Talk:Mudkip/As a Meme

Earlier Discussion

First Discussion

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)

Second Discussion

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)

Main Discussion

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. ;) Highway ^{Return 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? Highway ^{Return 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. Highway ^{Return 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. Highway ^{Grammar 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. Highway ^{Grammar 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. Highway ^{Grammar 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. Highway ^{Grammar 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.

Mudkip is notable, the meme isn't. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Highway ^{Grammar 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)

i c wut u did thar The suicide forest 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I...uh...heard some things.Mudkip 13:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of things? The suicide forest 15:51, 2 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. Highway ^{Grammar 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. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE 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. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE 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. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE 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. --Wooty Woot? 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)

May I just add how ridiculous this page is? It's so ridiculous that Encyclopedia Dramatica links to it, just to point out how ridiculous you all are. Don't you people have anything better to do? Doomshifter (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that Wikipedia is making such a big deal. It's not like Wikipedia is an acceptable encyclopaedia or anything, it's just a nice place to peek for information on the run. Therefore it's ridiculous that Wikipedia doesn't attempt to capitalize on the internet market in a doomed attempt for academic relevance. 2:54, 15 November 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.33.86 (talk)

• • • Request to organize this page please. I need to know if this Mudkip thing is of a regular adult content or a highly explicit adult content. On another website (imvu) I had gotten my account temporarily banned because the website's customer service was confused on this mudkip matter. We're allowed to have strong mature content as long as it's strength is watered down with comical humor, but we're not allowed for actual explicit strong sexual content. Is referring to this mudkip incident the same as condoning rape? Complex topic o,o*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.11.100 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)