Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mention the 'mudkipz' meme?

Apparently I'm allowed to revive old discussions, so, here goes:

Surely, at least a brief mention of the meme, "so i herd u liek mudkipz" wouldn't be entirely unappropriate? My guess is that the majority of the users who visit the Wikipedia article on Mudkip will have read the meme somewhere on the internet, and came to Wikipedia, looking for more information? Invariably, people will point out that it's not very well known, and few people will bother with it — however, consider the length of the original discussion. Surely that proves that the meme is well known.

^{And besides — it's just hearsay, but there are rumours going around that you are, in fact, amicable towards Pokémon #258. Should somebody file a RFC to investigate that matter further?}

AzraelUK (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will say the same thing every one of us here has been saying from the merge onwards - provide proof saying that it is known and referenced offline first. Nobody adding the meme to the article or arguing for it has provided such sources.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it really have to be known offline to be notable on Wikipedia? I've not seen the all your base outisde the internet, nor the Hampster Dance, though both articles inform me that they have appear in the media/popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzraelUK (talk • contribs)

AYB appears in Halo and originated in Zero Wing; toys with the dance are indeed available at retail. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have a clipping from Time Magazine about AYB, made back at the height of the phenomenon. And clicking on the All Your Base article, you can indeed see multiple references to these sorts of highly respected sources that are published using real live paper, the first being Time. Hampsterdance got similar "real media" coverage because it was in the early days of the internet, and was one of the first of such gimmicks. You picked pretty much the worst arguments imaginable TheBilly (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there were a page for the 'mudkipz' meme, people would start adding to it — with information such as its sightings outside the internet. AzraelUK (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can try, but such a page already has a black eye because it's already failed an AfD. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to this idea; If we get the page deleted enough, we can have it salted TheBilly (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone else find it stupid that you have to include offline sources for an internet meme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.173.49 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia (or at least it pretends to be) and so there has to be some standard for inclusion, otherwise anyone could write anything, and anyone could oppose anything on equally arbitrary grounds. Before better standards were written, Wikipedia was pretty much one big "yeah huh! nu uh! yeah huh! nu uh!" argument. - TheBilly^Talk 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

...you mean that's not what it is right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.175.55 (talk)

How about http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543 ? And Sean Carasov's cat that was murdered by the Church of Scientology was named Mudkips. See also http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543 . 217.43.46.179 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Both are name-drops, and thus fall under "trivial coverage". Read WP:WEB. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 06:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like something's going to have to give. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564928060441097.html Cratylus3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; this is only usable in 4chan, not here, as that article is about 4chan. Articles have to be ABOUT THE MEME ITSELF if we are to use them in that context, and even so, this article is the wrong place for them (go pester Talk:List of Internet phenomena; it's the more appropriate place to bring SIHULM stuff up). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

One of the major problems with the "mudkipz" meme is that it isn't notable. All the unconstructive discussion about this centers around stubborn refusal to realize this. Since there's apparent accusations of an evil cabal conspiring to suppress the mudkipz meme, let's have a special section in this talk page now to provide any evidence that proves its notability.

I'll start with a few notes:

• Self published sources are invalid. WP:SPS. That means no Wikichan, no ED, no any_given_blog_about_memes.blogspot.com. Don't even bother, unless you completely overturn Wikipedia policies first. (self-published sources are only allowed for real people, companies, etc; but Mudkipz is not a person who has published about his lieking)

• Multiple secondary sources are usually needed to establish notability, and these should be non-trivial references. "I like it", "I liek it", "I've heard of it", "tons of google hits", "there's lots of image macros" are all invalid arguments. You're only beating your head against the wall by saying them over and over again.

Personally, I've never seen this meme written about in any of these sorts of sources. I can't find any such references. It's not even a very high standard. The "real media" has very little credibility these days; just look at lolcats. They write fluff pieces. They hear about something on da internetz, google it for 10 minutes, and pump out an article....as long as other people are doing the same thing (same deal with Second Life; they don't take the time to do, say, journalism and investigate it themselves, and realize it's total garbage). If you really want to spite Wikipedians by annoying them with 4chan memes, get a few newspapers or magainzes to write some fluff pieces about this meme and others. It could stil be argued "Notability is not temporary", but with that argument being disregarded in the lolcats article, it would probably give this meme and others a strong case for inclusion. As it stands, I know of no such reputable mentions, but let's see some links proving that argument wrong TheBilly (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Even the users who have legitimately tried to make a case for including the meme instead of trolling us (Kai (talk · contribs), Muramasa itachi (talk · contribs), Skion (talk · contribs), AzraelUK (talk · contribs), Cratylus3 (talk · contribs)) could not provide reliable sources, though that isn't to say they didn't try (itachi certainly tried). Even if they did find sources, the information would do MUCH better at List of Internet phenomena, not here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know people in real life who talk about mudkipz. But apparently there is no way to cite "hey this guy in texas has some friends who discuss mudkips" because of wikipedia's banal unfulfillable suggestions. There is no point in having an internet meme category if you want oxford certification that mudkipz has a genuine affect on world culture. Honestly, they're fucking MEMES. There's no need for you to be so stuck up and regulatory about it, when there are articles about shit like TUBCAT, which is much more obscure than Mudkipz. Wiki just loves something awful and hates youtube and 4chan. See the five hundred attempts at a yugioh abridged article. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How about someone just gets G4 to talk about it for like 5 seconds. That will shut everybody up, and give the tight-asses here some 'primary source' to read off of. Doesn't get much better than a cable broadcast. Chronomaster (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not prove notability, Chronomaster, sorry to say. Someone writing an editorial on the meme could possibly be one, but not a 5-second blurb on G4. Indeed, some of the anons trolling us before the article merge suggested something similar. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So I'm guessing even an editorial site, maybe Destructoid by chance, even in demonstrating competence of the meme, by surely going out of their way to either create or find the image (since it wasn't in the link they provided in the article), isn't enough. I mean, what are we looking for? A 12-page expository? 60 Minutes, Mudkip Edition? I'm fairly certain a group of owls or some Engrish speaking spacefarers didn't get that same level of scrutiny.

Honestly, what does it take? Give us a complete list of legitimate places you want it to appear, and we'll make it appear somewhere. Chronomaster (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Try a major newspaper, CNN, a major news website, or a major periodical such as Reader's Digest printing or making a report on the meme. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC

You know, CNN has never even mentioned half of these Pokemon, so they're clearly not Wikipedia-worthy. By your logic, we should just remove THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

You know what, just for that, I'm blanking this page. TimboxMcKenzie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. I was referring specifically to the meme; the article has reliable sources in Nintendo's own publications. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't ever blank a page for any reason. Use templates like: {{prod}}, {{delete}} and {{afd}}, but avoid using the middle one unless the page is pure nonsense. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the most ridiculous thing since Dubya's reelection. This is not about verifying the meme's notability. This is about sheer stubborn adherence to some set of rules with no regard to the bare facts of this case. There is no question of the meme's notability in terms of common sense, only the stupid verifiability rules. If there was such a question, there wouldn't be so many people that cared so damn much about Mudkipz being in this article. Just my two cents. Muramasa itachi (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even heard of the meme before seeing all of the additions and removals of it to the article. It's hardly a notable thing. Only the stupid verifiability ruless? If the information doesn't meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, why should it be mentioned? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is meant to make sure it's worth mentioning. If you had any idea how much this shit is worshiped on the internet, there would be no question of its verifiability. An entire *chan is dedicated to this Pokemon. Have you seen the "gallery" of Mudkip on ED? I know it's not a source, but the fact that people take the time to do that sort of... thing... certainly speaks volumes for the meme's popularity. If we can verify the meme's notability, there should be no reason to consult rules that are meant to reach the same conclusion. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Popularity and notability are two separate concepts. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's notable, and vice versa. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted. However, the massive popularity of the meme alone is enough to qualify it as notable, in my eyes, if only to ensure that we do in fact accept the meme's existence. Verifiability, on the other hand, shouldn't really be a problem, like I said earlier. ((I'm assuming Verifiability and Notability are defined differently)) Muramasa itachi (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, V and N are different. Verifiability requires reliable sources to confirm a statement; notability means it's important enough to warrant an article.

Also, AYB hasn't been mentioned outside of the internet. Yes, I know it's part of a video game. Owait... Mudkip is part of a video game too! ...lol wut Muramasa itachi (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong - read the very article you link to, Itachi, specifically the "Notable media references" section. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm most surprised about is the fact that Wikipedia has let an INCREDIBLY OBSCURE internet meme like lolcat on the site (which isn't notable in any sense of the word), but you won't let a widely popular meme like Mudkip even get a passing mention. TimboxMcKenzie (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Obscure my ass. Lolcat has had coverage in Time and there are several websites dedicated to it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that Blazing Star's page mentions the "YOU FAIL IT" meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.30.70 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And? Zero Wing mentions the AYB meme. Engrish always tends to be memefied; I'm amazed Ling-Ling isn't under attack yet by channers. Having said that, what's good for a goose is not so for the gander in this case - consensus here is that, if anywhere, SIHULM goes under List of Internet phenomena because it's tangental and is being spammed here and at Axolotl, Mudskipper, and Mudpuppy (hence the reason why the phrase is flagged with Lupin's anti-vandal tool). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He shoots, he scores. Mudkip is getting closer and closer to verifiability. I found a link on ED to an mp3 recording of a fellow mudkip lover calling into 99.5 KKLA to have them say a prayer for our little friend! I can't link the mp3 itself because it's on ED, but anyone interested can visit themselves. It's legit. StardustDragon 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs)

It may be legit, but Joe Blow ain't a reliable source. It does, however, mean that an RS may be forthcoming in the form of a video game or real-life pastiche or somesuch, but I wouldn't hold my breath getting it in this article, because, as stated above, it'd be better off in a different article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, the list of internet phenomena is in such a piss-poor state right now it needs some more recent memes anyways. StardustDragon 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs)

How about http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543 ? And Sean Carasov's cat that was murdered by the Church of Scientology was named Mudkips. See also http://laist.com/2008/03/23/church_of_scien.php . Face it: Mudkips will be notable soon - the mainstream media is picking up on the anti-Scientology protests, and Mudkips will be mentioned. If wikipedia cannot explain why, then it is not an encyclopedia. 217.43.46.179 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The mentions in the articles are trivial, unfortunately. Were the meme discussed, and not just stated as a "password" of sorts, a handle, or as a pet's name... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 06:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know what 4chan is or ED, but here in Portugal everyone lieks the mudkipz. Seriously, most people here didn't even knew Mudkip existed before reading about mudkipz. It shows that mudkipz are notable internacionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.134.160 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, 4chan is an imageboard where most memes are born; Encyclopædia Dramatica is a Wiki (linking is disabled to it here because it has a tendency to out and harass users here). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

i just added the mudkip meme, 77night77, 4th may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77night77 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I just removed it. That meme will never be in this article. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1317732,00.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/drink-ban-party-sparks-tube-closures-and-arrests-837948.html Not discussing the meme but an obvious reference to it. Take your pick of Sky News or The Independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.169.183 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those two articles report about a party at a London Tube gone out of hand. They quote a web programmer who calls himself "David Mudkips", which is indeed very likely a reference to this dumb meme. Cheers, Face 12:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Name-drop - the article isn't about the actual meme, which is the bare minimum. It's amazing that I can take a break from this article for a few days, and come back to see the anons making the same stupid arguments. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating SIHULM FAQ

I am currently typing up an FAQ on the meme and posting it <dead link removed>. I would like some feedback on the wording of the FAQ, please, including anything I missed or anything that shouldn't be in there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

FAQ posted. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

images

i think an image should be given for each pokemon... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Which part? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the "Acceptable use" subsection, specifically Images. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd

The page has been semiprotected because some IPs are trying to claim that a SIHULM reference on this talk page are legitimate references. I will quote from the FAQ linked in the red box at the top (emphasis added):

Personal blogs and social nets are not reliable sources, as they are far too mutable. The same applies to Wikis, discussion forums, and the #chans.

Further, Wikipedia abhors self-references in article space, and thus a page in Talk: space cannot be used to support a specific claim in mainspace. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

MUDKIP ALERT

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/29/baby-climo-air-purifier-is-adorable-possible-deadly/

IT WAS ON GOOGLE NEWS AND SOME GUY COMMENTED ON IT ABOUT MUDKIPS

LEGIT MEME HERE WE GO INTEGRATION J'onn J'onzz (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No it ain't, because the ARTICLE DOES NOT DISCUSS MUDKIP. Frag off until you have an actual source and not Joe Blow. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth gave you the idea that someone referencing it in a blog comment establishes its notability? FAIL. — TheBilly^(Talk) 07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually say this is "ÜBERFAIL" here due to the FAQ... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BIG QUESTION

When in the hell did the term "I herd you liek Mudkips" begin anyway?!?!?!?!?!?

~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When, we're not sure. Where, on the other hand, we know (DeviantART). I think the last surviving Talk:Mudkip archive might have the answer, though, buried in the mud. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

...underneath the kip? Seriously though, I know it's been discussed to death, but did we ever figure out if it was the story about the kid at school that started it, or the DeviantART PM? {yet another reason why this wonderful meme will never make it on Wikipedia :| can't even agree on the original story) --Coreycubed (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We did; Muramasa confirmed what Skion originally said in the Mudkip archive and that it was the D-ART PM. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 02:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

it started with the infamous story: (meme redacted by Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)}) J'onn J'onzz (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The history and the story is linked to in Talk:Mudkip/Archive02 and the anons recently have been abusing this talk page to use it (i.e. this talk page) as a reference. I've redacted the meme for that reason, but here's the link that's in the archive, altered to point directly to the story: [1] -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How I thought that it happened it from some guy posted a giant picture of something cool and it ended up being a giant Mudkip enough to take up the size of an entire page. That's the rumor I heard.

YaBoiKrakerz

Nope. Nothing remotely close to that. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, nothing remotely close to that? Pfft, must be an urban legend.

you DO know what an urban legend is, right? : Something that is said to someone and repeated so many times that the words have changed around to make something totally diferent.

YaBoiKrakerz

I know what an urban legend is - I do watch MythBusters, after all. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...Just saw the James Bond gadget episode last night! ^_^

YaBoiKrakerz

For what it's worth, (immensely popular gallery website) Deviant Art's april fool's gag was to change all user icons to a pic of a mudkip and the words "so I herd u liek mudkipz?" I came to Wikipedia to find out wtf was up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.67.238 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. -^{(Doofallslya v^_^v)} Ékséj 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearing things up here as I usually do. The DeviantART PM came first, then the copypasta. StardustDragon 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

mudkipz on devianart

On 1st april 2008, all user avatars on deviantART were replaced by Mudkip (with the text "i hear you liek mudkipz"). don't have the source, i would maybe find one if i tried. is notable enough for at least mentioning it? (of course it's not enough for whole article, but it can be mentioned) --Have a nice day. Running 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's already been suggested, and it's not going to be added. -WarthogDemon 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd (a-fragging-gain)

The article has once again been semi'd, this time for six months. Next semi will be permanent. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be protected permanently, that will prevent anon users that don't want to get an account to edit. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Those anon users are the ones who want to add the Mudkip meme. -Sukecchi (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I noticed that, I just checked the history. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If they want to edit they have to go somewhere else. The lists suck and have sucked for several past months, but that's not the point. The point is most unregistered ignore the warning, most likely don't give a damn about that warning, so we have to permanently protect this page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page semi'd for a fortnight due to IP vandalism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just head straight to permanent semi? I doubt it'll end. -WarthogDemon 22:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On a talk page? Any admin would call that excessive. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt it will end, I do a lot more than simply have my doubts. I know that the vandalism will never end until the meme stop being so well known, which will take years to happen. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Same shit, different day. 1 month. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with protecting this talk page. Talk pages usually shouldn't be protected except in case of extreme vandalism (which I don't think there was in this case.) Vandalism on this talk page is usually reverted in seconds, so I don't think the protect was necessary. The worst part of this is that now good-faith IPs cannot edit this page in order to constructively talk about the article. I urge you to unprotect this; we can deal with any more vandalism that arises. Artichoker^[talk] 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to do reverts. -WarthogDemon 02:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree, Artichoker, if for no other reason than I saw the vandalism escalating. It doesn't matter if vandalism is reverted in one second, if at least 40% of all edits in the past 24 hours are vandalism (at least as regards this talk page, see Talk:Mudkip/Archive02) I will protect. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mudkip and Marshstomp

The sentences about brock in these sections both contradict each other...

—Reedy 15:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read this entire discussion?

This is unbelieveable. Looking at this discussion page there is so much about "So i herd u liek mudkipz" and the is no discussion about anything else. You say that it isn't that well known, but look at all this text!!! Doesn't this page alone prove its' notability? Geh heh heh (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia abhors self-references (as well as references to forums, other wikis, and self-published sources), and popularity does not mean notability. We aren't saying it isn't well-known, we're saying that the only references made to it are name-drops, which is nowhere near enough for real-world notability (articles have to be about the topic itself). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unbelievable you can be so calm after being over this so many times. I am not surprised you became an admin, Jeske. Though I agree it's nothing but play-on-words I really can't believe it's not in the article. No, don't take this the wrong way I find it unfitting to the article as well, but I'm just surprised it didn't get into the article since so many people kept up talking about it. I know that WP isn't a poll, at the amount of people that wants it in the article doesn't matter. Now, you suggested once there is one article with list of memes where it could be added, do you still think it's a good idea? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as there are sources to support it, yes. At any rate it's better than it would be in this article, where all it would do is act like an ad. And that article I was mentioning was List of Internet phenomena. Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go and lock-in my Zookeeper Druid. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 02:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Word, if Jeske wasn't already an admin I'd nominate him in a second. It'd be good to put it in the Internet phenomena list; that list at this point is craptastic and references few Internet memes that people actually use. StardustDragon 18:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe that I meant to put this discussion in the List of Internet phenomena, but it's ok here. I'm also very calm as well you know, or at least it sounds that way when I copy-and-paste. It's the cheap way to stay calm on the internet. FYI, this is geh heh heh when he's too lazy to log in:P 24.226.77.23 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)