Talk:Bidoof

Bidoof and Stubby

The picture supposedly confirming Bidoof as Bipper's English name is blurry and has been interpreted as other names as well, such as Beappa. This picture, on the other hand, quite clearly shows the name as Stubby (as WikidSmaht brought up at WT:PCP#More Toy Fair '07 name information, so... I'll actually be moving the page to Stubby (Pokémon) in a moment, if no one objects, of course.—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I've moved the page. The first picture seems to read "Stubby", too, though of course that might just be my eyes playing tricks on me (because I think that's what it is).—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page back per the new image showing "Bidoof".—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the type of Bidoof back to: Plump Mouse Pokémon

He has very much become a cult figure. Want proof? Just check out sites like 4chan, Gamefaqs, ytmnd, etc. (68.164.13.17 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Fansites are not proof; see WP:RS and all the Serebii debates a priori D/P's release. Further, name-dropping is not citing. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

www.4chan.org , www.gamefaqs.com , ytmnd.com There, now they are sited. In fact, they are more sited than anything else in the article that isn't in the beginning, and every other pokemon article. (68.164.13.17 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

That's NOT citing. See WP:CITE. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, nothing in the article is cited except for the very beginning, which is copy and pasted from every Pokemon page. (68.164.13.17 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Wrong - D/P is a citable source, and if I'm not mistaken, it's already cited. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So in the game, it says that he is hated on the internet?(68.164.13.17 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Read WP:RS again - GameFAQs, 4chan, ytmnd cannot be cited (fansites and/or no source transparency). You're a month or two late for the WP:RS debate vs. Serebii AND GameFAQs. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really not the subject anymore, but while I have no idea what the debate was or how it ended, how are the opinions of players who use one site more reliable than the opinions of players who use another?(68.164.13.17 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

It's not the opinion of a player, it's the facts from official sources.-Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What's all this debate? I came to wikipedia wanting to know why it used to say "Derp Pokemon" and why Bidoof seems to be an injoke on the Internet, why is that content not allowed? Thanks. 150.101.163.229 06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That content is not allowed because fansites are not reliable soures, and the "Derp" was vandalism. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goggles :

Fictional context

The Simpsons

In a scene from The Simpsons episode 2F17, “Radioactive Man”, Rainier Wolfcastle unsuccessfully tries to shield himself from a giant wave of acid by using protective goggles. His exclamation, “My eyes! The goggles do nothing!” has become part of internet humor and is used as a humorous expression after viewing something unpleasant. It is often misquoted as “The goggles: they do nothing!” or spelled "Ze goggles, zey do nothing!" to indicate a Austrian accent.

Where are the sources? It's NOT EVEN fansite. The point is that something being an Internet Joke is a FACT that people might be interested to know. Like I wanted to know. Thank you. 150.101.163.229 11:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO precludes trivia like that, and the sources for it fail WP:RS (being internet message boards with little editorial oversight and no source transparency - I Googled Bidoof and noted *where* all the ones related to the meme go). Besides, I note you omitted the wikilinks linking it to the episode in question. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Derp de derp de derp

Alright, what the frag does derp have to do with Bidoof?! -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the IP adding it has just been reported to WP:AIV after disregarding the {{blatantvandal}} template on his talk page. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who didn't notice, this page is now semi'd because the vandal edits will not cease. The prot will only last for a fortnight, however. I hope that anons who read the notice will come here and talk rather than add the vandal material. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lecher) I want to know WHY you want to add this information into the article. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just removed some of the vandalism... maybe we should add protection to this page? Lordofchaosiori 07:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

if you can persuade them to protect it again within one week after protection was lost, yes. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't gamefaqs, it was 4chan. Babrook 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter either way. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My buddy made derp. Gaiacarra 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess since I made derp I could explain it. In Pokemon Diamond when you use an HM move outside of battle it shows a mini cutscene of sorts showing your pokemon go across the screen and make its noise. When I used a Bidoof and it did that, the first thing to go through my head was that it would sound alot funnier if it said DERP instead of its little bidoof noise. So then I grabbed a picture of bidoof, added derp and posted it on Project Jenova, then 4chan. It kinda spread out on its own from there. KingRidley 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hint

Get something in print that agrees with you (submit a paper to a sociological journal about internet memes, selfpublish a small editoin, or something) and then cite away; idiot wikipedians will then be forced to choose between their ideals and banning your edits.

WP:COI trumps your argument - you cannot cite yourself. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

...Not to be disagreeable, but: "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia." [1] Geuiwogbil 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given what the anon is saying, he's asking the average schmo to write something about memes and self-publish it. He's not asking that they know anything about the meme in question. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assertion. It's unlikely that vandals would ever be able to publish anything reliable anyways. But under the condition that one of them was able to "submit a paper"—a relevant and citeable paper, so of course it would have to reference this Bidoof—"to a sociological journal about internet memes" and have it published by them, they would be able to cite it. Of course, to cite something that one has "selfpublish[ed]" would be out of the question. But those aren't COI matters, they're RS matters. ...Just clarifying a point of policy. Annoying vandals, anons, and anti-policy editors must, as always, be dealt with fairly and firmly... Geuiwogbil 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bidoof and Internet Culture

There's a lot of Bidoof used in internet culture because of...well...just look at the thing. Should any of that be mentioned?

Only with a reliable source describing the phenomenon to back it up. So far, no one's been able to provide one for most of the minor "Internet Culture" things which pop up. Until a newspaper or something (details on the linked page) picks it up, Wikipedia isn't supposed to talk about it. "I liek Mudkipz" isn't getting any frontage either, I'm afraid to say, for just the same reason... Geuiwogbil 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They should at least remove the part where it says Bidoof looks "cute" because that's insane. ~

In regards to Mudkip, it has been determined the meme shatters WP:NOT#CENSORED, even if it were put in Sexual intercourse. Second, the people trying to add the meme were trying to vanispamcruftise it. It's not because of lack of sources; it's because the people who want it in only want to use Wikipedia as a notice/message board and because the meme itself would put I Am Curious (Yellow) to shame. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say Mudkips is pornographic? Gaiacarra 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the meme (which is about a schoolkid raping a Mudkip doll) is above and beyond what we could reasonably expect, even in Pornography or similar, and that those who want to add it (yes, they're still trying to add it, even though it's been merged) only want to use Wikipedia as a billboard, which we aren't. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo's own official forums recently ran a poll to see if users would appreciate a Bidoof styled board. Doesn't that basically state Nintendo knows Bidoof's popularity as an internet icon?

Oh god I hope so. Also I think we're getting off topic here. Gaiacarra 13:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

...

Seriously, should this even be an article?! This is a lowlife Bidoof when Dialga or Palkia are much cooler and much more useful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.18.240 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the "reception" section. Being "cool" or "useful" does not make a subject notable for an article. Discussion in reliable sources does. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be so... But I've never heard of any sort of Bidoof internet memes of any sort... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.18.240 (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here, I hear Bidoof memes all the time, at least in comparision to Dialga or Palkia. Anyway, it's ultimately irrellavant, as the reason Bidoof has an article is because about 7 or so indepedent third-party reliable sources have commented on him. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible protection/locking edits?

Just look at the edit history... 173.67.11.62 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

Per the WikiProject discussion here, there seems to be a rough consensus for merging back (or at the very least a lack of concrete defense of the articles current state.) Its been a week or two now and it's seen little in the way of substantial improvement. Unless a massive reworking effort is imminent, I'm going to redirect. Feel free to create a WP:DRAFT out of it's current iteration to be worked on slowly over time though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to submit to WP:AFD, as there are objections to unilateral redirection. Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No, there was clearly a consensus on the talk page, and WP:ATD-R says that's enough. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)