Talk:Count Chocula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Count Chocula article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Count Dracula's monster? Is this being confused with the difference between Frankenstein and Frankenstein's monster. I don't recall Dracula having a monster. -R. fiend 05:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the article, "In 1971, the first two cereals in the line were introduced, the still-available Count Chocula and Franken Berry. Boo Berry was released two years later, in 1973, and Fruit Brute and Yummy Mummy appeared a year after that, in 1974. The latter two are no longer sold in retail stores; Count Chocula appears sporadically, primarily around Halloween." This paragraph is inconsistent.

First sentence says Count Chocula is still available, last sentence says it appears sporadically. I think this is a cut and paste error from the other Monster cereals. Anyone know the truth? Wendell 18:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's a regional/chain thing. Some grocers feel that these are "seasonal" cereals, thus they will only stock them in the fall (to coincide with Halloween). Other grocers, such as Kroger, will stock them year round (although I've heard that rural Krogers won't). However, General Mills has mitigated this by allowing the Monster cereal fan the opportunity to order their favorite Monster cereal directly online from their specialty store. --Dragon695 08:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm changing "b****h" to "bitch". CapoMafia 1:00 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Curse of Count Chocula"

There's been a movie wherein he is one of the main characters:

The vampire that hates blood, but loves chocolate. DrWho42 11:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a parody movie trailer on YOUTUBE.com, unrelated to this movie reference, that uses classic clips from early Count Chocula Cereal commercials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyNsFcdDFqU

[edit] History

I removed a history which was recently added to the article. It lacks any sources and contradicts the histories of the cereal found elsewhere (namely that it is a newly registered trademark of the General Mills Corp. in 1970). I have removed it until reasonable sources can be added documenting the history. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While no doubt fanciful, I believe Wikipedia needs some way to draw attention to fanfic-style histories such as that. adamrice 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the previous "fanfic" history is an important contribution to the lore of Chocula, and as well to the emotional and psychological contexts persons have come to associate with the brand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.113.69 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 18 July 2006

What is the source for it? Can it be verified as a notable piece of fanfic? Gimmetrow 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say what a "notable piece of fanfic" is? I thought Wikipedia was all about democratizing the knowledge base? Just some thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.80.32 (talk • contribs) .

Certainly if it has not be published elsewhere, it is not notable. Wikipedia is not a publishing house, not for original research, not for things made up one day. It has to be written in an encyclopedic tone, separating fact from fiction, and as previously said, notable. Establishing notability would require showing a substantial link to publish or otherwise verifiable works. It is not really democratizing knowledge, in the sense that anyone can add something new to it. Rather it attempts to selectively summarize key parts of existing knowledge. --TeaDrinker 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The story of Ernst Chocula should be told. If we don't tell it, who will? -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.80.32 (talk • contribs) .

Can you find documentation that the story is true? --TeaDrinker 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

better check your SOUL for some documentation bring back the history --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.31.47 (talk • contribs) .

Information in Wikipedia has to be WP:Verifiable, hence there is a need for sources. It s remarkable how many people, folks who would ordinarily eschew vandalism, believe their own vandalism should be included (You see, their vandalism is funny). The vast majority of pages on Wikipedia have been vandalized at one time or another. Some are hit a dozen times a day. Most vandalism, including material where the vandal blogs about it, is not notable. When someone's graffiti hits the New York Times or Washington Post, it should be included. Until then, vandalism is that: A nuisance to users and editors alike. --TeaDrinker 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you may want to review the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's a secondary source, boys and girls, which means if you make up nonsense and put it here we'll remove it with extreme prejudice. By the way, I think further discussion on the recent vandalism should be limited; remember not to feed the trolls. -- SCZenz 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think something being reported in the New York Times makes it legitimate? That's just another arbitrary decision made by humans who are no better than yourself. I've seen many publications such as the New York Times, New Yorker, and Wall Street Journal write articles about my friends who are just dicking around. It's silly to think that someone's activities aren't real until a "Big Time Newsypaper" says something about it.

I don't understand why kottke.org isn't a source for a verifiable historical event in this case. The blost of Wiki's Count Chocula page is a verifiable event in the history of the Count Chocula icon. There is no reason *not* to include a brief statement about the blost on the Chocula main page.
I fail to see how John Mayer singing "I want to pour you a bowl of Count Chocula" is a more important contribution to the history of this brand than the verifiable documentation of the Wiki blost. I side with the Gorilla Jones edit, and agree that it is a fair enough compromise to include information about the kottke.org and Morning News coverage in the Cultural References section.--71.106.80.32 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The cultural reference to the present controversy has, of course, been deleted once again. I would like to refer the "master" editors of this page to the precedent set by the John Seigenthaler entry, which makes mention of the Wikipedia controversy that punctuated his career. While the magnitude of the present edit pales in comparison to the Seigenthaler case, it is mirrored in the comparably inconsequential nature of Chocula lore.--71.106.80.32 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Chocula lore". And a blog is not a source. The end. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating your opinion as fact does little to help resolve this situation. The history of these pop culture characters is almost entirely discussed and archived in the form of blogs, as nothing about them can be "news-worthy". In fact, Wikipedia states that "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources." The phrasing that these are "not typically" acceptable admits that in some cases this is all there is to go on, and I'd argue that such is the case for the history of a beloved pop culture icon. Additionally, on the same page about Reliable_sources it is further specified that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." As you can see, this does not include a blog post itself, but rather is meant to be a source of ways in which users routinely anonymously post content to the web. These two instances of the term "blog" on the page about Reliable Sources indicate a clear policy that in circumstances without better primary sources, blogs are acceptable. Kmikeym 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The details of the Count Chocula cereal coming to being from Ernst Choukula's original creation are all given in the, admittedly a bit dry, "History of the American Association of Cereal Chemists", edited by R. J. Tarleton, ISBN 1891127217. The section on Choukula is a bit brief, as the book focusses more on the period after his name had been associated with the cereal, but it contains the requisite information on the history of the cereal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.15.26 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid self-references!

This is an article on the cereal, not an article about the article on the cereal. Continued addition of the self-reference regarding the so-called "blost", despite explanations of this policy, will be treated as vandalism. See WP:ASR. -- SCZenz 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Should the aforementioned John Seigenthaler, Sr. entry make no mention of its edit? When placed not in the body of the article proper, but in the Cultural References or External Links sections, mention of the Chocula "blost" does not violate WP:ASR.--71.106.80.32 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • For better or for worse, the incident with Wikipedia is now a notable incident in Seigenthaler's life, because he acted publically in regard to the malicious edits. The fact that somebody edited this article is not a notable fact about the cereal. This article is about the cereal. -- SCZenz 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand your point, and recognize that Chocula's status as a non-real person complicates the situation. However, the edit of Chocula's Wikipedia page was, in this context, a significant event in Chocula's "life." The edit was picked up by major blog sites and reported accordingly. This constitutes Chocula "acting publicly," in so far as the Wikipedia edit has an effect beyond Wikipedia. I believe this to be a reasonable standard for inclusion, not of the entire history as originally written, but for a reference in the Cultural Refs subsection which, like those referencing John Mayer and Wedding Crashers, merely documents a notable occurrence in the cereal's history. To argue that kottke.org reporting on the Chocula edit is not a significant or verifiable event is fallacious.--71.106.80.32 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Blogs report on things all the time, so I don't see how the mention is notable. In principle, you're right that if the false "biography" of the cereal character were widely circulated as a bio of the character, we might eventually mention it on Wikipedia and say it originally appeared here. But a one-off humorous report on vandalism is really about a funny thing about Wikipedia, not about the character. -- SCZenz 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think we just have different personal standards for what constitutes a "notable" reference to the false biography. There is a link in the External Links section to BadMovies.org's Review for The Curse of Count Chocula, which appears to me to be a video made by a couple of dudes. kottke.org is a significantly more widely-read and cited source than badmovies.org, and constitutes both a verifiable and notable source.--71.106.80.32 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I admit this article is full of marginally-relevant, marginally-notable pop culture reference, and I wouldn't bat an eye if you removed some of them. (Maybe some are complete self-promotional rubbish; if so, I'll remove them myself if I ever look at them.) I also admit that I am vehemently opposed to this reference because it is also a Wikipedia self-reference, and I think we need a very good reason to include such things. But you can't use pre-existing mistakes to justify new ones. A blog mention isn't notable, and it's not about the cereal. -- SCZenz 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • The one thing you've convinced me of is that you don't intend to vandalize the site, so I'll withdraw my statement above about treating additions of the material as such. This is, to some degree, a content dispute--but that's not to say that I won't strongly oppose the inclusion of the material, which is tangential and hurts the article in my opinion. -- SCZenz 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • The intention was, it seems to me, not to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia, but to contribute to the history of Count Chocula in an admittedly "fanfic" style gesture. In the same way that The Curse of Count Chocula is an amateur appropriation of the consumer icon, the story of "Ernst Choukula" is culturally relevant. I don't think either reference, when placed properly in External Links or Cultural References, should be deleted.--71.106.80.32 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • "Fanfic" being the operative word. This is intentional manipulation of Wikipedia towards the ends of teenagers with too much time on their hands. It's utterly shocking to me that this nonsense has gone on for as long as it has. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I've been reading this discussion for some time and I find myself conflicted on what side of the issue I fall, but Danny L's comment is a complete disregard of the stated Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. Calling these writers "teenagers with too much time on their hands" is a personal attack. Futhermore, I object to the idea that talking the issue out is "nonsense." Kmikeym 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
                • If I were using insulting words, it would constitute a personal attack, but I'm not. It's true that I am reacting from anger; I believe in the fundamental idea of Wikipedia as an open source of real information, and it makes me very angry when people abuse it for their own ends. It especially upsets me when it's something as trivial as creating a meme. Normally, such a user would be banned immediately for blatant vandalism, but apparently having sufficient skill at wikilawyering can get one a crack to circumvent the rules. So I'm going to stand by my comments. The issue is going to be talked out regardless of my strong feelings, anyway. Danny Lilithborne 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Agree with 71.106.80.32 and Kmikeym about the needless personal attack. (Should I really have to show my ID to enter a discussion about a cereal I ate when I was 4, though?) My edit was an attempt to find a compromise that did not mar the useability of the article and was valid within the established context of notability in the article: passing mention in an album track by a mid-level pop singer, background appearances in minor cartoon and claymation shows, etc. Personally, I'm not especially interested in whatever a "blost" is, and I've never met or talked to the other members of this "conspiracy". (And a cursory examination will indicate that the Portland Mercury, Kottke.org and The Morning News are all very high traffic sites and completely unaffiliated - also, they've all been publishing too long to be teenagers.) But this was an event that generated a lot of traffic (Wikipedia does have an entire tag set aside for when Slashdot links an article) and a lot of people felt a lot of enthusiasm for it - enthusiasm that, considered with the edit in question, does actually say something meaningful about the brand and how it is received by the culture. (Again, certainly at least as meaningful as any of the other "cultural references", and probably moreso.) Finding a compromise could save a pointless revert war. We all know how new Wikipedia and the web are - a flexible approach is always going to be necessary as Wikipedia moves forward. This isn't the first or last time Wikpedia will encounter a situation not typically encountered by, say, Britannica. That said, I had my crack at it, I reverted once, and I'm done. Won't touch the article again. Gorilla Jones 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Can I just say as a lay person I find this entire discussion fascinating and hilariously post modern. I mean we are talking about keeping a fake entry in because it got a tiny bit of Internet press and therefore became relevant to Count Chocula's lore. The mind boggles.

[edit] wrong pronoun usage?

"The Simpsons episode Sweets and Sour Marge shows him as being a sugar-holic, who wishes to quit (his teeth have fallen out) but finds himself unable to resist."

i havnt seen the episode, but if its "Sweets and Sour Marge" woundt it be "her", and "herself" rather than "him", "his", and "himself"?

68.34.184.66 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Issmortor


No, the pronouns are referring to Count Chocula, not to Marge.70.95.57.205 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)