Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)

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)

I personally believe that "Do U Liek Mudkips" and other such memes that have been frequently contested as articles should be considered as articles if they are popular enough. Articles on internet memes like this are good for study. Their stories are entertaining and they can be used to study things such as psychology and sociology. Also, they are great for just plain curiosity. So don't say that "memes are never notable" or they "can't be used for reference." If someone can write a good article on a meme, they should be able to. Josephrockz4 (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for memes is very high - see All Your Base Are Belong To Us and O RLY?, both of which meet that threshold. It's worth noting that both memes have been referred to off the æther, whereas SIHULM hasn't aside from a tangential mention on a newspaper article about 4chan. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't really know how to use this thing and I'm not even registered but I am real and not a troll. Alright if it has completely nothing to do about the pokemon and has something to do with a guy scrwing a mudkip doll, WRITE ABOUT THE GUY AND THE DOLL, NOT THE MUDKIP. At least mention 2 - 4 sentences in the Mudkip entry about it in Wikipedia at least or put in a Mudkip (Disambiguation). The lack of explanation on the origins of mudkip is also not helping. I thought this site was all for information and notable things. When it can't publish the fact that it's CREATED OUT OF A STUPID POST OR NOT, I actually feel for some people. Here, when people want information, they almost always go wiki, otherwise they Google but probably end up here on the results page. When they don't get what they want they either a) give up or b) google again in which case a is more persistent with lazy people. It's like you're asking us "why write X raping Y on the X and the Y articles? X and Y are part of the series on human beings and X raping Y is A STORY ABOUT THEM, NOT ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS" Recording events, no matter how trivial, as long as it is fact-proven, which it is, is not a strange thing to do. I only want justice to be done. I only want a mention of its origins (I mean the text it was based on, people practically DON'T KNOW how it got popular on 4chan, for all they know, someone could've crapflooded mudkips and not knowing about /b/, they think the /b/tards thought it was funny and crapflooded it all over again, which it is NOT and WILL mislead people to believing what they want) and other fact-proven, useful things and I will be happy to shut my tramp up. The Pokemon elitists won't complain if we make a page named So I herd U Liek Mudkipz (Meme) will they? Hell why not put an additional "Not a pokemon" or "it has got nothing to do with pokemon" at the end?

Also, how do I do this? maybe im doing it wrong, oh wait I'm doing it right am I? :\ Well at least I got that off my back and I want a straight answer, adressing all the remarks I have made. Please. As I've said, a lenghtier mention would satiate me, I swear. 125.160.167.40 (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3:21, 25 June 2009

Just chill. The meme is in internet phenomena. A link to that is on the mudkip section. This discussion is settled, nobody wins, nobody loses. The information is available in a reasonable way, and you can just simmer down. All you're going to do with a rant like this is start yet another interminable crapfest of which there's a few archives already. Cratylus3 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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)

Nein, Herr Ksy. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Entei

Isnt Entei based on the Beast in Beauty and the Beast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.100.253 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If he is, then Mudkip is based off of a 4channer's pet dog. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've seen a lot of vandalism, almost exclusively in the Mudkip section. I think we should semi-protect this. ^Tezkag₇₂ 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Get used to it - the section is ALWAYS gonna be under 4chan/ED attack because it is the subject of a forced Internet meme. I'm not semi'ing because I've gotten completely tired of accusations of bad-faith from 4channers after some of their ranks tried to troll the meme onto one of the source articles and every other article remotely related to it (Mudskipper, Axolotl, Mudpuppy). I've requested at WP:RPP. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it is now. ^Tezkag₇₂ 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"So i herd u liek mudkipz" is bigger

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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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)

No source or notability; no article as a result. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:12, 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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.--_ZXCVBNM 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(RI) And reverted by Cratylus3. I'd like to hear his arguments for keeping it in the article. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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). -Jéské Couriano ^{(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. -Jéské Couriano ^{(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)

No. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:49, 17 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^_^v Dittobori)} 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^_^v Cardmaker)} 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^_^v Cardmaker)} 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)

User:UKWikiGuy's also against its inclusion, lest I be mistaken. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What Part of do not do this don't you get? 69.132.87.99 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What part of "Not at all related to the Pokémon Mudkip" do you not get? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Mudkips an Axolotl?

I thought the pokemon was based on an Axolotyl. Betaben (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proof? By the by, sinular and plural is Mudkip. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so difficult

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^_^v Cardmaker)} 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^_^v Cardmaker)} 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^_^v Cardmaker)} 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)

• He's making the same mistake I did: conflating WP:N and WP:V. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:42, 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^_^v Cardmaker)} 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^_^v Cardmaker)} 11:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also a varient of other crap exists. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:33, 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)

Three years and still going strong

This debate has apparently been raging for over three years now. Folks, HTTP has only been a protocol since 1991, so that means this debate has been ongoing for 16% of the life of the World Wide Web. Its stupid to think that it will ever be forgotten about at this point, if for no other reason than it's been automatically mirrored too many times over the years. The Mudkip meme has outlived the vast majority small businesses that were around when it began, and outlived the employment tenure of more than half of American CEOs who were in position when it started...

There is no mistaking that this truly is the most legendary Pokémon of all time.Zaphraud (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I always wanted to keep it there. It's definitely the thing that Mudkip is most notable for, and even the most notable thing about any of the Pokémon on this list. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a nice chuckle when a friend linked to the archive of the mudkips discussion

"Besides, nobody is even going to care six months from now. Zazaban 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.105.63 (talk)

So should we delete chocolate rain and all other memes off wikipedia?

If you intend to deny Mudkip its own page then this is the only logical and fair conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.63.86 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's get rid of all the other meme pages. They're just drivvel anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mudkip almost got its own page, but there wasnt enough sources to warrant an article. Using WP:Other Stuff Exists has no effect. Other memes might have more reliable sources. Also it has been said that "So I herd u leik mudkipz" things will not give Mudkip his own article. It did help Mudkip be popular, but it doesnt allow it an article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, OP is ignoring this. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Manga Obsession

Is it just me, or is there too much information taken from the manga? Why not have information from the manga on all Pokemon? Who really cares on some of those things, really (rhetorical question)? Are we scraping the bottom of the barrel to get this information? I know Wikipedia is for getting as much relevant information as possible, but the manga sections are a bit extensive...Questions awaiting answers at 2D Backfire Master (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you rambling on about? There is a paragraph each in Blaziken and Mudkip's sections. Mudkip's is mainly there because I made an article for it, but it did not meet notability, and I merged it here (while cutting some things). Some Pokémon only have a few sentences of manga information. Main character's starter Pokémon are generally seen more and get used alot, so they have more to say. If you think something is "unneeded", then remove it. These sections don't really have a content limit though, as long as they are mostly reliably sourced. Just because some Pokémon's entries are small, doesn't mean others' can't excel. *cough* WP:Other stuff exists *cough*

On a side note though, manga and anime appearances should really be more about their role in said series. Such as Jigglypuff is always following them around making them fall asleep. They shouldn't really go into what said Pokémon did in what episode. Most Pokémon only make small cameos, or only have a large role in an episode or two. It is then, that it is needed to explain what they did in the episode, because really nothing else can be said. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just don't know a thing about the manga, and it always seems weird to read about it. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)