Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon

Project Space Articles.

What do you think about making updated Pokémon species articles in the Project space.

Example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species/Lucario or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Lucario

Or, making them on the actual pages with the redirect still on the top of the page. So, they will still redirect, but anybody that wants to help can click back and edit the article. I dont like having these articles in our userspace, and I would like to see what current, updated species articles would look like. Then they can work from there. I just want to know where we can put these articles legally. --Blake (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I found some articles like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Shroomish evolutionary line" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Jynx evolutionary line". What should we do with these? --Blake (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

those are leftover from when i had suggested we try out the group articles and i had wanted people to see what they could look like, and offer a place for the project to work collaboratively on them, as putting them in the mainspace would have been contentious. No one else seemed interested in working on them, so, meh, i don't really care i guess. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved my articles to the project space and made this directory to try and keep track of articles made there. Including templates, project pages, etc. --Blake (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling another meeting: progress has been made

Pokémon (video game series)

6 articles

Pokémon Red and Blue

Pokémon Gold and Silver

Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Well I'm happy to say that the whole issue of what to do with Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen has been thoroughly put behind us. The article was just promoted to Good Article status, which brings us one step closer to a Good Topic. However, one final hurdle remains: Pokémon (video game series), and this one will probably be our toughest project yet, simply because the article is so large and needs to be comprehensive. Any thoughts on this? Oh, and on a related note, am I the only one who thinks Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen is pretty damn close to FA? It appears to be our most comprehensive and best quality article out of all the games, so I was thinking maybe taking it to FAC in the near future. What do you guys think? Artichoker^[talk] 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From very nearly being merged to becoming a GA (and close to an FA; I agree with you on that) in so short a time. Gotta say I'm impressed, and congrats to all those who made it so. I haven't taken a thorough look at the video game series page recently, but I think that if every member here contributes toward it when a decision on how to structure and clean it is made, it will hopefully not be too much trouble. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice work Artichoker and the rest. However, I think this would be the correct topic: TheLeftorium 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

List of main Pokémon video games

6 articles

Pokémon Red and Blue

Pokémon Gold and Silver

Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Well heh, it certainly would be easier to get List of Pokémon video games to FL status than Pokémon (video game series) to GA. Artichoker^[talk] 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have to remove the "Games for PC" then you can. Nobody is going to search for those. They are mainly things that came out 5-10 years ago. Half of the PC titles probably aren't even there. --Blake (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you would make the list incomplete just for the sake of an FL? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, most likely not all of them are there as it is, and they arent very notable. A greeting card maker and random mini-games. The list would be better without them in my opinion, but if you dont think so, they can stay. They are just an eyesore. --Blake (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) So, have we decided whether we are going to use Pokémon (video game series) or List of Pokémon video games for our Good Topic? And furthermore, does anyone see any glaring concerns with Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen? If not, I'll probably be taking it to FAC in the short future. Artichoker^[talk] 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that "List" would work better; it's really the same basic information, but it seems to be worded better. No concerns with FR/LG either. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Pinball

The issue was brought up of merging it, but with all the talk about FRLG being merged and improved, Pinball got forgotten. I merged the pages here, but it still needs fixing up. --Blake (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pokebox

User:Zappernapper apparently cooked this up based off of the VG box and tried putting into effect on here, but there really doesn't look like there's been any discussion to it's usage. It's similar to the current box for sure but added a bunch of unneeded Pokedex listings that really won't mean much to people unfamiliar with the franchise, and locks some of the fields (a problem for Mew's article). Is it even needed?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I say drop it. I dont think all those Pokedex numbers are necessary. --Blake (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember where the discussion was located at, but the previous consensus was to use the VG box, as any Pokémon box would be too in-universe. I agree with your revert, KfM. Artichoker^[talk] 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, where did Pikachu's Johto Pokédex number come from? The GSC dex does list the Pokémon a unique order, but unlike the Hoenn and Sinnoh dexes, they aren't assigned new numbers from their National ones. Just curious. -sesuPRIME 00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no there was no discussion, i was being bold, and i don't see how a template that automatically inserts the paramters we are using anyways would make it "too in-universe". Please take a closer look at what the template is doing before making sweeping judgements. This template is using the VG box, only simplifying it. You'd think people would welcome an easier to use template.

for Mew, as the article is written, Sugimori had nothing to do with the design or creation so i don't know why he has to be included, unless for later artwork condierations, in which case, the creator parameter could be explicitly changed.

concerns about extra numbers being meaningless to laypeople are a little silly considering that the national numbers are essentially meaningless

as for johto pokedex numbers, i was going off the master List of Pokemon. If this is wrong we could always remove that.

it seems the main concern is with extra numbers, which i personally feel is interesting to represent so readers can see how the "pokedex" is not really static. If other editors disagree, then feel free to tweak {{pokebox}}, but the other features of the template justify it's usage. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still an extremely limited use template and not that necessary. It's not a bad idea but a more forceful or by-the-book-minded editor will probably end up pushing for it to get TfD'd for it's limited usage and similarity to an existing template. That actually happened with a lot of the mini templates the project used to have, didn't it?

...also why is Blastoise back? o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[1]: Only one third-party publication? I don't think that's enough to justify the article of a rather arbitrary Pokémon. Artichoker^[talk] 02:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so quick with your statements, ZapperNapper. As I suspected and remembered, the discussion did indeed take place here. The consensus was actually to use a Template:Infobox character as Pikachu is not just a video game character (in fact it is more popular for its television appearances.) I don't know how it got changed to the VG template, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to the character template as was the consensus. Artichoker^[talk] 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm confused, you have yet to say why auto-filling certain parameters is somehow "bad" and while your comments here support using {{infobox character}} you instead merely reverted back to the VG infobox with this edit. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

if this project is serious about using {{infobox character}} to represent it's characters in all their roles, they need to come up with a list of items for inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at {{infobox character}}, and it didn't have the parameters that were necessary so I used the VG template. Artichoker^[talk] 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you were unaware of how extensible that template can be (allowing up to 15 custom parameters). i've gone ahead and reinsituted {{pokebox}} which now calls the regular character-box. I think a case could be made that since pokemon characters represent a unique situation where they exist in multiple fictional formats, it is necessary to provide some amount of deviation from normal templates - and possible without getting into trivial information. I have removed the additional numbering systems for now, and the parameters display actor/creator/etc. verbatim so if you need to input multiple people or explanations everything will work just fine. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And...consensus is still against you so why did you go forward with it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is "consensus" against it? Me and Zap are for it. You are against it, and Artichoker just keeps changing what template it is based on. Is there something I am missing? --Blake (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I took your initial comment as oppose, my mistake.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I am also against it, so no; we are far from a consensus. This rather limited template simply adds complication and instruction creep, and is wholly unnecessary with the VG character template. Artichoker^[talk] 18:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

wow, and consensus for those articles constitutes four editors... consensus works by compromise - read WP:CON. Your arguements were that the template

1. included extraneous information (which i removed)
2. violated consensus at a GA-delisting about using the regular character infobox (which i implemented)
3. broke special cases for artist/creator/voice/etc. (fixed)

following standard practices, since i addressed all your complaints, i reinstituted the box. I can only assume you've reverted me, but i haven't checked, and i won't until this is resolved. If I am understanding your current argument it's that you feel my template is somehow more complicated and adds instruction creep? i'm unsure how a template that needs only an image parameter in most cases, is more complicated. we write for newbies and this template is far less daunting than the alternatives. while the underlying code might be pretty sophisticated, this is often the case when writing easy-to-use programs. And like it says on the template, pokemon are more than video game characters, so by limiting it to the VG template we are excluding relevant pertinent information. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep arguing "Pokemon aren't only video game characters" like somehow they're a special case. Wolverine (comics) uses the comic template despite appearing in numerous non-comic related material. Why? Because he's a comic book character originally. Ash Williams uses a movie character template despite alternate versions of the character appearing in games and comics. Why? Because he's a film character originally.

Every pokemon with an article originated in the games. They're not a special case just because other media decided to scarf them up, they're just video game characters that appear in other formats. If you're going to argue your case that isn't a foothold to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolverine was notable as a comic-book character for years before he was translated into cartoons and movies, while the cartoon was released only a year after the games in Japan, and within the same year in the US - to pretend that these characters' cartoon counterparts are inconsequential is to ignore these facts. Additionally, Wolverine is one of only a few characters that you could draw a parallel to pokemon about. The large majority of comic book characters have yet to leave to the comic book world, while 100% of pokemon are represented in multiple formats. If you could point me to another well-defined group where 100% of it's members are tied to nearly simultaneous releases in multiple formats i might be more persuaded to believe there is some kind of established precedent. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

hmm.... Wolverine in other media might be why they settled with using the comic character template at "Wolverine (comic)" Now what? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the message kinda went over your head because you didn't read between the lines. Look at the Street Fighter series of characters which have appeared in as many different genres as Pokemon, or really video game characters that have appeared in any licensed material (and trust me, there's a lot). They all use the VG infobox. It's not a special case with Pokemon, or any of the other ones. Truth be told what you seem to want is something more like a fictional character template, which I'm pretty sure already exists and is really damn complex. Please find some other line of argument for this, I'm feeling like a broken record trying to word this so it doesn't get skewed again.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

... no you didn't go over my head... but these examples you keep providing clearly established their notability in one genre first (like i said, in the US, both the game and anime came out in the same year), and it's not my fault when you provide poor examples - obviously enough people felt that Wolverine's roles in other media were significant enough that infobox info was needed on his roles in film and video games. And your newest example is no better as Street Fighter, again, clearly established its notabilty as a successful video game, but in this case not really a successful anything else. your arguement has been, "See, pokemon are just like character X. So we should do what we do with all characters like X." But I've been able to consistently show how Pokemon are not like character X. Again.... you show me a well-known character from multiple simultaneous media whose notability is derived from both of those media. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Both templates give the information at the moment. I don't see why you don't just switch it back to the VG template. --Blake (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

{{pokebox}} allows you to input parameters for first edpisode, first game, first tcg, and first manga - the vg box only displays info regarding the pokemon's role in the videogames... and then oddly enough provides info on voice actors (which i assume is meant for different voice actors in the video games [like Mario], not for voice actors in anime - the layperson typing in "Mewtwo" might be wrongly believe that the video games had voice actors, as we do not give any info about the anime in the infobox) --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just take a look at these examples on pikachu:

{{infobox VG character
| name        = Pikachu
| image       = [[Image:Sugimoris025.png]]
| caption     = '''[[List of Pokémon|National Pokédex]]'''<BR>[[Arbok]] - '''Pikachu (#025)''' - [[Raichu]]
| series      = [[Pokémon series|''Pokémon'' series]]
| firstgame   = ''[[Pokémon Red and Blue]]''
| artist      = [[Ken Sugimori]]
| voiceactor  = [[Rachael Lillis]]
| japanactor  = [[Ikue Otani]]
}}

vs.

{{ pokebox
| image      = Sugimoris025.png
| engvoice   = [[Rachael Lillis]]
| japanvoice = [[Ikue Ōtani]]
| episode    = ''[[Pokémon, I Choose You!]]''
| manga      =
| tcg        = ''[[List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets#Base Set|Base Set]]''
}}

Ok, so 8 parameters in the first one, six in the second, three of those six are for additional nontrivial information that you can't put into the VG box without admittedly uglier text that uses a second template call from within the first. Here's the output:

{{infobox VG character}}	{{pokebox}}
Pikachu Pokémon series character Image:Sugimoris025.png National Pokédex Arbok - Pikachu (#025) - Raichu First game Pokémon Red and Blue	Template:Pokebox

I'd like some critical feedback on what is exactly wrong with this second template, on how it's not an improvement over the first. Or perhaps on why one might prefer the first to the second. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blastoise

I fixed up Blastoise to modern style. I wonder what you have up your sleeve. I just hope you do it soon before it gets deleted. You should have done this in your userspace. --Blake (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I concur with Blake. I still haven't seen your third-party source. Shouldn't that be the first thing you add when restoring an article? Artichoker^[talk] 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the following references might be what he was talking about. --Blake (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not enough references to establish notability. Plus I don't think #3 is independent of the subject. Theleftorium 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much substantial information from third-party sources to establish notability for Blastoise. Unless some major improvement can be done, I think the article should be reverted back to a redirect. Artichoker^[talk] 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not enough references to establish notability.

so please point me to the paragraph at WP:N that lists what "enough" is. I am aware of the term multiple, and unless I don't understand english, multiple merely means more than one.

as for doing this article in my userspace first - i have expressed my opinions on that type of editing several times before so i think it's clear why i did not pursue that route.

the third source (which was in the original article) is indeed third-party, check this link. however, reyling on customer reviews (which prolly isn't a good way to go about judging refs), i would say it's not likely the best third-party guide to use outside of refs for the japanese versions of the first games. I've found a better source that can at least be used to substantiate basic video game information. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't see any indication of notability. Apart from restoring the article, you haven't edited it all. The "Reception" section contains one sentence. Are we going to see some drastic improvement to this article soon, Zapper? Artichoker^[talk] 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i have a life outside of wikipedia... and if i didn't have to keep spending so much time here, i could spend more time on the article... and if you are having problems seeing how a third party source satisifies that criteria for inclusion, take it to WT:N --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...you're right, i made no edits beyond restoring the article. ---ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but diddnt you say "isn't the goal of wikipedia to provide comrpehensive information, not just "the bare minimum"?" Why did you removed Cissy and Lola's Blastoise? Its not like they were unreferenced, so what exactly was wrong with them? Those are two notable gym leader's Pokemon. Also, what does this mean? "it makes relatively few appearances in the anime. A handful of trainers in the series have owned Blastoise, " It made alot of appearances. There were 9 mentioned in the previous article, while 4 are still there. Sorry if this seems like a big rant. I am about to go to bed and just want a few questions answered before you disappear again. --Blake (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

the two appearances i removed were from episodes where Blastoise is only briefly shown and owned by one-time characters. Gary is an important character so it seemed worth mention, and in the movie, blastoise had a significant amount of screen time. I made the claim that Blastoise doesn't appear much based off the reference i was using, and to be honest I agree with it if you compare Blastoise's appearances to other pokemon owned by semi-regular characters (Roselia, Cacturne, Chansey) or with the likes of Snubble, Jigglypuff, Magikarp, and others beyond those owned by regular characters, this also has a lot to do with the fact that they aren't found in the wild and so even miss out from many cameos (oh look, there goes a Wingull). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why Blastoise is more notable than any other Pokémon. Almost all the information on the page is in-universe, which should be avoided per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Theleftorium 10:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just straight up reverted it to a redirect. It needed significant coverage, and clearly doesn't get that. Open and shut case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the article here if you wish to add to it more. There is one flaw with your pokebox template. It doesnt work in userspaces or project spaces. --Blake (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. It works if you used the "name" part of the template. --Blake (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

KFU, your edit was a horrible assumption of bad faith - especially with two references that significantly covered Blastoise. As for in-universe... WP:WAF is talking about prose like "Blastoise can be found living on island beaches near the ocean, but their preferred habitat seems to be freshwater ponds and lakes." Merely describing facts about the character in its various incarnations is not "in-universe". --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Bad faith"? Bad faith is deciding that even when faced with a solid consensus that the article needs content or should be removed to go ahead. The article has no real development information of any kind, nor does it have any reception at all. This does not significantly cover anything: its a passing mention. A paragraph discussing the importance and impact of it, that's reception. If you want I could take it to AfD and let them spell it out for you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) I reverted the article back to a redirect. As KfM and I have said over and over, notability has not been established. Where's the reception? I added one sentence on it from an article that gives it a passing mention. That's about it. Draft it in your sandbox, and if enough critical discussion on it can be scrounged up, perhaps it may become a good-quality and notable article. In any case, a further recreation of the article will result it being taken to AfD for some real consensus. Artichoker^[talk] 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well since you decided to randomly revert it without addressing the concerns of notability or consensus, I have nominated it for AfD. Artichoker^[talk] 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i don't need "critical reception" it's helpful and even desired, but is 'not the threshold for inclusion that WP:V and WP:N spell out. I have stated in the lead of the article why Blastoise is notable - it is well-known for being on the cover of the first games, and i even have a third-party source saying that explictly. I can't imagine how to be more clear about it's notability than that. It's definitly a step up from saying a pokemon is notable because some guy sang a song in his american idol audition. I've been looking through the other pokemon articles and the sources used, to try and emulate what you guys want, and compared to things like Jigglypuff#References I'd say my article is a vast improvement. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jigglypuff is awful article to compare anything to (but even Jigglypuff actually has a decent sized "Cultural impact" section.) And yes, as a matter of fact you do need critical reception. If there is no 3rd party reception of a character, then it's not notable; seems like common sense to me. Artichoker^[talk] 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not that I dont want the artice to be made. I do. If it was up to me, every Pokémon would have an article. Its just I know there is no fighting these people. If you want a Pokémon article it has to have a really good reception section. --Blake (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you may edit the Bulbapedia article. I'm sure they would welcome your information. Artichoker^[talk] 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

stop trying to pass editors off to that slow POS. i find it hilarious that you can sit there and defend jigglypuff when the single source that's used to actually say something like, "Jigglypuff is popular" is not only from Nintendo's press release but also points to a dead link. You point me to the policy that supports your viewpoint (inclusion requires critical reception), i've already pointed you to mine (inclusion only requires third party description). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Jigglypuff's going to land up being safe for starters compared to Blastoise. Call it a hunch.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

those refs for Jigglypuff are fantastic, i don't see why you don't put them in now and drastically improve that article (another point for not doing article creation in the userspace)

and your quote was the one i was referring to as well... significant means more than trivial, but the source need not cover the topic exclusively. Are you saying that three pages (ok, 2 and 1/2) is trivial? This isn't like those other sources where the pokemon gets a couple sentences (maybe a paragraph) and we say, "Aha!" It's an article about the pokemon and the author even makes evaluative claims about it's popularity and why - and he's not from nintendo. you guys should be peeing yourselves with excitement, but instead i have complete dismissal of my sources without so much as a "this source doesn't prove notability because X". If i write an article and say, "Foo is well-known because of bar" with a nice reliable source attached that actually backs up the claim, it should be an open and shut case on whether Foo meets the threshold for inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I hate these stupid rules. Why should we listen to anything some random person says? But the point is that people are talking about the Pokémon. You wouldnt say "Charizard is sexy, sleek, and destructive." just because the person said that. You say "This person said that Charizard is sexy, sleek, and destructive." to point out that it is a popular Pokémon. If nobody is talking about it, then its probably not a very notable Pokémon.--Blake (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

exactly, and someone who's not nintendo decided to talk about Blastoise in more than a passing mention, so now it's magically notable according to wikipedia. they even give us info beyond what moves it learns - they write evaluative claims about it's popularity, discuss the reasons, and even give their own opinions on the subject (which is spelled out some at the AFD). BTW Blake, you don't have to do whatever the project does, if you personally feel that Blastoise satisfies your understanding of WP:V and WP:N (as it would seem by your comments) it's completely resonable to voice that opinion at the AFD. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what to think now. It is a question on whether that is the kind of thing they are looking for. I will change my vote to keep though, because I think it should satisfy the requirements. I think what they are looking for is more like a whole section of that though. --Blake (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Johto Pokédex numbers...

...don't exist, according to the games themselves and their Nintendo Player's Guides. So shouldn't they be removed from the List of Pokémon? They could be considered original research. -sesuPRIME 03:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some digging, and it seems this is the source, and it indicates the numbers appear for Generation IV. Can anyone verify that? (And truth be told...I would rather the list just keep it to the National Dex number, as the rest can easily confuse the heck out of anyone unfamiliar wit the series considering how our lists are set up).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, HG/SS will add the "missing" Johto numbering to the Pokémon. Although why we bother with using more than one numbering system is beyond me. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of them might be a challenge, but if anyone doesn't object we could give it a go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

um... isn't the goal of wikipedia to provide comrpehensive information, not just "the bare minimum". It's useful to tell readers that the pokedex is not a static numbering system, and has been reordered several times with each new generation. additionally, it's helpful to show how that organization was changed. I can't believe i'm having to defend this notion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is most likely in the "Pokedex" section of Gameplay of Pokémon. Adding it in every species page is un-needed. It looks really bad and is probably close to gameguide info. Not everything needs to be told to readers. --Blake (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i can appreciate that sentiment, and only oppose removing the additional numbering systems from list and mechanics articles. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else opposed to removing them or shall we go ahead?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have been on that list for a looong time. I know its a bit much to ask that you wait until HGSS, but I guess if the numbers never existed then they can be removed. It just seems like alot of work to go through for nothing. --Blake (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that this is a good time, but....

I think Jynx is ready to be an article. Make whatever changes to it if you feel it needs a little bit more work, but it has a big Cultural Impact section and everything else is written well. I think it would make at least B class right off the bat. --Blake (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think it needs some work still (Smoochum could use mention in the design section, I can tackle that later on though) and some referencing here and there I'd say go ahead and get it out there now, it's definitely a C(+)-grade article at the moment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will also be figuring out how to reference the manga as I have been doing the anime episodes. Then I will update all the articles with those. Should I move the page or just copy+paste? --Blake (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste would be best. People might get edgy over negated article history otherwise :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article made at Jynx (Pokémon). --Blake (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work, KfM. Artichoker^[talk] 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What? No "Nice work, Blake"?..... jk. Its alright. So, what needs to be fixed for B-class and maybe GA? --Blake (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh whoops, sorry I didn't see the history. Nice work to you too Blake. In any case GA doesn't appear to be too far off. Sourcing will need to be done for the "Appearances" section, which shouldn't be too tough; and then maybe a copyedit. Artichoker^[talk] 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, Blake gets equal props on this one. Some fixing and source hunting should do it, I'd suggest finishing the refs in Development first then tidying up the rest of the article. I've got my hands full with a list of articles I'm trying to get to GA already and two GANs up, so I'll lend a hand once the GANs pass.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\

And nominated here for WP:DYK ;) (Boy I'm quick!) MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I will be getting manga references like I do the anime, if I can find a template. As for the games, the whole section is a little funny. I dont know if the bit about how to obtain it is too much in-universe or not. Is anything wrong with the anime part? I think I worked the hardest in that section. --Blake (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite book is your best bet. I just hope that you're willing to dig through all 30 volumes to back up your claims ;) (I may help, if you want). TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Back up my claims"? Its for the Manga section which tells about Jynx's role in them. I have read all of the manga up to Hoenn, so I can say that I know that all the RBY chapter stuff is true. I cant say about the FRLG chapter though, cause Bulbapedia doesnt have pages on those ;l. Anyways, I am just going to use the references that were on Charizard's page. They seem to work alright and look basically the same as the template would. --Blake (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kusaka, Hidenori, & Mato. Pokémon Adventures, Volume 3: Saffron City Siege; Chapter 28, "Peace of Mime" (pg 5-19) VIZ Media LLC, August 5 2001. ISBN 1-56931-560-4

Cordell, Bruce R.; Jeff Grubb, David Yu (September 2001). Manual of the Planes. Wizards of the Coast. ISBN 0-7869-1850-8.

Now that we are on a roll...

How about this one? I know its not good to go as it is, but I moved my Charizard page into the Charmander evolution line and then deleted it. Then I decided to take it back out, and it didn't look quite the same. Want to help? This definitely has more critical reception then Blastoise. Dont mess with the manga section too much, as I still need to reference and cut it down. --Blake (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh...I'm going to say this: I think you're right that it could work as an article after doing a google search through books, though has some really light reception (even one book makes a quick mention about its resemblance to a European dragon), yet more solid than Bulbasaur. Kinda bothered by the fact we don't have any development information available though when all of the other Pokemon with pages do (at least on my subpage in the case of Jigglypuff). I'd say its a possibility for down the road.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly has some merit as a possible article. Keep improving it, and we'll see. Certainly much more notable than Blastoise. Artichoker^[talk] 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I finished fixing the references for the Anime and Manga. I also fixed some other things. Hows it look? --Blake (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? How does it look? And what do you mean by "every page has development info"? All articles but Mewtwo and Mew have the same exact thing basicly. They all have the following pharagraph plus information about its name and concept. --Blake (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The design and art direction for foo were provided by Ken Sugimori,[6] a friend of the creator of the Pocket Monsters game, Satoshi Tajiri. The species first appeared in this game. In the early Pokémon video games, all Pokémon were portrayed by two-dimensional sprites, but in later releases appearance has been conveyed by 3D computer graphics. Throughout the games, foo has been portrayed with no spoken dialogue. In the series' anime, foo has facial expressions, body language, and speaks by repeating syllables of its name, using different pitches and tones.

Pokemon Species Progress Report

• Charizard - Needs small fixes
• Lucario - Needs something to throw in "Cultural Impact"
• Squirtle - "Concept and Characteristics", "Cultural impact"
• Torchic - Overall fixes, references, etc.
• Mudkip - Just started this the other day. Havent had a change to do much to it.

So, what do you think? Charizard is about ready to get out there. Lucario is awesome, but needs something in "Cultural Impact". I also need to give him manga references. I really need to fix up Squirtle, but havent had much of a chance. Torchic is pretty good, but needs to be fixed up and given Anime/Manga references. Mudkip was just a random thought. I was thinking there might be something on him due to his meme. I am going to fix him up now and see if he has some possibilities. --Blake (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mudkip actually sounds like a good idea. Not sure about the others, though. Theleftorium 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucario I made because hes my favorite Pokémon, and I turned this into what you see now. I am just waiting for a miracle so I can fill up the Critical Reception. I forget why I started Squirtle. It only has 2 appearances which dont have references. Torchic just has alot about Merchandising. --Blake (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• groans* I was editing Mudkip and the whole page froze. --Blake (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say I don't think Torchic has much chance, of all of those it's got the weakest shot. For the most part interest in Pokemon in literary and scholastic studies died off gradually with generation II and beyond. I keep thinking it might be good to make a "Starter Pokémon" article for all of the starters, so the starters could be covered significantly with spinoffs to Bulbasaur, Pikachu and later Charizard noted...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a "Starter Pokémon" and "Legendary Pokémon" and just be done with it. Although it might be hard to find things for certain legendarys. What do you have in mind for the Starter article? 4 evolution lines or each 12 Pokémon? --Blake (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

258th Pokémon

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Mudkip. so i herd u leik? I will reference the manga tomorrow. Other then that I am done with it. How do you like it? --Blake (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, referenced the manga. do u leik? --Blake (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with the sourcing: blogspot is heavily frowned upon unless you can prove the author's reliability, and I'll check into the background behind knowyourmeme. I know though that this was covered in newspapers and such, so there are some references you can reach by google news. Renaming Critical rection to In pop culture might help too (it's akin to the All Your Base bit).

By the way, one more thing: GameFAQs polls tend to be argued against for showing a character's popularity through their rank on them...but, you can turn that around and argue that the references are showing that the popularity of the meme around the character earned it a place on both of those polls by Gamefaqs. Odd angle but might work.

I'll dig around, see what I can do.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I was wanting it to lean more towards "its so popular it was in two GameFAQ's character battles!" not "Luigi and Megaman are better then Mudkip." I will try and find a real reference for the meme stuff... I was sort of worried that these wouldn't be enough. --Blake (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll restructure the section with what I have, recreating the first paragraph entirely. Looking over the original two references I wouldn't trust them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's done. I'd still hold off on it though unless more sources are found. Kinda bothered there isn't any development information really either...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that it was once debated whether or not the meme should even be on the page, and now its going to be what brings it back as an article. --Blake (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"somebody's gotta show how the meme has any relevance to a freaking video game character"--okay that's actually a good point...I don't think it can be done with the sources available.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It has revelance to the character because it is a very popular Pokémon just because of the meme. The meme is the whole reason Mudkip is popular and was included in the GameFAQs character battles, and dA changing everyone's avatars into Mudkips. --Blake (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The DA thing is one bit, but for GameFAQs we would need to prove it was included as a result of the meme. I'd still feel safer with this if there was actual discussion about Mudkips that could be cited for reception, but as it stands the more it progresses the more it feels like we're clutching at straws. Or more accurately, propping the entire character article up on one point that apparently derived from a child's toy being "raped".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain this meme to me? I don't recall seeing it and honestly didn't know Mudkip was that popular Pokémon (because of it or otherwise). Reading some discussion history it looks like it's fairly well known, but I didn't see many details about the original post and when people tend to utter the meme. I was going to wait, assuming it would eventually get clarified, but KFM's "rape" comment has me thirsting for answers. —Ost (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You can look here and here for some background on the meme. I honestly dont know what actualy IS the meme. There are images of Mudkips with "so i herd u leik mudkips" pasted on them, there are videos with Mudkips talking back and forth to eachother, and parodies of them with things like Spongebob, Darth vader, Mario, etc. --Blake (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the links and I'll look at them when I'm not at work behind filtering software. —Ost (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

←The meme is not particularily notable, and I don't feel at all comfortable in using it as the sole basis for it becoming an article. It's about a person desecrating a doll, not about the actual Pokémon. I guarantee you that if the meme was "so I herd you leik barbiez" it would not be on the Barbie article. Why? It has nothing at all to do with article or it's subject; Mudkip. And I really don't even want to get started on the sourcing problem. The Wall Street Journal source is the only legitimate one there. And that ain't enough to prop up an entire article.MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The meme isnt about the guy humping the doll. Thats just how it started. The point of including it is that because of this meme there are many many images and videos made just for Mudkip, and it has become one of the most popular Pokémon. --Blake (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But Blake, I can understand that there should be more that just this to prove that the character itself has been made popular. It just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources, and I dug for about two hours. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that makes Jynx notable is the controversy over its skin color. That is only one thing, yet it has an article. I know that it would be nice if there was more, but why does there need to be so much reception just for it to even exist? I agree this might not make it to B-class or GA without more, but that is the point of wikipedia. There can be unfinished articles that can be finished later. Wikipedia is not done. --Blake (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The recreation of Jynx's article wasn't solely based on it's skin color: what made Jynx notable was how people reacted to it's design and continued to do so after it was changed. There's no such content for Mudkip.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The recreation of Mudkip's article isn't solely based on what happened on 4chan: what mades Mudkip notable is how people reacted to it and continue to do so years after it happened. --Blake (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But they're not reacting to mudkip, they're reacting to the meme barely about mudkip.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the meme is about the guy and the doll. It's the concluding line of the "story" (and I use that term very loosely), and were that narration to have never been dreamt up or written about, it would not even exist. You cannot turn to me and say that the meme isn't about the guy and the doll, when it owes it's very existence to it. You may as well say to me that Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own isn't about Bono, when clearly it is. You can't use Deviantart as a source, nor can you use YouTube or a fansite dedicated to the meme. The very sources you are using to prop up it's notability (or at least the notability of the meme) are discounted and would not be held up by any editors who have a basic understanding on Wikipedia's policies about sourcing. You say "what mades Mudkip notable is how people reacted to it and continue to do so years after it happened". But none of the sources you have provided demonstrate this. The Wall Street Journal article is all you have to stand on, and that article has a grand total of one sentence (which is about the meme, not the Pokémon; there is a massive difference between the two). MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to tell the truth, a few days ago I had no idea what the meme was besides all the various Mudkip images. All I knew was those. Also, how would DeviantART not be a reliable source for the sentence about them changing everyones avatars? Its like referencing an anime episode because something happened in the episode. We are referencing the website because something happened there. (Btw, KFM put that there, not me. Although that was because I had even worse references in the first place.) I wouldnt mind not having the article made as long as the paragraph can be mentioned on the list. Then it wouldnt be "propping up the article". (Note that I have already put it there earlier today.) --Blake (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

← The following is transcluded from User talk:Jéské Couriano: The consensus is against you because the meme has no reliable sources and the NYT source is only a name-drop mention, not enough to establish notability for an article. Also, D-ART is not a reliable source either, for the same reasons other user-generated-content sites are. By NYT he means the WSJ. I can also tell you that dozens of editors and IPs have searched over the course of several years, and none of them have ever found any source that can be included apart from that.MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, and completely unrelated to this, but why would news from DA's staff be bundled in the same category as user created content?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind I just noticed it is indeed user submitted. Bleh!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mudkip can't stand as an article with WSJ or d-ART, as the WSJ thing is a name-drop and about the meme (which, as many have pointed out before and will keep doing so whenever someone unearths this monster, is not about Mudkip at all, but about a guy and a plushie) and d-ART is a user-generated-content site, which precludes it from use, making a total of 0 reliable sources and 0 sources defining notability, despite what /b/ would tell you. Please read Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260); the consensus there is to make SIHULM simply a one-sentence blurb on List of Internet phenomena. As an aside, it's refreshing to see someone who isn't a clear troll reviving this discussion, as much as the discussion is useless given the existing consensus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but why do you call them all trolls? I find that sad in you as an admin. Many of them were probably just new editors wanting to help wikipedia, but they diddnt know the rules. Anyways, as I have said above, I dont really care as long as it gets its pharagraph on the list. It obviously deserves more then "just a sentence in the list of internet memes", and as long as its sourced properly, I dont see why it cant be included. It just isnt enough to support a whole article. --Blake (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, anyone who brought up SIHULM was either bringing it up to provoke people, attacking anyone who refused to add SIHULM to Mudkip and later List of Pokémon (241-260), or were indef'd for trolling shortly afterwards, often on unrelated articles. By my count, only eight users, yourself included and all named, actually brought the issue up in good faith. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to [this removal of the pharagraph], Why did you remove the GameFAQs poll information? That has nothing to do with the whole meme deal. Also, why cant that be on the page? I could understand about the dA part since it isnt sourced, but the part sourced with the journal is completely legit. I mentioned putting it on the page and nobody said anything opposing, and KFM even left it there, just putting a fact tag on it. --Blake (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You read the wrong page. Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260), specifically the sections titled "SIHULM is bigger" (Not spelling out to avoid tripping antivandal filters) and "I don't see why this is so difficult" both clearly show a consensus to not include the meme-related stuff in Mudkip's section as tangential and (in any case) more appropriate for List of Internet phenomena. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I really can't say it any more succintly or clearly. The information is about the meme. It is not about the Pokémon, it has nothing to do with the Pokémon, and it is completely irrelevant to the section of the article. It is a completely different and unrelated subject, and should not in any way be included. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, again you removed the GameFAQs information. Will you please check what you are removing? What do you mean "You read the wrong page"? I did read that page, and the other discussions before I even added the information in there. Most of what was there was there was no source. I have a source. Also, why dont you add that extra information to the meme page if you feel it fits better there? Although I do feel it does contribute to the Pokémon as it is more popular then say Torchic, having almost 50% more search, image, and video results on google. When it other wise would have half as much as Torchic. The images all over the internet are OF MUDKIP. The videos are OF MUDKIP. What exactly is "The meme"? Is it the story? Is it the phrase? Is it the images and videos? A week ago I never knew the meme started from some guy doing it with a mudkip doll. So how is that the meme? --Blake (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The GameFAQs info (I think) is fine. I've just moved it to a more appropriate area. The meme is all three rolled into one; the "story" is what gave birth to the meme, the phrase is what people attribute the meme as, and the videos and images are the products of the meme. All three are one and the same subject. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The meme is the story, mainly its closing sentence copypasta'd to oblivion. The pictures and videos being of Mudkip don't mean a thing; they were created specifically to spread the meme, which is widely regarded as a forced one. At present, that will be my last word; my mood isn't very good after receiving a fucking jury duty notice. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "Due to a popular meme, "so I herd u like mudkips", Mudkip has received many tribute videos on youtube."? --Blake (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Source? Remember user-generated-content sites can't be used, of which Youtube is one. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It would of course be using the Wall Street Journal reference, which says the following

"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." and "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."

Just think. After this is added, the whole "Mudkip meme" thing will be a thing of the past. Nobody will ever be asking for it to be added to the page, because its already there. --Blake (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is about the meme, not the Pokémon. It's far better suited to the aforementioned list of internet phenomena. Nobody is asking for the meme now because it is already included on another page, which is all the anonymous IPs wanted anyways. They couldn't particularly care if it was on the Mudkip article, so long as it was on Wikipedia somewhere (which it is). And now I really must be off to bed since I have work in the morning. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Due to a popular meme, "so I herd u like mudkips", Mudkip has received many tribute videos on youtube." Excuse me, but how is this not about the Pokémon? I went ahead and put the meme information on the meme page, but I think this will help the Mudkip section of the list. I would stop suggesting putting this information there, but I just am not seeing your logic. --Blake (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what Melicans is trying to get at is that mentioning the meme by name is problematic, for two reasons: (α) It's a troll meme; indeed LoP (241-260) and three other articles are under permanent semi-protection because the vandalism from it is massive, and (β) including it seems to make the section not about Mudkip and more about the meme. The question that helped determine the consensus against the meme was "Does it help people to know what (a) Mudkip is?" In this case, Melicans is mistaken, although I'm not going to test the waters by unprotecting Axolotl. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I could help with any vandalism that might happen on the list, if thats a problem, but I dont see how putting the sentence there would increase the amount of vandalism that happeneds. Also, about it making the section about the meme, it dont see what you mean. This would be akin to having a sentence in Never Gonna Give You Up saying it has become popular due to rickrolling. It in no way changes the view of the article.

The music video for the song has become the basis for the "Rickrolling" Internet meme. From "Never Gonna Give You Up"

Mudkip has received many tribute videos on youtube due to the internet meme, "so I herd u like mudkips". What I want to put on the list article.--Blake (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I did not agree with Melicans on the point of including the meme name. In fact, I would not mind the name's presence in the article provided it links to the LoIp blurb about the meme and the section remains about Mudkip and does not stray from that. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I find Blake's argument compelling. Rickrolling may be a meme, but the media is of Rick Astley. It does not somehow become not-Rick just because of rickrolling. Similarly, the mudkipz meme may have connotations beyond mudkip, but it is still mudkip. Cratylus3 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cratylus, as has been demonstrated several times before, the meme is more about plushophilia than anything. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the *origin* of the meme. The meme is *about* mudkip. Note how many people don't know the origin but know the meme.

Let me try to rephrase this. The Wall Street Journal sentence says "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." From the position of the commas, we know that the segment "a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show Pokémon" is an aside (a note made in the middle of a sentence that is essentially unnecessary), much like it would be if the author had used dashes or brackets. So the actual sentence reads "Another phrase "So I herd u like mudkips" spawned thousands of tribute videos on YouTube." Do you not see the problem with that? The article is not saying that the tribute videos are about the Pokémon Mudkip, it is saying that the tribute videos are about the meme, which has been established many, many times (just read the talk page archives) as having absolutely no relevance to the Pokémon itself. You are inserting information about an unrelated topic within the article.

That is a nonsense twisting of English. The clause 'a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show "Pokémon,"' is clearly descriptive, not an aside, and not intended to be disregarded.Cratylus3 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The one reliable source you have, the Wall Street Journal, says that the meme spawned thousands of tribute videos, not Mudkip. You absolutely cannot use this to back up your claim regarding Mudkip's popularity, because Mudkip's popularity is not mentioned at all. I cannot state it any simpler or make it any more clearer than that. The source is not talking about Mudkip's popularity, it is talking about the meme's popularity. And we've established many times before that the meme is unrelated to the Pokémon. If you can find a reliable source that specifically says the meme has increased Mudkip's popularity, go ahead and include it. But I can tell you now from over three years experience that you will find no such thing. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooooohhhhhh. Your comments finally make sense. Well it also says "A "mudkip" is a lovable, water creature from the animated series Pokémon. You can watch some of the thousands of tribute videos on YouTube." I'm not sure if that counts or not. If not, then I am done with this whole arguement. Its got old, and I have nothing more to throw at you. --Blake (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the mudkipz meme has nothing to do with mudkip is flatly false. It is like saying that the swastika has nothing to do with nazis. It may well be that the swastika had a different meaning before, and it may well be that it retains a separate meaning now, but just because you don't like nazis doesn't mean the swastika has nothing to do with them. It might not have before. It does now. Cratylus3 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reindent) Cause-effect suggests otherwise, Cratylus. The story about a plushophile spawned the sentence that would be copypasta'd to the last of the Infinite Layers of the Abyss and back, which in turn spawned the meme, which in turn spawned the "tribute" videos. Directly because of the narrative's selective quotation the meme came into being. It'd be like me altering your statement above to say the meme is about Nazis. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. There are people out there repeating the meme without knowing the origin. That's how it is with memes. But central to any telling is the name and/or likeness of mudkip itself. I'm sorry you don't like the meme. But pretending it's not about mudkip won't make it not about mudkip. Cratylus3 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing was solved, why keep going? The meme did indeed have an effect on Mudkip's popularity, but we have no proof. The reference says that the videos are of the meme, not of Mudkip.

Manga on the species lists?

As the Pokémon special was "the world satoishi was trying to convey", do you think it would be acceptable to put the manga info in the lists? I have never seen any talk on this before and was wondering why it was never merged to the lists. --Blake (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the information never made it over either. The manga is as important a part as the anime. I suppose it's because the appearances of most are fairly inconsequential. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as most Pokémon only have a few sentences about anime, and usualy get merged into some other part of the section, this would complete the pharagraph in most cases. (Some things such as Starter Pokémon or Legendarys might have to have separate pharagraphs.) I see the entries as:

1. Lead, Concept and Creation

2. Characteristics

3. Video Games/Anime/Manga

4. Super Smash Bros/Critical Reception

Most Pokémon have just have no "Super Smash Bros/Critical Reception" section. --Blake (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)