Talk:Bidoof

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Bidoof and Stubby

message: Alright, what the frag does derp have to do with Bidoof?! -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the IP adding it has just been reported to WP:AIV after disregarding the  template on his talk page. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: It doesn't matter either way. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derp de derp de derp 

message: 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)
replies: text: ...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."  Geuiwogbil 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hint 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Bidoof and Internet Culture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What does that have to do with anything? Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ...

message: Just look at the edit history...  173.67.11.62 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible protection/locking edits?

message: 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)
replies: text: You need to submit to WP:AFD, as there are objections to unilateral redirection. Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge/redirect