Talk:Bob's Burgers

Asian-American?

There aren't a lot of series on TV with Asian-American lead characters, and even though this is a cartoon, it would be interesting to know if this family is supposed to be Asian-American. Does anyone know? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if they were it would be brought up on some of the publicity, but since it hasn't I don't think their ethnicity, if it has even been addressed, merits as anything more than trivia that probably wouldn't make the article anyway. The family name is Belcher. They look more Greek or Middle Eastern to me. But I think all they are is poorly drawn. KnownAlias contact 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

TV Hamster

Is not notable enough to warrant an inclusion on this article. Please do not add them back. Eseress (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

/* Plot */

The plot section has only one line on the plot, the rest is trivia, etc. So far, I've only seen the Pilot, so I'm not gonna change it (at least not now), maybe someone else could sort this out? 217.93.246.145 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There really is not an overall plot. At least through season 2 there is no plot arc. Only episodic situations.Reddir (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Burger opener

To avoid edit warring, please discuss this issue here. The following is my own perspective.

It is not unheard of to variation gags that distinguishes each episode (The Simpsons, Futurama). I agree that it would be better suited to being on an episode page list or even on an episode page within the appropriate box. However, the fact that it would be better suited for those pages does not mean it is suitable for this page. That information remains in the edit log, so it's not going anywhere. So when an episode page is created, that can be looked up and readded. But information doesn't stay in an inappropriate place until an appropriate page is made. If you really want to keep a record of it in the meantime, put it in a user sandbox.Luminum (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This above comment is incorrect logic. By removing information from the page, regardless of "appropriate" placing, you are impeding and vandalizing the current page. If you don't agree with the placement of the content, move it yourself, don't destroy it from ease of public view. You are no longer a contributor if you are detracting accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.108 (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First, take a look at WP:VAND to see that removing it is far from vandalism. Second, it is very trivial, and not necessary for the article page. What do you do when there is 50 or 100+ episodes? The list would be out of control. CTJF83 12:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read your own citation WP:VANDTYPES. Blanking is considered vandalism and is exactly what you're doing. If you don't like the placement then move the content otherwise the content stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.211.10 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read the section "Blanking, illegitimate - Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason:" I gave you a valid reason for it's removal. I guess with my 42,000 edits and 4.5 years of experience, I don't know what I'm talking about. It is trivial, and you need to stop adding it! What does it add to the plot of any episode? CTJF83 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment of what constitutes vandalism is incorrect. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If anything, this information constitutes trivia, as it provides no meaningful information about the show and has no means (at present) of being incorporated into the article into a more appropriate way, such as an episode box. Content doesn't get a free pass just because it is "correct". It is also "correct" that the script uses the word "the" more than 40 times, but that doesn't make the information meaningful.

Currently, having its own section, as it does now, it violates WP:Notability, particularly because it lacks any sources to demonstrate significant enough coverage not to mention to verify the cultural references. Only the fact that it could be properly incorporated given several other factors occurring first is keeping me from removing it, though I believe most other editors, Ctjf83 included, would have removed it long ago for all of those reasons.

It is the onus of the advocating editor to demonstrate how the content fulfills the standards of Wikipedia, not the onus of other editors to find it for her or him. If you want this section to stay, then it is indeed in the best interest of that information for you or other editors to take the steps necessary to keep it, such as creating an episode list, finding sources that fulfill Notability, etc.

I also agree with Ctjf83 that it is not vandalism, as section blanking is considered appropriate and legitimate when a clear reason is provided and apparent from the content itself:

"However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." (WP:VANDTYPES)

During the reverts, the editor provided clear reasoning and suggested that further debate be made here on the talk page. I would encourage all editors, however, to refrain from removing or adding the information again until a consensus is reached. If edit warring continues, the page can be locked out for all editors, registered or otherwise.Luminum (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts: The information does seem to be trivial, miscellaneous, etc. The facts are fun, but with the exception of the pilot episode, I don't remember the Burger of the Day being openly mentioned, unless the viewer catches it written on the chalkboard. A simple solution might be to mention the Burger(s) of the Day on the episode page, not on the show's article. If this show lasts several years, the Burger of the Day list on this article will be a mile long. Compare it, for example, to American Dad. If we made a list of Roger the alien's costumes in the show's opening theme, we would have a real long list as well. I say if it's to be included, it should be included on the episode's wikipedia page only. On this page, it can be mentioned somewhere in a sentence that there is a Burger of the Day. That being said, it still needs sourcing. Kjscotte34 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite a long winded pointless response and regardless of WP:WHATEVERTYPE says, it's common sense that you don't delete content you feel is inappropriately placed or "trivial". Wikipedia would be blank if this practice were adopted. It's a TV show, the sourcing is the Season and Episode number and that's all that's available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.108 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. That contentshould be deleted if it exists. That "other stuff exists" is not a sufficient reason to keep. Any experienced editor knows that. We're not a content dump repository.

But you have correctly pointed out why the opening gag doesn't pass notability and was appropriately deleted, since it lacks no notable coverage in any sources and can only rely on a primary source. But if you really want to keep the info, you're always free to start a fan site or a "Bob's Burgers" wikia.Luminum (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This information will remain, whether you like it or not. I am not opposed to moving the content somewhere else within wikipedia whether it be a Bobs burgers trivia page, or a specific burger of the day page. But the point still remains that if there is information misplaced, you don't dump it. You of all people seem to have a muchhh better idea of where to place content being such wiki-veterans.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.108 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya, in the garbage bin. CTJF83 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, I will reiterate that it is not our responsibility to make corrections for you. If content remains in violation of Wikipedia content policies, it is removed. So either make the move to the appropriate place and do the work, or it goes. And if you continue to add it despite it remaining in violation of those policies, it will be considered disruptive editing, re: vandalism. So take your pick.Luminum (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is trivia and should not be in the article. Even for on episode specific articles this would not really fit anywhere, although it might be more acceptable there as it would make up just a small part of the article unlike here were it's about half the page. This is fan-site material, I suggest the IP to take this to a wikia (if not already there), there are already several Bob's Burgers wikias: bobsburgerpedia.wikia.com, bobsburgers.wikia.com, sure there are more, or create your own wikia. This type of content really has no place in an encyclopedic article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

IP, you're the only one who wants to add the trivial burgers of the day, so please stop. CTJF83 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The trivia has been removed by a third party now (me). Should this continue, i'll have the IP reported to edit-warring. IP, please read the guidelines before continuing. Blanking obvious unsourced material is allowed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:23 23 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags

Hey Ctjf83, I think you should go delete this entire page, it appears to be trivial by your definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.108 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't see all the books, newspaper, and DVD commentary sources at the bottom? I implore you to find something similar for the burger of the day. CTJF83 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The couch gag was already mentioned previously and that it has reason to remain because it has sources establishing notability. I also advice you, IP, to respect civility policies here on Wikipedia.Luminum (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I agree that this is not trivial information, but interesting details of the show's main running gag. While it's true that it may be better suited to the Article on Bob's Burgers List of Episodes, it is nonetheless valued info and should be referenced somewhere. The constant deleting of it is unwarranted IMO.DavidP1953 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it could be made into a useful version eventually, in its current form, with its current status i.e. lacking any notable references, it has no place on this page. Pages do not exist as silos of information in the hope that one day some other page will be created to hold it. As mentioned before, this information is not "gone". It exists in the edit record. If editors, such as the IP or yourself, truly believe that this information is notable and useful, then you should 1) find sources that demonstrate that and 2) take the initiative to add it in properly, instead of demanding that it be kept and restructured by others. Other editors are not here to clean up after you. Also, "interesting" doesn't make a strong argument here. Your interpretation of "interesting" can only be dubious without a reference that substantiates it from being mere trivia.Luminum (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you, nor anyone else owns Wikipedia. Also, there is absolutely no reason that un-sourced information can not remain during this early period of the shows life. There are exceptions to your rule. At this point it is blatantly obvious that people care enough to maintain this section and due to there being no "books, newspaper, and DVD commentary sources" it is impossible to properly provide citation. If you see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags there are no sources that directly reference all 480 couch gags. Therefore shouldn't all 400 un-cited gags be removed until proper sourcing is found? No. Because "something else exists, this should also" is an argument in this case. The content on these pages is near identical in classification and are absolute proof that this can stay. If you disagree with this, then blank both pages or the un-sourced sections of the simpsons page. There should be no favoritism towards either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.108 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't make disruptive comparisons to prove an invalid point. Also read WP:UNSOURCED, anyone at anytime may remove unsourced material, and the burden lies with the adder not anyone removing said content. CTJF83 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim ownership, I cited Wikipedia policy. Your "obvious" interest is basically limited to you and the input of one other newly joined editor. But again, you demonstrate all the reasoning for why the burger list and other episode gags do not belong on this page:

• The Simpsons opening sequence page already demonstrates that the page requires citations for verification. Translation: It's not up to snuff, but it stays because the likelihood that the sequence has notability is high. In the case of Bob's Burgers, you've already admitted what we all agree upon--the show is too new to have notability for its opening sequence, and therefore probability of citations to verify and establish notability are low. That is the key difference between your comparison. One is both highly notable and established with high probability of sources that can establish the gag's notability and verify the content while the other isn't and doesn't have those available. You can see why The Couch Gag list (which has been nominated for deletion twice) was kept here [1]. Reading through it, its strongest arguments is that the gag has been the subject of many notable sources, which demonstrates it notability even outside of the show itself. Does Bob's Burgers have that? No. Will it? It could, but we don't add content on prophetic and baseless "could-be's". Therefore, until it reaches a level where it has even a littl notability, it should be deleted.

• Even then, the couch gag is a list and has its own page, separate from The Simpsons. This goes back to what was discussed earlier--that the content does not belong on Bob's Burgers and would appropriate (if verifiable and notable) on a separate page. If you want to try to invoke contrary to Wikipedia's "Other stuff exists", then I would say that making that arguments only shows that since the couch gags are listed on their own page, the Bob's Burgers of the Day and sign gags should likewise be on their own page and not on this own. However, I'll tell you ahead of time, it's going to be hard to keep that page away from an Article for Deletion tag under, again, the lack of citations for notability and verifiablity at the present time, but you're still welcome to try.Luminum (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean valid comparisons to prove a valid point. Once again you need to read your "proof". WP:BURDEN specifies that "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." The state of the article is still extremely early in conception compared to The Simpsons amount of sourcing. It also states that "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself [the removing editor] and cite them." which you have done nothing for but complain and blank the section. As stated by the lock on the current page, wikipedia is for collaboration. By removing information instead of improving it you are not improving/collaborating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.211.10 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet, when various editors, including myself have made suggestions on how the section may be improved and when we have all agreed on where it should be (including yourself), you have failed to take any action at all. Never mind that you have failed to consider the repeated assessment by four other editors that the content indeed fits the description of trivia. The onus is on you to fix it, while others are free to remove it until it is up to standard. For all this time you've spent arguing about how it should stay, you haven't taken a single action to improve the content to move the page forward and justify its presence. It can't be for lack of knowledge on how to do it, since we've all mentioned it above. In effect, all you're doing is pushing for it to stay and expecting that we will clean it up for you, resorting to edit warring to do it. Is that collaboration? And if you admit that there is no way to reasonably source the section, then you have provided the reason why it should be deleted: it's not notable and it's littered with original research, lacking any kind of verifiability. And this is true, which is why opposing editors cannot fulfill the good will statement of sourcing it ourselves. None exist because the section is not notable, and since it isn't notable it doesn't belong here, even if opposing editors want it to be as well. If an article is in an early stage, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass for being a mess. It means that the article should only reflect what limited sources are available to substantiate it. If Bob's Burger's only notable sources at this point in time substantiate reviews and a plot summary, that is all that should be on this article.

Let me also add that your continued selective reading of Wikipedia policies does you a disservice. WP:BURDEN illustrates first and foremost that it is YOUR responsibility as an adding/restoring editor to find the sources to justify the addition of the content. In terms of reasonable time, it would be ludicrous if the addition was removed within the confines of the hour or two hours it might take to find the source, not an indefinite amount of time with the fervant hope that the content might eventually become notable. You basically already illustrated why WP:BURDEN can't be used to defend your reasoning, since no sources exist and are unlikely to exist until the show becomes more popular, which is definitely outside of reasonable time for allowing unsourced non-notable material to remain. In fact, why you would add content and argue notability without anything to back it up in the first place is a mystery to me, but it happens.Luminum (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If anything, on the official Fox website of the show, there is a part next to where it lists the cast where it also lists the various Burgers of the Day. http://www.fox.com/bobsburgers/ However, I don't see how it lists what the special ingredient is. However, it is a source, if someone wants to go ahead and add it. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

While an external compilation of the Burgers of the Day and ingredients is nice to have as reference, I don't see it as necessary when the episodes themselves, viewable online, can serve as primary source of confirmation of the information. The fact that someone may or may not have published this on a site outside of Wikipedia is not a weighty argument IMO.DavidP1953 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If the content remains, then it should sourced by the episode for the sake of verifiability alone. While the FOX site lists burgers, it doesn't attribute them to the episode in which they appear. However, it still doesn't help the issue of notability or the fact that the content in its own sections sans any explanation is trivia. Seeing that, the content has now been added to the List of Bob's Burgers episodes page, my suggestion would be to add the burger into the content of the template of episodes, removing the ingredient and reference sections. The ingredient seems to be an extrapolation of "information" from the burger name, so the emphasis is completely unnecessary and the reference column shouldn't be there unless it can be verified with a source, otherwise it's WP:original research. Likewise, we source them because a user should be able to read the content and know where the content comes from. Not sourcing it effectively suggests that the user should seek out the episode and verify it for themselves, which is obviously not what we want. Content has to be backed up by a reliable source.

Given that the information is now at least generally where it should be, the information also being on this page makes it completely redundant and it should be removed. There's no reason for two identical lists to be on both a main page and a branched page. If the list of episodes page is intended to provide more detail on the episodes, then there's no use for that detail to be replicated on the main page, which is about the overall series.

If a source appears that at least mentions the opening gag, then I would add a line in an appropriate section on this page about the gag, provide one or two examples, and allow the user to link to the "List of episodes" page if they care to know which burger gag is associated with which episode.Luminum (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...and after having done a search around all the typical notable outlets that review this show, I haven't seen a single mention of the opening neighbor gag or the running gag about the Burgers of the Day with the exception of the first episode, where it's an actual plot point (changing it from "New Bacon-ings" to "Child Molester"). However, the reviews DO support the creation of episode pages in the vein of other animated shows on here, in which case, I would distribute the lists into the episode boxes and leave it at that. Even something that isn't formatted specifically as a gag-per-episode, such as the burgers can be listed in that box.Luminum (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I copied the information on Burgers of the Day to the Episode List Page in order to help move beyond the squabbling over this on the Bob's Burgers page. While I see the argument for incorporating the info into the grid of descriptions for each episode, I'm not 100% convinced that that is the best way to go. I see an advantage in having it separate for clarity and listing of this running gag. I may edit it to do that ( if someone else doesn't), if I convince myself it is a better, clearer way to go forward. Regarding the lack of comment on the Burger of the Day at other reviewers, etc, I would attribute that to their superficiality. This is clearly an "insider" type running gag that appeals to fans.DavidP1953 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

While that's true, Wikipedia looks for notability, not subjective attributions of fan interest, which would fall under trivia. If fans want collections of bunches of minute data, they can always go to wikia's where the purpose and goals of the project are different and cater to that interest. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's only until the specific gag itself becomes notable enough (say it is discussed in an interview, DVD commentary, or becomes so outrageously popular that it's discussed on its own (re: Simpsons)) that it becomes notable. One of the things that is often mentioned on Wikipedia is that it's not a fan site. Nebulous fan interest isn't a strong argument for content. It's only relevant when fan interest clearly has impact to the extent that someone in a reliable source of media brings it up. I disagree that a listed format provides better clarity than one in which the information is incorporated with its specific episode. Futurama and American Dad! both utilize the episodic format. It is ideal in this instance because unlike the Simpsons couch gag, neither has the notability to justify a stand-alone section (let alone a stand alone page), but the information is deemed unique to the episode, and proper incorporation saves it from being labeled as trivia. In any event, I appreciate you taking the initiative. I likewise created a Bob's Burgers wrapper template and uploaded it to the first two episode pages. The template now includes the running gags. You can check out the template here: Template:Infobox Bob's Burgers episode, and see how it looks here Human Flesh (Bob's Burgers).Luminum (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to DavidP1953 for moving the section to an agreed upon location. I have now sourced all 20 Burgers of the day. I don't believe we have any more issues pending we agree on the location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.108 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For those interested, this conversation has now spilled over to the List of Bob's Burger's talk page. I've made some edits to the "inclusion" the dissenters have been forcing on the assumption that this is somehow not going away, but I'm not against (please please please) someone removing this CLUTTER altogether. KnownAlias contact 11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia no matter what page you put it on...but that looks a lot better then it did here, and I'm willing to compromise on that. CTJF83 11:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Knownalias, 28 March 2011

{{edit protected}} Infobox television
| num_episodes = 8
...last night's episode,"Spaghetti Western and Meatballs", updates the num_episodes count to 9 KnownAlias contact 12:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this and reactivate the request when there is consensus. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

I would like to remove the trivial "Burger of the Day" and other trivia, as it is unsourced and trivia is not accepted on Wikipedia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:07 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be specific - which "other trivia" do you mean? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening Credit Next Door Neighbor. This is the other trivia. This and The Burger of the Day are trivia and shouldn't be on the page without a fallback source. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:41 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An admin isn't going to remove what the discussion is about and the reason the page got protected. CTJF83 12:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The page was protected because IP's refused to listen to guidelines. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode Articles

May I respectfully request that we not dedicate entire articles to individual episodes? We already have people starting them and then not actually adding content. I don't know who decided individual episodes of shows — with the exception of especially famous ones like Dallas' "Who Shot J.R." or that episode of Happy Days that originated the expression "jump the shark" — are notable enough to get their own articles. Remember, Wikipedia is not a fansite; and just because other shows have their own armies of spammers does not mean they should. Octan (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

An/I discussion; Bob's Burgers trivia sock

A discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the ongoing issue of the disruptive editor championing the "Burger of the day" trivia. See Wikipedia:ANI#Consensus ban of Sockmaster BlueMondo131 from Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes. KnownAlias contact 07:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion is now here. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Remove the Bob's_Burgers#Episodes section, as it is a section just to a link, which is in the infobox, and FAs like The Simpsons, House (TV series), and Firefly (TV series) don't have this section CTJF83 22:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done; per WP:SUMMARY the section should be expanded with material imported from the sub-article.. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection level

There is currently a request to put this page under PC2 protection. To editors, please indicate whether or not you support the protection level being downgraded to PC2. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong immediate pending changes the sock is never going to stop, and full protection puts extreme limits on improving the article. CTJF83 23:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong immediate pending changes Sock seems to have only this edit to live for and shows no signs of relenting on it, and despite antagonizing comments to the contrary during his bouts of edit warring, shows no willingness to collaborate or understand policy. He seems to evade every attempt at a block and semi-protection is pointless against him, but full protection is just punishing everyone else for his inappropriate behavior. KnownAlias contact 00:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Plus, I think the user would stop sooner if we didn't allow his/her edits to show up and we reported every user that requested to add the burger of the day to WP:ANV as a sock, and they kept getting blocked CTJF83 00:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

*Strongly Oppose The users above have done nothing but request locking and blocking measures against the user attempting no collaboration or work towards consensus other than removing the edit. The user has presented multiple citations evidence for the inclusion of the edit, although even as listed above by ctjf83, they hope to stomp out everyone with an opposing opinion till they are all blocked. By implementing PC2 protection, we will only be furthering a biased article and abuse.

Strikeout. Sorry, but socks like open proxy socks are not allowed to participate. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support for pending changes for one month.Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Both parties have let this get out of hand. It has done nothing but to hurt the integrity of each user involved. Someone always seems to have an opinion as to how each page should look, and what information it should contain. It seems to me, that Wikipedia is no longer the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, but rather nothing more than a collection of pages only administrators may edit. It is petty squabbling like this that causes Wikipedia to be disregarded when used as a source for information.--Subman758 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So just to clarify, Subman, you endorse keeping the page fully protected so only administrators may edit it? —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Neither Ctjf83 or myself are admins, and neither of us can edit these pages because of one disruptive influence, which is why we are advocating the change. KnownAlias contact 16:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No I am Opposed to keeping it blocked. I Opposed any form of Censorship.--Subman758 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. This has to do with somebody who keeps peeing in the swimming pool. Unfortunately, he keeps sneaking back in, so the only way to control the problem is to keep everybody out of the pool. I don't like the arrangement myself. I'd be with you about unprotecting the article if I weren't concerned that it would only start the same problems again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This has everything to do with censorship. The editor is contributing information that you don't agree with, therefore you sick the dogs on him. You express this as a problem where you need to close down the pool. Is this that big of an infectious problem? -HellYeahPartyTime (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that you created a single-purpose account just to participate in this discussion, yes. Abusive use of such accounts is what led to the full protection of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

By "blocked" do you mean fully protected, semi protected, pending changes protected, what? Clearly when a user feels they don't need to follow consensus and go to the extreme lengths this user has gone to disrupt the page and the project, something has to be done. CTJF83 11:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Semi-protection isn't handling the problem here. Given the choice between full protection and unprotected but with pending changes enabled, I'd rather go the PC2 route, since it will keep the problematic edits from showing up in visible versions of the article. Of course, if abuse resumes, I'll be the first to advocate going back to full protection. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put the articles under PC2 for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is take a survey and get a consensus as to whether the Burger of the Day thing should be posted or not since that is what the dispute is about. If it can be verified, then there is no reason to keep it off since this is something that's (supposedly) a recurring part of the show. At best instead of putting a chart on the show's main page, you can write it into each description. I don't watch the show but Subman758 raises a good point so I give my 2 cents. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We did, look at the extremely long #Burger opener and Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes. Plus, it is very trivial, and no reliable 3rd party sources showing how it is notable. CTJF83 12:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The only editor besides the agitator to make any effort to incorporate was me, under the episode summaries as BuickCenturyDriver described, and I complained about this junk the entire time. Another editor, RustedAutoParts, started reverting my work, and I tacitly stood by and stayed out of it until the agitator proved to be socking, then joined the anti proactively. The rules of noteriety and triva have been explained to him ad nauseam, and he just doesn't care; agitator's idea of consensus is everyone agreeing with him. Anything else is a conspiracy to prevent. KnownAlias X 12:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can't verify it then of course there shouldn't be a reason to post it. But if there's a consensus that it does exists, you don't have to go all or nothing. I'd probably say it's like writing a list of Bart Simpson's blackboard messages at the beginning of each Simpson episode. Then again, it makes me wonder how episodes for that show even get their own articles since single TV episodes are generally not notable. –BuickCenturyDriver 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"That show"? Do you mean The Simpsons? All the episodes have pages because they all do or will have 3rd party coverage, just look at all the episodes that are good articles and several more as FAs. And the consensus is to not include the burger of the day, if you take out all the sock trolls of one user there is only a couple at most who want to add the non-notable trivia. If you can find DVD/book coverage on bob's burger of the day, like you can on the chalkboard/couch gag from The Simpsons, then by all means say it, and the consensus very well could switch to include it. CTJF83 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, agreed. That's all I've ever said is that it lacks any notoriety. "Burger of the Day" is just a menu chalkboard in the background good for a brief chuckle if you're paying attention, but no special effort is made to draw attention to it (sometimes the obfuscation of it by a character's head or the edit of the screen shot requires three different scenes to put the separate pieces together and make out what it actually says), but if it stopped appearing tomorrow, it would do nothing to the quality or content of the show. It's just one of now hundreds of Easter eggs out there, like the end credit audio on King of the Hill, the doodle board on Chandler and Joey's apartment door on Friends, the hats worn by Judah Friedlander's character on 30 Rock (the comic's convention adopted by the show, by the way), or every single church, school, community center and store sign on The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad! and The Cleveland Show. The Couch Gag is notable in part because it started it; in fact, the words "Couch Gag" are used in some instances to define this kind of trivia, making everything else, including The Simpsons additions "Cloud/Logo Gag" and "Billboard Gag", an "also" which gets none of the same attention. But our sock claims none of the other trivia is the same as Burger of the Day. It is somehow unique and elevated to the status of the Couch Gag, even though he can only find a blog trivia page to cite it that undermines his argument by equalizing all of that data in the same trivial manner as one of many recurring gags (and no list BTW, not even a sample; just a "Bob's Burgers has a menu board that changes every episode", to paraphrase) or an interactive "Burger of the Day" menu board on Fox.com's Bob's Burgers page (that I'd argue is more promotional than informative) that contains maybe two burgers from the first episode, and make the rest up unique to the site. And it's only two guys advocating it so far; the many faces of BlueMondo131, and DavidP1953 who I suspect is a hunk of bologna in the sock drawer, since his edit history is almost nonexistent save the defending of this edit, and he always shows up whenever Mondo's losing the argument (again). And neither care about policy or consensus, just about the "censorship" that prevents this trivia from getting in per mainly Mondo's feverish desire. KnownAlias X 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Section: Bob's_Burgers#Recurring_characters_and_others, can u just remove "and others" from the section title? There is no "and other" that should be listed, minor 1 time characters don't need mention. CTJF83 20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done –MuZemike 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It never seems to be discussed how most of these "cartoons" are turned out in South Korean sweat shops. Who developed the characters? Who is the artist behind them? Yes, of course, not relevant... =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Who Drew This Fine Work Of Art?

It never seems to be discussed how most of these "cartoons" are turned (churned) out in South Korean sweat shops (much like current Disney garbage). Who developed the characters? Who is the artist behind them? Yes, of course, not relevant... =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bob's Burgers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kww (talk · contribs) 23:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Fails to summarize article.

1. April 7, 2011 data only in lead, not contained in article.
2. "Human Flesh" viewership only in lead, not contained in article.
3. Mention of "59th" place violates WP:NUMERO, not mentioned in article, and contains an irrelevant comparison to other series.

Plot

This section says very little about the plot.

Original pilot

One massive mispunctuated run-on sentence.

Executive Producers

Another mispunctuated run-on sentence.

Writing

Unsourced.

Setting

Unsourced.

Themes

Probably beyond obvious. I'd say "unsourced", but my real objection is that if this is all that can be said, there's no use saying anything.

Home media

Run-on sentence.

Success

Hopelessly biased. It says that most reviews were mixed, and then proceeds to list only positive comments.

Awards and nominations

Another WP:NUMERO violation.

Criticism and controversy

No controversy to be found here, but it does seem to have all the negative parts of those mixed reviews. Fold it together with "Success", and call it "Reception".

International broadcast

Kill the flags, per MOS:ICON.

Merchandise

Another massive run-on sentence.

The following sections have been fixed:

• International broadcast, the flags have been removed
• Original pilot, the section is no longer a run-on sentence

• Comment - This article is no where near where it needs to be for a GA. Most of the references are bare links to sites and a good chunk of the prose is completely unsourced. Consider this was a former GA that got demoted, this needs a bit of work to pass.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Failing; still unsourced sections after a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Gender

It seems like this show frequently casts actresses as male characters and male actors as female characters. Has any explanation been given for this decision? It seems very different from most other animated programs (Bart Simpson aside). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Location

The article says they live in an indeterminate part of the NE USA but in the episode "It Snakes A Village" it is clearly shown that they live in New Jersey, can someone make the appropriate change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.201.21 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does "clearly shown" mean? Does a character say that they live in New Jersey? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fyrael: It's pretty clear (see http://imgur.com/cU9fF2P). I was going to ask about this too. I think it's clear enough that they are from New Jersey. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on your picture, I would totally agree. I just didn't have time to go rewatch the episode myself. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fyrael: I screencapped it from http://www.watchcartoononline.com/bobs-burgers-season-3-episode-18-it-snakes-a-village around 1:12 if you want to verify it. I already edited the article and cited the episode. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an issue again... the source ChrisP2K5 is using is from 2012. Since that article It Snakes a Village has aired and we have another WP:RS using NJ. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the source is from. My source is the word of the creator of the show, gleaned from an interview he gave to Entertainment Weekly. He said, point blank, that there is no specific setting to the show. Unless he says that's changed, that's the official word as far as I'm concerned and your original research isn't valid. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My source is the cartoon itself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to be interested in discussion... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. You're wrong, and my source confirms it.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lovely sentiment. But you know things can change... it's a strange phenomenon. We have three sources saying NJ, all more recent than the one you offer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The creator of the show said directly that there is no determinate setting other than the northeastern US. What are you not understanding about that? It doesn't matter how recent the source is, it is proof. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Show creator's intent does not match the show apparently.

You fail to heed WP:BRD. You are trying to override previously obtained consensus because you feel you are right, edit warring and treating this as a battleground. I have tried to engage you in discussion on your own talk page as well as this article talk page. Your only argument is that you are right. You cite no WP policy nor provide further current sources to back your claim. I have reported you to AIV and AN3. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Conensus does not override reality. And no matter how you try to spin it, the word of the series creator should be considered gospel (or close enough to it) in this case. His exact words: "It’s a semi-Springfield. It can’t be San Francisco, which is what many people think. It has all that Victorian architecture from San Francisco because I was living there when we developed the show, but we set it firmly in the Northeast because of the way Linda sounds, and Teddy. There’s just so much East Coast in those voices, we just couldn’t take it out. It would’ve been too weird to have her doing that voice — you’d have to constantly be explaining that she’s a transplant or whatever. And because it’s this seaside, past-it’s-prime, dusty old town, we kind of felt like that puts it pretty close to those Coney Island, New York-New Jersey shore parts. I grew up in the New England area, and there were lots of beach towns like it, though we don’t want to be in New England party because Family Guy has Rhode Island sewn up. But basically I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs or on the northern Jersey shore.” Doesn't say "the show is set in New Jersey", it says the show is set in the northeast somewhere. Which, once again, means your information is incorrect. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in the interview that you've pasted here does he say that the show isn't set in New Jersey. In fact he clearly states that the Jersey shore is a possibility. Some time after this interview the show rather clearly showed the Belchers going on a road trip starting from their home and the image of a map that showed them beginning the journey in New Jersey. The new information doesn't in any way contradict his interview. We've simply been given more specific information since the interview took place. This is like if some hypothetical show had a shadowy character that you never see and the creator did an interview where they say "oh, I picture that character as sort of a classic monster, like a vampire or werewolf" and then the next season the character is in fact revealed to be a werewolf. Would you then say that no, the character isn't a werewolf because the creator didn't say so in an interview yet? If we could only use creator interviews as sources and had to ignore the show itself, then we'd have to remove half of the information in the article. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

He said at the very beginning of the interview that the setting was indeterminate. That renders the New Jersey argument invalid. This "specific information" is not from an RS, and the car did not start in New Jersey but in the middle of a map, lending to the ambiguity. Your last point is a straw man and made under a different set of circumstances. If the character is revealed as a werewolf, then he's a werewolf. This wasn't done here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ambiguity you're seeing in the image linked above, which was captured from the show. It's quite clearly New Jersey that they started from. And that's the "specific information" that I'm referring to. The show revealing what state the characters live in is exactly what was done here. The dotted line starts in New Jersey. Aside from a character saying it out loud, I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion, not factual data. And the factual data says the show doesn't have a specific setting. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is factual data. It's a picture. There's really not any room for opinion here. Are you telling me honestly that when you look at the picture you can't tell where the Belchers' trip started from? -- Fyrael (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a fourth source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/columns/moviebob/11188-Why-Tina-of-Bobs-Burgers-Cant-Be-Ignored . Note that it appears to be an RS as it has editorial oversight: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/content/about EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And a 5th: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/05/bobs-burgers-what-horse-or-how-bob-savesdestroys-t.html also with editorial oversight (1) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your first source is an editorial and doesn't present any evidence other than the writer's own interpretation. Not an RS. Your second source is a review of the episode and doesn't present any evidence other than the writer's own interpretation. Not an RS. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't see to understand what WP:RS says. Writers' opinions are fine. But neither of these are opinion columns. You are assuming author intent, but you don't have a crystal ball. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's be realistic here, okay? The show creator purposely left the location ambiguous and has not overtly changed that. The map thing, unless he says directly, is nothing more than coincidence and that's not enough proof to override the RS. Neither are any editorials or episode reviews. Until there's an overt action to the effect (which the map isn't), the word of the creator overrides it IMO. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally declare things. We have 5 sources saying NJ. You seem to not like it. There is no consensus for your change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one unilaterally declaring things? You are disregarding the only actual factual data in favor of adding non-confirmed data to the page. By definition your sources are not reliable and my source is. Consensus does not trump reality, and according to the person who is responsible for the show's existence, the location is not specific. I will not accept consensus when it is to add incorrect information to a page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying "by definition", but this seems to be a definition that you've made up yourself. According to Wikipedia's actual policy on reliable sources, which has been linked to you several times (have you read it yet?), the sources are in fact reliable. The fact that you believe they're in contradiction with another reliable source doesn't make them magically no longer meet Wikipedia's requirements.

Perhaps we can use a middle road here and include all facts on the article. We can just say specifically that the creator labels the setting as a "semi Springfield" ambiguous East coast town, but that the show itself has since indicated a New Jersey locale. Something along those lines. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no middle road. The show takes place in an indeterminate area. Not New Jersey, not anywhere. Dress it up however you want, the information that it is New Jersey is incorrect. The creator has said otherwise and there's been no direct evidence to the contrary. The opinions of bloggers do not satisfy that criteria. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but the episode "Ambergris" has a Wonder Wharf employee selling Fried Dough. In New Jersey, we don't refer to it as that, we refer to it by other names. In New England, they refer to it by that name. If they really were intending to set it in New Jersey they wouldn't have referred to something with a New England name. Which reinforces the ambiguity of the setting. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what more there is to say... we have multiple reliable sources saying New Jersey and you are invoking the "word of god". We have more recent sources saying NJ, and an episode showing the car emanating from NJ. You do not appear to be willing to compromise either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What's there to compromise about? Your information is wrong. The creator said it takes place somewhere indetermiminate and all the information you gathered is opinion and coincidence. You are not allowed to add inaccurate information to pages. And unless you can find an RS or something that's not COPYVIO material (which the episode is) that says DEFINITIVELY, like mine does, that the setting is a certain place, your information is inaccurate. You need to stop with this war and page owning mentality and understand that disagreeing with decisively confirmed data is no reason for replacing it with non-reliable data. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be overly rude, but do you have any idea about the policies you cite? Citing the episode is not copyvio. That's ludicrous. You clearly cannot be reasoned with since you cannot fathom that you are mistaken in any way. You have no consensus to change the page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I again point you to the one piece of information that definitively states its locale. Which, again, is ambiguous. Show me some source that's not an opinion. You haven't. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but I would believe your information has merit if I didn't know of this direct piece of contradictory evidence. Since there is evidence to the contrary from an actual RS (an interview with the creator of the show), that renders all of your data incorrect. Again, you are not allowed to add false and misleading info to a page, no matter what the consensus is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I will file an ANI if you continue your edit war on this page without consensus after this protection is released. You are currently treating this as a battleground and appear only interested in getting your way, not team work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in having accurate information on this page. The only accurate information points to the show's setting being anything but specific. Threatening me is not going to change that. Show me irrefutable proof that the show is set in New Jersey, contradicting the word of the primary and definitive source. You haven't been able to do this. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems like we're about done here, but I'll summarize what I think are the important counterpoints and probably leave it at that:

• The show's creator gives a description of the setting that does not specify any one state. He says that it's on the East coast, but they don't want it to be in New England. Although I'm now noticing that he does NOT say that the location is unspecified or ambiguous. Those terms or synonyms for them don't appear anywhere in the quote. The closest he gets is saying that "it's a semi Springfield" which could mean any number of things. And he most definitely never says that the location will always and forever be a mystery that can never be revealed or narrowed down.
• AFTER this interview, the show clearly displays a map showing the Belchers leaving their home in New Jersey. If this happened before the interview that would be a different story, but it happened after.
• Multiple writers have taken note of this new information and included the location in published articles that clearly pass WP:RS. These types of secondary sources are precisely what Wikipedia looks to for information, as set out in policies regarding reliable sources. You may continue calling them "opinions" if you like, but that does not change the fact that they do actually adhere to the guidelines for sources.

Given the sources that Evergreen has provided and the fact that the new information doesn't actually contradict the more general information provided by the show's creator, I don't see how there can be any two ways about this. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support an inclusive position of both stories as per User:Fryael - We can just say specifically that (in 'add year here') the creator labeled the setting as a "semi Springfield" ambiguous East coast town, but that the show itself has since indicated a possible New Jersey locale. Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)