise, for instance, AYB was not in its video game with the intent of becoming a meme, nor was it a reference to the meme. It was something spotted by internet users and plastered over YTMND and 4chan until it reached popularity. (The same goes for Seaking, but I'll keep that battle for after we get some mudkipz on here.) Hope I helped clarify the argument I'm trying to make here.70.138.167.143 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wewt. Itachi here again. And the outside references you wanted are right here. Quote Bulbapedia:

"# In a poll conducted by Nintendo of Europe, Mudkip was voted as the fan favorite, with Typhlosion and Blastoise close behind. This may have been due to the aforementioned meme.

1. GameFAQs' sixth annual Character Battle has Mudkip as one of the characters in it, the inclusion most likely being because of the *chan meme. "

Is that good enough to get the meme in the article now?70.138.167.143 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No - WP:NOT#CBALL. Definitive proof, plz. That, and Bulbapedia is a wiki (and thus far too mutable for use as a reliable source). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Define "definitive." By "Definitive" do you mean it being stated in a Nintendo press conference? What the hell more do you want? I can't think of any way you could say that this isn't "verifiable." If it was not "verifiable," why the hell would so many people be trying to put it in there? This mudkip bullshit has got to end, and a bunch of butthurt Wikipedians being too stubborn to put something that's obviously worth a mention. I've said it before: Admiral Akhbar, All your base are belong to us, and a bunch of others do not have "outside mentions," yet it's brutally obvious that they are indeed memes, and thus the pages state it. For whoever's about to say "AYB began from a video game," if you want to put it that way, then Mudkip technically began as a video game too. Muramasa, over and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.167.143 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source? SpigotMap 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Redent)I am in no way butthurt - I have stated several times that if proper reliable sources are found, then it can be put in the article. The only thing I've gotten butthurt over was the constant assumption of bad faith by most everyone defending the meme (You're one of the few defenders of the meme, some of the others being Skion (talk · contribs) and Kai (talk · contribs), that have not assumed bad faith from the gate, and for this I praise you).

I also have to ask; why are you not signing in? You're not blocked, and if you conduct yourself in the manner you've adopted as of late, you won't get blocked again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the Tom Green videos of his show? He blames the Mudkip meme that they constantly call into his show with as 4chan's work.

Proof has been given otherwise. D-ART is responsible for SIHULM, not 4Chan. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of proof, date and year on when it first started would be nice. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

I have requested a checkuser to try and root out the sleeping socks in the drawer; this Mudkip $#!+ really has to end. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my hidden message IS decreasing the rate, reverting is the easiest way. TheBlazikenMaster 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because this page is semi-protected, Blaziken. I'm requesting the RFCU because these accounts have only meme edits to their name, whether here or on Mudskipper, which is also semi'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be true, but still. I used many hidden messages, and it worked well on stopping a lot of repeated info in articles. Whether semi protected or not. TheBlazikenMaster 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The results are in: No sleepers detected. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Full-prot for 72 hours. This is starting to cross the line into blatant disregard of the hidden comment and blatant disregard of the consequences. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you think the hidden comment ain't working, you might be right. But I make sure it's telling the truth, I give each person a warning that adds that crap. TheBlazikenMaster 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And those warnings are starting to get vandalized by the users that get them. It's turning into a Rodney Riot situation, and we're the Koreans. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to spot people trying to avoid their own warnings. Just choose the user talk namespace in "My contributions". TheBlazikenMaster 23:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not always; PwnzerTank twisted his last warning's words to make it look like the warner was encouraging him to disrupt the article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The feature (top) is there so you will know if you're the one making the latest chance. Well, nothing's gonna stop this, so we have to live with that, and fight it instead. TheBlazikenMaster 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Pokemon- people are going to vandalise the pages no matter what, unfortunatly some more than others. When have vandals ever not had blatant disregard for the rules? Ageofe 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is about a meme, not Pokemon. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So what if it's Pokémon? This might never end, but I can give a good example of vandalism that met its end because of the message. I haven't seen crap about Will Smith's death for months now. TheBlazikenMaster 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Reading your comment made me think for a moment that Will Smith actually died recently, so I had to check his article to see otherwise. ^_^; And I'm assuming it was the result of full-fledged consensus not to ever mention this meme anywhere on Wikipedia. I hadn't been following that when the issue was making its initial rounds, but I'm looking at the relevant discussions on my own time. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

After the protection expires, users need to to start sourcing the article. Alternatively an admin can add the {{refimprove}} tag.Bless sins 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed liek kipz of the mud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No, not in a million years. Will ^(talk) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This obstinate refusal to accept the mudkip meme stinks of religion more than reason. Just because you are sick of it doesn't mean it is not noteworthy or compelling. I can think of no reason other than elite snobbery to object to referring to the meme in the mudkip section. I don't even care that much for the meme myself, I just think it's goofy to be all adamant against the inclusion of something that's obviously now a cultural reference, albeit obscure. "Mudkip is the subject of the internet meme: 'So I heard you liek mudkipz?'" Is that really so painful? Cratylus3 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading what you say

Is a much more effective tactic

Than assuming things.

In short, the meme has nothing AT ALL to do with Mudkip. Mudkip isn't even the subject; it's a schoolchild. Read the actual thing first. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let my justified belief of the truth of my statement stand as evidence that clarification of the subject is not unreasonable. Cratylus3 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All bunch of crap can become an internet meme. But has it been referred OUTSIDE the internet? I mean like in movies or TV series? If not it's not notable enough. TheBlazikenMaster 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:V (4chan is not a reliable site, and we don't even know the meme's true name), WP:NOT#CENSORED (meme is not perinent to Mudkip), WP:TROLL (Used as a cover to troll). Next! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that your assumption was that I was not sufficiently familiar with the material to comment, and I'm insulted by the insinuation that I'm trolling. By now I assume you've checked out my contributions and you can see I'm not a single purpose user. I happen to disagree with your anti-sihulm jihad (and yes, accept it, that's what it is), and you need to get used to the idea that maybe you're not 100% right on it. As I've explained elsewhere, just because the swastika didn't start out being about nazis, doesn't mean that swastikas today have nothing to do with nazis. Similarly, Mudkip may not have started being about the meme, but to say it has nothing to do with the meme is as obtuse as insisting the swastika has nothing to do with nazis. It's true to a point, but not a sufficiently meaningful one. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a reader will come here to find out what's up with the mudkip meme. To deny them the information is to stand on a principle based on something other than helping others. Cratylus3 00:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of trolling, and I was well-aware you weren't an SPA when I checked your contribs after your first argument. I simply stated that SPAs have been using the meme as a reason to troll/impersonate/threaten, and that they, like you, have come up with absolutely no sources that would allow us to use it here or at the spot it should be, List of Internet phenomena. The meme was added to Lupin's badwords filter for a reason, as was another meme (which I notice *gasp!* nobody's defending), "Internet Coffee Phone" - both have been used to troll, neither are verifiable (in Mudkip's case, we don't even know where the meme originated or even its true name since it's been corrupted by the person who brought it here to begin with), and it has been used to vandalize (see Mudskipper's history). What's more, it has lost an AfD debate.

You've got a few people you'll have to convince before we can add this, and the only way you'll convince me (and likely User:Sceptre) is by showing verifiable sources not linked to the meme showing its impact.

And WarthogDemon, you know better than to delete others' comments, especially since that wasn't a personal attack. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit history made it look like it was just the move done, no additional comments; otherwise I would've moved it manually, my bad. -WarthogDemon 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I only did that because talk pages need to be kept in chronological order. There's nothing wrong with your comments. -WarthogDemon 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand I do not speak for a current consensus opinion. I ask that an open mind is kept. Some things, like memes and religions, are ideas not subject to the full scrutiny of falsifiability, etc. Some ideas simply exist and are worthy of documentation for the use of the interested inquirer. I suggest you maintain a less hard line on this issue, since eventually mudkip meme will find its way into consensus and Mudkip's entry. Cratylus3 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC) PS WathogDemon please knock it off.

Keep it in chronological order, Crat. I did the last one.

The day it does that is the same day WP:VAND and WP:TROLL stop applying. The meme has been used as vandalism and as a troll tool. Show me a source, please, or stop beating the horse. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links to Bulbapedia

I think that, for the sake of everyone who has not heard of it, that for each section, we add a link to Bulbapedia article for that pokemon DragonDance 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be a tad overdoing it, unless somehow the link to Bulbapedia at the bottom of each list isn't enough. -WarthogDemon 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Boxart

I think it improves the article to have the boxart images from G/S/C here, as it gives a face to those Pokémon. They fit well in the other articles; what does everyone else think? - MK ( ^talk/_contribs ) 07:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SIHULM

Given how many people are suggesting we add SIHULM, I'm going to state ALL the reasons why we can't add it:

• Not sure where it came from - We have several users saying 4chan, while others are saying that it came from a PM on DeviantART. We don't have evidence either way. According to user:Muramasa itachi and User:Skion (Talk:Mudkip/Archive02), it was originally a DeviantART PM invitation; Muramasa's details about it above make me confident about that.
• Troll - Mudkip's talkpage had to be semi-protected because anons (and registered users; see Mr. itachi above) were trolling in defense of it, and after an unprotection request for the original article was denied, the anon that requested it replied with personal attacks and trolling. I have been threatened, and Ksy has had six personal attacks laid on him and been impersonated.
• WP:NOT - There is ample evidence that the only reason people want this in the article is to spread the word.
• No reliable sources - Nobody, anon or registered, has appeared with reliable sources. Serebii, 4chan, other wikis, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. are not reliable sources for Wikipedia because they are anonymous (making it impossible to trace a statement made there to its source), they do not engage in content reviewing to make sure only truth is in there, and items there are prone to rapid change.

• While we're at it, MySpace also fails as a reliable source, as do other blogs.

• Vandalism - While there are some good-faith efforts here, the meme has also been seen on Saturday, Axolotl, Mudkip (the redirect, that is), and Mudskipper, none of which have been good-faith so far as I've seen. All of those articles and this one are semi-protected because of this.
• Suspension of assumption - this is a behavior issue with those defending it; most of them instantly assume bad faith on the parts of those who don't want it in the article.

I gess yuo dont leik mudkips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.212.58 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)