Talk:BK Chicken Fries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tosh.0

Added information related to recent reference to the subject of this article in an episode of Comedy Central's series, "Tosh.0". Added link to the segment from the episode which is housed on the television program's website (though citation could be changed to a simple reference of the episode itself, airdate April 9th, 2013, S05e10). While I have no data as to whether the airing of the episode increased traffic to this article, it is arguably to most significant mention of the product within the public sphere (the episode received a shade more than two million viewers) since it was discontinued, and has increased internet chatter about the product. The question seems to be whether this is an important enough event in the history of the product to warrant inclusion here. 12.154.167.229 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This addition is inappropriate as it is unrelated to the article. Please read WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia before adding this back. It is nothing more than passing mention in an other media which is not encyclopedic in nature. Additionally this has nothing to with Burger King but the Tosh 2.0 TV show. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Further, you should not blank other editor's comments in a discussion. Now in regards to you assertions, please take a look at the lead from our policy on trivia:

“ Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. A number of articles contain lists of isolated information, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections, which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia.

Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation: they can just add a new fact to the list. As articles grow, however, these lists may become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table.

”

The information you have added is not related to the subject as it is simply passing mention of the product on a tv show. It does not pertain to the product other than a comedian stating his like for a product on a skit. Per the essay WP:Handling trivia, this type of information has no place in the article and I exorcised it as such. You can keep the information in there if you can show how this actually pertains to the product besides passing mention. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sock post removed per WP:Sock

That refers to stuff that truly enhances an article, such as the old Saturday Night Live skit about Gillette expanding its product line to three and four blade razors, which actually predicted that actual event. This does not because it is a single comedian's routine and is not notable. This why we do not include every product and personal parody from Family Guy in each article about said parody's subject. That is why we don't include every product placement in each product's article. This cannot be properly integrated into the article in any way that would make sense. This because this all unrelated to the subject beyond the simple mentioning of the product in some form of media. How is this about the product? How is it about the advertising? How is it about the product in any way besides Tosh basically stating he like the product and want's BK to bring it back in a comedic matter? Where is the publicity about the skit in other media that would prove its notability? Your claims that this has ignited new interest in the product are spurious at best and original research at worst. Your constant re-adding of the material is nothing more than someone trying to promote something they liked, treating Wikipedia as some sort of social media site – which it is not

As I pointed out this is the essence of trivial mention, and that is why it doesn't belong. I am not the only editor that deleted this, two other also removed it as well. Are they biased as well? I just happen to be the editor that who got sick of the constant spamming of the page and asked for page protection. The Admins who locked the page agreed that it was spam, and locked the page down to stopp you from constantly reinstating it. Are they biased as well? Stop accusing me of bias. Stop claiming the fact that I work on fast food related subjects somehow makes me unfit to edit these articles. That type of behavior goes against our community's tenants of assuming good faith.

And, may I suggest that you stop IP hopping to make it look like multiple editors are chiming in. It is all you chiming in from the same set of AT&T wireless IP addresses assigned to Central Massachusetts and Northern Rhode Island (e.g. [1] and [2]) or Charter Communications, the cable provider for those locations. You are the one who has been adding this repeatedly, you are the one whose actions got the article locked down. Those type of behaviors are against Wikipedia policy and could earn you a block. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sock post removed per WP:Sock

Note

The IP contributions to this talk page have been determined to be one user using multiple IP addresses to make it look as there were multiple editors chiming in on the conversation. The IP locations have since been blocked for violation of our policies to prevent the user from making any other actions on this page. The last two posts have been deleted as non constructive and in violation of WP:Sock. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nutritional value boxes

Do we need all three nutritional value boxes for all three sizes? It would seem to me that the values for 6 and 9 can be obtained by just multiplying the values for 12 by 0.5 and 0.75 respectively. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Issue

There seems to be a difference of opinion over whether the word "of" belongs in this sentence :

"The product was discontinued in January 2012, replaced with Burger King's version of chicken strips in March of 2012."

I believe it belongs here. Chicken strips are not a proper name. "Of" could be removed if the sentence were changed to "replaced with BK Chicken Strips", however. "Burger King's version chicken strips" reads oddly and is grammatically incorrect. 12.154.167.230 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like the guy who reverts the IP user's edits is inadvertantly also erasing the latter user's grammatical correction. The of should be there. CallMeRedhead (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)