Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the video games or the meme "so i herd you liek mudkipz". Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about the video games or the meme "so i herd you liek mudkipz" at the Reference desk. |
Pokémon Redirect‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
Archive
All inactive discussions have been moved to the second LOP archive. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 22:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the recent comments back here. 3 days and 1 reply who isn't you doesn't let a discussion get hidden away by the person who disagrees with it. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies; I actually had thought the thread was resolved. I wasn't trying to hide anything I disagreed with. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 19:34, 15 July 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
Habanero-tan (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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^_^v Mrrph-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^_^v Mrrph-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)
- 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)
- 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^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 01:11, 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^_^v Mrrph-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)
Srongest 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^_^v Mrrph-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^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, the acronym; excuse my block-headedness. Artichoker[talk] 22:53, 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^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)