Talk:Chowder (TV series)

Character species?

From his appearance Chowder resembles a raccoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of species, and it's a fantasy cartoon. Until there's an official mention of species, that description is basically original research. Yngvarr 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenblatt just posted an official answer to what species Chowder (and the rest) are: [1]. Yngvarr 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Only explains Chowder kinda or at least gives reason to what species he (and Panini I guess) is derived from, not truly an explanation of any sort. I reckon that it's worth mentioning within notes but can't be used as an absolute fact within their bios. --treelo _talk 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I kinda disagree with not using it as fact. Despite no actual species name, a species is given.--UBracter (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they did mention that Chowder is a bear/cat/rabbit in "Puckerberry Overlords". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, also mentioned it again (but without the bear part) in "At Your Service" but if not for the reference (which I changed my opinion on a few days after I said we shouldn't use it and now agree with it being a fact) I'd have seen it as a minor recurring joke and not really proof of his species at all which actually isn't mentioned by name but instead what species he's made up of. Also means we wouldn't know what species Panini was either, could say they were the same species by way of their ears and teeth being similar but that'd be OR. treelo _talk 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

what about the shows god-like character who lives in the clouds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.219.151 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What of him? treelo _radda 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Chowder looks like a cat, and in the episode "Broken Part" (which I am currently watching), the statue guy tells him that he looks like a "cat thingy".--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we've got it straight for Greenblatt's blog, so let's not overcomplicate it. He's a bear/cat/bunny/thingy, and so is Panini. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not original reaserch- Controversery

if anybody has seen the burple nurples episode they may remember one of the nurples saying "you will die" and then "die" and finally "HELL" i wouldnt think that chowder would have swear words and tell people about it which is why i request a controversy section Godzillastar 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You could but where's the controversy in the use of the word "hell"? If it's actually controversial to anyone besides family groups and is in the general media for use of swearing in a TV-Y7 rated show them by all means add it but otherwise it is very much original research and NPOV also if there's no way to actually verify it. Forget that, I've rewatched the segment in question and the word spoken by the nuprle is "you", not "hell". --treelo _talk 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i think he sayed you, not hell, you as in yes you will...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I hear it saying "you will die", then "die", and for stress, it says "you". Yngvarr 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I heared "you...will...die", then, "you..........will." Besides, I think it's only a swear word when you use it in a sentance like "what the hell!" and it's okay if you're describing a bad place...I've heard on the naked brothers band before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.83.77 (talk) 22:57, November 16, 2007

one i dont beleive in the bad place so i consedor that controversey to but if thats whats going on i guess i'm sorry i ever brought it upGodzillastar (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize. You did the right thing: you perceived an issue, and brought it up for discussion. That's how things work around here. Yngvarr 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

As the template {{Trivia}} states, trivia sections are discouraged. I've addressed several of the trivia points, moving them to a section with context where the trivia is more relevant, however I disagree with the statement about Chowder counting to 42: Chowder exclaims that he can only count to 42, an obvious reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.. I don't disagree with it being a possible reference to the HHG, but that is opinion and not fact or even verifiable. The other trivial facts (Thricecream man, Katamari) have been attested to directly by the creator, and can be considered verifiable and reliable. The species issue is still muddy, since Greenblatt's blog did not directly address the issue, but was rather vague in saying "all of these" Yngvarr 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As shown in [2] lists of allusions seem to be on the pages of TV show episodes. The information about 42 should be referred to as an allusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk • contribs) 01:29, November 17, 2007

At the moment within the allusions/trivia section, we have a flash-frame appearance of a Triforce from the Zelda series. Whilst it is there, there's also some other things included in the sequence which could also be defined as an allusion. I don't like the allusions section as they're little more than very tenuous references and might just remove the allusions section as it's just reading right now as Trivial Minutiae. Eitherway this goes, the Triforce "allusion" isn't actually one at all as it's part of a piece of work within a batch of clips containing seemingly random photos and artwork. --treelo _talk 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

pages for individual episodes?

When should a TV show pages be divided up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk • contribs) 01:32, November 17, 2007

Well, there are two possibilities:

1. an article to the effect of "List of episodes", which will probably happen once season one is over. 13 episodes of a single season isn't bad on a unified page, but if another season begins, then it may be time to reconsider. Altho that is not always the case, look at Whatever Happened to Robot Jones?, which has a total of two seasons (the total production life) on a unified article.
2. individual episode articles. That won't happen, and I'm not just being negative. Unless the single episode satisfies notability requirements (like an Emmy), such individual articles will most likely be slapped with a deletion. Yngvarr 10:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like possibility number one. We should model it after, say for example, the episode list for the Powerpuff Girls. Give a very brief description of each episode, its air date, its writers and directors, seasons, etc. We should help to fix this on every cartoon network original show. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When seasons two starts, it'll probably happen, and we can discuss it at that point. I'd just stress caution on doing this kind of thing before a second season starts. With only 8 episodes aired, it would be hard to justify a separate episodes article. Since most cartoons are a 13-episode season, it won't be too unwieldy for now.

For the other information you speak of, check out the template I used, template:Episode list. There is a lot more information available in the template than what is currently used. Yngvarr 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

As much as I disagree with it, I'm now leaning towards keeping Chowder Zone in the External Links section. Greenblat's blog sort of blessed it, by mentioning it on his blog [3], and also apparently talking with the fansite owner. I'd rather not see indiscriminate list of external fanlinks, but WP:FANSITE is clear about this:

• Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

WP:NOT#LINK is further clearer:

• On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate

At the very least, maybe it'll direct people to a site more appropriate for non-verifiable information (like "he's inspired by Pokemon"). Thoughts, comments? Yngvarr 12:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As it is the only real dedicated fansite out there and even though it's early days and that the owner seemed very determined to get it in before broadcast, it's probably worth linking to by default of there being no other sites to goto as yet. Carl also noticed it and mentioned as such on his blog but again, if you're the only one around then you'll be the biggest even if you are little more than a CMS frontend for very little content. Keep it in but I wouldn't bet on it being "the biggest" come season two or three. --treelo _talk 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The fansite has been 'dead' for quite a while now.--UBracter (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The prophecy has been fulfilled, better remove it then. treelo _talk 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chowder Logo.jpg

Image:Chowder Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Family?

I read somewhere that Chowder is Truffles and Mung Daal's adopted son. Can anyone comfirm this? Because in "A taste of Marzipan" Truffles said they had no kids. Even so, how come Chowder lives with them? What about Panini and Ms.Endive, are they related? Or is it simply that they work for knowledge and board? Loolylolly1997 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Some early versions of this article mentioned that Chowder was adopted, but someone removed it. Which is fine, because there's no clear indication what the relationships are between Chowder and Mung (and Panini and Endive). The best source for info is Greenblatts blog, keep an eye on it, and dig thru it for information, maybe there is something buried in there that's been overlooked. The link is on the article. Yngvarr 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is currently unknown if Chowder is an orphan, adopted, or whatever. All we know right now is he's Mung's apprentice, and thats that. Stickmeister (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At WonderCon 2007, C.H. Greenblatt stated that they would never do an episode about Chowder's family due to it being too sad. So we can assume his parents and any relatives may be dead.--UBracter (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We can assume all we like, unless Carl says that Chowder is an orphan through death or plain being parted from them for whatever reason then it's not something we can write about. treelo _talk 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Character pages?

There is a dire need of the characters' pages on here. They now link to articles about food, plants and fungus. comment added by blimf123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.227.116 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The page currently holds the characters quite nicely. There is about a paragraph per character, and it's about one screenful of text, which is not unreasonable. There is no real telling, but I seriously doubt any other characters will be added to the show, and one-shot deals like the officers, etc, won't be listed. Right now, most of the characters listed are matched up with out-of-universe context, providing verifiable refs with a reliable source (Greenblatt being the primary source of information). Anything else would likely fall into original research. A spun-out page would most likely end up in an AfD debate, like this one [4] did, with little real chance of surviving. Yngvarr 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There aren't very many characters in the show Chowder, otherwise the backround characters and some of the recurring characters. I think we can live without a list of Chowder characters page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.155.155 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A list of Chowder food would be good, but probably not needed. The only reason a list of food is good is because they're different from other food, such as Wawamelon, Grenapes etc. Although, they have mentioned food in its orginal stae, such as Apple or Mushroom. Stickmeister (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

CHG mentioned that one of the original ideas was to have a recipe to go with each episode. I can't recall exactly, but I think he said that the idea never really took off.

IMO, since the show is "food based", there will probably be a new food and recipe each episode, and I don't think that's very feasible to list each one (which is why I, and others, have been removing the numerous mentions, just a few examples are fine).

One idea I had in mind was to take the recipe title names that are shown at the beginning of each episode, and maybe have a brief "Cookbook" mention on the appropriate episode. The names are reused, tho.

Finally, there is a recipe page on the CN Chowder website, that can be mentioned or linked. Yngvarr 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The recipe page on CN does not show the recipes used on the show, but actual dishes.--UBracter (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Age

Should Mung Dall's age be changed form 300 to 450. In the latest episode that should premire on January 25, 2008 it says that Mung Dall misses his and Truffles 450th aniversary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.4.76 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. We don't know his age. If he's at least 450 years old, then he's at least 300 years old. At best, I would agree to changing the text to something like Mung Daal is a master chef who is very old. He and wife, Truffles, celebrated their 450th anniversary.

also, PS, for future refs, new talk threads typically go at the bottom of the talk page. I've moved this there. Yngvarr 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to say that both he and Truffles are hundreds of years old, which appears to be a fact.--UBracter (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Animation Style

This show has a really weird animation style, in which characters with patterned skins of clothes appear to move as "windows" over a stationary pattern--i.e. the patterns on clothes and skin don't move with the characters. Does anyone have a more concise way of describing it? Also, is it mentioned in any secondary sources? Reyemile (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The very first link in the references section is an interview with Greenblatt, where he discusses some of the animation used, especially what you're describing. From what I can tell, he re-invented a technique used in something called Mahiro Maeda's Gankutsouo series, but that was an independent invention (eg, he saw that series after he started using that style of animation). I'm pretty disinterested in anime (since that's what it sounds like), so I never bothered to research it myself. Yngvarr 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The full name of the anime in question is Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo. I've added a link to it and another anime that uses the technique. Buspar (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This article is not a good article yet, here are some tips:

• The lead section needs to summarize the whole article, it shouldn't have information that is not on the main body (AKA the quote).
• The production section needs some copy editing, try and merge phrases, and get rid of "doodling".
• Check for verifiability before renominating, every statement needs to have a source so as to show it's not original research.
• When it comes to style the lists are a major problem, please see WP:EMBED.
• The review section offended me a bit, if you didn't bother in reading those reviews and adding them to the article, why should I?. You should think about expanding this section if you seriously want to make this a GA.

Please see some good article like Futurama and Pinky and the Brain for some examples of how should a cartoon article look like. See also What is a Good Article? before renominating. If you disagree with this review feel free to ask for a reassessment.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for taking the time to review this. I'll start to address what I can. I'll convert the reviews into ref'able quotes, and have already removed the bullets from the characters, so that it is just standard prose. I'm pretty sure most statements were cited, but a quick glance shows that some of the ref tags appeared to have migrated over time. Yngvarr (c) 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was the only part of the article where bullets could be accepted, the problem is on the "episode", "cast" and "crew" sections; those are lists that could be removed altogether. You should check out How to write about television programs for more.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An odd, but perhaps interesting thing I realized about "Not Fruit"

My little brother was watching this show this morning, and it was the episode where Mung Daal created the "Not Fruit" (as titled in the Mung Daal character description section) and when I heard him pronounce it in the show, it sounded like "Noh Fruit", and not "Not Fruit". However, I realize that's addressed in the character description section. However, I propose why it may be pronounced, or even truly named "Noh Fruit" instead of "Not Fruit". In Japanese culture, they have a theater related to Kabuki called "Noh Theater" which is the oldest form of Japanese theater. It's also called "*Total* Theater". This type of theater encompasses all types of expression -- hence the term "Total" in "Total Theater". When I heard "Noh Fruit" I instantly thought "Total Fruit". And I was even more confident it was relating to this when I saw that the fruit actually could become any fruit! This would explain it's reference to "Noh" or "Total." The Noh Fruit encompasses every fruit, just as Noh Theater encompasses all kinds of drama, songs, dances, and poems.

Just a thought. I may be thinking way too far into it. Just thought it was odd for him to pronounce it differently than it's supposedly spelled.

I also have no idea how to sign my name to this, which would be "Neverent", though I haven't created an account... which would most likely help. P.S. Thanks for moving this comment to the bottom, I hadn't realized I put it as the first one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.42.58 (talk) 09:24, April 2, 2008

For the text in the character description, that has been there since even before the show aired. I'm not sure where it came from, but someone must have gotten it from somewhere like CN. I'm not convinced about the "Not Fruit" pronunciation myself, I also heard it as "No Fruit". The problem here is that without any sort of verification from Greenblatt, there's no way to be sure. He does run a blog and is fairly communicative; if you're really interested, check out the link and see if there's a way to ask him.

If you want to create an account, go to Wikipedia:Create an account. When you create an account, you'll want to sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~, as that will automatically sign your username. Yngvarr (c) 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also heard "No Fruit." Perhaps they were going for French pronunciation (silent T)? Anyhow, my hypothesis was along the Japanese lines as well, in that they were going for a sound like tofu, which has little or no flavor unless added to something or flavored, like the fruit. It may also be a distant relation to a Zen concept, sometimes translated as Self, No-Self.Legitimus (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon Network spells it "Not Fruit", but C.H. Greenblatt spelled it "No Fruit" in an interview.--UBracter (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode Order

Froggy Apple Crumple Thumpkin was the pilot episode, and should be listed first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.80.105 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice the semi-disclaimer at the head of the episode list: The episodes which are listed on the official Chowder website are not in order of air dates. This list of episodes is the actual air dates given. During the hour-long premier, Burple Nurples aired first. Yngvarr (c) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The source cited for the air dates does not actually show them. In fact, Thrice Cream Man/The Flibber-Flabber Diet is listed as Episode 1.

I'm not sure of your point. As the statement above shows, the CN episode list is not in air-date format. The Wikipedia list here is in air-date format. If you want to change it, feel free, but the dates listed here are the dates that the episode first aired. Yngvarr (c) 09:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

His point is that the episodes should be listed in production order, if possible.--UBracter (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version of this article?

Just been mooching through various spoken articles and it's really nice to hear them and got me interested in trying to do one for this article. Thing is, when you read the article aloud you get a good idea of where the mains flaws of the article are and there's a few just in general readability. Anyway, I'd like to incorporate a few of the ideas and start making up an audio version from that specific edit. Good idea, bad, is it even required for such a show? You tell me. --treelo _talk 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure! There's a huge list of spoken articles at WP:SPAR, and if something like Tupperware can have a spoken article, why not Chowder? I don't know what the process is, tho. I do have a few concerns, mainly in style. Verbal style is quite different from written style. When writing, it's good style to use "for which", etc ("for which he was known"), but general spoken usage would have you speaking "which he was known for". Yngvarr (c) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like the verbal style should differ from the written style as it is intended to be a straight read of the article instead of being modified for reading. I probably won't start on doing it for a while as I'm going to give it the once over and see if improvements with prose can be written in to help readability. The last bunch of sections aren't easily readable such as the cast and reviews sections so it might be a bit on the short side, not an issue?

Tell you what though, figure Camp Lazlo is in a good position for a read? I'll discuss it there with you if so. --treelo _talk 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a problem, since I don't believe the audio version of the article would change when the actual written page is changed. I believe can have one since there is not likely to be a debate on information on the article and no major changes.--UBracter (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not intended to, unless there's huge sweeping changes in the general article as it's written, the spoken version should keep fairly close to the text version. Camp Lazlo could have one but one at a time for me unless someone else wants to split narration duties. --treelo _talk 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario cameo

I just visited this page looking for some info on the show and found a "Cameo Appearances" section and the grammar was pretty bad and it didn't really make sense so I edited it a bit and tried to make it pretty, but I don't do these things so someone else might want to figure out where to put the contents of that section. I doubt it's long enough to warrant its own section. 75.171.69.77 (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it should be removed; unless there's a ref for it, this is just like all the other "cultural references" which are not really verifiable. Yngvarr (c) 10:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It was unreferenced so it's gone. Wouldn't have kept it anyway, cultural references are really pointless for small shows like this. treelo _talk 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode counts

June 5 starts season two. That is what the commercials are explicitly saying. The tagline says "chowder season two starts june 5th". Can't argue with that.

A normal season usually has 13 episodes, but season one has 12 listed, and I've counted them on my DVR (I've saved them all). So normally and usually are the key words.

Now for the big but (no jokes). There was a reference that season one was extended to 20 episodes. It's still in the article, it's a blog entry at [5]. So now season two starts with only 12 episodes for season one? Where did the other 8 go? They're not part of season two, since that undeniably starts on June 5th, and there's not enough time in the world to air 8 new episodes to fill out for 20. Yngvarr (c) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This has got my noodle a bit confused also too and given two sources give two different mentions which don't conform to the usual 13 episode runlength for a given season which do you take as the more official or correct? I'd say it comes down to a production season definition instead of Cartoon Network's presentation department's definition. The way we'll be able to figure out which is most accurate will depend on the design of the characters due to the usual design drift you get and Carl's assertion of a design change [6].

To me the split seems to be more to do with the 13 episodes to a season rule they've got, to start season two at that spot than in say 2 months time when they run out makes it seem like they have two seasons already to date even though it's unusual to have a second season so soon after the end of a first season. The season split as advertised sounds like a creation of an advertising department but depends really what we can source and which we feel most comfortable with naming. For now though, season two blocks up the gap between the 8 episodes ready to roll and the the first 4 or 5 which they can bump into the end given gaps made by the usual one or two week mid-season hiatus usually given to premiering shows. treelo _talk 22:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd hate to rely on visual indications, but your final comments have me wondering. I don't think any of the online TV guides publish schedules that far in advance, do they? I wonder if CN even schedules that far in advance; more often than not it seems that the published schedules don't match the airings, but that's neither here nor there. Yngvarr (c) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you hit it on the nose, and here you have it. It's a production versus marketing thing. Yngvarr (c) 09:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for sourcing and not consensus building! treelo _talk 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a few suggestions for this article. Perhaps some of them should be implemented.

• As mentioned in the GA review, move the quote from the intro somewhere else. The intro should summarize the article, not mention facts that aren't otherwise in it.
• Nobody's complained about it, so I assume that it's okay to use Greenblatt's blog as a source.
• I'm not sure about the use of the word "fart" in a Wikipedia article. Should Kimchi be described as a flatus? (Thank you, MythBusters, for teaching me that word!)
• Overall, just a little more copy editing to tighten up the prose.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points there, I don't actually know why the quote is still within the intro but given a rewrite of the first section I'm sure we could work it in somehow into the main body. Nobody has objected to the use of Greenblatt's blog yet and we reckon it's a perfectly decent primary source as it can be relied on for facts unlikely to be mentioned anywhere else such as a explanation of what Chowder's (and Panini's) mixture of species are instead of what could have been considered a running gag. As for Kimchi being called a flatus, he was for quite a while and seemingly someone changed it for whatever reason. I'd give it a second go-over for copyediting but there's a few points I personally cannot rewrite so I'll leave it to someone more capable. Thanks for the input, was considering sending it off for reassessment but just needed a poke to get to it. treelo _talk 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it was described as flatus several times, and IP's keep changing it. I'm not in the mood to get into 3RR or a block over it, but feel free to change it. Yngvarr (c) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that to say you do have moods when you want to get into a 3RR violation? Anyway, seeing as the description adequately explains what Kimchi is without getting into specifics on if he's a fart of some sort (which I doubt) I've just removed the part in brackets instead. treelo _talk 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, big thing coming up here, regarding Greenblatt's blog as a source. One of the main reasons that blogs are generally not acceptable is that they are not attributed to a real person; they're mostly anonymous. In Greenblatt's case, he's made full disclosure who he is, and as the creator of the show, he is a primary, and a reliable, source. I'm pretty sure most of the attribution to Greenblatt has been posts made by Greenblatt himself, and never using the blog comments as a source.

Another issue about "primary versus secondary" sources is in regards to critical examination of a topic. Now, let's just face it, this is not a treatise on the reasons for global warming, where it is necessary to consider critical reactions from a neutral standpoint. It's a cartoon who's sole-source of in-universe information will come from the person who created that universe. Consider Tolkien. He created the entire legendarium, and he remains the source. While there are critical examinations of the legendarium, nobody will challenge "Bilbo is a Hobbit", and using Tolkien himself as the primary source of that information.

There is a critical reception section to this particular article, where you'll find five third-party reviews, two of them not entirely favorable. We've had IP's who've attempted to push POV by removing the unfavorable reviews. In this case, yes, secondary sources are important, because it's a critical examination of the subject matter. Yngvarr (c) 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good assessment of how we use Greenblatt's blog as a primary source there and I'm guessing something to clarify and possibly cite if someone challenges the sourcing. treelo _talk 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of copy editing, and it's good to know that using Greenblatt's blog is acceptable since I wasn't sure. I still think that we need more non-primary sources, however, and the intro could stand to be a little longer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(radda)About the citations for the episode list... um, what can we use? Never had to get citations for episodes before and I doubt self-reference to the episodes themselves would work. treelo _talk 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do like Chowder does and ask Gazpacho. No, seriously, I don't know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we need to add citations for episodes but have nowhere to cite from and don't know what would be good sources if we did... hm, that's a toughie. I figure we might not need the tag for citations because it's fairly unlikely in my mind we could find a reliable source for these, what dya think? treelo _talk 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an episode list on the Cartoon Network page for Chowder. For simple title and quick summary information, there isn't a problem with using that as a reference.
Kww (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it only covers upto episode six which is less than half of the total episodes so far. treelo _talk 03:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From my observations, the Cartoon Network website is very unreliable, and not in a WP:RS sense. They have 14 episodes listed for Camp Lazlo, 26 for My Gym Partner's a Monkey and 13 for Squirrel Boy, just to name a few. Yngvarr (c) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Are we allowed to quote that much from reviews? And even if we are, is doing so good for the article? To the last question, I say 'No'. Lots42 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The section originally only had a bullet to the actual reviews. I sent this up for peer review, and the section was questioned. I grabbed what appears to be the most salient text and quoted them here. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but a small portion of the original text was quoted, and is properly attributed, which I feel is suitable under fair use. As for your second question, feel free to work it up how you see fit. Someone tagged it as needing expansion, so apparently you're not the only one to take issue with that section, but myself, I've no clear ideas what can be done. I feel the reviews are important, as my comments above regarding critical reaction explain. Yngvarr (c) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

OK I'm the one who puts down all the new episodes like 5 weeks before they air. And I always do the episodes a different way... just look at the last 4. Could someone tell me how to do it like the rest are? If you understand what I'm saying, thanks! Papasmurf0810 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Word to the wise, don't unless you can source these episodes so far into the future. The code is easy to understand but if you're having diffculty adding it correctly then leave it and as long as it's sourced or more imminent that next week I'll fix it, OK? treelo _radda 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just to add to that: there have been many, many times where future episodes have been scheduled, and pulled at the last minute. The history of the article should actually show what happens when you're trying to outguess an entity that is random, look around January or February -ish if you want to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvarr (talk • contribs)

Removal of a source?

Somewhere along the line, a source to [7] was removed. This now invalidates the entire Setting section. This is an interview which just happened to be posted in a forum, it wasn't a forum chat, and this info isn't available anywhere else. Yngvarr (c) 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• My bad, I removed it since it was a forum post. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For this, I'll use the footnote at WP:SPS these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. And WP:IAR for the substitution of the word forum for blog, since the ref only directly referenced the actual material, not the comments. And then I'll add that Newsarama is considered notable enough to rate a Wikipedia entry, and lists the particular author of this interview, Steve Fritz (which links incorrectly) as a professional journalist Yngvarr (c) 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Character names and food references

Is it necessary to link, or otherwise provide reference for the characters having names of food? There is text within the article, Within the universe of Chowder, characters and locations are named after various foods. And I'd like to cite WP:OVERLINK, Only make links that are relevant to the context.. I'm not sure that linking the food named Chowder to the character name of Chowder is relevant to the context. Yngvarr (c) 14:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody may know what the food references are. I didn't know what Mung Daal and Kimchi were until I looked them up. Don't alays expect everybody to know everything, or to spend time searching on their own. I also put the references at the end of the character descriptions. I wouldn't link the character names directly, as that would be confusing. Andyross (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is to do with some form of intellectual elitism or lazy browsers, just that linking to the food items wouldn't add anything that wasn't mentioned earlier in the article. Might seem logical to have these links to you but it's a bit irrelevant to the context as it's not discussing the food items the links go to. Also, adding "(character name) is named after the food (food)" adds nothing of real use, it's something to be helpful but another to "baby" the readers. treelo _radda 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

These references were added and deleted at least three times. I figured it was time to discuss this. Yngvarr (c) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A parody?

This may sound silly to you all. But if you remember that character called Eek The Cat, this may raise questions on wether or not Chowder may be based on him. If you enter the names of those characters on a search engine, you might find that the two have some connections. 4.68.248.65 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see that there are two problems with your assertion: for one, there's nothing from Greenblatt about this, and unless you can find something that gives backing, I'd say that is just supposition. And since Greenblatt is pretty communicative on his blog, you might want to post to him and see if he can give you some information. I might agree that there is a slight visual resemblance between the two, but that brings up my second point: just because something is similar to another does not always mean it is a parody or homage. Yngvarr (c) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need an expert on these matters

We now have a subsection for humour in the show along with an expansion request. OK, think we could explain chunks of what makes up the humour of Chowder (slightly surrealistic with a bit of whimsy) but not all of it as much of what could be said about Chowder you might not be able to source reliably. We also need to expand the reviews section to more than quotes. Fine again but in what way can you expand from quotes and links when it comes to critical response? I'm looking at you, purple kid. treelo _radda 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• By expanding the review section, I mean, proseify it a little. Something like "The show reecieved mixed reviews from critics. While source A said blah blah blah, source B said blah blah blah. Several critics, however, have praised the show for blah blah blah..." something like that. And for the humor section, I think that's probably going to be stubby for a while. Srsly, look at how Pinky and the Brain is formatted. That's what we should be shooting for. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

An embedded list then, figured it'd be that. The humour I still think is an issue and whilst aiming for something which is a great deal more respected and written about is a very worthwhile target (which we won't hit, apples to oranges and a lot of that section is worthless) we still have that little issue of it not being covered in a great enough detail to source a lot of the elements of humour it uses. We can just cite episodes sure but I'd rather get a secondary source. Maybe I'm just being a little itchy to do something and needed to know what to do with parts as I'm not a prose writing rock monster. treelo _radda 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need a Mung Daal indeed. Some of the reviews make mention of the humor, so that's a start. Like I said before, this cartoon's still in its first season (ish), so GA is probably a long ways away. The otters are kinda overwhelmed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lucky those otters aren't my goto guys, I think Yng will work on some of this as I'm a klutz when it comes to writing and the otters have been going for some time and need a lie down. treelo _radda 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to prosify these. Yngvarr (c) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've done some flogging and beating (or is it I who was flogged and beaten?), and this is what I've come up with. I've sandboxed it, since it's a pretty radical re-write. Comments, suggestions, free coffee? Yngvarr (c) 10:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No coffee for you! Slightly butchered Seinfeld references aside, it looks good even with the undue weight given towards Liu's favourable review. Even it out with more of the negative criticisms from other reviews and we might be onto something. Maybe even dig up a few more, I imagine there must be more than five reviews out there. As a digression, it's odd that a reliable source like Animation Insider does not have an article, something for later maybe, eh? treelo _radda 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice start, Yng. That's pretty much what we're shooting for, even if it does need some tightening. More reviews would be nice too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done some more work, please review it again. Having a hard time finding any additional reviews from places that would satisfy WP:RS; check the history, there are two which I temporarily added then removed (under ES of going to remove the two for now): one was a website gear towards parents, which had both editorial and user reviews; the other was some odd place named "firefox news", but I can't tell what it is, sounded good, but looked like it might be some sort of blog aggregator or something...

If there's no major concerns, I can paste this into the live article, and it can be tweaked up from there. Yngvarr (c) 23:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Ok, so one thing leads to another. The humor section is tagged for expansion, but it's unclear (to me) how to expand that, without falling into trivial minutia (redundant), supposition, etc. For instance, in the Burple Nurples episode, Mung and Chowder climb Mount Fondoom, which to me, is a clear reference to Mount Doom, and the entire episode of Brain Grub was metaphysical. Where and how can we develop humor analysis without falling into WP:OR? Greenblatt would be a primary source, and he's even mentioned that one of the episodes is an homage to an anime.

Some of the previously added cultural references were stretching it, a few discussed here on this page: the number 42 is obviously a ref to THGTTG (sarcasm intended), and Chowder himself being a parody of Eek the cat? I mention those two, since they've been refuted, but someone else may easily refute my Mount Doom conclusion, at which I would simply need to bow out. Yngvarr (c) 22:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again, use the reviews. They make mention of all the puke/toilet humor, which is surely a big part of the show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it really toilet humour? Hm, think it's not dead on that, just slightly above that as it's not that heavily influenced by it. I feel like pestering Carl into giving up more info for us here, just to see what he'd say. For whatever reason people nearly always fall into two very specific camps, those who love Wikipedia and what it does and those who distrust it entirely. Anyway, just something to put out there, might want to add that he's put in a cameo of himself into the Shnitzel Quits episode which recently aired (I'm still waiting to watch Brain Grub). treelo _radda 00:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see that ep too. The self insert into Shnitzel Quits was pretty funny tho. (Oh, and I guess there is toilet humor; I've heard Chowder say things about pooing a few times, and so forth. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose but I don't think it's the sort of comedy which drives the show, just something you'd expect from a kid with a fartcloud as a pet. treelo _radda 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive the talk page

I think it might be time to set up an auto archiver, anyone else? I'm not handy with the bots. Yngvarr (c) 00:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends if we're going to use this regularly as a developmental conversation area (which few other talkpages are used as, odd). I'll add one to run every 30 days. treelo _radda 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, set up for every 30 days as a first try, see how things go with it. treelo _radda 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Seemed like a good idea, since for some otter reason, we're getting a lot more activity lately. Thanks. Yngvarr (c) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Otter, I see what you did there. treelo _radda 01:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A semiprot? So soon?

That is weird, I figured that to be fairly normal levels of spurious crap and OR for a popular series article like this but seeing as somehow we had a huge blowout over the course of 24 hours, getting upto 63 (for me) edits and even after all the reverting and junk we actually lost data probably indicates an issue I'm not seeing. Good call Chowder, expect things to get real quiet though. What really strikes me as odd is that it got nearly a month of protection, usually you get a few days, then weeks and maybe some months after 5 or so semi-prot attempts. treelo _radda 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind, it'll keep it quiet, and I was starting to get concerned about RR's for myself. I think I disagree, tho, but won't argue. I suspect most of the noise is coming from the fact that CN is airing a Chowder marathon (and it's a recycled marathon, I've had the TV on in the background all day, and notice they're at least into the second rotation). I guess the otters have pull with the admins, regarding the length of time. Make sure to keep him happy, so he sticks around. Yngvarr (c) 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee. Everybody likes otters, they're so cute and playful. And apparently someone likes cat/bear/bunny things too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a good call and for whatever reason, I'm taking the month prot as a good example of the show's popularity and maybe yet can get that much coveted FA-class. treelo _radda 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If only more good article writers cared enough to help us... I'm trying, but it took me forever to do just the two GAs I've contributed to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will come. If they don't then at least it'll get there eventually, I don't mind waiting a year or so for GA status. treelo _radda 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Section split

What worries me is that this article appears to be OWNED by a few people. ANYBODY else doing ANY editing gets whacked with a sledgehammer. Andyross (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly it. We're just doing this because we don't want anyone else touching our precious article goddammit. Sadly, it's not ownership when you have some who are watching the article keenly and removing anything which is original research or purely fictional, that's just keeping the article clean. If you're not still feeling a bit offput about how your last edit hasn't stuck around, you can come on over and contribute along with us as you can't be accusing anyone of owning the article then, can you? We want more editors, not less or for it to stay exactly how it is. treelo _radda 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um yea, what Treelo said. Look at the history and the additions and removals. Let's see, you have a blatantly false claim of Emmy-winning for starters. And the odd claims of characters doing things which just never happened (Panini). Then there is the wholly in-universe material with no citable sources; and you can see the discussions on citing sources in the thread just above this one. Without putting words into their mouths, admins don't lightly prot an article. Every time I've req'ed for a prot, the reviewing admin audits the history and makes a determination. Many of the edits have suitable edit summaries which explain why. As you say, anyone can edit the article, but that also means anyone can discuss the article, but I don't see any real discussion on the kind of material which has been added this past 24 hours, and I don't see anyone much else discussing the improvement of the articles. Feel free to discuss improvements. There are a few IP's who've opened up discussion, and you can also see that here, and no, not every single edit is being reverted and not every idea is being sledge hammered. Yngvarr (c) 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What I see are people who's FIRST act is to whack something with an UNDO. Instead, they should STOP, take a DEEP breath, THINK: "What was this person trying to add, and how can I integrate it into the article in a way that fits 'The Rules.'" Wikipedia is about working together. You are better off trying to help or improve other peoples suggestions instead of just dismissing them. Outright vandalism is one thing, but many undo's are for minor issues. (example: the information about Schnitzels girlfriend could have been moved to his character description.) If the same incorrect or duplicate information is added by multiple people, figure out why. Maybe some other information needs to be moved or made more clear so people know it's already there. Also realize that in the real world, people may not read an entire article, but only a section that interests them. You can be technical and say "that's not my problem", but a very short sentence or some way of linking to an earlier part or another article is what makes an electronic, constantly configurable, encyclopedia so great. To be honest, I haven't seen this level of insanity except for celebrities and other controversial people. Andyross (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We do think "Hmm, how could this work better?" but a lot of what gets added is not suitable to keep as it's either something that never gets referred to again or something which they felt happened but actually didn't. You say people only read a section that interests them, that kinda links in with the issue about the same thing repeatedly being added as if they read the article, they'd find it already has been mentioned. I don't know who or what's insane to you, us or the influx of anons we got (CN had a series marathon yesterday) but eitherway, leaving in a lot of the stuff that gets added to this article everyday would leave a godawful mess of cruft, lies and original research. You can clean that up if you like but we'd rather do it as we go given prior experience that just leaving an article to rot or somehow shoehorning that chunk of cruft in someone added someplace so nobody feels left out usually leads to a mess of an article someone else has to fix later down the line, when we see a good edit then we leave it in but we're not going to be the guys to be fixing the mess these guys by and large introduce. treelo _radda 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There comes a point of critical mass. The example you used is Shnitzel's girlfriend. This is a plot device used for a single episode. At the moment, this is the only episode which this is used. Shall we add each observation? Because there were the observations that the sniffleball game was played with snotballs. Then the fact that Panini calls Chowder num-nums. Then we can add Chowder's nickname for his belly. And let's not forget Mungs mustache. Or when Kimchi became a parent. How about the observation that Mung is Scottish because he wears something that resembles a kilt?

I'm not sure if I made my point. Those were all just a few examples of items which have been added at some point in time. When do you reach critical mass? Yngvarr (c) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I don't know what the F is going on with Wikipedia trying to handle multiple people posting to the discussion page, but TWO attempts at replies have disappeared. Goodbye. Andyross (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then try again, you have a question waiting to a debate you started and I'd prefer if you actually had some follow-through when it comes to your convictions. treelo _radda 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)\

(I went back in my browser history and I think I found the edit window to save the text)... Another minor issue: If you want something cited or verified, use the {{citation needed}} tag if you don't want to find it yourself. If you want to be REALLY nice, and it was posted by a logged-in user, you can post on their talk page about just what you are looking for. Give it a few days, and if they don't fix it, then delete it. Generally, immediate deletion should be limited per the Contraindications section of Template:Fact. Searching through the history to see what was undone before can be helpful, if it wasn't for the fact that this article has gone wild and there are multiple pages per day of stuff. Also, being relatively 'new', it's changing so much so often that there is bound to be alot of fluff for awhile until it can be trimmed down. Dump the outright garbage quickly, but for questionable material, tag it, discuss it, then edit as needed. As mentioned earlier, the marathon did cause a bit of a storm. It may have been better off riding it out and fixing it later. It may even help to just copy/paste the edit screen text to a file on your computer to use as another backup and reference. Andyross (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep adding, but also: Given the viewer age target, many posts may be by young viewers, so initial entries may not be all that professional looking or sounding. It's up to us adults to clean it up, but try to be nice about it. Andyross (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bit late but here anyway, know where you're coming from a lot better now so thanks for the clarification. Citations and verifications are hard to come by for in-universe issues and we have dealt with things which we couldn't source like that in the past but none of what has came up in the last few days or so has been something we can retroactively assess without it being a nice exercise in delaying the inevitable. The age of the contributor shouldn't matter and I don't care what age the editor is, if it's a bad contrib then I'll take it out. I understand how we should leave everything in besides that which is blatantly incorrect and look if we can get sources for the claims but it just means instead of undoing we're just adding {{fact}} after every edit and having to remove it further down the line. I think we do a good job and what happened yesterday and around two days or so in the leadup shows there was an issue which required a semi-prot. Not because we were doing a bad job but because nothing of value was being added, happens a lot as much of what goes into this sort of article from anons is worthless as cruft and letting it slide just lumps the issue of cutting huge chunks of fanboi prattle out of the article just to make it relevant off onto some other poor schmo later on. It's happened before, I'm sick of it happening to otherwise good articles and don't want it to occur again. treelo _radda 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)