All discussion on the topic of whether the phrase "so I herd u liek mudkips" (sic) should be included on Wikipedia, 29 April 2006 - 5 March 2009
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
so I herd u like mudkips
I need some mention of the internet phenomenon "so I herd u like mudkips".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.106.22.46 (talk • contribs) .
Not necessary. The phenomenon is pornographic in nature, and thus not really appropriate for this. Rockhound 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
'so I herd u liek mudkips'
There needs to be a section on 'so I herd u liek mudkips'
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.12.18 (talk • contribs) .
Then write one. I don't thinks it's of much signicance myself, though.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Does Mudkip really need to have a section for it being a meme on 4chan? UberVash 06:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, which is why it got deleted. ;) HighwayReturn to Oz... 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, when the time I wrote that, it was still there. :P UberVash 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I found it very helpful, as I came to this article actually looking for the source of the meme. And apparently right after I posted this, the section was removed. There is no reason to remove this, so I'm replacing it until someone gives a good reason not to include it. Agivith 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Is "delete crufty obscene content - I'm not deleting it "because" it's obscene, but it's kinda not notable and patronizing people with learning difficulties, hardly neutral" not a good enough reason? HighwayReturn to Oz... 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Then remove the parts you believe lack neutrality. When I want information, I come to Wikipedia; it's hardly fair to delete helpful and factual information just because you don't like it. Agivith 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's removed for non-notability. /b/ and all its memes are not notable. lurk (wikipedia) moar, or GB2/Encyclopedia Dramatica/, where they spend all day in their parent's basement writing about nothing (like articles about parents basements) and banning everyone who contests, to feel cool on the internet. TheBilly 01:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't relevant. Someone made a joke, and it isn't enclyopedic at all. HighwayReturn to Oz... 06:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Some would say that pokemon isn't encyclopediac, eitier. But, It's besides the point.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. If you guys think that pokemon itself is worthy of being in wikipedia, it seems reasonable that
this mention of Internet lore should be just as valid. I am one of the people who came to this article in search of information about this meme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.175.187 (talk • contribs) .
It's something created on a forum, it lacks enclyopedic worth. HighwayGrammar Enforcer! 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to record information? "enclyopedic worth [sic]" is a value/qualitative judgment. We're not here to record Highway's opinion on what constitutes an encyclopedia. Besides, the fact that several posters came to this article specifically to look for this information should be indication enough that it has "worth".
If we're going to delete things just because they originated in Internet forums and other such discussion groups, by the way, we can start with the numerous articles on Usenet and Internet memes/phenomena that Wiki has.--71.112.234.168 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Policy states memes must be notable, and "I herd u like mudkips", is far from that. HighwayGrammar Enforcer! 07:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well obviously if there are people searching Wikipedia for the origin of the meme (myself included), it IS notable enough to have a small little blurb, you eletist Pokefanboy. -FreakmanJ 12:14, 20, October 2006 (EST)
Le sigh. I'm not a fanboy, of Pokémon anyway. I'm following policy. If you want to find out about non notable memes, then go to the forum, not to Wikipedia. HighwayGrammar Enforcer! 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
And still you dodge the issue, because "notable" is also a qualitative/value judgment.--71.35.109.198 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is where it fails, someone just made it up on a fan forum. Ergo, not notable. HighwayGrammar Enforcer! 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I hardly see why the fact that mudkip is a meme is less notable then an entire article on one of over 400 monsters in a video game. Mudkip itself is not very encyclopediac, and if you are going to play that game most pokemon articles should be deleted. Mudkip as a meme is rather prominent throughout the internet, just because it was not stolen (er, picked up) by YTMND does not make it unnotable. I'm guessing more people would come here to find out about the source of the meme than would come to learn about the actual pokemon. The suicide forest 16:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Pokémon is a multi-billion dollar franchise, and Mudkip is one of the most identifiable Pokémon of them all. It has appeared in the video games, the manga and the anime, as well as TCG, all in prominent roles, and has featured in mass merchandise production. That's one hand of the arugment.
The other hand is a crude "meme" that someone made up for a laugh on a fan forum, that has never featured in any game, media coverage, manga episode, TCG card or official website.
This "unnotable" meme is now common on many forums, blogs, and internet communities throughout the internet, not just 4chan. It makes sense that a lot of people who stumble upon the meme would go to wikipedia to find out about it, as wikipedia is widely considered the definitive authority on all matters the internet, despite what common sense may dictate.
Furthermore, internet memes and fads have long since been accepted into Wikipedia as something that is worthwhile to include in this encyclopedia, and in the case of memes spawning from video games the games from which they spawned from. See such articles as "O RLY", "Genji: Days of the Blade", and "Zero Wing" among others. While the meme may not yet warrent its own fad, it certainly should be mentioned somewhere that the various users of the internet can find it. Because of this, and because you seem to lack an arguement besides that memes for laughs do not belong on wikipedia even if they are influential (Which they apparently do) I propose that we re-add this section to the page. The suicide forest 18:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to issues of notability, Reliable Sources states that Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet, and all other web forums, are not reliable sources, and should never be cited in an article. If you can find any issue of Official Nintendo Magazine, or Nintendo Power, or even CVG which discusses the Mudkip meme, it becomes notable. A bunch of posts to any forum is not notable. Laïka 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Many of the Memes noted in Wikipedia are not in boards, etc. By "they are not reliable resources" the Reliable Sources page is referring to using forums as sources for stories not relating to that forum. For example, citing a forum post that says "Jesus was an extraterrestrial" is not appropriate. However, for something originating on a webpage I see no reason why you shouldn't use a forum as a resource.
But that's the primary source, when the primary source isn't reliable, there is no article. HighwayGrammar Enforcer! 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
How is the primary source not reliable if the events HAPPENED on the primary source? That's like saying we should delete the history on the Wikipedia page because the events happened on a Wiki. Your arguement is MASSIVE FAIL. The suicide forest 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not unreliable. You see, the primary source can't decide how notable it is. For example, let's say I'm bob monkery pie, and I make an article on myself. It get's deleted, becuase no newspaper, or news website has ever mentioned me. So, unless you can find a reliable news article, the meme stays out. Also, don't make fake comments as other users.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If websites can't be reliable resources for things that ahppen ON THEIR site, then why is the Wikipedia history section still on the site? Shouldn't it be deleted as well? By Wikipedia's own rules, Wikis are not reliable resources. Either make an argument that makes sense, or GB2/debate class.
Also, I did not make a fake comment as another user. I made a very real comment as a fake user. No, it's not a sensible difference, but neither is having 500+ articles on pokemon when popular culture is "irrelevant". The suicide forest 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Same difference, that's seriously against policy. You can get banned for forging a comment to try and prove your point. And, you did it pretty badly, considering mudkip is a character in a video. (edit conflicted comment)Look, it's not reliablitlity, it's notability that's an issue. Now drop it and move on. It's not going into the article. You can argue all you want. Hell, you can even start a straw poll, I don't give a care. but it's useless. It ain't going into the article, that's the end of it.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm...I wasn't trying to prove a point with that comment. At all. And it was supposed to be obviously a fake. That was kind of the point of the comment.
Back on topic, if the problem isn't with reliability than the last half of this section is useless. If the argument is now over notability, than this meme is becoming more and more prominent all over the internet, no longer just on /b/-related sites. I have seen this meme on GameFAQs, Counter Strike: Source, Myspace, and even in user profiles. ( I believe Alakazam9891 has a reference in his userpage) Internet culture is very obviously suitable for Wikipedia, and as we have noted before quite a few people have come to this page trying to find out about the meme, most likely many more than have come wondering what a mudkip is. I agree with the Cornflake guy, pokefanatics need to realize that no one outside of their community cares about pokemon so much as to warrant 600+ pokemon articles, and if actually useful information can be added instead of the circle-jerk information we have now, it should be added. (Note that I actually love the pokemon RPGs and have been a big fan for a while, but this is rediculous.) The suicide forest 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, You're ridicuous. This argument is over. No matter how many forums it's in, or user pages, or myspaces, it is still unnotable unless a legit, recognized news source writes an article on it. If you'd "liek" to discuss this further, why don't you go to The Pokemon collaborative project talk page, and get rejected there. sorry.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 14:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd almopst forgotten to link to this as well.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 14:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No YOU'RE rediculous. You haven't made any arguement other then "it's not notable because it's not on a credible new source" which is true for the vast majority of internet culture mentioned on Wikipedia. And the reason I will not be going to the pokemon project talkpage is that both having a commitee for pokemon things and having 700+ articles about pokemans(sic) in a supposed encyclopedia is complete ludicrous. Also, everyone on that "comittee" is a circle-jerking 13-year-old who will rally against anyone suggesting that every minor pokemon detail does not deserve its own page of that anything that might be possible useful knowledge not endorsed by Nintendo be included. It is people like them, along with you, that gives what is an amazing RPG series such a bad reputation among the gaming community, a process for which I have had a front row seat as I have been playing pokemon games since you were four years old. Furthermore, your linked-to page is not only dated in April, when this meme was in its fledgling state (For reference, "so i herd" now generates over 12,000 hits on google and will doubtlessly continue growing stongly) and all the delete votes were either by people protesting memes on Wikipedia in general, an opinion which has obviously not become policy, people citing the (then true) google numbers and pokefreaks voting it down for no real reason.
Nonetheless I am tiring of this charade. Since your entire argument rests on reputable news sources being needed for notability for memes, I will make you this offer: within the next 48 hours, find a reputable news source for "Do a barrel roll". Do so and I will leave. Fail and I will start a massive revert war with myself and many of my friends, both online and offline that will surely result in this page being eventually added to the hallowed halls of WP:LAME. The suicide forest 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, where is there an article on wikipedia on "Do a barrel roll". I searched, and all I got was a redirect to the list of characters page for star fox, and no mention of the meme. I refuse to do something completely purposeless. Go ahead, readd, see what I care. I'll just remove it and ask for protection. Also, the earliest you could have been playing pokemon games is when I was 5, not 4, unless you live in japan. So hah.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Meh, I put the wrong age by accident. Sue me. Anyway, the article seems to have been moved somewhere, but since logic has long been abandoned as a policy on Wikipedia (Especially regarding video games) my offer still stands. Finally, most of your edits seem to be made during the school day. Don't you have other things to be doing besides editing wikipedia? The suicide forest 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I have no life. right now, we are taking notes in history, and my teacher is talking about nothing.--Ac1983fan 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've decided that I'll be willing to compromise. It's simple. If you can find an existing section to which add a brief mention of it in the article where it would be appropriate, I'll be okay with it.--Ac1983fan 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How about adding a "popular culture" section? It would mention that as one of the more recongnizable pokemon, mudkip has gained popularity in both online and offline culture. (Or something along those lines.) The section would briefly mention the meme with a possible link to more in-depth information, and other mudkip reference is popular culture could be added as well by others. The suicide forest 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you haven't replied back, I'm going to assume that you feel this is a suitable compromise. I will add this section once I get some free time (probably later today.) I'll leave it up to you and the other members of the pokemon collaborative thingy to find other cultural references. I'm sure there are many.
Haha you're 13.
Anyway, I stand on both sides of the fence on this issue. While I feel that Wikipedia isn't the place for internet memes (as it is an encyclopedia), I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen something about an internet meme involving the article subject at hand. I mean seriously, when Shadow_the_Hedgehog_(video_game) makes a mention of a meme I've personally never herd of, it only seems fair that a mention of Mudkips meme makes its way onto the Mudkip page, even if it's only in a trivia section. A whole section in the article doesn't need to be made for it, but it could at least be mentioned in some small form. Alakazam9891 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The daftest reasoning ever. Anyway, Wikipedia history has notable primary and secondary sources. And I'm sure Jimbo will have written a book about it, or someone directly linked to the creation. It also has the strength of reliable secondary sources, newspapers, wall street, etc. HighwayGrammar Enforcer! 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
By way of hearsay, it has come to my attention that you are not especially fond of mudkips. — Coelacan | talk 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This whole section is massive fail. Elitist Pokefanatics need to get off their high-horses. --Captain Cornflake 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want the meme on Wikipedia badly enough, try making a separate article on it. Then see how long it lasts. ~e.o.t.d~ 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've got a better idea. Somebody say what the meme is and explain it on the talk page. This one. The one you're reading.
Looks like you all like mudkips here. Because I happen to have a Mudkip doll here, and...
hay guys, I made a Wikiaccount JUST to talk about this. I know what Mudkips are, and how much ppl liek them. Memes are important, you know? They are sure to be etched into the sands of internet history or something. So if anybody (besides the pokémon fanboys who keep deletin' the thing) cares, I vote that it get a meme section. Or a separate article, called Mudkip (meme) or somethin. And to the dude who axked what a meme is, Wiki it and see. Or seach "Mudkip" on encyclopedia dramatica. How do I ate corm 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
An Internet phenomenon (sometimes called an Internet meme) occurs when something relatively or completely unknown becomes hugely popular, often quite suddenly, through the mass propagation of media content made feasible by the Internet.
Considering that Mudkip was already popular before this stupid meme was ever thought up, your reasonings fail. Besides, this article is about a Pokémon, not some lame internet forum line that's filled with horrid spelling. -SaturnYoshiTHE VOICES 08:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Mudkip was already popular..." Was it really? I had never heard of, nor seen, a mudkip before I read about it somewhere...probably 4chan or EncyclopediaDramatica. Maybe Mudkip (critter)was only popular among pokémon fans? So, that's why Mudkip has a page, because it's popular with a group of people. Mudkip (meme) is also popular among a large group of people (read: most of 4chan, that's a lot of people). What's the harm of having a meme section? If not a section, then there should be a separate Mudkip (meme) page, that Mudkip (disambiguation) could link to or something. I'm not going to take the time to do anything, because I will end up spending a long time on it, only to have it invariably deleted by a young otaku (Why are kids editing an Encyclopdia? This scares me, seriously. It's a sign of the endtimes). It just seems that the 13 year olds are insulted that their favorite Pokémons are being used in a lighthearted or deragatory manner. Listen: most people did go through a Pokémon phase. Mine was back when the TV series was first released in the US. I was 13 at the time, I think. The good ole days, when there were 150, not 500 critters. The current Pokémon fans? Satoshi Yajiri is just milking the franchise for every penny its worth, and you're playing along, lining his pockets with gold buying trading cards and other useless garbage. And guess what? You'll grow out of Pokémon, just like the rest of us did. So, stop being rabid fanboys, most sensible anime fans already make fun of you for liking Pokémon in the first place. And no, I'm not going to "Cite" that ;-). Back to the topic at hand, the O Rly owls got a page, and that's technically a meme. So, is O RLY a meme because something obscure (a nature photographer's picture) got macroed, and became über famous really quickly? By your fancily quoted logic, maybe it shouldn't have gotten a page, just because Snowy Owls were already popular before "O Rly" happened. So IMHO, Mudkip (meme) should get official recognition. Stupid owls. And as an afterthought, people on this talk page are saying the meme came from a horribly spelled forum posting. I thought it came from a comment that someone on Deviantart used to invite somebody to join a Pokémon usergroup. How do I ate corm 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not some kid. I was 14 when Pokémon came to the U.S. Secondly, I'm not a "rabid fanboy"; I only play the games. And third, I've never even heard of 4chan, so maybe this "meme" is only popular with your little group. Unless a credible source makes mention of this, i.e. magazine article, television, or another authentic news source, it is not notable enough to be mentioned. -SaturnYoshiTHE VOICES 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude, "little group"? hahaha, ok. You can think that if you want. And look at this: "
I am a degree 6 Zoosexual, sexually and emotionally attracted to Mudkip and nothing else. Animals don't even do it for me. I am cursed to live my life in the misery that my most powerful emotional fantasies will never be even close to coming true." This was posted on page one of /b/ 5 minutes ago. Mudkip, not as a Pokémon, but as a sexual fetish. See? Mudkip needs a disambiguation category. How do I ate corm 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
*Sigh*... Perhaps Uncyclopedia is where this should go. They probably won't object to any of it there. -SaturnYoshiTHE VOICES 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"“so i herd u liek mudkips”- /b/tard on Mudkip " lol, they beat us to it. We can't have that, can we? Wikipedia will lose if we don't step up to the plate, man. People will go to OTHER places for important information How do I ate corm 16:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I herd there were mudkips here. --WootyWoot?contribs 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"seems fair that a mention of Mudkips meme makes its way onto the Mudkip page, even if it's only in a trivia section. A whole section in the article doesn't need to be made for it, but it could at least be mentioned in some small form."
I endorse this quoteEAB 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Besides, this article is about a Pokémon, not some lame internet forum line that's filled with horrid spelling." - See also: Wikipedia's article on All Your Base Are Belong To Us. FAIL. -- Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.30.114 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
i herd u dunt like mudkipz? 62.163.61.246 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't really been following this discussion or anything, but it certainly seems big enough to warrant some mention in the article. I find this entire discussion incredibly interesting, but it's hard to find a straight-up explanation of it. Wikipedia could change that. How about someone who really know's the whole argument adds it to List of Internet memes? It should definitely be included somewhere - Google has 48,600 hits for "liek mudkipz," which definitely isn't an accident. Sorry to post to an archive, btw, but it seems the discussion never really concluded (and I don't want to piss people off by posting to the main article). Brad Gibbons (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
meme.
Just putting forth another vote for info on the meme...that's why I came to this article.
I agree as well. I want to see So I Herd You Liek Mudkips being put into the articleMr.WaeseL 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at the beginning, but I just came here to see what the weird meme was all about. There was nothing here.
I think someone accidentally deleted it or something. No worries, I added it again because it's important :) Mr.WaeseL 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Why the hell isn't it up? There are whole articles for YA RLY and limecat and clock spider... I am shocked that it isn't here. Add the freakin' thing! If you don't think it needs to be there then you are wrong!69.250.71.229 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Then provide a source, please, as all the rest of those articles (should) have. If you can't, then don't add it. -Jéské(v^_^v) 01:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it should probably be in the article. I came here just to see what people were talking about and had to dig through the edit wars to find it. It seems to me that the meme might maybe be more notable than Mudkip itself. How often do people actually look for Pokémon #258 for any other reason? If it isn't notable enough yet, it will be, as memes are known to grow over time. As for a source, it's all over in forums all but will never make it into a national publication, much like Mudkip itself now that it is no longer one of the most recent starters. 68.175.1.48 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If it should be in an article, there's a List of Internet phenomena that-a-way. Including it in Mudkip right now will result in tears because it will be removed when Mudkip gets merged into its list of 20. You want to complain, do so at WT:PCP. -Jéské(v^_^v) 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Your lack of a conjunction makes you sound very bossy. WP:CIV--70.116.13.211 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How would listing the meme result in tears? ...and what would tears matter? If you speak of metaphorical tears and the meme is added and then removed, what does it matter? The article would be in the same state it is in now. Also, "merged into 20" do you mean as in the number 20? I must say I am against any merger between Mudkip and the number 20. 68.175.1.48 05:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as the meme goes, you admit that it isn't gonna be in a national publication or be given that much attention. So, you're yourself denying that it will probably not have a source to prove that it's notable, thus, the meme wouldn't pass the two requirements it needs to. And as Jeske said somewhere else, we don't even know the name of the meme, the exact history behind it. If we can't find that out, if we don't know where it came from or who started it, something that's impossible to find because 4Chan and DeviantART, the two sites that have been rumored here to be the ones that started the meme, are anonymous and therefore it is impossible to trace anybody's contributions back to their rightful owner, a requirement under the GDFL which must be fulfilled before anything can be added. If it were notable enough already, we still can't add it because we don't know who started the meme in the first place. Ksy92003(talk) 08:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Someone has decided that the individual Pokémon are too numerous, mostly insignificant, and somewhat stubby. I could see that, especially since Bulbapedia has so much more content (at least from the game's point of view) anyway. If that happens, and I'm sure many are opposed, I guess it will be moot point anyway because these sets of twenty are bound to be even stubbier than the articles are now.
However, if it doesn't come to that, I say that it at least somewhat notable. The phrase "So I herd you liek Mudkipz" appears twice in the first page of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mudkips&btnG=Google+Search . How much sourcing does a meme need? Would someone need to make an animation or website about it before it becomes sourcable? Also, the origin is copy pasta, yes? So "So I herd you liek Mudkipz" would likely be the name of the meme since a copy and paste wouldn't change any spelling. Perhaps Copy Pasta should have its own article and that's where the meme belongs?
Unfortunately for me, I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to look for the original author. Although, I might go through archive.org later and see if I can find out who had it first. ...oh dear, that means I probably have to look at 4chan... 68.175.1.48 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Skion, it was originally from a DeviantART private message, meaning that the Wayback Machine won't find it unless you were the recipient of either it or its reply if true. As it sits, we don't even know who originally penned it (a requirement per the GNU Free Documentation License). Also, popularity and notability are not the same thing. Just because it's popular doesn't necessarily mean it's notable. And the name you have for it above has already been shown as a corruption from the meme posts on 4chan (There's an Uncyclopedia link below; it has the 4chan meme in its entirety). -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. The title "So i herd u liek mudkips" and the quote from the story "So I herd you liek Mudkipz" are different. I guess the small section it would go into would need to state that the name of the expression is an indeterminate estimation of the original.
A deep read into WP:N directly says "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." I don't think we are gunning for a separate article here. In the case of reliable sources, I don't think the fact that this thing exists or not is up for debate, but it is hard to source Internet forum culture.
As for the GNU Free Documentation License and finding the original author, I guess someone (me?) will need to read into those to discover at least one of the following: 1) If an author is needed on something posted to an open forum for the purposes of redistribution (Is the article from Uncyclopedia which states all copypasta is in the public domain right?! If not, why can it still be on Uncyclopedia?) 2) The original author 3) Facts either discrediting Skion as a reliable source or proving him right (If Skion knows it was a private message, then Skion should be able to help trace it back, yes?) 4) If there is some clause allowing material to be posted with author unknown until the author comes forward and requests its removal or allows it (I think there was something like this for images at least yes?) 5) If inability for anyone to prove ownership of intellectual property removes the ability of the GNU to grant it sanction (Anyone can say that they are the original creator of anything). 6) If certain someones (and I'm not stating that this is true, but it is a possibility) are leading the majority of posters here through almost every plausible wikilaw to prevent the meme from reaching consensus and thereby the article by any means necessary. (As might be evidenced by the fact that neither the GNU nor the GDFL have been mentioned by anyone before.)
Several of these seem to be questions best left as generic questions left to (high-rank?) users unassociated with any form of this article, or to be found in an FAQ. All this, at least for me, will need to wait for tomorrow though, as it's very late here. 68.175.1.48 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Copypasta does not fulfill GFDL requirements - it doesn't say who the original author is. Though I do not know if copypasta falls under the category of "public domain" works, we still need the author of the original post, or the info can't be added per the GFDL. Also, Skion is unable to trace the original message, accoring to him (look farther down this page).
As for the GFDL, I only recently remembered why the whole of WP:) was deleted earlier this year - noncompliance with GFDL because the vast majority of it was not attributed to their original posters (since fixed). There is no clause allowing text likely to be challenged to stay on articles without a cite (images are a separate issue). I don't care if the meme is on Wikipedia, provided it can be sourced back to the proper author and bears the appropriate citations. However, this page is not the place for it, and nor is its section in List of Pokémon (241-260); rather, List of Internet phenomena is a better choice, as has been mentioned below. -Jéské(v^_^v) 07:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we took the short boat to Moot Point. It now seems to be a description of the adjoining picture, a few lines from the Pokedex, and a sentence about the anime. They could call it Wikipedia and The Sad Tail of Mudkips. I think I might just LOL out the door now, never to see this talk page again. 68.175.1.48 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I can guarantee you it won't (this page will soon be redirected itself to the appropriate talk page), and List of Internet phenomena is a better place to mention the meme, end of story. Besides, none of us here - Ksy, myself, Kai, Skion, etc. - were in a position to prevent the merge. -Jéské(v^_^v) 05:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
liek Mudkips
Ac1983fan, stop crying about it, just accept ot and just add the saying. it's popular online and as such should be added. Just because YOU don't want it added doesn't mean it shouldn't/ 209.107.101.5 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that so many people have came here to just understand the meme suggests that even if some don't like it, it's still a good contribution. You can not use WP:NOTE against this. And I quote, "These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles...". You are correct in saying that there can't be an article titled "so i herd u liek mudkips" (per WP:NOTE), however the meme CAN be mentioned in this existing article. Smileman66 04:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The whiney baby had a lock put on the article. I'm tired of these Wikifags not accepting whats common knowledge 209.107.101.5 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You do realize being rude about this won't get these people to change their minds. That being said, oh, come on! This refusal to add something about an Internet meme simply because it isn't part of the game is mind-boggling.Sana Jisushi 06:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I only came to this page to find out about the internet meme. I would think that the meme and its prevalence on message boards would be more relevant to any user over the age of 13 then content on its TV appearances. I mean, both are ultimately meaningless pop culture references, right? Why does its appearance on a popular kids show rate higher then its appearance as a popular internet meme? Further, I would think more people come to this page looking for the evolution of a pretty widespread meme then they do looking for the episode in which Mudkip evolved. Lastly, this is an article about a pokemon on the internet. You are not defending the sacred halls of scholarly knowledge here. The internet meme is at least as relevant to pop culture as pokemon, and anyways, you can't seriously build a debate about scholastic integrity around pokemon. 163.2.30.245 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Could someone just explain the origin of the meme on this talk page? It'd make sense; if you can't read about the Meme in the article, then you could come here. I think pokemon is a bunch of craptastic commercialist advertising, personally, and that the franchise will soon die, but I love the meme and Encylopedia Dramatica seems to have died. --80.47.17.221 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't like replying to dead posts, but the origins are discussed below. -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So I herd you liek mudkips
Does including the meme in the page affect the page negatively at all, and if so how? I feel that even if it may be trivial it should be included because it makes the article more complete. Also on the topic of notability if you would direct your attention to "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content" of WP:NOTABILITY it clearly states "These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article." Therefore the meme is not notable enough to have its own article but should remain as a minor section of mudkips. The argument that the meme is not notable is only valid if it was made into a separate page not if it is included in a small section of the mudkips article.Kuro-yan 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add content related to the 4chan meme "So I herd you leik mudkips" to the page. There has been much discussion about it, and it is not notable enough for wikipedia. However, if you would like to debate this point, please do it under this section.--Ac1983fan 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you debate the notability of what is essentially a internet driven humor saying? Unless the thing was in TIme Magazine you wouldn't include it because it doesn't fit under the rigid system in place. It exists. That should be enough. Just mention the saying on any sort of forum and you'll get a respone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.71.184 (talk • contribs).
You exist, I exist, my one page book report exist, yet they are not on wikipedia because of WP:NOTABILITY. If "So I herd you leik mudkips" becomes mentioned in any respectable news source, including but not limited to IGN.com, gamespot.com, TIME Magazine, USA today, and The New York times, than I will be more than happy to include it into the article. Thank you.--Ac1983fan 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it can't be featured in a tiny stub at the article, especially when Dio Brando and his Wryyyyyyyy internet meme have a full stub in the main article. What's notable about that? This whole logic process is flawed.164.116.70.233 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
But it appears in the game making it more notable. You'll be hard pressed to find a point in the game where "so I herd you leik mudkips" in any pokemon game.--Ac1983fan 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it occurs in the game and Manga. However how is WRYYYYY that notable? So it's there. What's so notable about it? I'm here, your here, your book report is here, but someone just so happens to make a joke about it on THE INTERNET. That's the only reason it's relevant. Because of people on the internet making fun of AN ASPECT OF IT FOR HUMOR. Your logic is flawed. Why can't we put an internet Meme relating to a specific Pokemon? 24.17.214.242 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
becuase its just a random thing that has almost nothing to do with the actual pokemon that some guy made up. It is not notable enough for wikipedia. The other thing, I don't know much about, but memes that are quotes from games are much more notable then things made up on a website in one day.--Ac1983fan 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
But that's where the flaw in your logic presides. Wrryyy by itself has nothing notable about it, but has it's own sub-section. SIHULM is notable for wikipedia because of the fact that is is a unique creation of the internet, fostered by the largest english imageboard on the planet, and has become synonymous with the pokemon in general. You can't deny that is exists by keeping it out of a wiki page. Whether you think it's dumb or not isn't an issue. It's notable because of the momentum it's carried, and for what it represents in the open atmosphere of the internet. SIHULM represents every single internet meme, and joke among nerds, pokemaniacs, geeks, dorks, and all other internet trogdophiles. Simply even going to any sort of a convention and mentioning it would get you over a hundred responses. Just visit gaming conventions like PAX, or anime conventions like SakuraCon. I know from personal experience. Amidst Lan Parties, frenzied Guitar Hero matches, and Tabletop Gaming Panels that are right next to a keynote on Nerdcore music, all the while down the hall from a Beanbag utopia of DS Pictochat with people drawing from the pool of internet memes like SIHULM, it is apart of modern internet and gamer culture. It's a piece of internet heritage, even for something as small as a 6 word joke. Denying it only serves as a disservice to the internet, and all who look upon it.RoboChocobo 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
God, I give up. nobody ever bothers to read WP:NOTE, do they? but whatever.--Ac1983fan 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the possibility exists that they've read it, and that they disagree with your interpretation of it - astonishing, I know. From my perspective, the Notability aspect only suggests that there's no need for a "SIHULM" ARTICLE - it in NO WAY argues against a mention of the pop culture relevance of "SIHULM" on Mudkip's actual page. Lack of notability does NOT automatically disqualify referencing it (as opposed to making an entire article about it), any more than the millions of pop culture references on other Wiki pages need to be removed simply because they ARE pop culture. In any case, WP:NOTE itself blatantly states that there are times when Notability should be suspended anyway - if a significant number of people are coming to this page to find out what "SIHULM" means, then it belongs here, whether you think so or not. It doesn't need a massive 17 paragraph description explaining every subtle nuance of its meaning and origin - simply mentioning that it IS a popular Internet meme might be enough. Hossenfeffer 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.
This is what the notability says. Your notability argument is invalid, because the fact that the mudkipz meme is not on any verifiable webpage is not required for its inclusion in the article. A seperate article for the meme cannot exist, but it can be included. You should RTFA. As for claiming that it is not important, that is also invalid just by the sheer number of people who are interested in it. That is why the meme should b included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.156.104.130 (talk)
Just merge it. Hell, I came on here just to find out what it meant. I hear it all the time. The intentions of the developers are secondary to the functionality of the website.
No they aren't. They are still upheld, because they contribute to the overall quality of Wikipedia. Having these guidelines prevents this place from being overrun with any content that is merely popular enough to be included. If you would actually read the guidelines, you'd see that for inclusion a piece of information need only be verifiable - meaning a reputable source has said it - it need not be true by some objective standard, for example. Notability is just one guideline that enforces some sort of minimum criteria for inclusion, to prevent everything you can imagine from being thrown on here. Personally I think the rules need to be stricter, laid out more clearly, and much, MUCH more accessible to the average person, so that we can eliminate the simpsons and family guy references on every damn article for one. It doesn't matter that you hear it all the time or come here for it, that's not the kind of reasoning that serves as a good general purpose guideline for inclusion, and that's why you won't find it in the wikipedia guidelines. If you want every stupid meme on the planet, with no verification, and lots of "fag", "furry", "Mom's basement" littering the article (because that's HILARIOUS! It never gets old!), try Encyclopedia Dramatica; And you guys can complain about us "wikifags" who want to enforce some sort of standard at all while you're at it
And yes, there are many articles that also fail to meet the criteria, yet still have pages. Well, they shouldn't be. Your reasoning needs to catch up with the 21st century: This is a wiki, it is a perpetual work in progress, there are always things here that don't belong here. The freedom with which it's edited is both the strength and weakness of this format TheBilly 16:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Christ, just add it somewhere. I came here looking for an explanation as to the history and meaning of the phrase, and I get nothing. I hear and read the damn phrase all the time, and it's really starting to annoy me. An internet craze is most deffinately notable enough for Wikipedia, even if it's not mentioned in any sources you deem reputable. I guerentee I'm not the only one who looked at this article hoping to find something about the phrase... --NukeMTV 08:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Encylcopedia Dramatica" has it, and it's actually correct about where it comes from. (I can't actually link it, you can find the url yourself >>) Now please, we do not need it here.—ウルタプ 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
can somebody explain what this "i herd you liek mudkips" thing is about? While it hasn't been formally published, it is a fairly prominent modern injoke on the internet.
And I don't know what it means.
And I think wikipedia is best if it's A Site In Which People Can Use For Reference On Things They Would Like To Know About instead of being A Big Index Of Everything Formally Published.
Certainly, the meme-driven popularity of Mudkips it's a more prominent attribute of Mudkips than, say, the number of the episode in which mudkip evolves.--Zodberg 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
heh, I came here too looking for an explaination. But even weirder, I came here due to seeing this joke mentioned on wikipedia itself! Yet nothing here to explain it... MathmoTalk 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I too came for an explanation to this meme...and does anyone know how to sign these things?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrickindigo (talk • contribs)
Type ~~~~ to sign posts. It's right there near the top of the page while you're editing. Anyway. Go to a site called "Encyclopedia Dramatica" and search for Mudkip there. (Google it or something; linking there is disabled here.)—ウルタプ 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
screw your guidelines! we all want to know what the hell this phrase means! I come to this site for factual information, so please give!--172.188.145.242 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you open the Encyclopedia Brittanica and expect to find what John said to Susan that made her smack him? Or nearly any story from Snopes (that's the urban legend one, right?)? How about what type of wood George Washington preferred to make his teeth from? No. You'd expect to find material appropriate to an encyclopedia. Even if it's related, even if a lot of people talk about it, it needs to be something reported by a verifiable, reliable source. The "meme" thing is not even as "prominent" as you claim - I spend most of my day on the Internet (not just wiki, before you protest), and I've not heard that the meme exists until I saw that there was an argument on the Mudkip page. Especially, the fact that it is apparently native to message boards - if it was a true meme, that was incorporated into websites or something, maybe it would be "prominent", but right now, it's just like those stupid spam messages on youtube - a recent fad that will die as quickly as it came.KrytenKoro 04:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Liek Mudkips
What do you mean it is not notable enough? It's an everyday saying on 4chan and it has spread to all the chan pages. I've had people ask me what it means. And rather than have to goto a seedy site like urbandictionary, they should be ble to use wikipedia to site this reference. Other reference to internetrelated humor are on wikipedia. Why shouldn't this be on the appropriate page?—167.1.163.100 17:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it seems after reading the responses posted by people that we DO need the reference to the meme here on wikipedia. This isn't about what has been published, it's about things in general. 167.1.163.100 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
While a post has been made in reference to internet culture, I belive a fuller explination is in order. L33t Masta 07:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, the only reason I searched for "Mudkip" was because of "So I herd you liek mudkips"...still not sure what's that about. Apparently, it's something inappropriate. Jumping cheeseCont@ct 10:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well regaurdless it still needs to be mentioned. And just because a couple people don't want it added doesn't mean it shouldn't. It pertains to popular culture and as such should be added. 167.1.163.100 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Some people on Wikipedia are strongly against anything involving 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anything else pertaining to Internet culture. They're a minority on Wikipedia, but at least two or three of them are actually administrators here and have managed to rally some people to support them who actively seek to keep any references to Internets memes they see as involving places like Encyclopedia Dramatica on Wikipedia, as is shown by people trying to keep any reference to the "so i herd u liek mudkips" meme on this page, when it is probably the main reason people visit the page on Mudkip on Wikipedia in the first place. --AlexJohnc3(talk) 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How can you agree with an anon? My 9-month old eskimo/pomeranian puppy's opinion is more valid. In fact, most of the edits on the talk page are by anons. This CRAP doesn't talk about Mudkip as a Pokemon at all. And can somebody please give a link to somewhere that has this information and is a reputable source? Without one, that whole section would violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as none of that information is sourced or can be linked back to a site and should be permanently REMOVED!!!. --05:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
Okay, that's fine with me. Also, I'd like to note that you can get many more results, including many of the variations on "so i herd you liek mudkips" by searching for "so i herd" in Google, for example, instead of the entire phrase: http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22so+i+herd%22 . 23,600 results. --Alexc3(talk) 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So what does that mean as far as it's inclusion in the article; are we gonna leave it in or take it out? I didn't think it passed WP:VERIFY. --15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
Right now I think we should leave it out. --Alexc3(talk) 17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, since a large number, if not the majority, of people coming to this page want to know about the Internet meme, we could instead put {{not verified}} in that section. --Alexc3(talk) 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see what everyone's issue with that section of the article being there. It's just a pop culture reference. I also see no point to putting {{not verified}} in the section since "so i herd you liek mudkips" is just a saying, it's not a fact. If the fact that tons of people online use it in forums, etc. isn't enough to get this to stay then what is? Having this section is no different than saying that something became popular, since all you have to back up something being popular is maybe a lot of people bought whatever we're talking about.
Ditto 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not create (and link to) a separate internet memes page? This (and other) page/pages would keep its/their integrity while also educating those who came here searching for info on the meme. --Demeth 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a very good idea. --Alexc3(talk) 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have fully protected the page to allow discussion. Please remove the template in 7 days, after the protection expires. -- ReyBrujo 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to add an =/=Internet Meme=/= part for this article. The only reason I even wikipedia'd Mudklip was to see what this whole "so i herd u liek mudklips" was about. Xihix 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I LIEK MUDKIPZ
mudkipz rock. We should integrate the internet meme into this page. The reasons are as follows : 1) who decides what's significant enough to be mentioned or not? OTHER internet memes are mentioned on wikipedia, like lemon party and goatse. It's UNFAIR and INCONSISTENT that mudkipz should be left out. 2) there was some guy down there slating anonymous posters. i think this smacks of snobbery by wiki-addicts. Much love, anonymous poster. (82.27.209.38 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
AGREED!!!!!!!! mudkips in the game is amlost overlooked by legions of anonymous internet *chan users, if you even mention mudkips around a majority of 18-24 year old males on the internet, the most common response is 'so i hurd you liek them'. if this doesnt count as notability, then whats the point of cracking down on a service designed to inform/edjumicate? those of you who feel the need to edit this part of this article should be ashamed of yourselves. that being said, i think this is an important and integral part of this article. mudkips solely are not of enough note overall in relation to the pokemon series, certainly not enough for a full article, when others feel the urge to police wikipedia to the point of marking articles for deletion in the works that are in the process of gaining cited materials to become reputable sources as part of wikipedia's database. in effect this is part of what keeps me from editing/making an account on wikipedia as a whole. love, shawn phase (70.16.13.195 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))
How can you prove that if somebody mentions Mudkip, the most common response is "'so i hurd you liek them'?" Even if that whole crap is true, it needs to be sourced to be included. And I have not seen a source anywhere.
And "edjumicate" isn't a word. --Ksy92003 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the user was kidding. --Alexc3(talk) 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think "Ksy92003" has a problem with "humor." --70.18.4.93 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't got a problem. That's my standard response whenever I know that somebody is saying something sarcastically. Either way, for it to be included there needs to be some source saying that it is majorly important and proves that it is an "integral part of this article." --Ksy92003 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This Wikipedian is 16 years, 9 months, and 14 days old --71.225.47.191 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to bring my age into the situation here. How old I am has absolutely nothing to do with this "internet meme." Keep that factor out of this please. --Ksy92003 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your immaturity has everything to do with your ability (or lack thereof) to wield editorial control in situations such as these. --70.119.128.166 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
One can be under eighteen and still mature. She's been one of the ones who's shown any restraint in this situation. The anon army, however, has not. Cease the trolling or I go back to WP:RFPP. -Jeske(v^_^v) 19:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
So i herd sum things.
Should the "so i herd u liek mudkips" internet meme be mentioned here? It's a rather large internet phenomenon - not a paragraph, just a quick mention in Trivia or something. 74.119.23.212 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Many people think it should be. In fact, it's probably the reason most people even come to this page. --Alexc3(talk) 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly came here to read about the meme. Encyclopedia Dramatica is fine for a laugh, but it's not a place to go to when you want facts, which is why I came here rather than going to ED. -- 70.18.4.93 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A simple mention in the trivia page is more than welcome. I can't imagine the harm in a simple sentance stating it as a 4chan meme.--Piemanmoo 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, seriously. How is this so-called "so i herd u liek mudkips" quote notable enough to be included in the article? If I said something like "so i herd u liek cubones" somewhere online, would it be notable to be included on Cubone? I think not. And just because somebody came to the page just to read about something they found online, that doesn't mean that it should be here. I just can't understand why anybody would think that it should be in the article. It doesn't contribute any worthwhile information to the article. It doesn't talk about Mudkip at all. How does it contribue to the article? Here's the answer: IT DOESN'T !!!. The article is about "Mudkip", not some "internet phenomenon." --Ksy92003 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, ksy, a lot of what wikipedia is useful for, for a good number of people, is finding connections between different subjects. If internet memes are notable in and of themselves, then surely "i herd u liek mudkips" deserves at the very least a link on the "related links" section. If you'd like to see an instance where internet memes have been introduced into Wikipedia, I suggest you see Slashdot's section on "Culture". Every meme has its own independent page- just because a meme originated on 4chan (has now spread to all corners of popular internet culture) doesn't mean it's not notable. It's like you're erasing 4chan from the history of the internet while slashdot remains privileged. News flash, Slashdot's not all that special. Slashdot spawned the GNAA, which is a more efficient band of trolls than 4chan could ever hope to be. -66.100.35.58 21:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
GNAA couldn't troll a tolkien novel, let alone the internet. ≈ Maurauth(09F9) 21:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in some way, I mean, look at how much vandalism there has been saying 'i herd yuo liek mudkeipz' it surely is notable. ≈ Maurauth(talktome)(wha?) 11:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The difference between Slashdot's memes and here is that for Slashdot's memes, there are sources to backup the information, which is notable. The information there is the origin, why it's used, and where it appears in other media. The Mudkip meme doesn't have that same notability at all. It's just something that appeared on the internet one day. There isn't anything anywhere that says what it means, where it came from, or any sources to say that it appears in any other media. With Dio Brando's "cry", it is on that page because it is notable. It actually appears in the medium that the character is in, that is to say manga / anime. Since that "cry" appears in those media, and because that "cry" is a part of the character, that is why it has it's own section. Do Mudkip go around asking "do u liek mudkips?" I don't think so. Does Mudkip go around saying "so i herd u liek them?" I don't think so. Since the meme isn't used by Mudkip or in any of the media that it appears in (anime, television series), nor is it a physical, biological characteristic of Mudkip, I don't believe it should be mentioned on the page. --Ksy92003 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
See the bottom of this page "Internet Meme" for my response. ≈ Maurauth(nemesis) 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop !!!
Alright. I know this comment isn't about the article at all, but I don't have time to put it on your respective talk pages. Would everybody please stop insulting me? I really don't appreciate it. All I'm trying to do is improve the article, and I really don't like it that you're insulting me, and recently my family, just because you disagree with me. There is a civil way of resolving issues around here, and insulting other editors isn't that way. So please stop or I will be forced to take action, including possibly blocking/banning you, removing your editing privileges. Thanks. --Ksy92003 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions on the issue of the mudkip meme are irrational and against the spirit of Wikipedia. I admit that I haven't read through every word of Wikipedia policy, but if a significant number of visitors to this page are seeking information about a reference to a meme they saw somewhere, then I think that is a compelling reason to include some mention of that in the article. I understand that you dislike internet memes, and I sympathize, but they have become entrenched in internet culture, and as such, they are worthy of a at least a couple sentences on Wikipedia. You need to look at this objectively, and you need to stop interpreting criticism of your ideas as a personal attack. You seem far too eager to censor. You should step back for a moment and think about what the purpose of Wikipedia is. --Mustelid 03:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
really, TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE:
the meme "so I herd u liek mudkipz" is as notable as a freaking mudkip. If you're gonna have an article about each individual Pokemon you can have a little subsection in this article mentioning the meme. --Whimsickal 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
this is something i was just going to say, but somebody beat me to it. we can have 800+ articles about a game, a yes, multi-billion dollar franchise, but we can't make space in one page to discuss the internet culture's derived entertainment from it?
These edits...
... Are done by the community. Why are you working in the opposite direction of the community by removing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.224.208.5 (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Here, here! Wikipedia needs to change its policies.
WIkipedia is an Encyclopedia. Just because people want something included doesn't mean it should be. Zazaban 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
But it's been proven time and time again that it's notable enough to warrant a brief mention. It just keeps getting removed.--209.243.31.233 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This really isn't the thing people look up in an encyclopedia. Try google. I removed your rude comment as well. Zazaban 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides, nobody is even going to care six months from now. Zazaban 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, but a Mudkip itself isn't something you would look for in an encyclopedia either. Smileman66 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
MUDKIPPZZZZZZ
So, what was the actual origin of the meme? We might as well put it here; there's no rule against putting information on the talk page. It's the only reason I came to the article. --80.47.17.229 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright well, here it goes (the myth-story/internet meme starting rumor or copy pasta). This guy posted on a /b/, in probably 4chan's, that he asked this mentally ill student if he liked mudkips. In response the mentally ill student stated "MUDKIPS? I LOVE MUDKIPS!!!." He then grabbed a plush doll the poster was carrying and began to hump it after pulling his pants down. Then a girl saw it and this girl happened to be in a relationship with a jock. The jock and his friend began to beat the mentally ill student. Security came and everyone involved got in trouble. The poster got away with out any trouble. To end his post, the poster stated, "So, /b/, I ask you just one thing: Do you liek mudkipz?" 68.229.108.34 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This small section of the talk page cleared things out for me. Aye, Wikipedia should loosen up its guidelines a tad bit. I'm forced to goto ED for information dang it. --Koheiman 06:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is rediculous. I just don't get why they are so anal about it. 84.48.95.242 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Internet Meme
Firstly, it isn't notable for it's own page. All the vandalism to this page, and 'so i herd...' postings on this discussion page suggest that anyone looking for the mudkip meme, or talking about it will look on this page. It's hardly much to argue about for just the inclusion of a relevant category. ≈ Maurauth(nemesis) 15:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There will not be mass pandemonium and cataclysms opening up that spew the demons of hell itself just because someone writes "A popular internet meme..." on Wikipedia (unless of course, the objectors thrown a giant fit). 65.6.213.12 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To me this suggests the rules need a bit of tweaking. Either blanket ban all similar memes unless they are mentioned in authoritative print media - or allow things that only exist on the internet based on internet evidence of notability (ie lots and lots of Google hits, or well written and widely read blog posts). If O RLY gets a whole article because it was in some student newssheet, probably with a much lower readership than thousands of blogs, I think WP can stand a line or two about some other popular memes. The meme is why I came to this article anyway, not that I'm any great guide to notability :-) Moyabrit 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was on Conan, the O RLY?. as per mudkip, i'm pretty sure it's sorta popular. got a few hits in bash.org, a popular "last week" litmus.
Really, not including the meme on this page is utterly ridiculous. Personally, I hadn't even heard of a Mudkip before the meme--and I'm sure I'm not the only one.--72.130.143.25 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people may not of heard of Kazakhstan before Borat, but that doesn't mean it merits a mention on the Wikipedia article. Zazaban 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is very depressing when I am forced to go to ED for information, isn't Wikipedia supposed to inform people? It's completely failing that in this article, it needs to mention the meme.--194.80.204.28 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If that were the case, then we would also be forced to include other memes involving Pokes on less stringent grounds - see Talk:Bidoof. Virtually all the edits there have been either by myself or anons like you trying to get the "Bidoof Derp" meme (that's the name I'm giving it, hence the quotes) into the article, and its evolved form, Bibarel, has been vandalized in a similar manner. -Jeske(v^_^v) 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the reference should at least be mentioned. I'm sure a lot of people come to this page trying to figure out what the whole mudkip "internet culture reference" is all about. I know that's why I looked up this page. There's definitely a right and a wrong way to mention the reference. I like how answers.com phrased it best. There's no need to explain the meme. Mentioning it will suffice. We have a wiki on All your base are belong to us and even Leeroy Jenkins. In fact, there's an entire wikipedia category on Internet memes. Why hold out on Mudkip?
To clarify, I agree that the page should remain locked to most edits, for obvious reasons. This wiki should be an informative article, not a board for vandalism. This is no reason to ignore an piece of culture surrounding Mudkip. Marigold 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Leeroy and AYB have gotten external press and/or have been used or referened in real life. This hasn't. -Jeske(v^_^v) 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Oh, and Swampert should not have been targeted by this. This is turning into the "Derp" all over a-fragging-gain... -Jeske(v^_^v) 00:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that, aside from the thousands of results, pictures, or whatever, I have found many youtube videos referencing this meme, including a 4chan user calling in to the Tom Green show. This probably isn't a notable source, but I would appreciate it if someone could tell me whether or not this is considered acceptable as one. Sandwiches99 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Header
Before the discussion was deleted by a spammer, there was a conversation going on about how adding a short quip about the internet phenomenon wouldn't hiurt anything.
My argument for adding is this: The second result on Google for "Mudkips" is the now defunct ED page on the internet meme. Obviously, it's something worth mentioning.
Second of all, O RLY? has a page. There is no real verifiable way to say where it came from, who orginated it, etc., but it has a page anyway. How can someone say it's ok to have an O RLY? page, but not a tiny piece of trivia on the Mudkip's internet status? The only people that really object to it just seem to hate the fad in general. 65.6.213.12 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Restored. – mcy1008 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes or no
Is there a procedure for deciding if the whole "I herd u liek..." thing gets a mention? I know straw polls are a Bad Thing cause they're too easy to mess with, but then how do we decide? Right now everyone is posting here, most of the posts seem in favour of putting it in a trivia section at the bottom, but nothing gets done. I'll wait a day or two for suggestions, but otherwise will just be bold and add it myself :-) Moyabrit 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There is - if the meme has been referenced in popular culture or has external press from a neutral source (such as the New York Times), then it can be added, but not before. -Jeske(v^_^v) 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the Tom Green show considered popular culture? If so, I can show you guys a youtube video. [1]Sandwiches99 04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Meme Sources
Lets make a list so Ksy92003 will stop deleting the meme (which won't work anyway because anonymous is legion)
http://www.google.com/search?q=mudkips
1st result is this page
next 7 results are about the meme "so i herd u liek mudkips"
1 nonsense amazon page
1 pokemon episode guide
This is completely different. I was hoping to put it up long enough just to get the anons to shut up and go away. Then we could have removed it...--Ac1983fan 11:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh and as a side note... this discussion has been going on for a year! And its not like its gonna matter when this gets merged...--Ac1983fan 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That isn't going to placate the anons; once removed, they WILL readd it, regardless of how long it's been up. And, actually, both this situation and the Serebii mud are similar: Anons wanted somethiong in an article, were adding it in either unsourced or with unusable sources, and trying to make us do so by begging on the talk page. And, actually, this *will* matter even when merged - anons will keep adding it to Mudkip's section. -Jeske(v^_^v) 15:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm jsut pissed cause anons were spamming my talk pae and this talk page for a while, and i jsut wanted them to shut up/--Ac1983fan 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried it. HC tried it. you tried it. they don't listen!--Ac1983fan 16:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"In terms they will understand", meaning that if they wanna spam their reasons to add it, spam your reasons for keeping it out and, if they do add it, leave a kind message on their talk page telling them WHY the meme should not be added (WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS). If they keep adding it, break out vandalism templates, because they aren't going to listen. -Jeske(v^_^v) 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
They don't care about policy... Many people have shown them many times why it can't be added. and it's not vandilism, I don't no what it would be called, becuase they arent trying to mess up wikipedia, they are trying to improve it.-Ac1983fan 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, repeated violations of WP:NOT and continuing to add unsourced information IS vandalism. In fact, the {{uw-unsourced}} line of templates becomes {{uw-vandalism4}} after they disregard the first three warnings. Further, what they've been adding recently isn't even about the meme. It's simply the title added in a disruptive manner, and warrants {{uw-vandalism}} or {{uw-bv}}. -Jeske(v^_^v) 17:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there some policy about not going overboard with strict adhereance to the letter of some policy? Seems to me that this is a few strict people versus hundreds of people who want the meme listed. Nobody denies the meme is popular knowledge, it's just that no peer reviewed publication will touch it. I understand why, and along the same lines I think part of the reason they are deleting is to censor the 'mental retard humping a plush doll' mention, so maybe we should censor it to make it more appealing to them.
also, why is the page protected? someone is using their power to get their way with the article. i dont think its right.
I think we should add a 'content is disputed, see discussion page' thing. (but I can't, someone locked their version)
It can't? what's the point of "Ignore all rules" if there are rules that supersede it? That being said, I also came here to learn about the meme. Let's face it, it's no "All your base" but it's still ver prevalent, even outside of pokemon boards and gaming sites more generally. So what if it started on 4chan? Also, reviewing this talk page, it seems that there's only one or two people who are seriously objecting to the addition. I'm pretty sure this is the very definition of an edit war. --IsaacGS 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No - I'm not reverting the actual article, this is naught but a bad attempt at Monty Python. The fact is, the reason why IAR doesn't apply in this case is because, while it may be prevalent, it does not have external press nor does it have any neutral secondary sources - both of which violate the core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability, of which Wikipedia:Reliable Sources is an ally. All Your Base Are Belong To Us has gotten external press, and its uses are well documented. We would treat any memes showing up at Newgrounds the same way as memes showing up on GameFAQs or the chans.
Furthermore, before you accuse me of editwarring, remember that editwarring needs two or more editors to constantly revert one another. -Jeske(v^_^v) 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars
To tell you the truth, I've never even heard of this cartoon creature until I stalked a vandal over here and the article ended up on my watch list. So I'll declare my neutrality in this because I really don't give a heck.
Looking at the article's history, I've noticed that several editors are skirting awfully close to the edge of WP:3RR, which does supersede the other policies and guidelines you all have been quoting. Adding in the meme is clearly not vandalism, rather it is a content dispute that's shaping up into one of the dumber edit wars I've seen in a while.
My own solution to this would be to slap up an {{Unreferencedsection}} tag on it, wait around for a week or two, then if nobody posts a citation acceptable per WP:V, then delete it. If it instead gets a good citation, it's a part of the article.
Just my two cents on the issue. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been several discussions, and not a single discussion led to a source provided. - A Link to the Past(talk) 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I missed the discussion in the archives before I wrote the above. I do still think the whole thing deserves a write up at WP:LEW. As an aside, someone might want to go through this diff to find what happened to all the citations that have gone missing since this article achieved GA status, unless the merge you mentioned on your talk page will make the matter moot. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs)
Idea
I think someone should add "so i think u liek mudkips" to the article. i think its funny.
Have you been paying any attention to this talk page? Just because it's funny doesn't mean we can add it. -Jeske(v^_^v) 05:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
WHO DELETED THE STORY
I put the original muskips story here for reference and someone deleted it. What right do you have to do that? Its important.
If you put it in the article, realize that you need to back it up with a source. There's no middle ground. Either it's adequately sourced or it's gone. -Jeske(v^_^v) 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
True; as we are an encyclopedia, anything we put on Wikipedia must be sourced or sourcable. We can't source 4chan because it doesn't pass as a credible, reliable source. Discussion forums aren't credible sources for inclusion in Wikipedia's articles. --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
So in essence what you're saying is that urban legends cannot be added to town pages either because the old people that tell them are not credable199.126.32.245 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No... what I'm saying is that something needs to be cited form a reliable source to be credible. A discussion board/forum site isn't considered credible because anybody can make something up and put it on there.
Take this scenario: say I was to put something on a discussion site. Then, everybody else repeated it. Would it then be credible enough to be included if it's something that was simply "made up" one day? See WP:NFT; "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day." It takes time to build up an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't for something that somebody just said one day and others repeated it. If it were in the news, however, and was considered a "national phenomenon," then that would be completely different. However, that isn't the case; this isn't in the news anywhere nor has been reported on any non-forum website anywhere. Since there isn't a credible site we can go to to reference it, since there isn't a credible source, the information itself (in this case the story) isn't credible nor valid information; it's not valid for inclusion within the article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
199.: the Old-timer's bench is not credible, but a (town) historian would be, if he's neutral. -Jeske(v^_^v) 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
He isn't credible because there isn't any way of verifying that what he is saying really is an urban legend. It needs to be written down as a secondary source to be credible. Not to say that it isn't credible already because he said it, but again, I could just say something... I could make up an "urban legend" about Long Beach, California if I wanted to, but it wouldn't be credible enough for an encyclopedia because I could've made it up. It needs to be backed up by a secondary source to be credible and Wikipedia needs to give credit to that secondary source. --Ksy92003 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What you don't seem to get is that the the truth of the story itself is irrelevant. You may not be able to provide an eye witness for the events of "Hansel and Gretel", but that doesn't mean the story itself is not a pervasive entity and worthy of inclusion in various places on WP. There are many sources on the internet that contain the mudkips story, and as one of the only memes about pokemon, it is noteworthy. In this case, it's not necessary to verify the truth of the story because it doesn't need to be true.Hexrei 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your argument cannot be used, Hexrei, because it is not pertinent to the article, and has quite a bit of sexual material in it. Secondly, nobody here wants to add the meme to improve the article - they want to add it to use Wikipedia as a billboard (WP:NOT#IINFO). Sorry. -Jeske(v^_^v) 19:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
So, I did some Google searches today.
I got thousands of results for terms such as "so i herd", and "mudkipz", among other variations of the phrase that has become a rather popular internet meme. Why no mention? It meets the notability requirements, without a doubt.
See WP:GHITS. Just because you got thousands of results doesn't necessarily mean anything w/o a reliable source.-Jeske(v^_^v) 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon's behavior
I just got this rant accusing me of "racism" against Mudkips from the same anon that vandalized this page last. His post shows he doesn't understand why 4chan can't be used (anonymity) and that he is failing to practice what he preaches (accusing me of being overreaching, he's doing a helluva good job just staying inside civility boundaries). -Jeske(v^_^v) 03:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I am the anon that posted the gentlemanly reply to Jeske. I am not a vandal. I simply have a strong affinity for Mudkips, one might even say I leik them, and I loathe to see a mudkip treated with prejudice. I understand your argument exquisitely, the thrust of mine is that yours is not sufficient. I will, to defend myself against these slanderous accusations, post said rebuttal to Jeske. Let the users decide my fate. I am confident they will see the truth of the matter.
The article you cited doesn't have any relevance to your assumptions. Since you are insistent on ignoring that you are A. In the clear minority, and B. Not within the rules or spirit of Wikipedia, I will go through this article and perhaps illuminate this whole mess for you.
First and foremost, the article begins by stating "this is a guideline, not a policy". This article does not give you the authority to stonewall the majority of users contributing to a page; it does not even mandate that we follow the policies which are laid out in it.
Point the second: The article states "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." multiple users have done this for the Mudkip meme. The article goes on to state that "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material", ergo, the task of finding reliable sources is not your responsibility at all, but that of those who added the content. I repeat what I said before: you have overstepped your bounds.
Thirdly, section one, entitled "What is a reliable source," defines said sources as credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context... The chan community is the authoritative source when it comes to memes and memetics. I challenge you to find anybody who knows more about memes than a Channer.
Point the fourth: I would like to refer you to Wikipedia:neutral point of view. The first section clearly states "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth". Furthermore, it goes on to state "the neutral point of view is... neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint... When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
In conclusion, I would urge you to rethink the extent that you are warranted to edit Mudkips, especially in light of the policies in question. Furthermore, I would suggest you give Wikipedia:Neutral point of view a second perusal, especially the sections on Bias.
I have recently noticed a strong wave of anti mudkip sentiment amongst a minority of users and editors of this article. I, according to the ancient traditions and customs of Chandom, have chosen to remain anonymous, and thus, I have been branded as a vandal. A vandal I may be, if that means leiking Mudkips, and ever striving for their freedom from prejudice, and the heavy hand of Wikipedia.
Thus it is that I find myself at this juncture, defending myself and Mudkips everywhere; I have deemed it necessary to compose a short treatise in that regard.
The users Jeske and ksy92003, though they be in the clear minority, have consistently stonewalled the inclusion of the Mudkip meme into the article, against all Wikipedean law and commonsense. Above, I have already thoroughly rebutted Jeske's claims. After said rebuttal, he accused me of bias, although it is clear for all to see that I was arguing only in the spirit of neutrality, that hallowed wikipedian virtue.
Jeske's second claim was that Mudkips are in violation of What wikipedia is not, though he has failed to justify this claim. I, personally see nothing relevant in that article to the debate at hand, except perhaps the section entitled "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy."
His third claim was that the meme is not sourcable. I had already proved this wrong in detail with my previous rebuttal, which can be found above.
Ksy92003 then entered the debate on behalf of Jeske, claiming "For instance, if I created some story about the San Antonio Spurs that was completely made up, it has the same reliablity as the Mudkips story." This, we can see, is clearly wrong. If one man, Ksy92003 invents something, it is frivilous, whereas, if a hundred men, or five hundred men invent something, it becomes a cultural phenomenon, sometimes reffered to as a meme. Certainly a cultural phenomenon deserves a place in an encyclopedia?
Furthermore, Ksy92003 goes on to cite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, where it states Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable. Unfortunately for Ksy92003, the nature of this verifiability remains a question. Anyone can go to 4chan.org and verify the meme themselves. It is a well known cultural phenomena, appearing there frequently.
In addition, in order to gain a better understanding of the matter, I would direct Ksy92003 to Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially the section entitled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves." This section very clearly states "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used..." Mudkips are a meme that is part of 4chan. Any reference to the meme is an implicit nod to 4chan. Thusly, any article referring to the meme, is, by association, referring to 4chan.
The article then goes on to list several conditions which must be adhered to if said information is used, the most important being "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." The meme in question is constantly being written, at a verifiable source, 4chan.org, by the 4chan.org community.
Thus, in conclusion, I will not rescind my claims. I must act in accordance with my conscience and the clear wikipedian laws on this matter. The racist actions against Mudkips, and their continued exclusion from memedom, are not within the spirit or laws of Wikipedia. The laws themselves support the inclusion of the meme. Those struggling against the chains of oppression, are often chafed by them, though they may someday be free. The fate of Mudkips everywhere is in question. I beg you sirs, do not deny them their memedom.
I hate to ruin your party, but you DO realize that you cannot attribute a meme to a whole site? You have to say who its author(s) is/are beyond a questionable doubt - an impossibility due to 4chan's being anonymous - or you can't add it per the GFDL.
Second, this is not the article about 4chan. Your argument per WP:V does not apply here, and I note that you skipped over some of it. I will quote the whole subsection, bolding the relevant:
In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libelous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
and:
Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as...
(the rest of it is a list that does not apply in this circumstance).
Third, the meme fails WP:NOT#IINFO, as it is extraneous information which, while well-liked, does nothing fo further the understanding of the subject of the article (just because it has a meme doesn't mean it helps the layperson understand it).
In closing, I will state that just because 4chan created a meme doesn't mean it's in Wikipedia. Whup-de-fragging-doo. Just because someone from Newgrounds makes a meme doesn't necessarily mean it becomes Wikipedia material, same goes for GameFAQs people (see Talk:Bidoof).
It looks to me as though this anon is caught in a conflict of interest, referring to him-/herself as being one of the people involved in the meme (read). It is discouraged to use Wikipedia "to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals". --Brandon Dilbeck 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPS applies to the article itself. That is, if we had a Mudkip memes article, then the source could be used. It doesn't apply here. hbdragon88 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It still can't be used. 4chan isn't a publishable website, as anybody can add stuff to that website at will. Because of the ability for anybody to say anything they want, it loses credibility as a source because anybody can say whatever they want, even if it's absolutely false. Under NO circumstances can any website that can be edited by anybody in the whole world be used as a credible, reliable source. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, cool. I just came by to give some moral support, as Jeske requested it. hbdragon88 23:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense, not everything that goes on 4chan becomes incredibly popular for no reason. This is one of the bigger memes from the site too; and other memes are placed on the Wikipages they relate too. I'm willing to bet that 80+% of the people that search this Pokemon up come to read up on the meme. Since ED doesn't really explain anything, it should be posted here with a reasonable explanation of what the meme is about. I also think it's pretty ridiculous to give every last Pokemon a page(Because they're really notable, right?), yet not keep a sentence about it on Wikipedia. LikuX 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, LikuX, I suggest you read through WT:POKE's last few archives and through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. They *won't* have their own pages much longer. Second, the main problem has been with sourcing; we can't find any reliable source to corroborate what this anon has been pushing down my throat (and another has been threatening me to do on pain of death). -Jeske(v^_^v) 16:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. It should still be mentioned I believe; same with Desu and Wrrryyy. It's not the games, but it's still popular. It might not be sourced directly to it's origins, but the site would do just fine. LikuX 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, there is no reliable source for it, and 4chan is automatically excluded as a source per WP:SPS. We couldn't use 4chan to source anything unless it were in the 4chan article itself. -Jeske(v^_^v) 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So why are they those memes on Wikipedia since 4chan can't be sourced, and I'm sure neither meme is sourced. They're in their respective games, but that doesn't make it a meme. LikuX 05:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Bring it up on the respective talk pages; I don't go out of my way to involve myself intimately with memes. If I did, I wouldn't have as much time to create custom D&D material. -Jeske(v^_^v) 08:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for lieking mudkips. I found nothing. this is truly a dark day for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.46.96 (talk)
PLEASE NOTE: The original treatise has been submitted to BJAODN (Bad Joke and Other Deleted Nonsense). Congrats!!! --The Raven's Apprentice 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I just now noticed that the meme lost an AfD debate for much the same reasons as myself and Ksy have pointed out, plus lack of notability thru the Google Test. -Jeske(v^_^v) 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Um...hello?
Hi, I'm wondering something, in the gamespot forum site, there are people with pictures of mudkips in it, and investagating, I checked other forums and they've all got the same mudkips in it. Avatars, signatures etc.
Whenever I try to find out what its all about, people just tell me that they heard I like them. Can I get a straight answer please?--70.19.105.174 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's stemming from a 4chan meme (read above). Also, the name of the meme is "so i heard you liek mudkipz" [sic]. -Jeske(v^_^v) 06:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
original mudkipz post, because someone needed to link it. It's not work safe, so don't click if you don't liek naughty wurdz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.147.90 (talk)
It was written in the story as "So I heard you like Mudkips", never as "So I herd you liek Mudkipz". So there must have been a corruption somewhere. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The disputes over the meme are starting to spread to the Swampert article, where anons are adding it because Mudkip's semi'd. -Jeske(v^_^v) 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Like "so i herd u liek swampertz" or something like that? ButNotReally 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the same ol' SIHYLM. -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
What would Wikipedia do without these middle-schoolers who tirelessly protect the integrity of the Mudkips article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.175.78 (talk)
If that's (i.e. "these middle-schoolers") aimed at those of us opposing the meme, I suggest you change your tone to be a bit more civil. -Jeske(v^_^v) 23:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He's incorrect now tho. I'm a freshman, not a middle schooler.--Ac1983fan 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Compromise
In the interest of fairness the "i herd you liek mudkipz" meme should be a different article entirely, thus avoiding all this pointless drama and stupidity.Oldzygote 08:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It will be speedied as recreated content. It has already lost an AfD debate. -Jeske(v^_^v) 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides, there just doesn't seem to be any good reliable sources about it. Maybe when the Wall Street Journal releases an article about how the meme is changing the world economy, then it'll be notable. But as for now, there just isn't anything worth citing. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're being sarcastic, Brandon. But yeah. It isn't worth citing nor is it notable until it is (at the smallest scale) locally mentioned in a published news report or has an affect of any sort on the general population. So far, the only people it has (supposedly) affected is the general 4chan population, which isn't a significant affect to grant inclusion in the article even if it somehow were citable.
It hasn't affected a notable-enough population to warrant it being mentioned in the article. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't being sarcastic; I was being facetious. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually had to go to Dictionary.com to look up facetious. Anyway, I highly doubt an internet meme will change global economy or have any sort of impact wide-scale or not. But it is, I suppose, possible. Gotta keep the faith =) --Ksy92003(talk) 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Mudkips IS notable enough for all that. The reason it isnt picked up is becuase "mental retard raping a plushie" isnt something that can be written in polite society. How many citable articles are there about rimjobs?
That, most certainly, isn't the issue. See WP:NOT#CENSORED, which says that something on Wikipedia doesn't have to be written "politely" if it contributes to the article. The reason it isn't mentioned is because, ever since the vandalism occurred on this article, nobody has been able to give us a qualified source to prove that the meme has affected people in any sort of way. Nobody has been affected with the exception of people from 4chan. It hasn't been covered by any news report. If it hasn't been officially mentioned by a qualifiable source, then it can't be included (see WP:VERIFY). --Ksy92003(talk) 01:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
He was talking about why the New York Times isn't writing anything about mudkips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.53.240 (talk)
The AfD debate is over a year old. The meme has exploded im popularity since then. Thats like denying Lindsey Lohan an article because she only did a few cereal commercials when she was 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.53.240 (talk)
Just because it's popular does not mean we can use it. Notability, NOT popularity, please. And, BTW, 4chan is NEVER a reliable source unless it's the 4chan article itself (anonymity).
Second, Lindsey Lohan has done other things since those cereal commercials.-Jeske(v^_^v) 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Meme/questionable sources
Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:
it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
There you have it: sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves.
Since Lieking mudkips is a 4chan fad, 4chan may be used as its source.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.53.240 (talk)
I don't know why I keep returning here just to repeat myself like a broken record !!! 4chan can't be used as a source because it can be changed by anybody at any time, similar to Wikipedia. Since it is always being changed, anybody can say whatever they want. Additionally, everybody on 4chan is anonymous, meaning that if they said something, even if it were considered "reliable," they are anonymous and they can't be credited for it. We can't cite 4chan because it can be edited by anybody and it isn't a published source. Next time I have to say this, I'm actually gonna count how many times I've said the same thing. I believe this is my 24th edit to this discussion page, all about the meme. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(You have made 26 edits to this talk page.) --Brandon Dilbeck 18:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. That's because when I last remembered checking how many there were, that was before I had commented in the above section. Oh well, close enough. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPS's loophole does not apply in this case - this is not the 4chan article. -Jeske(v^_^v) 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You argument is invalid. Thats like saying you can only use CNN.com to report on CNN.com's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.55 (talk)
CNN is reliable (it has editorial oversight, source transparency, and is not anonymous), and I'm about to take this whole mess to WP:RFC if this baiting does not cease. You're now starting to argue for the sake of argument. -Jeske(v^_^v) 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Dont forget to include the pages of supressed arguments in the "archive" which is conveniently hidden in the mess of infoboxes at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.55 (talk)
Jeske and Ksy92003 are being trolled on this discussion page by 4channers for fun, and they keep feeding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.55 (talk)
And said 4channers are about to be taken to WP:RFC. -Jeske(v^_^v) 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
SHUT UP. IM SICK OF 4CHAN, I HATE YOU GUYS. ILL NEVER LET YOUR MEME ONTO WIKIPEDIA. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC) —Note: The preceding comment was added by 64.40.60.55 (talk) in the guise of Ksy92003 (talk)
Wow. That was the worse (as in trying) case of imping ever.
I'm uninvolved in this dispute and I'm going to state it clear: If you can find a reliable source independent of 4chan, then it can be included. For this purpose, other message boards (such as GameFAQ's Board 8) are considered unreliable - they are anyway. But if, say, Anil Dash, blogged about it, or it was on Yahoo's news then it can be included. Will(talk) 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The basic issue is that the meme HAS gone beyond 4chan. People come to the page looking for information about the meme who have never heard of the originating site. (That's how I came to the page) There's the trollers, and there's those just trying to present information to the people looking for it. The meme's obviously been around for a while, and there's a "rules-lawyering" attitude present with the people opposing mentioning the meme at all. They even state themselves in the thread that it originated in 4chan. The meme's been around for over a year at this point, and Dattebayo's pokemon fansubs have the meme inserted into the opening credits. Encyclopedias are used to find information on a subject, and that's the reason people want to insert it: to give people access to information. Not because they're interested in trashing the article. 2 distinct groups, 2 distinct goals. Is there really any doubt that the information on the meme's origin is ACCURATE? If every article needed to follow every rule, IAR wouldn't exist. But this is a case where providing information to users trumps following the rule to the letter. This isn't a subject that will be the topic of research papers. It's something where people will pop in, find out where it came from, and move on.72.66.13.45 08:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There is, however, a problem with your argument - We are not a collection of miscellany. My goal is to make sure that the information is properly sourced so that if somebody does come by, they won't delete it for having no source. I don't object to mentioning the meme, however, IAR can't apply here because it is a controversial topic, which IAR is useless against (controversial edits must seek consensus first).
Further, people aren't just going to come by and look at it. In terms of popularity with vandals, anything involving Pokémon period nears the top of the list (along with Penis and George W. Bush). Adding it may also exacerbate situations, because there is already a 4channer smear campaign against myself and User:Ksy92003 BECAUSE of the meme.
And as for your argument that Mudkip isn't the topic of research papers, realize that neither is Final Fantasy VI, Digimon, etc. Maybe a few edicts or fatwas, but not research papers. However, we still have articles on Final Fantasy, we still have articles on Digimon, and we still have articles on other topics whose only exposure to research papers is when Wiki-editors create an article for them here or on a Wikia wiki. -Jeske(v^_^v) 08:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You've made another statement lumping in vandals with the meme. Vandalism is going to occur, but the fact that it is occurring is completely irrelevant to whether it goes in the article or not. Swampert being vandalized has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the mudkip article, and whether or not a change will incite more vandalism is a factor that shouldn't have a thing to do with inclusion or exclusion. "Adding it may also exacerbate situations, because there is already a 4channer smear campaign against myself and User:Ksy92003 BECAUSE of the meme." - How on earth do you know the vandals are 4channers? I came to this discussion without having ever visited 4chan, and I suspect the same is true of many others. You're getting attacked because you're the 2 public faces of the opposition to the meme's inclusion.
And Dattebayo's fansub of Pokemon D/P ep2- downloaded by 50k users- Starts with a credits page with the phrase "So I herd u liek Mudkip." in the bottom right corner. Is that enough for inclusion? dunno. But it's something. 72.66.13.45 09:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that vandals were linked to the meme, I was saying that vandals would likely have an easy time of excising it since those of us who haunt these pages are often swamped by similar acts elsewhere.
Actually, if you look in the section "Treatise on Anti-Mudkip Prejudice", you'll note that the author of the opening essay lays out that he is involved with the meme, and his initial replies on my talk page were less than civil.
Lastly, fansubs are as usable as Action Replay methods of obtaining things when it comes to Wikipedia articles - not very, especially since the anime is coming over here outside of fansubs very soon, if it hasn't come over already. -Jeske(v^_^v) 09:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
What part of independent reliable sources don't you understand? If a notable blogger blogs about it, yes, it's includable. And 50,000 viewers is nothing. For example, Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged series averages 700,000 viewers per episode. But that isn't notable for Wikipedia. Why? Because there are no independent reliable sources. If you can find a source, then yes, we'll include it. Not before. Will(talk) 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will say that I have never gone on 4chan before in my life. The closest I've ever come in contact with 4chan was a day at school. As a bit of a test, I said "Mudkip" to my friend at school, who is a huge Pokémon fanatic. And he did reply with "So I heard you like them." But all that proves is that somebody else is aware of the meme. All that proves is that he has been on 4chan and knows the meme. But just because he knows it doesn't mean that we can include it. There isn't any secondary source. I can't put it in the article and cite my friend firstly because he's just a high-school kid and he has no notoriety.
I'm not saying that the meme doesn't exist, because I have experienced it myself. But even though it exists, you have to prove that the meme exists. And you can't prove that just by saying "Yeah, I know somebody who said 'I heard you like Mudkip'" or something like that because somebody saying something doesn't prove it to be notable unless the person who said it is notable. George Bush saying it would be notable. Jimbo Wales saying it would be notable. But your friends from work Billy Bob or Joe Schmo saying it wouldn't make it notable. Even my neighbor, who won a national teaching award, wouldn't be notable enough to include the meme in the article if she had said it.
Lastly, even if the meme did have a reliable independant secondary source (RISS), I still think including it in the article would damage and compromise the integrity of the article. I think that if we had a RISS, and would include the meme, if anything it should be mentioned on 4chan's article, not Mudkip's article. The meme does have Mudkip's name in it, but I think that, since the meme was started on 4chan and was spread over 4chan that it should be mentioned in 4chan's article. But none of that can be done without a RISS,
And by the way, this time I really am Ksy92003 leaving this comment. I was kinda shocked when I got home and saw the comment left on my talk page by Jeske, asking why I yelled above. (The comment wasn't me; I was impersonated by an anon) I thought to myself, I didn't yell at anybody, did I? Uh oh, I'm in serious trouble now. Fortunately, the anon was exposed. Thank you, Jeske and Brandon for saving my proverbial butt. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A vote?
perhaps we could start by having a vote by registered editors on whether a "in pop culture" section, knowing full well that there is no verifiable sources, should be added. Second I would like to add that I believe that the WP:3RR has probably been broken on both side off argument. As the promoter of the vote I recuse myself, but I think this needs to settled, so let the voting commence. --SelfStudyBuddy 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I vote against having a vote. Voting won't get us anywhere. What we need to do here is simply introduce the meme into the article once its notability is established through reliable sources. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I vote for vote and mudkipz84.48.95.242 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the proposed vote is for registered users only, Voting doesn't trump consensus. I say no voting. -Jeske(v^_^v) 08:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
For all those who care...
Here is the story in question: [2]. After looking at the actual story, it is quite clear that it is completely inappropriate beyond what I ever could've imagined and mentioning it in any way in the article or anywhere on Wikipedia would completely corrupt Wikipedia's long-standing reputation as an informational online encyclopedia. Even if there were a usable source for this, I think it is far too inappropriate to mention. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Holy shit... and I thought the methods of anthropomorphism in my D&D game were fragged-up... No way this can ever come into Wikipedia, because, although we are not censored, that's only in relation to information pertinent to the article. The meme is not, and so adding the meme, source or no, is vandalism. -Jeske(v^_^v) 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The content of the meme doesn't matter. I've never objected to the content of the meme, and infact found it humorous. if, somehow, it becomes notable, then it can be added.--Ac1983fan 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the content does matter. WP:NOT#CENSORED only applies to additions that are pertinent to the article, such as legitimate additions to Vagina, Pornography, or Sexual intercourse. The meme isn't pertinent to the article, and as such isn't protected by NOT#CENSORED, meaning that adding it, even invoking WP:IAR, is vandalism.
From all the arguments given by those that want to include it, they only want to include it so people won't have to resort to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia - not because it will better the article, rather so that they don't have to use sarcastic or flaky sites or so that they can announce it through Wikipedia. This is no reason to include something in an article; the last time this happened, Serebii was the bad guy. I don't want a repeat of that; that was hell. -Jeske(v^_^v) 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If it was notable, then it would be pertinent to the article, and thus it would be completely ok for the article. Its pretty tame compared to some things being shown on television and the movies these days.--Ac1983fan 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
My Opinion
There are some here arguing whether the lieking of mudkipz is of notable interest, but it's been made abundantly clear that people come to this page to find out what it is. This information is freely available almost anywhere else except wikipedia. Wikipedia has become the elitist culture they touted to beat when the formed the website. Any information that is of use to people, should be posted concisely and efficiently on a page. tl;dr MODS = FAGS. Skion 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
See comments in above section; the content of the story is far more inappropriate than what is beneficial for Wikipedia and this particular article. As Jeske alluded to earlier, such content may only be included if it is pertinent to the article. The meme itself is just that, a meme. The meme itself doesn't really have anything to do with Mudkip as a Pokémon nor a fictional character. Including the meme within the article would compromise the integrity of the article, the integrity of the Pokémon franchise, and the integrity of Wikipedia and its reputation as a sufficient online encyclopedia.
Again, the meme isn't related to do with Mudkip at all. It doesn't contribute any worthwile information to the article. The article is about Mudkip, meaning how it appears in video games, its characteristics, special traits, and how it appears in other media. All Pokémon articles are like that, for the record. The article is about Mudkip and is not the place to mention a meme. In my opinion, the main reason why people want the meme to be mentioned in the article is because they simply want to tell other people about the meme, not from an informational nor encyclopedic point of view, but simply to tell other people about it, such as what they would do on 4chan. In my opinion, they just want it to be mentioned so they can gossip about Mudkip and not be ridiculed for talking about the "awesome Pokémon Mudkip," as most teenagers and such now view Pokémon as a childish hobby. But I think they want to gossip about it. However, gossiping about a subject is similar to discussion something on a discussion board, and therefore, the meme violates another rule: WP:NOT#FORUM.
We could go on and on with the list of reasons why the meme should not be mentioned, but nobody wants to read all the reasons. But there have been countless reasons given on this discussion page about why the meme shouldn't be mentioned, but nobody has given a good reason why it should be mentioned; aside from that, nobody has yet to give a published news source or a reliable independant secondary source to show that the Mudkip meme has appeared as a cultural phenomenon. And from now on, anybody who re-adds the meme content to the article will be reverted and suquentially warned for vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I can't assume you're truly wanting to improve the article, given this edit: [3] --Brandon Dilbeck 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that edit was inappropriate and the user has been warned for vandalism due to that edit. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_norris#Popular_culture. chuck norris has his meme noted, and is of the same circumstances as mudkip. Why would it be so hard to add a pop culture section to mudkip? If you truely stand by what you say, you will either a) remove all references of meme from chuck norris, or b) put in a small pop culture area for mudkip.
And as for the image? Well, I did it for the lulz.
edit* threw up a small pop culture area, where we can put the meme, and anything else about Sr. Mudkip. I'm looking for the source of the original deviant art, but it was a private message, so unlikely to be recorded. I did find the copypasta that started the meme though and put a link to it. Skion 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You're wasting your time - we've already seen it on its Uncyclopedia article, and adding it is a bad idea because WP:CENSORED can't apply. The meme as shown there is above and beyond what could be acceptable, even for the Pornography article. See the section above.-Jeske(v^_^v) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And, as a side note, it's mainly been people identifying with 4chan that want the meme kept; I assume that DeviantART came in after the fact. -Jeske(v^_^v) 04:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Chuck Norris article is different than this one. That article doesn't directly talk about any meme. There are two mentions of a meme, and one of them alludes to a song and the other alludes to a commercial. Both these are official and can be attributed to their original creator. Secondly, it isn't appropriate like Mudkip's is. Third, the mention of the memes in Chuck Norris' article are about real things that really happened that directly involved Chuck Norris. Fourth, just by looking at the content of the Chuck Norris article that discusses the memes, it is quite obvious that it isn't being said in a way that is attempting to spread the meme across the web. In Chuck Norris' article, the memes are only mentioned to support a previous claim. The memes aren't mentioned all on their own, nor are they even mentioned themselves. They are only there to support another claim. --Ksy92003(talk) 05:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Chuck Norris facts have multiple reliable sources. Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Time, and Norris himself has acknowledged them. With the Mudkip meme, thos edon't exist. Will(talk) 10:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Article status
This article apparently got real bad in a hurry. On June 21, 2006, Mudkip was listed as a good article. A couple weeks later, on July 9, 2006, it was a candidate for Featured Article status, but wasn't promoted, mainly because it was too similar to Torchic, which is another FA. On that day, Torchic was a FA and remained there until nearly a year later, April 13, 2007. But enough about Torchic.
Mudkip was a candidate for FA as little as 11 months before it was recently demoted to a Class-B article. When the first vandalism appeared about the "so i herd u liek mudkips" meme, which I believe was on this day with this edit: [4] (there might've have been a previous edit, but right now my computer is not allowing me to check any further), but when this first act of vandalism occurred, Mudkip had just undergone Peer Review (see here for the smal peer-review discussion).
This article really got really bad really quick. And most likely, the repeated acts of vandalism are a contributing factor to this article being delisted . Have any of the users who have re-added the Mudkip meme content to the article been given a warning of vandalism? If not, then I certainly think that warning these users would get them to stop or let up a little. Now, that may be a little bit excessive, as numerous users have vandalized and it would be quite challenging to warn all users who have vandalized the article in such a manner. But from now on, I believe that we should give warnings to all users who perform acts of vandalism by re-adding the content back to the page, as earlier we have determined that adding it is vandalism (see Jeske's comment above. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I dread the day this page goes off unprotection. An anon screamed at me and at WP:RPP today to unprotect this talk page, and guess what? It starts with 64. - the same number of the two who were baiting us. -Jeske(v^_^v) 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Text redacted by -Jeske(v^_^v)
I dunno, some might argue that it wasn't even GA to begin with. A Man In Black, for instance, said that he wasn't even sure if Torchic was GA-class when nominating it for WP:FAR. hbdragon88 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Lieking Mudkips: Once and For all
Perhaps we can move a mention to that list of internet meme/phenomenon things. ButNotReally 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And how? There still are no sources. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikichan is a wiki, just like Wikipedia, meaning anybody can change it. If anybody can edit something, then it loses reliability. Whether it is 100% accurate or not, you can't trust it because anybody can change it, just like Wikipedia Anybody can vandalize it, just like Wikipedia. Therefore, not everything on there is 100% believable. And we don't know what is correct or not. --Ksy92003(talk) 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What about adding it to 4Chan's article, then? It's 4Chan related, I'm sure a 4Chan related-thing sources to perhaps it's own Article. I think. BRNBut Yeah, really 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the only place you can use anything from 4chan as a source is its own article. See WP:SPS. -Jeske(v^_^v) 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to try to add it to 4Chan's article, then go for it. But here, on Mudkip's talk page, this isn't the place to discuss stuff on other articles. If you want to add it to 4chan's article, then go to Talk:4Chan and discuss it there, but not here. --Ksy92003(talk) 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.
That is what the Notability Guidlines say. The Page says that you do not need outside sources to be notable enough for inclusion in an article. Either the heading at the top changes or you let people learn I herd they lieked Mudkipz.--Lahuard 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, La. See WP:NOT#INFO. If a piece of info is added that does NOT improve the layperson's understanding of the subject, we can't add it.
Secondly - and I am going to repeat myself AGAIN - We are not a billboard. The people who have been trying to force us to do this only want us to do this so that they can spread the word. You are in no position to issue warnings and threats ("Either the heading at the top changes, or you let people learn I herd theyt lieked Mudkipz.") -Jeske(v^_^v) 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I said this in an earlier comment here: I really think that mostly everybody who wants the meme to be mentioned here are just people who want to spread the word. I don't think they care much about the article or Wikipedia. They just want to gossip about it. My comment I said earlier reads as follows:
“
In my opinion, they just want it to be mentioned so they can gossip about Mudkip and not be ridiculed for talking about the "awesome Pokémon Mudkip," as most teenagers and such now view Pokémon as a childish hobby. But I think they want to gossip about it. However, gossiping about a subject is similar to discussion something on a discussion board, and therefore, the meme violates another rule: WP:NOT#FORUM.
”
Nobody who truly wants to improve Wikipedia would insert text such as the "Popular culture" section that has been re-added numerous times. First of all, as another user accurately pointed out, there has been a corruption of the spelling of some words from the story when translated here, such words like Mudkipz instead of Mudkips, herd instead of heard, and liek instead of like. This proves that the user who first put that into the article didn't get it directly from the story and corrupted it him/herself.
But the main reason, as I've given with that quote, that most people want to insert a mention of the meme in the article is to spread the word. I think that some of the people were thinking something along the lines of this when they decided to add the information: "Mudkipz" are awesome! I "liek" them and I want other people to "liek" them also! Either that, or they are trying to get people to go to 4chan or ED or whatever other places this meme came from. Wikipedia, or any of its articles, is not the place to spread the word of a fictional creature. --Ksy92003(talk) 06:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second...
I don't get why I just now thought of this. I'm not sure if anybody else thought about this, but I've got a question:
Is there any proof that the meme was originally posted on 4chan? --Ksy92003(talk) 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't know - and if they knew my IP address, I'd be marked just over the meme iff I went to find it out. According to an edit made by Skiom in the midst of this, it started on DeviantART, but I'm not sure. -Jeske(v^_^v) 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So if it started out on D-Art, and not on 4chan like everybody originally said, then everybody was wrong for a long time. Before we can even try to find a source, we have to get our cold hard facts straight. --Ksy92003(talk) 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[5] This is all I've ever seen of the meme outside of this talk page. The nature of WikiChan leads me to believe that this is not a reliable source, nor does it give any references, so there's no evidence that the image on that page is from 4chan. Someone might argue that the formatting of the copy matches that of 4chan's forums. (I myself don't know.) --Brandon Dilbeck 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There's an Uncyclopedia link above with the meme... Wait, the meme is hyperlinked there. Nevermind, the hyperlink is to Uncyclopedia's own 4chan article. -Jeske(v^_^v) 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only is WikiChan a Wiki, like this, meaning it can be edited by anybody, but I think WikiChan is just one that was created for stuff like that, so people could post random nonsense, most of which is completely inappropriate, as Jeske alluded to a couple weeks ago, when I first brought the full story to this talk page.
Now, not only has the meme never been sourced by a published news source, but I have never seen any proof that the meme itself came from 4chan or DeviantART. That could be a huge piece of evidence for preventing the meme to be mentioned on this article. --Ksy92003(talk) 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The meme is from a prvate message from one DA user to another inviting them to a mudkipz based group. As far as I know the only record of the message was in the copypasta that gave birth to "so i herd you liek mudkipz". ie. any source other than the copypasta will be impossible to get, as usernames were removed from copypasta. Skion 14:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is all I've been able to find on it: [6]Marigold 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Which doesn't help, as that's our own Wikipedia article. -Jeske(v^_^v) 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Guess I didn't look back in the history far enough. Last I checked, the Answers.com was first, but with all the reverts, I missed it. Oops! Marigold 01:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it, I would suggest adding "So I herd you liek" or something among those lines to your query ("Mudkips" presents Mudkip). -Jeske(v^_^v) 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Anti-mudkip bias
I can only conclude, based on my experiences attempting to add anything to wikipedia, that the predominate emotion felt for mudkips at this website is one of abject "haetred". This is saddening. Take a looonng look at the sheer volume of completely unimportant trivia devoted to the subject of Pikachu, and then contrast it with the "quick, delete it!" approach towards any attempt at documenting the history of Mudkip in the franchise. I add a mention of the Illinois Mudpuppy to the article, which (unlike the picture in the wiki mudpuppy article, which, um, sucks for this purpose..) really does resemble a mudkip far more than a mudskipper but was probably unknown to the originators of the franchise due to its being only in one part of the world... and the responce? Delete both mentions entirely, despite the fact that name itself comes from the Mudskipper in the first place. No information on the historic meeting of Brock and Old Man Swampy, and the miracle they witnessed together (with the rest of the crew) was allowed either, regardless of the fact that it establishes that there will not be an "evolutionary" predecessor to Mudkip.
Oh by the way, how can you spend so much effort fighting a meme, and anything that just might be a derivative meme or act in any way to reinforce it, or may be information otherwise valid that comes from someone who has heard of or been influenced by that meme, if that meme doesn't even exist? Its quite a good thing that this discussion has been had in the context of Pokémon biology instead of actual biology, and this has been a valuable excercise in determining to what extend ideology, even about something as simple as "lieking mudkips", can determine the eventual outcome and expected censorship battles with regards to the publication of details of imaginary biological characteristics, or publication of any sort at all. Zaphraud 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Next, you might want to reconsider that "One part of the world" argument - we have the Native American Thunderbird, we have European Dragons, we have African Okapis, we have Penguins, and we have bullfrogs. "One geographical location" is no argument when you consider we have creatures from other places and mythologies than Japan(ese).
Jeske, you didn't really do anything to address Ksy92003's removal of the mudpuppy reference. The "one part of the world" argument might be somewhat misguided, but even weaker is Ksy92003's reasoning for removing the allusion to the mudpuppy: "they don't really resemble these much." I think Zaphraud was right in suggesting that she likely did nothing more than to look at the really dark and ultimately misrepresentative photo of a mudpuppy on its wikipedia page and, with nothing more than this glance, reverted the article with a justification that's as flimsy as it is immature. I don't give a damn about this meme debate, but you'd be a fool to think that a Mudkip doesn't look like a mudpuppy, or any amphibian with external gills for that matter. Ksy92003's blithe dismissal of what is absolutely, objectively and unarguably a visual resemblence between mudpuppies and Mudkip is yet another piece in an ever-growing pile of evidence that Ksy92003 has taken a personal interest in this article and has no business participating in further edits. Honestly, what distinction led her to believe that Mudkip looks like an axolotl and not a mudpuppy, or any other external-gilled amphibian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.171.106.25 (talk • contribs)
Actually, we shouldn't be interpreting the origin of the name at all in the article unless we have a source for it. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the discussion, Dilbeck - this is on the real-world inspiration for the Mudkip. And, by the by, an axolotl DOES have external gills. Nextly, 63., Ksy has taken more personal attacks from people on this talk page than I have (and I've been a target, as well). Give her a break and remind her about WP:OWN. -Jeske(v^_^v) 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)0
I know that an axolotl has external gills. That was my point. For the purposes of distilling an amphibious, externally-gilled creature into cartoon form the axolotl and mudpuppy are equivalents. It's absurd to say, of mudpuppies, that mudkips "don't really resemble these much" but then to be fine with axolotls. I would think it would be beneficial to those seeking to learn more about Mudkip to show them the entire taxonomical breadth of animals from which Mudkip draws its likeness. Unless Ksy92003 is able to further explain why she removed the reference I think the mudpuppy mention should be returned to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.171.106.25 (talk • contribs)
I've got a couple things to say: first, Mudpuppies are salamanders, as it states in the article. Mudkip don't look like salamanders at all. The only two Pokemon that are even slightly related to the salamander are Charmander and Charmeleon; as you can see by their images, they much more resemble a salamander than a Mudkip. I am aware that the Axolotl is a neotenicmole salamander, but I don't think you can dispute the fact that its head does share a resemblance with that of Mudkip. Additionally, the article states that "The [Pokémon] Wooper, Quagsire, as well as Mudkip are all based on axolotls," all Pokémon that share a similar design in their heads and bodys. We can go on and on about what we think each Pokémon is based off of and never agree 100% on it. This isn't something we can actually discuss because not everybody will be able to agree. Everybody has their own opinions and interprets things differently. Everybody might interpret Mudkip's animal origins differently. But as Dilbeck kinda pointed out earlier, we shouldn't really guess the origins of Mudkip's design unless sourced, which the Mudskipper is.
Lastly, I'm a BOY!!! ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The portion you removed never suggested that the basis was Mudpuppy, only that a strong resemblance exists, and that resemblance is somewhat stronger in many photographs. Just not the photo of the bent and/or upside down critter on the mudpuppy page. Zaphraud 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Zaphraud, you're fighting a losing battle. It is irrelevant, opinionated, and the article itself shoots you down, unless you use "Mudpuppy" as the common name for a different creature. I mean, it's not uncommon for witch's-bells to be called "foxglove", even over here where it is rather common. -Jeske(v^_^v) 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I, "63" am not Zaphraud. And my point, which is slightly different than Zaphraud's, is that the sentence "It also resembles a/an _________" could be filled in with both axolotl and mudpuppy. Either of them would be perfectly appropriate, as the only feature they really share with Mudkip is the presence of external gills. Ksy92003's knee-jerk revision to change "mudpuppy" back to "axolotl" strongly, strongly supports the argument that she has no business being allowed to edit this article, which she has clearly taken a personal interest in.
Did you guys know that the problematic sentence ("It also resembles a/an...") was added back in february, and originally read "It also resembles a mudpuppy"? It wasn't until April that an Anon changed it to read "axolotl." Neither the axolotl nor the mudpuppy has a sagittal crest, which is probably the most prominent feature on Mudkip, so the argument over which looks MORE like Mudkip is fundamentally absurd, since the only common visual element is the presence of external gills and the general body morphology. It's my suggestion that the sentence should either be amended to include mudpuppies and other amphibians with external gills, or it should be deleted entirely. And my secondary point is that the blithe and opinionated way in which Ksy92003 deleted the mudpuppy reference is no different than fighting to include the "i liek mudkip" meme and she should be precluded from further editing this article. Same thing with the way she stormed in to revert the inclusion of a mention that the Mudkip plush toy had been recalled, explaining that the "recall wasn't limited to only Mudkip. it isn't a recall on Mudkip plush toys, on all plush toys." Wrong. The recall was limited to 13 Pokemon plush toys, which is a fairly small number considering how many different Pokemon plushies are yiffing out there. I think this is a significantly small pool of toys being recalled to make it worthy of mentioning in the Mudkip article, though maybe the original phrasing and description of the recall could use some revision. But Ksy92003 didn't just revise it, she deleted it entirely with the factually incorrect description I correct above. It would be great if Jeske and Ksy92003 actually read wikipedia's policies with a drop of introspection and did a little original research rather than band together to further their own personal interests.
I was not sayimng you are Zaphraud, 63 (read closer above), and Ksy is male.
The sentence should be deleted entirely as original research, and 13 toys isn't that bad. LOTS more are recalled over the course of the year. Even if 13 recalled toys were notable, it is NOT Mudkip-centric and so it does not deserve a mention in the Mudkip article (if anything, look for an article detailing toy recalls). if added into the article, you will have to add the information to the other twelve - which, given mergers in progress, will possibly be removed when the article is merged - and provide reliable sources (See WP:CITE).
Oh, now I'm going to get "hurt" for questioning Ksy92003's behavior? I don't see a Wikipedia:Physically Threaten Constructive Discourse entry in the boilerplate you copypasta above. And I didn't mean to suggest that you were conflating Zaphraud and I, just making it clear that despite the fact that we were making similar arguments I wasn't his alter-ego or other such lameness. I am perfectly fine with the removal of the problematic sentence, which is why I suggested it. But what really concerns me is Ksy92003's reasoning for his actions. He defended himself by saying that "the article itself says that the [Pokémon] Wooper, Quagsire, as well as Mudkip are all based on axolotls." He's referring to the axolotl wiki article there, which doesn't offer anything more than an unsubstantiated opinion in a different place. This displays a complete misunderstanding of the wikipedia rules. His entire last "Talk" post was a massacre of logic and scientific fact. "Mudkip don't look like salamanders at all...I am aware that the Axolotl is a salamander, but...its head does share a resemblance with that of Mudkip." The redacted portions don't make the quote misrepresentative in any way. He actually said that. Salamanders are an ORDER of classification and Axolotls and Mudpuppies are both SUB-TAXA beneath that order. This is high school level biology. None of this is central to the wiki article on Mudkip (if we remove that sentence), but it is absolutely relevant to Ksy92003's ability to edit this article, which I think has been undeniably called into question. His impetuous approach to policing this article does nothing to serve Wikipedia's goals.
The Mudkip recall is Mudkip-centric, because a Mudkip toy (and isn't that a central element to Pokemon?) was recalled. Just because you are too lazy to make the revision in each of the other recalled toys' wiki-entries doesn't mean it isn't appropriate to them as well. It's easily sourced for all 13 with a link to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission release on their website. I'd do it myself if I wasn't sure that Ksy92003 wouldn't just immediately revert it with a barely-literate explanation, then you'd defend it with a blanket posting of wiki-policies. That's the way things work in the Mudkip article, isn't it? Just look at the history and the talk page.
Keeping mudkip's fin erect without dangerous implantsFor what its worth, of the "13" Plush recalled at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04195.html, Mudkip represents 2 of those 13, as does Treecko and Torchic. So really, there are fewer types shown, and the recall is 15% Mudkip-centric, which is extremely mudkip-centric compared to the overall genre. Another reason the recall is probably mudkip related is the fact that it was pins that were found inside these critters that led to the recall. The need for these is obvious to anyone who's ever given their girlfriend a plush Mudkip, or owned one themselves: The fin flops over! Pins represent one possible solution to adding a structural reinforcing member to stabilize Mudkips sensitive radar fin. The solution T eventually settled on was to simply put a scrunchie on Mudkip. Zaphraud 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see why you feel the need to implant your comments smack-dab in the middle of an already-continuing discussion. But as far as the plush toys, it isn't Mudkip-centric anymore than it is Jirachi-centric or Venusaur-centric. The number of different plush toys that were recalled is immaterial. And as you said yourself, 15% of the different types of plush toys are Mudkip plush toys. I would hardly call 15% enough to make something –centric. The recall wasn't on Mudkip plush toys. It was on all plush toys of that type. And you said yourself Mudkip represented 2 of the 13, as did Treecko and Torchic. Using your argument that this is why it is Mudkip-centric, one could say it is also either Treecko-centric or Torchic-centric. And something can't be centered around 3 separate topics in this manner... And the part you said about Mudkip's fins? Yeah, that's also completely immaterial. ––Ksy92003(talk) 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Mudkip is no more a central element to Pokemon than Whismur, Pikachu, or Stunky, and toys are by no means a central element (the metaseries actually is). The only reason people think it is is because of the meme. However, as I said, there is a merger going on, and a lot of information is being lost. I do not doubt that the sourced addition might be removed for some reason or another, especially if the other twelve don't get the same cites.
As for my "Assuming bad faith" above, that is as I see it. You are assuming that Ksy has a bias on this article, rather than the opposite, especially given everything above and all the mud he's been splatted with from anons for opposing the meme (I tracked just this page and found no less than six personal attacks on him in the history, as well as impersonation of him (see "Trolled" above)). Assuming bad faith tends to lead to harsher punishments than just the reminder I gave you; people have been blocked for ABF. While I do agree that Ksy needs to explain his edits more, remember that he's under stress because the disputes here have been going on since before I came to this site, and he's gotten right in the middle of it. -Jeske(v^_^v) 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeske is right. You haven't any idea how much, for lack of a better word "garbage," I've received from other users because of the meme. I share a similar view with Jeske on this article; I've recently removed my name from the PCP project, focusing only on vandalism and removing unsourced information. And that's just that... I know that the axolotl statement was in the article for some time, so I made the assumption that Jeske or someone of his stature had viewed the article and deemed that alright. And if Jeske doesn't object to something, then I'm not going to remove it. As far as the additional statement that I reverted, that was partially because everybody can interpret anything any possible way. Some may interpret Farfetch'd to be a normal bird, like one you'd see every day. But its species and Japanese name prove it to be a duck. I didn't think of it as a duck when I first encountered it in Pokémon Blue back in '96, but other people might think otherwise. As far as the specifics to what its appearance is based on, I view that to be immaterial. If somebody really wants to know what the Pokémon looks like, don't you think they would simply want to look at its image?
I don't care if the axolotl statement is in there or not (I took the prerogative and removed it just now) any more than I care about any other animal and Mudkip's resemblance on it. The mudskipper is referenced and is also the basis for Mudkip's Japanese name, Mizugorou (mudskipper (鯥五郎, mutsugorō)). So there is no denying that Mudkip resemble the mudskipper. Again, going back to what I said about the Wild Duck Pokémon, everybody can interpret things differently. For Snorlax, some people thought it was a bear, Jeske thinks it resembles a sloth. Everything can be interpreted differently and nobody is to say who is right or who is wrong. We don't know what Satoshi Tajiri or Ken Sugimori's motives were when they designed the Pokémon unless they say it themselves. Perhaps Tajiri-san or Sugimori-san (pardon my Japanese) did mean for it to be a mudpuppy, but unless there is any proof that they admitted this themselves. So for that reason, I reverted the added note about it possibly resembling a mudpuppy and the statement about it resembling an axolotl. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I consider Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to apply with this subject. It's an Internet meme, no reliable news source is going to publish an article on an Internet meme, thus it will be nearby impossible to source this item. People are obviously coming to this article to find out about what "So I heard you like Mudkips?" is about, I know I did. It's okay to ignore all the rules.
It's noteworthy, but not referenceable, that DOESN'T MEAN it shouldn't be added. -- Kai talk 06:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Although there may be a consensus, it isn't a valid consensus. I agree that a majority of people here are in favor of the meme, but none have yet to prove that it's notable enough. And WP:IAR doesn't apply in this case because of that one note right below this edit box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. If something can't be verified, then under no circumstances may it be allowed and it will be removed at first glance. WP:CONSENSUS doesn't apply for the same reasons, as well as WP:UCS. No rules can ever override WP:VERIFY under any circumstances. Nothing can be added unless it can be sourced. And if it can't be sourced, then it will be removed from the article right away by either Señor Jéské or yours truly.
You admit yourself, Kai, that the meme is non-referenceable. And it's debatable if adding the meme would be beneficial to the article. The meme itself isn't Mudkip-centric as it doesn't directly involve Mudkip; Mudkip was simply mentioned in the meme, but the meme wasn't centered around Mudkip. Also, Jeske and myself have given reason after reason why the meme shouldn't be mentioned. But all the reasons that have been given for including the meme in the article still don't pass the most important rule: WP:VERIFY. If nobody can verify this meme and give a valid reference for it, then under no circumstances can the meme be mentioned.
Also, O RLY? has had real-world references outside the site of origin (it has been referenced in video games and in a computer virus). "So I heard you like Mudkips" has not. Next, the people who want to add the meme only want to do so because they see Wikipedia as a billboard, and some have gone so far as to commit personal attacks and issue death threats against myself and Ksy (I have evidence of this saved on my home computer if worst comesto worst) because we requested sources.-Jéské(v^_^v) 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The meme has apparently entered sorority life as a variant "So i heard you like mudkaps"... but I can't say that I've met the women involved. Again, however, one must question the wisdom of working so hard to disprove the existence of something that keeps popping up and seemingly wants to grow. Zaphraud 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that much about the O RLY? thingy, but from what I have read on that article in the past, it is sourced and is something that has appeared in other media with signigicance. As the user whose name finally makes sense to me just pointed out, it appears in a video game and in a wide-spread computer virus, giving it notability. Anyway, my point in the last comment was it doesn't matter where it appears or how it appears. In order for it to be even thought about being included, it would need to be sourced, per WP:VERIFY. And again, WP:VERIFY can never be overruled by Ignore all rules. So in order to ignora todas de las reglas, somebody would still need to provide a source to show that it has been given significant coverage to prove notable, something that nobody has been able to accomplish since this discussion began Espeons ago. ––Ksy92003(talk) 10:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
<Exaggerated groan> That's something I can't turn the other kacheek on. -Jéské(v^_^v) 10:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hehe I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Not bad, if I do say so myself :)––Ksy92003(talk) 10:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ksy92003 said: "The meme itself isn't Mudkip-centric as it doesn't directly involve Mudkip; Mudkip was simply mentioned in the meme, but the meme wasn't centered around Mudkip." I don't understand how this is true. The meme is a sentence, and the direct object of the independent clause that is central to the meaning of that sentence is "Mudkip," referencing the same Mudkip in this wikipedia article. The meme is absolutely centered around Mudkip. If not, what else is the meme centered around (assuming you'll at least grant that the meme exists, given the more than 30,000 hits it returns on Google)?
The meme is not a sentence - it is spread out on several posts, and if compiled would be about five or six paragraphs long. It isn't even *about* Mudkip. It's about a kid who does a Mudkip doll. Get your facts straight, please. -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The meme is centred around Mudkip, the term "Mudkip" is being used in popular culture thus it would be added to this article. Is what Jéské stated a coming from a reliable source? No, as you've said yourselves, so why bring it up? You seem to be contradicting yourself throughout this discussion page. -- Kai talk 06:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, the meme isn't centered around Mudkip. The meme isn't about a Mudkip, it's about... well, the best way I can cleanly put it is that it's about somebody doing something insanely inappropriate to a Mudkip doll. Mudkip isn't the subject in the story, the boy is. That fact itself proves that the meme shouldn't be mentioned in the article, sourced or not, because the meme isn't about a Mudkip... not even a real Mudkip, rather a doll. But most importantly, the meme itself is far too inappropriate. ––Ksy92003(talk) 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That may or may not have been how this meme originated, but that doesn't change the fact that the mudkip meme phenomenon has transcended this (as memes without true central origins are wont to do) meaning quite some time ago.
The meme isn't as appropriate as you think. Its a fictional story about a kid who has sex with a doll. I'd hardly call that innapropriatte compared to some of the things that really go on in peoples lives. And even if it was too innapropriate, Nothing is too innapropriate forWikipedia.--Ac1983fan 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeske and Ksy92003 - this says so much about your reluctance to include a mention of the meme in your (I'd call it "the" but it is clearly "your" article at this point) Mudkip article. The bizarre and unsavory story that you refer to has nothing to do with the meme as most people understand it. Thousands and thousands of people have seen "so i herd u liek mudkips" on their various, and varied, internet websites. This is all they know of the meme. This is what needs mention in the article: the common parlance, association and familiarity of this phrase. That's it. Do you honestly think we need to trace the provenance to some bullshit story about some kid fucking a mudkip doll? That's not the point of the meme, and given the nature of the meme, it begs a thorough review of the Wiki:Ignore All Rules guidelines. The point and effect of the meme is the innocent and infectious phrase "so i herd u liek mudkips," which is a phrase that has grown into its own despite its untraceable and, admittedly, unverifiable source. It's a phenomenon that is wonderfully unique to the internet, which is why Wikipedia allows for exceptions to its (flexible) rules. Jeske, you talk about the meme with such confidence and resolve, yet you deny that it exists. It's a widely known (see: Google) and widely appreciated phrase. You know that. You acknowledge that it begs for five or six paragraphs. But I don't think that much is necessary. All that needs to be said in the Mudkip article is it is a phrase that many, many people associate with Mudkip. Please see the "God" article for an example of something that can't trace a verifiable source yet has a substantial effect on a number of people. "I herd u liek mudkips" is forever and inexorably linked to Mudkip. This demands mention in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.166.14 (talk • contribs)
Jéské has never denied that the meme exists. In fact, when I provided a link to the meme, it was then that Jéské said, in regard to the meme and mentioning it in the article:
No way this can ever come into Wikipedia, because, although we are not censored, that's only in relation to information pertinent to the article. The meme is not, and so adding the meme, source or no, is vandalism.
Additionally, you can't say that Jéské or I are owning the article. When have you seen either him or I add any information into the article? It can't be ownership if we don't add anything. We are fulfilling our responsibilities as Wikipedians be removing unsourced and unnecessary information. I can't say that qualifies as assuming ownership.
Also, I hope you aren't trying to say that Mudkip is more notable than God. If you wish to try to prove that Mudkip has affected significantly more people than God has, then good luck. But God has been around since the beginning of time. He was here before the first sign of life was... He created all life as we know it. So it's impossible for everything to be sourced because nothing could possibly be recorded until Adam and Eve were created by Him. But His teachings and motives have affected trillions and maybe even quadrillions of people in the history of the universe. We have churches, we have chapels. The Cross is possibly the most significant symbol ever, and I'm saying this as a born-again Christian. Nothing that happened from the time that God created the universe to the time He created Adam and Eve can be sourced because nobody was there to create it. But in the Bible, in Genesis, in the first seven days God created animals, plants, water, everything that would lead to what we have today. It wasn't until after that that He created Adam and Eve to watch over all that He created. So nobody was there to see that happening, but it's in the Bible. And everything comes from the Bible in some sense. So to use God as a comparison to Mudkip is unfair because He has been around since the beginning of everything. He created everything. But we do have a source for that: the Bible. Everything that happened back then has been recorded in the Bible. The Bible is the largest-selling book in all languages, either as the Christian Bible, the Torah, the Nevi'im, the Ketuvim, or the Qur'an. What He created led the foundation for all that we have today: computers, cars, microwaves, even portable television. So if you say that you don't think you can trace a verifiable source, just look to the Bible. Now, again you can't say that Mudkip has a more signifant impact on people today than the Bible has on quadrillions of people in the history of history.
Finally, the story isn't about Mudkip. It's about a boy. That's the major flaw in the story. The meme might've come from the story, but the story isn't about the Mudkip. It has been said by some people either here or elsewhere that some other words have been used in place of "Mudkip" in the story. This alone proves that the meme isn't about Mudkip, rather it's about whatever is filled in that blank. And I'll let Jéské pick up here, since he can better explain the statement of his that I quoted above. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I by no means have read this entire discussion or even this entire section of the discussion. That being said I first came to this page because it was being vandalized. I then gathered, that the page was in the middle of, what was possibly, the most inane edit war ever. Although WP:3RR was never broken, I must state parties on both sides came very close to doing so. I personally had no idea what a "mudkip" was or anything regarding the meme, so I think I am objective. Although I doubt there is any good reason to add the meme, see WP:NOTABILITY and List of Internet phenomena talk, and though google hits don't really mean anything, I would like to point out that the ratio of google hits of nouns:nounz. mudkips:mudkipz ≈ 56:27.6 this is unusually low when compared to other nouns:nounz ≈749,000:242, pikachus:pikachuz ≈ 505:12.3, the closest I could find was ants:antz ≈ 17.9:1.25. I by no means claim that this grounds the meme being notable and would definitely count as particularly badoriginal research. Again all that being said the definition of a meme is internet phenomena and Ignore all rules might apply. --SelfStudyBuddy 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thousands and thousands of people have seen "so i herd u liek mudkips" on their various, and varied, internet websites. This is all they know of the meme. This is what needs mention in the article: the common parlance, association and familiarity of this phrase. That's it. Do you honestly think we need to trace the provenance to some bullshit story about some kid fucking a mudkip doll?
It's an Internet Meme, no reliable source is going to publish a document on something so ridiculous as an Internet Meme. Again, O RLY? has sources only because the meme had been used in a Computer worm and a Video Game, no news source published an article directly about the meme. It would be added to this article, it's centred around the Mudkip, Mudkip is the noun, ==In popular culture==. It's being used in Popular Culture across the Internet and thus it is worthy of notice; WP:NOTABILITY. -- Kai talk 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you even know what is going on right now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon? As it sits, WP:PCP is in the middle of a species megamerger. Miscellany has been shown the door none-too-kindly, regardless of source or not, and they're catching flak for it (they're even catching flak for merging ATM). The Mudkip material will not survive into the list of 20 that Mudkip is going into - from what I've seen, all that's there is Pokédex material, which notable anime characters used which ones, and jack squat else.
Were the situation different, I would be helping out. Unfortunately, politics has to invade everything. Mudkip will not remain unmerged - Only Pikachu will for certain. Mudkip isn't even on the list of toss-ups.
Next up, the meme itself can cascade into a snowball effect - 4channers have made claims to WP:OWNership of the meme on this talk page, and both Ksy and I have been threatened and attacked here and on our talk pages because we're opposing the meme included as it is unsourced. The person who brought it here has also corrupted the name of the meme (Noted by User:Brandon Dilbeck above), and User:Skion has stated it was copypasta'd from DeviantART. I don't mind this on Wikipedia, but if we aren't even sure on the name of the meme or even where the meme come from (which would settle once and for all the meme's true name), I doubt we can even include this. -Jéské(v^_^v) 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mudkip meme is completely irrelevant to O RLY? It doesn't matter why O RLY? has sources because that has nothing to do with this particular meme involving Mudkip. And it was never stated that the published source had to be from a news group. It just has to be a published source that talks about how important the meme is and how it has affected people, be they 4Chan-ers or not.
But everybody seems to ignore the two rules which are always mentioned directly below the box you edit: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." First of all, I wouldn't consider the meme to be encyclopedic because there isn't anything in the story about Mudkip... the secondary character is a Mudkip doll, not a Mudkip. Second, it has to be verifiable. Whether or not the meme is notable enough to be mentioned in the article, it still needs to be verified and proven that it is important enough to be mentioned in the article.
I'd like to turn your attention to the AfD debate. The reason why it was nominated for AfD by Stifle is "Non-notable and unverifiable internet meme." It was voted Delete 16-2. Quite a substantial margin, if I do say so myself. The reason why it was nominated for AfD was because it wasn't notable, but most importantly because it was unverifiable. So, I ask you: if an article was deleted for not being verifiable, why should it be mentioned in an article if it has yet to be verified? Oh, and I'd also like to note that the AfD debate began on April 6... 2006. It's 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) right now, meaning it's been at least 15 months since this debate first began. And still, nobody has been able to prove that it should be mentioned in the article. 15 months and counting, and if it has been that long, I highly suspect that nobody will be able to provide a proof. Now, if the meme were like a computer virus and spread nation-wide and it were reported, then yes it would be notable enough... but still, if that were the case, it doesn't have anything to do with either the Pokemon Mudkip or the Pokemon media franchise, making it irrelevant in the Mudkip article... maybe it would go in the Internet meme article, but it doesn't have anything to do with Mudkip at all... either the story or the meme that sprouted from that. Ksy92003(talk) 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ksy92003, if you insist on dwelling on the "verifiability" aspect of the argument I'm going to have to keep drawing similarities between the meme and God. For the purpose of being included in Wikipedia, the suggestion that you make above (that God created the universe) is no more verifiable than the fact that "so i herd u liek mudkips" is an internet meme. If anything, the meme has far more factual evidence (easily ascertainable popularity, lower threshold for probativeness, tangible aspects, etc.). Much like a belief in God demands the suspension of certain logical practices and the acceptance of certain things on faith, the Ignore All Rules guidelines allow us to suspend certain rules to reach a greater goal. Please note that I'm only addressing your "verifiability" argument. Obviously God is notable enough to warrant his/her own article without his/her existence being verifiable. References to the bible and other holy books are not probative of anything except that those words are in the book. That doesn't make them fact. You say "[e]verything that happened back then has been recorded in the Bible." I don't want to spoil the surprise, but when you go to college you should try to take a class on biblical history. This meme is going to start looking absolutely and immutably factual. To echo your statements above, it's 7:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) right now, meaning it's been at least 4000 years since the debate over God's existence began. And still, nobody has been able to prove that he/she exists. 4000+ years and counting, and if it has been that long, I highly suspect that nobody will be able to provide a proof.
Thank you, Ksy92003, for bringing up the AfD debate that occurred back in April 2006. At that point a google search only returned a few hundred results. Now there are more than 35,000. (I think it's fair to say a search for "herd liek mudkips" is reasonable given the variations of the phrase's spelling and syntax). And the AfD was for a "so i herd u liek mudkips" article, not a mere mention of the meme in the Mudkip article. So your referencing the AfD debate goes beyond mere irrelevancy for being dated and actual serves an argument for inclusion.
Also, why do you keep bringing up the "story" behind the meme? That has nothing to do with it at this point, for the purpose of what those who support the meme want included in the article.
Jeske, unlike Ksy92003, you raise a point that isn't completely absurd. I don't know what is going to happen with the megamerge of pokemon articles. But I think it's important to maintain a distance from these sort of "housecleaning" operations and to continue to focus on the foundational aspects of inclusion. If it belongs in wikipedia it doesn't matter where it goes, as long as it's there somewhere. I think the meme should be "somewhere" in wikipedia, and we can take care of where exactly that will be after the megamerger has occurred.
First of all, the meme doesn't have far more factual evidence for several reasons. One: it's a completely made-up story that somebody created some day. I know that a lot of people don't believe in the Bible. But a lot of people do. The Bible has affected a much larger number of people in the course of history than the Mudkip story has in little over a year. The Bible is the best-selling book in around a dozen languages (the exceptions being the languages whose religions don't use the Bible). Christianity and Catholicism are the two largest religions in the world, and both use the Bible. The content of the Bible isn't verifiable, but the impact it has had on people ever since the beginning of the Bible, when the Bible was first written and distributed, is. Christianity and Catholicism are the two largest religions and both Christians (such as myself) and Catholics use the Bible in their faith, and I never said that everything in the Bible was 100% accurate. My religious beliefs aside, there is a possibility that not everything in the Bible is completely and utterly accurate. There very well could be a few inaccuracies. But the Word of the Bible has been read by quadrillions of people in the history of mankind, and that has been proven. There is proof that the Bible has had an enormous impact on humans worldwide. There isn't proof that the Bible is accurate or that God exists, but there is proof that there has been an impact on a global scale. That is the key difference between the meme and the Bible. There isn't anyway to prove that the meme has affected as many people as you claim. And that is what Wikipedia:Verifiability is for. This rule is in place to ensure that every single claim that is made can be backed up. Google hits can't be used to support anything because, unless you can look at every single hit, you don't know what the hits are. Most likely, almost all of the hits (however many there may be) are for DeviantART, 4Chan, or this page itself. There isn't any way to verify that the Mudkip meme has affected a substantial amount of people.
As far as the AfD debate, yes I know that was for an article and not for a simple mention in the Mudkip article. However, you must understand that the article was deleted for the exact same reason why the meme has been denied inclusion in this article: It hasn't been verified. And again, Google hits doesn't prove how notable a subject is, especially because whenever you use Yahoo or Google or what-have-you, when you want to look up something, you almost always get a majority of those sites to be sites that you have no intention of viewing and are completely off-topic. Google doesn't give you sites that have the most notable information on the topic; they give you sites that have the queried comment in the order of how commonly they have been viewed. I just did a Google test for "so i herd u liek mudkips" (quotation marks included) and received 674 hits... 674 hits isn't enough anyway to prove something notable. Quotes removed, I received 31,900. A significant rise from south-of-1,000, but those sites were all D-Art, 4Chan, ED, YTMND. And none of those sites can be used to verify anything because they are all anonymous, meaning whatever is posted there can't be traced back to its creator, a requirement per the GFDL, which says that all text that is added to Wikipedia must be sourced and be traceable to its creator. If something is created on D-Art, 4Chan, etc., it can't be traced back to its creator due to those site's anonymity. If we can't say who wrote something, then we can't say it... that's plagarism if we can't say who created it.
And we ourselves can't simply determine something to be notable. We can't say "Oh, yeah, I know [X] people who said the meme, so it's notable then" because everything that we say on Wikipedia, again, must be verifiable. And if we, ourselves say something, then it isn't verifiable. That's like saying "Yeah, I said it, so it's true." And we ourselves can't come out and say that we know that it's notable without having any sort of proof that it is notable...
Ugh... I'm getting so frustrated that nobody seems to believe Jeske and I. We've given reason after reason after reason after reason why we have repeatedly removed the meme from the article, and all anybody else has done is repeatedly shot us down with the approach that you want to add the meme but can't give any proof that it is notable enough, that it has impacted enough people. You people come to us with the same old, and pardon me for my language, crap time and time again. You want to add the meme, but you can't prove that it's notable enough, and you can't prove that it's verifiable. All Jeske and I are asking is that you provide us with a news source, saying in whole or in part that "The internet meme 'so i herd u liek mudkips' has affected a large amount of people on 4Chan's and DeviantART's networks, becoming the new internet craze," or something else to that effect. It doesn't matter if the meme itself is notable enough or not. Jeske and I aren't denying that the meme isn't notable at all, but we are saying that nobody has yet to prove that this meme has affected a lot of people and that the meme has received significant attention from another website or news source. And we still say that if it can't be proven that the meme has been given significant attention, and that an official source has stated this itself, then it fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:VERIFY and is not allowed to be included in the meme. Ksy92003(talk) 08:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to issue some rebuttals:
The meme isn't as appropriate as you think. Its a fictional story about a kid who has sex with a doll. I'd hardly call that innapropriatte compared to some of the things that really go on in peoples lives. And even if it was too innapropriate, Nothing is too innapropriate forWikipedia.--Ac1983fan 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:NOT#CENSORED says that it should only be added iff it is pertinent to understanding the subject of the article. Besides, the people here are pushing for the NAME of the meme, which we can't determine because the name given us was corrupted by whomever brought it here. Since we can't verify it, we can't add the name.
Jeske, unlike Ksy92003, you raise a point that isn't completely absurd. I don't know what is going to happen with the megamerge of pokemon articles. But I think it's important to maintain a distance from these sort of "housecleaning" operations and to continue to focus on the foundational aspects of inclusion. If it belongs in wikipedia it doesn't matter where it goes, as long as it's there somewhere. I think the meme should be "somewhere" in wikipedia, and we can take care of where exactly that will be after the megamerger has occurred.
I think someone here brought up a link to a list of Internet Phenomena in this conversation? If it would go anywhere, it would be there, but, again, the actual name of the meme needs to be found and sourced. As it is, everyone here supporting the meme is copping WP:ILIKEIT and/or has been trying to troll in the guise of suggesting WP:IAR (I am not saying that anyone in this conversation right here is doing this; I am saying that it was depressingly prevalent).
I'd like to turn your attention to the AfD debate. The reason why it was nominated for AfD by Stifle is "Non-notable and unverifiable internet meme." It was voted Delete 16-2. Quite a substantial margin, if I do say so myself. The reason why it was nominated for AfD was because it wasn't notable, but most importantly because it was unverifiable. So, I ask you: if an article was deleted for not being verifiable, why should it be mentioned in an article if it has yet to be verified? Oh, and I'd also like to note that the AfD debate began on April 6... 2006. It's 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) right now, meaning it's been at least 15 months since this debate first began. And still, nobody has been able to prove that it should be mentioned in the article. 15 months and counting, and if it has been that long, I highly suspect that nobody will be able to provide a proof. Now, if the meme were like a computer virus and spread nation-wide and it were reported, then yes it would be notable enough... but still, if that were the case, it doesn't have anything to do with either the Pokemon Mudkip or the Pokemon media franchise, making it irrelevant in the Mudkip article... maybe it would go in the Internet meme article, but it doesn't have anything to do with Mudkip at all... either the story or the meme that sprouted from that. Ksy92003(talk) 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Remember that consensus can change. If sources can be found and it is recreated (and survives), then consensus might favor the article.
Jeske and Ksy92003 - this says so much about your reluctance to include a mention of the meme in your (I'd call it "the" but it is clearly "your" article at this point) Mudkip article. The bizarre and unsavory story that you refer to has nothing to do with the meme as most people understand it. Thousands and thousands of people have seen "so i herd u liek mudkips" on their various, and varied, internet websites. This is all they know of the meme. This is what needs mention in the article: the common parlance, association and familiarity of this phrase. That's it. Do you honestly think we need to trace the provenance to some bullshit story about some kid fucking a mudkip doll? That's not the point of the meme, and given the nature of the meme, it begs a thorough review of the Wiki:Ignore All Rules guidelines. The point and effect of the meme is the innocent and infectious phrase "so i herd u liek mudkips," which is a phrase that has grown into its own despite its untraceable and, admittedly, unverifiable source. It's a phenomenon that is wonderfully unique to the internet, which is why Wikipedia allows for exceptions to its (flexible) rules. Jeske, you talk about the meme with such confidence and resolve, yet you deny that it exists. It's a widely known (see: Google) and widely appreciated phrase. You know that. You acknowledge that it begs for five or six paragraphs. But I don't think that much is necessary. All that needs to be said in the Mudkip article is it is a phrase that many, many people associate with Mudkip. Please see the "God" article for an example of something that can't trace a verifiable source yet has a substantial effect on a number of people. "I herd u liek mudkips" is forever and inexorably linked to Mudkip. This demands mention in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.166.14 (talk • contribs)
Your "God" comparison is veryunfair, and I will repeat myself AGAIN: I CANNOT ADD ANYTHING TO THE ARTICLE BECAUSE I USE THE INFORMATION ON THE ARTICLE FOR DUNGEONS & DRAGONS STAT BLOCKS. I AM ONLY HERE AGAINST THE MEME BECAUSE OF A SIMILAR DISPUTE OVER AT BIDOOF. Second, I have never denied the meme existed - if you'd read above, you would see I responded to it after reading it. I also did not say it needed five or six paragraphs, I said that the meme itself was five or six paragraphs, maybe more. Read what I write before you lambaste me, please.
It's an Internet Meme, no reliable source is going to publish a document on something so ridiculous as an Internet Meme. Again, O RLY? has sources only because the meme had been used in a Computer worm and a Video Game, no news source published an article directly about the meme. It would be added to this article, it's centred around the Mudkip, Mudkip is the noun, ==In popular culture==. It's being used in Popular Culture across the Internet and thus it is worthy of notice; WP:NOTABILITY. -- Kai talk 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The meme has apparently entered sorority life as a variant "So i heard you like mudkaps"... but I can't say that I've met the women involved. Again, however, one must question the wisdom of working so hard to disprove the existence of something that keeps popping up and seemingly wants to grow. Zaphraud 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I never said the meme does not exist, and nor did Ksy. We are asking for verifiability, not a witchhunt.
That may or may not have been how this meme originated, but that doesn't change the fact that the mudkip meme phenomenon has transcended this (as memes without true central origins are wont to do) meaning quite some time ago.
I just want to give my opinion on a couple of Jeske's rebuttals. First of all, as I recently suggested, if the meme would go anywhere, it would be much more appropriate in Internet meme, rather than this article. Another user much earlier pointed out that the meme isn't only limited to Mudkip. In the "so i herd u liek ____" sentence, anything can go in this blank. I can't find where on this talk page it says that, but I remember somebody mentioned that. If it's not limited to only Mudkip, then what does that mean? Doesn't that mean that it isn't always Mudkip mentioned in the meme? This makes it even harder to try to find a source to show where the meme originated from because this makes it harder to determine if Mudkip is the cause for this.
Additionally, about what I said about the AfD debate. I know that consensus can change. But as of right now, there still haven't been any sources provided. That was the point I was trying to make in mentioning the AfD debate. In over 15 months since the article was first nominated for AfD, nobody has still been able to provide a source. Ksy92003(talk) 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The phenomenon is Mudkip, not "blank", variations of this phrase are not important. -- Kai talk 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The other variations of the phrase are important. That shows that the meme is not limited to just Mudkip. Ksy92003(talk) 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I was in KMart grabbing some things for the house, decided to pick up a cheap optical mouse where this 12 year old kid approaches me and says 'So i heard you like mudkips' Not knowing what a mudkip was at the time I considered it an insult and retorted with 'So I heard you like dicks.' I got home and did a search on the All Knowing Internetz and turned up nothing... I had to rely on less sophisticated means of figuring out it was an internet meme. Godloveslamb 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Since when was Wikipedia omnipotent? Anyhow, welcome to the only place on Wikipedia where you can figure it out at the moment until somebody comes up with a source - the talk page of the character in question. By the by, Uncyclopedia has the meme (in its entirety) on its Mudkip page. -Jéské(v^_^v) 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have no idea if I'm doing this right. But if I am, and you can read this, please add info on the Meme "so i herd u liek mudkips". I had to go to encyclopedia dramatica for info. I never thought I'd see the day when encyclopedia dramatica gave better information than wikipedia. It's kind of embarassing for you guys. ~Brett
Yes, this is the correct place to discuss it. However, I'm sorry, but there has been a lot of discussion about this same topic. And nobody has yet been able to prove that it's notable enough for the article. Ksy92003(talk) 03:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, nobody has appeared with a reliable source, even for the name of the meme. -Jéské(v^_^v) 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, no reliable source is going to publish an article on an Internet Meme. -- Kai talk 07:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, we needed cake and punch :) We've got enough stuff here to feed the entire country of China :) Ksy92003(talk) 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys are way better than me for coming up with foodstuff names. I'm slightly jealous. Lightwing1988 00:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, China here and we say that it's an honor to be able to feast at this place and think spam is a good dip for the chips...
Shall I bring in Ximinez? It'll be the first time ever that anyone has expected the Spanish Inquisition.-Jéské(v^_^v) 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's alright, Lightwing. Mine wasn't that good. All the credit goes to Jéské. But you see what I started? If I never said "you and me both," then we wouldn't be planning this little shindig. But for the record, I'm actually having one tomorrow... well, kinda. I'm going to Olive Garden, the good ol' OG in the OC for my 17th birthday tomorrow, so I consider this a pre-birthday birthday party :) Ksy92003(talk) 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I almost forgot - I found some nice shrimp by a company called "Bijowdan"... Anyone wanna give them a try? -Jéské(v^_^v) 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy birthday, Ksy! Lightwing1988 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy B-day to ya and all that mumbo jumbo, stick with the script and we can all have a blasting party!
Thank y'all for the birthday greetings. And I'd love some shrimp. It's my favorite food in the whole world :) Ksy92003(talk) 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be "Glorious Sauce of Good Taste" flavor. Whomever their ad agency is, they've been watching too much Borat. -Jéské(v^_^v) 01:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't like shrimp, more for you guys. Lightwing1988 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I hear the doorbell ringing... Nah, it was just a telemarketer trying to sell us a costume he used to climb the Reichstag. Ah, well. Thought it was the pizza. -Jéské(v^_^v) 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protection (Again)
I have requested Semi-protection for Mudkip because the anons seem not to be aware of, or are actively ignoring, the fact that there is still a debate going on about the meme. -Jéské(v^_^v) 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And make it indefinite. Will(talk) 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Alison protected the page for two months; that should be enough time to finish the meme debate (knock on Sudowoodo). -Jéské(v^_^v) 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I just hope they decide to keep the meme off...Nintendo has no affiliation with 4Chan, anyway. Lightwing1988 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If they do decide to add it, Ksy and I have been dropping hints to list it at List of Internet phenomena, not here. -Jéské(v^_^v) 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why we're even having a debate. RS prohibits it. End of. But no, the IPs won't listen, so we're dragged into a perennial debate. Will(talk) 01:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of the IPs have claimed ownership, claimed they're allied with 4chan, or both. They're either too stubborn or too overconfident in the ability to edit anonymously to listen. Sad thing WP:ABUSE seems to have died out... -Jéské(v^_^v) 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
4channers are Bree-hobbits. Always claim to do something first, when they rarely do. Will(talk) 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
At least the trolling in the guise of WP:IAR suggestions, personal attacks on Ksy, and threats on myself have died out for the most part. -Jéské(v^_^v) 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So i herd u liek mudkip...
Hey guys. I just thought I would throw my two cents into the ring. It is an internet meme, that is obvious. But the question is: should these pokemon articles deal with the pokemon themselves, solely basing our research on the cannon of the show, comic, cards, video games, and toys; or should we also include into these articles the cultural and sociological phonominon that they create and that other users add onto these otherwise pokemon-related characters? I for one believe that if we do add it, it could be the subject of trolling, but it already appears that this talk page is a home for trolls. I know many people on the internet are talking about the pokemon Mudkip and many of them will come here. If they don't find out why people are obssesed with Mudkips. Like one time when my mom saw a reference to mudkips and got scaredAnd said, "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air."Itler005 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The article has already been merged, and concensus is Not in Mudkip's section. Why this talk page still exists is beyond me. -Jéské(v^_^v) 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It's here for archive's sake, and so other users may refer to it. --Raijinili
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^_^vKacheek!) 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^_^vKacheek!) 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)
Ouch. Nice rebuttal, Sceptre. -Jéské(v^_^vKacheek!) 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^_^vKacheek!) 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^_^vKacheek!) 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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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.
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(Blahv^_^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)
(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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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)
I do indeed liek kipz of the mud
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^_^vKacheek!) 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^_^vKacheek!) 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.
And WarthogDemon, you know better than to delete others' comments, especially since that wasn't a personal attack. -Jéské(v^_^vKacheek!) 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^_^vKacheek!) 01:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No, not in a million years. Will(talk) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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?
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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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. - TheBillyTalk 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)
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^_^vMrrph-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)
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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^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^_^vDetarder) 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^_^vDetarder) 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^_^vKaristaa 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)
[citation needed] 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^_^vKaristaa 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)
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)
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(Blahv^_^v) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
FAQ posted. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
General
Q) What’s "SIHULM"?
A) "SIHULM" stands for So I Herd U Liek Mudkipz, an Internet meme that originated from a DeviantArt PM that used the phrase to attempt to coerce another user to join a Pokemon-related group. It evolved, mostly due to its use in a copypasta on 4chan and similar sites, to the point that many users began to vandalize the Mudkip section of Wikipedia (and some related articles, such as Axolotl) in an attempt to add the meme to said section.
Sourcing
Part of the original content of this section, some of which is now moot as sources have come up.
A) 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. This is an example of a reliable source, and is thus being used on the list.
Q) I have a possible reliable source.
A) Bring it up in a new section here. Be aware that bringing up any of the types of sources mentioned in the above answer will result in the thread being removed; it is pointless to discuss sources that can’t be used in the first place.
Misc.
Q) I want to discuss the meme, but my thread keeps getting removed!
Q) I saw a mention of this in the <insert name of article here> article.
A) The string is currently flagged by Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool as vandalism and should be reverted on sight. Axolotl and Mudskipper tend to get this type of vandalism on a weekly basis if not semi-protected. If you see constant additions of the meme to an article that isn’t semi-protected, you might also want to consider requesting semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection – several administrators there are familiar with the situation.
Q) Can’t you just semi-protect the article(s) to prevent the constant additions?
A) The protection policy expressly forbids pre-emptive protections. The articles currently protected are protected only because of constant vandalism.
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(Blahv^_^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(Blahv^_^v) 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
BIG QUESTION
When in the hell did the term "I herd you liek Mudkips" begin anyway?!?!?!?!?!?
...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)
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: [7] -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.
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.
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)
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^_^vE 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^_^vE 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^_^vE 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^_^vMrrph-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^_^vMrrph-mph!) 03:33, 8 July 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^_^vTrump 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^_^vTrump 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)
"So I herd u like mudkips" in July 9, 2008 Wall Street Journal, called a viral phenomenon
"
... Another phrase "So I herd u like mudkips," a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show "Pokémon," spawned thousands of tribute videos on YouTube. ... viral phenomenon. Here's at a few of them: ... "so i herd u like mudkips": Originally posted on another Web site, members of 4chan adopted the phrase as in-joke. A "mudkip" is a lovable, water creature from the animated series Pokémon. You can watch some of the thousands of tribute videos on YouTube. ...
" - WALL STREET JOURNAL - July 9, 2008 - Modest Web Site Is Behind a Bevy of Memes
By the way, the ongoing "So I herd u like mudkips" debate (Part 1, Part 2) is moved to separate pages as it becomes too large for this page. Habanero-tan (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What part of "Articles must be about the subject in question" do you not understand? I've vetted the article; it's about 4chan and unusable for SIHULM. This was brought up and responded to above, in the first section on this talk page. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion. I know this is a pet project of yours. I'd like to see some other opinions as well. I'd rather not be a part of the discussion, but when the Wall Street Journal writes about memes and gives three examples of the most popular, it's not inappropriate to mention it on Wikipedia, especially considering how many people appear to want it. Maybe the Semi-Protection can be lifted? It looks like the discussion was popular with anonymous users before the stream of semi-protects began. Habanero-tan (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is *because* of the anons that the semi-protections had to be instated. I would be more than willing to see this page unprotected, but the disruption from anons, especially given that the main article is on a 6-month semi due to this meme and that I have to maintain Axolotl, Mudpuppy, and Mudskipper on my watchlist means that I am leery about removing the semi at this moment in time.
And as a side note, this only became my "pet project", to use your words, when the trolling and threats against the other user who's been mainly involved, Ksy92003 (talk·contribs), and the merging that was taking place at the time decided to stop editing this section. Even so, WP:PCP and some of the meme's defenders are going to agree with me: the meme is better off here; people have simply been acting dumb whenever someone wikilinks that article and persist in bringing it up here (although I can blame that on the FAQ created to head off all the trolling, attempts to shoehorn the meme into this talk page in an attempt to use it as a source ever since Mudkip was still a separate article (which is where the two archives from above come from), and the constant (and recurring) vandalism of Axolotl, Mudpuppy, and Mudskipper). -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 03:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jéské that the Mudkip meme simply does not belong on this article, and probably never should. However, I still think that the semi-protection of this talk page was a little rash. Artichoker[talk] 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If it was in the Wall Street Journal, I think it's good enough for Wikipedia. Your original argument was that the news never talks about Mudkips. Well now they do. Just because you have a personal vendetta against 4chan DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If the Wall Street Journal ran an article directly about the meme I'd have no objections, but the article was about 4chan and is thus only useful there. Sources must be about the subject in question; else there's no claim to notability which the meme desperately requires. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeske, I suggest your personal attitudes about this subject, as well as related ones, are strongly clouding your judgment. Notability absolutely does not apply to information within an article. It only applies to inclusion of a subject as its own article. So your claims about notability are irrelevant unless someone is trying to create an article about the meme. Within an article, verifiability is the regulator (among other things, but this is the one in question). Jeske, please show me where in the verifiability policy it states that in order to cite a source, the source must be entirely about the subject of the article? No such restriction exists. There is a very reliable source noting the existence of the meme, thus satisfying the verifiability and the reliable source policies. The only other concern here is how appropriate it is to mention this meme in the mudkip section in this article. It is indeed appropriate to mention in this section; we are an encyclopedia. Our coverage of fiction should contain as much real-world context as possible. This meme is such context, and a mention of the meme should be included. As a related side-note, Jeske, your protections of this talk page are wildly inappropriate. You are by no stretch of the imagination uninvolved. If enough vandalism to warrant semi-protection existed, a post at RPP would have resulted in a protection by a neutral administrator. You should not be using your tools on a page in which you are so heavily involved. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:GHITS, Zac. And if that's how you feel, seresin, feel free to request an unprot, and I'll step down - but you need to be prepared to deal with the related vandalism on Axolotl, Mudskipper, Mudpuppy, and Saturday. I make my decisions based on policy - which so far has been a double-edged sword to both parties. There has been two deleted articles on the meme, and consensus still present from Talk:Mudkip is that WP:NOT still applies - namely, IINFO. I actually have no objection to seeing SIHULM on Wikipedia - provided it's in the appropriate article (List of Internet phenomena). Anywhere else it reads as an ad. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, I felt the protection of this talk page was completely inappropriate. Talk pages should almost never be semi-protected, unless there is extreme vandalism (which there wasn't.) Even the talk page to George W. Bush isn't protected. I urge you to unprotect. Artichoker[talk] 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Very well, Jeske. Let's get consensus again, as we now have an iron-clad source. I support inclusion. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Since a good source has been found, I support inclusion as well. Artichoker[talk] 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I support inclusion as well. Cratylus3 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm remaining neutral if for no other reason than I'm tired of 4chan's influence on Wikipedia, and including the meme here will more likely than not not affect the vandalism on Axolotl and its kin. Also, this is a slippery slope; you might also want to hit up Talk:List of Pokémon (101-120) for the "FUCK YEAH SEAKING" meme and whatever talk page applies to Bidoof for the "derp" meme. I can guarantee you the source of that meme is far more appropriate for Wikipedia than SIHULM's is. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The origin of a meme should not matter in the slightest when deciding whether or not it should be included. Wikipedia's existing notability guidelines should be the only deciding factor. Arguing that "I don't like 4chan" is a terrible argument and as an administrator, you should know better. Furthermore, can you give me a good reason why "FUCK YEAH SEAKING", etc. should not be included in the appropriate article if they pass notability requirements? As to the vandalism on Axolotl, yes that will almost certainly not stop, but that is no reason not to include the meme. Should 911 conspiracy theories be abridged because it doesn't stop "Jews did WTC" vandalism?
Anyways, you clearly have a vendetta against 4chan /SIHULM which is making you impartial on this matter. You need to start behaving more like an administrator and less like a schoolboy with a grudge. 12.20.35.99 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally! Victory is ours!! 71.37.59.92 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded thousands of mudkip videos to youtube and got a job as a writer at the WSJ in an elaborate troll on Jeske. 71.37.59.92 (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. What have you guys reached with this? Nothing. - Face 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire. Certain people can get too worked up about something as trivial as SIHULM (look at all the infoboxes on this page and the message below) instead of focusing on the most important part of Wikipedia - adding more/better information to articles. By including SIHULM with a reliable source, we are beating the "I don't like 4chan, it isn't notable" mindset at its own game. This is also another victory (the previous being the ED article finally being restored/passing an AfD) against those with petty grudges against certain websites. (Comment abridged, see edit history for full text.)Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the "recent changes monitors" (as you call them, I call them vandalfighters) and the vandals/trolls (either here or at ED) do have something in common. They both do relatively unintelligent work, they both want to feel important and in control, and they both try to gain respect with it. But it took a 100 tries to add that meme to the article. It takes me 5 edits to block another disruptive troll. So... yeah, I think I rather be on the side of the vandalfighters. Cheers, Face 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree that most vandals/trolls do unintelligent work. However, I don't think that very few of them want to feel important and in control - from what I've seen the underlying reason/primary motivation is because it's entertaining/amusing, especially when it becomes obvious that said vandalism is getting under the skin of some of the editors.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that a relevant piece of information has been added where consensus required it. I don't think that's "nothing." What I think is more important is that it has been shown that an admin willing to abuse his authority does not automatically get his way here. That is a relief to me. Unfortunately, rude people will do their best to be poor sports about this, but in the end the inclusion is just obvious and correct, and that's not "nothing." Reason has prevailed, and I'd say that's something. Cratylus3 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record: I do not oppose its inclusion. It appears to be long-lasting enough, fine, just add a little mention. What I do oppose however, is you calling Jèskè "an admin willing to abuse his authority". He has been reverting the SIHULM edits and the SPAs for months, and rightly so, because there was no consensus and things were getting pretty bad (vandalism, personal attacks). I'm sure that gets annoying after a while. Now that there seems to be a consensus, he stopped reverting it. He's still against inclusion, well, that's his opinion. - Face 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, seresin's comments on Jeske's "wildly inappropriate" use of his tools are fairly clear and my comments regarding his abuse of authority are in line with them. You should perhaps take up your objection with seresin. I am also not understanding what you were referring to with your statement of having reached "nothing," in light of your more recent statements and edits. Cratylus3 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest, Cratylus, that you cease the ad hominem attacks or I will report you at AN/I for this. You're baiting at this point. And Face, I'm neutral on the matter now, not opposed to it, largely because not only do I have bigger fish to fry, but, as I correctly predicted, Axolotl's still getting SIHULM up the ass. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please report me to AN/I for this, Jeske. I'd like to know if my behavior has been violatory. I think I've expressed opinions you don't like, which is not the same as breaking the rules. I hope. Let's find out.Cratylus3 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
←You both need to calm down. If you still wish to carry on, I suggest you take this dispute elsewhere, this page is not the place. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
While articles used to demonstrate notability need to be about the subject in question, I'd like to point out that once we've established notability (not far off, from the looks of it) that article could be used as a citation to beef up the section where we choose to put this, unless I'm mistaken. So keep that article on hand. Suigetsu 01:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, glad to see Jeske hasn't given up on this subject, if anyone's the guy to take this bullshit under his wing, it's definitely that dude. Suigetsu 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible note
To all the anons out there: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BILLBOARD AND WE WILL DELETE SIHULM ON SIGHT UNLESS YOU PROVIDE RELIABLE SOURCES DIRECTLY DISCUSSING THE MEME. WE DO NOT TOLERATE SPAM ARTICLES AND WILL DELETE THEM ON SIGHT AS VANDALISM. (I apologize for the yelling, but my nerves are a tad frayed after having to block *yet again* a SIHULM VOA.)
So if you think you're being clever by attacking other articles (Saturday, Axolotl, and Mudpuppy, to name a few) or creating fluff articles (administrators can see the revisions of the deleted page) you're not only sadly mistaken, but foolish as well.
My recommendation? Go off to a wiki that will tolerate SIHULM, because Wikipedia will not. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a question; what is SIHULM? Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
There's an FAQ linked at the top of the page regarding it, and the meme was the focus of the deleted article above. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the acronym; excuse my block-headedness. Artichoker[talk] 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to the FAQ page, and I post it here too:
IMPORTANT NOTE: Consensus about this is shifting after it was mentioned here. This (and other signs) seems to indicate that the notability of the meme is increasing. This FAQ must either be updated, or removed.
Yeah, thats right. I mean, whats it going to take, do we need to have the meme mentioned in the next State of the Union address? The Wall Street Journal is good enough for crying out loud! Its really time the obsessive-compulsive suppression we've seen from ksy92003 and Jeske comes to an end, I only wish they hadn't lacked the foresight to understand the inevitability of mentioning Mudkip's overwhelming liekability. Zaphraud (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Leave Ksy92003 out of this; he hasn't been involved for the better part of a year, Zaphraud, thanks to the merger. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I updated the FAQ a few days back but any other changes are welcome. It's also mentioned in the article. —Giggy 08:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jéské, but I've come back into this. I was prompted by a comment Zaphraud left me a couple days ago, which I just checked Tuesday evening. My year-long hiatus from this chaos has been quite relaxing, but I've returned and my stance has not changed.
As Jéské said earlier in this section, the thing we're looking for before including mention of the meme is this: is there any reliable source that asserts the notability of the meme? Nobody, to my knowledge, has yet to provide any reliable, non-4Chan (or similar websites) sources that assert the notability of the meme and/or any significant impact on.. well, anybody. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the notability question has been settled. Since a separate article for sihulm is not in dispute here, the notability issue is moot. Cratylus3 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Reread the notability guidelines. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article" (emphasis mine). As discussed before, inclusion of content in an article has nothing to do with the notability of the content itself. Do we remove mention of a famous person's children because his children aren't notable enough to warrant an article? Within an article, if information regarding the article's topic can be verified by a reliable source (which the WSJ clearly is), it can be included. The source does NOT have to assert notability. If you can make a good case that the meme's inclusion in the WSJ is not sufficient to meet WP:V, I won't oppose its removal from the article.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ksy92003 and Jéské have shown a long-term overzealous obsession with this article, and their apparent lack of understanding on the basic inclusion principles of Wikipedia show they need to cease their involvement here. 71.212.47.34 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As Cratylus says below, please do your homework and make sure the people you're accusing of malfeasance on an article actually edit the article before that. I've been too busy dealing with SIHULM elsewhere, not here - in fact, this page has been off my watchlist for the better part of a month precisely because of people like you who prefer to throw stones naked in a glass house. -Jéské(v^_^vBodging WP edit by edit) 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue is over with "except for the screaming." The people you've fingered have not edited this article recently. Even if we assume you're right, the matter can be dropped. SIHULM is in. Cratylus3 (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk page to wiki article
Does anyone else seriously feel that this talk page should get its own article? You could take a pageful of the ridiculousness that is above (throw in a couple crying baby image macros) and have a serious discussion about the degeneration of information quality in modern media.72.186.157.71 (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is within the notability guidelines. Cratylus3 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen it mentioned offhand in some of the guidelines and appears in lists of stupidest wikipedia issues. 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.51.124 (talk)
You mean WP:LAME? - Face 11:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This talkpage, as well as its archives, are so awesome they deserve their own t-shirt. Suigetsu 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not; Wikipedia abhors self-refs, and I'm not aware of any news articles mentioning the dispute. -Jéské(v^_^vKacheek!) 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So I herd you liek mudkipz?
It took me ages to finally work out what this phrase meant from the various talk page archives. Just the comments I have read in those surely show that it's a big enough phenomenon to justify a page, whether or not documentary evidence can be found anywhere else? At least, is it possible to put a 'sticky' explanation of the phrase at the top of this talk page? Other sites actually link to these talk page archives and it's as clear as mud until one has searched through pages and pages of mystifing arguments, what the saying actually means.
I have to say, I did get the distinct impression that wikipedia most certainly does not liek mudkipz.
Codeye (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Mudkip
I think it should also be mentioned that mudkip has become popular on Deviantart (www.deviantart.com) At one point all avatars where changed to mudkip as a April fools joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerSam (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that dA jumping onboard a forced 4chan meme is particularly noteworthy. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The meme originated at D-ART, see the Mudkip Archive02. 4chan just made it forced. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 08:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Haven't there been some YouTube videos with it in it? And didn't I just make a userbox? Tezkag72 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
So did I. Doesn't mean shit because neither Wikipedia nor YouTube can be used as sources. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn. Well, I know I saw some story online on it, from some news source. Finding it's something different. Tezkag72 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's already sourced in the article, but that story's about 4chan, not SIHULM. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 22:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm loving this. I've been gone for about four months... it's been about a couple years since this stupid argument began, and we still have yet to come to a resolution? Only came here because this page was on my watchlist. Anybody care to fill me in on the details of this argument? In short, has any reliable source been submitted to verify the meme's so-called "notability"? Ksy92003 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I really think the internet meme deserves more than just a one sentence mention, when there has been thousands of 4chan posts, YouTube videos, etc. I think there should be a subsection under Mudkip about the meme, with an image for an example. Anyone agree? Tezkag72 01:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree; that's undue weight to the meme. Shadowrun timeline does not have a section all to Dunkelzahn, despite his monstrous influence on it. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree. An image of Mudkip with those obnoxious buck teeth? I think not. This is an article about Pokemon. Not what some guys made a joke about on the internet. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the Pokemon, not the meme. It should be mentioned on the List of Internet phenomena page instead.--ZXCVBNM 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
With that being said, I don't think this belongs in the Internet Culture project because this article is about 20 Specific Pokemon, not just Mudkip. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, Mudkip doesn't have its own article (and won't unless someone manages to bring up sources which'll let it pass WP:N), so the whole article has to be placed on the project (I've no objection to the tagging in this case). As to the lower keyboard row, that's precisely what I said - A LOT - before I stopped editing this article altogether due to JA/G 4channer harassment. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, the Mudkip article would still have nothing to do with the meme. Just like you wouldn't include the Pokemon article in the project because of "let me show you my Pokemanz." The I.C. project should include articles SPECIFICALLY about Internet culture, and even though it's vandalized a lot, this isn't one of them.--ZXCVBNM 22:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply create the "So i herd u liek mudkipz" page that everybody wants? It's been years and it's still not dead. So MAKE THE PAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.209.242 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And NARH, please read Wikipedia:Notability. I backed down from it last time because I misinterpreted the policy; don't make the same mistake. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 08:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Would indefinite create-protection of the page in question be in order? I find it strange that the meme redirects directly to this page, which doesn't have anything to do with it other than having Mudkip in it.--ZXCVBNM 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it redirects to the Mudkip section. I don't think salting would be appropriate; the page hasn't been created that many times, and sources may come up anytime. If anything, Mudkip should have its own article, and the meme should have its own section in that article. Tezkag72 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In the grand scheme of things, Mudkip really isn't that more notable than Torchic, Totodile, Sunkern, Doduo, Zubat, Mothim, or Mantine. All that can be presented is in-universe information, and that really doesn't fit in with Wikipedia policy. SIHULM isn't even relevant enough to warrant it's own section if such an article did exist; it takes up only two lines on this page, and that is after years of dispute and peopl searching for reliable references. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone was knowledgeable enough to type in the entire meme to the search bar, they probably wouldn't be searching for the article about Mudkip, otherwise they would just search for "Mudkip." Because of this, the redirect should either link to List of Internet phenomena and the one-sentence mention be moved there, with reference, or it should link to 4chan who created the meme.--ZXCVBNM 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Be bold and do it then. I've been suggesting that for a while now; the only problem with it is that I'm not taking any actions related to Internet memes because I already have agents provocateur antagonizing 4chan against me. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 04:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(RI) And reverted by Cratylus3. I'd like to hear his arguments for keeping it in the article. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think there's been enough strife, Jeske, without inciting more? Zxcvbnm, please read the umptillion discussion pages on this. Cratylus3 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe he did, and I'm not trying for strife this time. He was just being bold, that's all, since he feels that the meme's mention is utterly irrelevant to Mudkip as concerns the Pokémon franchise (something I agree with, but won't protest either way). -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with the move; people looking for the meme would be better suited looking at the list of internet phenomena, as the actual information on the Pokemon Muskip would likely be of no interest to them. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering the Bulbasaur article has a section on "cultural impact", I won't try to start an edit war, and I'll leave this be.--ZXCVBNM 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the meme has nothing to do with Mudkip at all. Something that I mentioned to Jeske well over a year ago about this stupid meme is that it originated from a story of a kid ****ing a Mudkip doll. So I think two things have to happen before the meme is mentioned either in its own article or the Mudkip "section": 1) somebody's gotta prove the notability of the meme, and 2) somebody's gotta show how the meme has any relevance to a freaking video game character. Ksy92003 (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to see a consensus, but I think we're gonna need some more input here. To IPs wanting to put in your two cents: There isn't going to be an independent article on SIHULM anytime soon; this discussion's about its appropriateness in *this* article. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Your missing the point entirly avoiding making a page about this meme would just bring more attention to it, and there are alot of hackers of 4chan, lets not inflict their wraith over a little article on a pokemon which in a few years wont matter anyways, i believe its best if you just simply give them access to an article about the meme and end this pointless flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadherbie (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
A small subsection, or even just a couple sentences more than there already is, is not undue weight, and doesn't fail WP:N. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Undeadherbie's asking for an article, not the section already there. -Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how it can possibly be expanded more than it is, and reliably cited at the same time. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither do I. I'm usually an inclusionist, but I don't support there being a page for the meme unless more sources are found showing its notability. Then it can be expanded much more. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Been bold and redirected to List of Internet phenomena; the meme has nothing to do with the Pokemon, and as such has no place on this page. Would we include information about Bono on the Bulbasaur page? Of course not, hence the redirect (and before anyone says anything, I have been involved in many of the discussions regarding this over the years). MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And promptly reverted by Cratylus3 again 8-|. Despite what appears to be a consensus here on this page for it not being included in this article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted back; it's clear to me there's a consensus amongst the legit editors here (i.e. those who don't come to this page specifically to troll). -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you're insisting on seeing bad faith where there is simply disagreement. I'm reverting it to the way it's been for months, and the way that it ought to be. As seresin said, this is relevant, and sourced, and belongs here. Your rabble rousing and name calling just reflects poorly on you, jeske. Cratylus3 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm only calling spades spades. In this whole debate, you're practically the only named account in favor of the meme that has not been indef'd as a vandalism-only account, Cratylus. More compelling arguments have been brought up that it should be in List of Internet phenomena, not here, and consensus can change (and has done so in this case), Cratylus. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh, it seems to me as well that there is a clear consensus among editors on this talk page - yourself excluded - that the meme has nothing to do with either Mudkip or Pokemon. besides, the meme itself redirects to List of Internet phenomena, and that also contains the exact same information as is present in this article. Consensus is against you, Cratylus. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Zxcvbnm, Sukecchi, Ksy92003, Jéské Couriano, and MelicansMatkin are all for it's removal from this page due to it having nothing to do with the subject at hand. And from my scouring of it, I see only Cratylus3 opposed to it's inclusion, with Tezkag72 neither for nor against inclusion just so long as it has some sort of mention on the encyclopedia (though he'd prefer it to have it's own page). That's a pretty clear indication to me. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are we finding it so difficult ot decide if the mudkip meme should be allowed on this page? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and random memes which will soon be forgotten don't really belong on a serious encyclopaedia. That said, why don't we just stick it on the memes page where we put all of the crap that 4chan churns out and narrowly meets the criteria for inclusion but that doesn't really belong on a serious encyclopedia and get our Wikipedia back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UKWikiGuy (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Because not everyone agrees with you. For example, I think the meme is notable, and it has been covered in press articles. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's been covered in precisely one article from a reliable source that has been found after numerous people searched for months and months. That hardly qualifies it as "notable". Personally, as I've mentioned above, I have a hard time seeing how the single sentence can possibly be expanded upon. Whether it's here or on the List of Internet phenomena really doesn't matter all that much when we're talking about something so little. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Christ, it's like Freddy Kruger - it just won't fragging die! I suggested that months ago (see above); someone was bold and removed it from this page to transplant it there, but he was reverted, and we've been stuck in limbo waiting for other, non-vandal voices (Undeadherbie was indef'd as a VOA) to chime in. The debate's a crawling horror, and needs to die before any more editors lose sanity over it. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 11:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
My rationale is: will the meme be relevant within a few years. That answer is almost certainly no. Also it may have made more sense to include the meme if the Pokemon all had their own pages (like they used to), but now we just have a paragraph on each so it doesn't seem like it should be included. UKWikiGuy (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, it won't. You don't hear people arguing to include "Fuck yeah Seaking!" anymore. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a one-sentence mention. If there was any kind of reliable source that "Fuck yeah Seaking!" was widely used, I would argue to include it, even if otherwise Seaking is perhaps one of the least notable Pokémon. And I am almost sure that there is some Wikipedia policy against the "will it matter in a few years" reasoning. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a policy in favour of that consideration actually, and that policy is WP:N. The majority of editors on this page are arguing against its inclusion on this article, and moving the information to List of Internet phenomena instead (which if you look, has the identical information as on this page). Not to mention that both "Mudkipz" and the meme itself redirect to List of Internet phenomena. What does it have to do with Mudkip? Nothing. What does it have to do with Pokemon? Nothing. What does it have to do with Internet phenomena? Everything, since it IS an internet phenomena. So why should it be on this page when it is much better suited to the List of Internet phenomena? Let me stress: The information is not being removed from the encyclopedia, it is just being moved to a more appropriate page. I'll repeat my example of including information about Bono on the Bulbasaur page; the two subjects have nothing in common, hence why you don't find any info about Bono on the Bulbasaur page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"The majority of editors on this page are arguing against its inclusion on this article" - look at the hundreds of arguments over in the archives, those against it can hardly claim a majority. The talk page gets ignored for a few months, a few users of the same opinion start talking, and all of a sudden a false sense of consensus appears. "What does it have to do with Mudkip? Nothing." - What? Is that sarcasm? If nothing else they coincidentally have the six-letter string m-u-d-k-i-p in common.Habanero-tan (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:CCC. It's about a kid going nuts with his doll. It could be any doll, but it just happens to be a Mudkip. What does it have to do with the Pokemon Mudkip, which is what this article is about? Rien. Also note that many of the people protesting for its inclusion appeared solely to discuss the inclusion of the meme.
Tell me; exactly what information about the Pokemon Mudkip does the meme and that source provide? If there is no information directly related to that subject, then it has no place on this page. And tell me, what does the source tell you about internet phenomena? It's directly related, therefore it has a place on that page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that many of the IP and named editors arguing for the meme were later caught vandalizing, trolling, or (in one case) impersonating other users. Further, named accounts and IPs harassed Axolotl and Mudskipper, and were blocked for it or otherwise took a powder. They never came to this page; only to those pages to vandalize them with SIHULM. Both are now under indefinite semi-protection. The impious madness must end. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The addition to the List of internet phenomena has been reverted. The discussion here is moot until that dispute is resolved. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently we need articles (plural) that focus squarely on the meme to include it in the List of Internet phenomena article, according to the person reverting it. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 01:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Following that user's logic, the List of Internet phenomena would go from looking like this to looking like this. Or to put it another way, close to half of the content would be removed. Clearly there's a double standard. I've initiated a discussion with him here; feel free to join in. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Since that dispute has been resolved, I'd like to get back to the discussion at hand; namely whether the "Mudkipz" meme should have an inclusion in this article now that it is listed as an Internet phenomena. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't, since the meme does not add to knowing what a Mudkip is any more than it helps add to knowing what a plushophile is. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Jesus doesn't add to knowing what a cross is, Ricardo López doesn't add to knowing who Bjork is, the Head-On commercials don't add to knowing what the product is, but all the same they are included. So that argument doesn't hold water. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The meme is about a doll being raped, not the actual Pokémon, so the argument does indeed ring true. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 11:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as there is a link to the direct entry on the phenomena page from the mudkip section of this page, I don't see why there is a problem. That method preserves the nature of this page (being only about the pokemon itself), and easily points the reader to the discussion of the meme itself, which seems to satisfy everyone. So why aren't we just doing that? seresin ( ¡? ) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A link to the phenomena page seems proper and adequate. Cratylus3 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it's done that for a short while now; it says in the section Mudkip redirects here. For the meme, please see List of Internet phenomena, as established by this edit. So can we count this issue resolved? MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with For the "So i herd u liek mudkipz" Internet meme, see List of Internet phenomena., so long as the phrase appears and the link keeps the information. Habanero-tan (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Some people are really getting troll'd here. MONSTER TROLL!! ~~coolstorybro~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.196.81 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
