Talk:Chowder (TV series)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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". Yng varr 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. Yng varr 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" Yng varr 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As shown in [1] 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:

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.
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. Yng varr 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. Yng varr 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 [2], 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? Yng varr 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. Yng varr 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 [3] did, with little real chance of surviving. Yng varr 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. Yng varr 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. Yng varr 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. Yng varr 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 [4]. 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 [5].

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)