Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes

Burger opener

Okay, I'm just going to start by agreeing with the majority sentiment on the Bob's Bugers talk page that this is trivial fancruft clutter filler. But two editors seem to be keeping this from going away. And in spite of all of the helpful links and advice they were given regarding integrating the info into the article, they merely slam a couple of new tables in and make this page look more like a spreadsheet than an encyclopedia, so I've taken the liberty, under duress, of making some appropriate changes. First, the tables are gone; the relevant information was included into the summary section of the relevant episodes in keeping with pages such as the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4), Two and a Half Men (season 8) or Cougar Town (season 2). Second, I've removed all of the Original Research of the "references" the Burger of the Day is to, as well as the ingredient in the burger which, unless this is a recipe page, is trivial even for trivia. I've clarified Louise's joke entries for Burger of the Day in the first two episodes, and removed the "Cow - n'tdown" entry from the Neighboring business section, as it was a sign provided by the filmmaker to promote his protest in the "Sacred Cow" episode, therefore making it not a neighboring business in the opening credits, but an episode relevant event. And I've removed the "sources"; first, they're just screen caps that, in most instances, do nothing to denote the association of the Burger of the Day with the episode it came from (in fact the only ones that do are because one time characters such as Linda's sister or the capoeira instructor are in the pic), and because the episode itself, once it airs, is sufficient as the relevant reference (for the bare essential information of Burger of the Day or the neighboring business which is included here now; our friends might want to review the entries on the other talk page reminding them that more than that, like ingredients, require other sources to establish that the information has a cultural relevance making it even worthy of mention, much less mentioning in it's own section like the previous tables tried to do).
I still object to the inclusion of this information on this page. It belongs, at best, in the info box of individual episode pages, ala Futurama's opening caption/cartoon or The Simpsons' chalkboard/couch gag (and if Bob's Burgers had the cultural relevance you claim, wouldn't it have more individual episode pages for this info to go on?). KnownAlias contact 11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya, as I said on the other talk page, trivia is trivia no matter what page you put it on...but this looks a lot better then it did on the main page, and I'm willing to compromise on that, since the IPs are insistent on going against policy on trivia. CTJF83 12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

respectfully, I disagree with the characterization of the information as "trivia". Trivia are factoids related to the subject but not an integral part of it.( for example, the age of a voice actor at the time of making an episode). The Burger of the Day running gag is a purposeful, integral part of each episode, even if not further expounded upon by the characters.
One thing I'm concerned with, with placing the Burger of the Day info within the episode description, was the loss of the info regarding the allusion for each. Those for whom English is not a first language, can have difficulty identifying the references being made.DavidP1953 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

But, as I mentioned, you have no references establishing that these are in fact, the references being made with these burger names. Wikipedia entries require verification through reliable sources, and no one editing is exempt from that. It's up to a writer or producer or a Fox website to tell us that's what those references are, not for you to have "figured out". It's not an acceptable entry. As they currently stand, they appear exactly as they did in the episode, subject to the same level of understanding to our English-as-a-second-language readers as it was to Fox's English-as-a-second-language viewers. Ours is to report, not to interpret, and if Fox didn't see fit to provide captions or definitions, it's not our place to supplement.
And you still haven't provided any sources proving that Bob's Burger's cultural impact merits all of this extra attention. You and your IP partner are the only ones who think it does, while everyone else commenting on this, myself included, feels it has already exceeded it's capacity of relevance. You might also want to add Wikipedia:CONSENSUS to your required Wiki-reading list.
And finally, to challenge your reasoning on why this is not trivia, I would be willing to concede to the tendency for the show to rename the neighboring business and the burger of the day as part of a running gag as being of noteworthy merit, and qualifies under your reasoning as "a purposeful, integral part of each episode" that should even be included in a single sentence on the main show page, but the individual listing of each business and each burger (not to mention ingredients and references) is the very definition of trivia. It's like saying you can't fully appreciate the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles without knowing which pizza toppings are which turtle's favorite. KnownAlias contact 14:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

no, it's not the same. and I'm sorry you can't see that.DavidP1953 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with DavidP1953, The reference is one of the most important things. It adds meaning to the show, and establishes a deeper understanding of what the show is talking about which makes it notable. Many people wouldn't know what Camembert-ly Legal was referencing. Although I would like to see this spelled out somewhere, possibly later on an episode page, I am willing to compromise with what we have till more sourcing becomes available.

No source, no thank you. What the "Burger of the Day falls under is "trivia". The Simpsons have their couch gags and American Dad have their Roger's Costume because they have a reference and is recurring. These Burgers of the Day is scarely noticeable and frankly, people do not care. The Simpsons is a landmark and rememberable show. Bob's Burgers looks like a one or two season hit. Do not re-add without a source backing it all up. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:10 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RAP: you seem unable to separate your personal opinion about this show from your editing. Whether it is as memorable and long lasting as The Simpsons simply isn't material. And obviously people DO care, or we wouldn't be having this argument. I have added a reference for the Burger of the Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.139.225 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It IS material in reference to the innumerate number of Wikipedia policies that have been quoted to you ad nauseum on two separate talk pages by a seeming score of experienced editors...you're the one that can't seem to separate your passion for the subject from it's relevance. The only reason so much has had to be said on the subject is because you refuse to see reason. KnownAlias contact 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

actually, I have no "passion" for the show. I'm not a big fan. It has some funny quirky moments, but also some amateurish over-the-top gross out bits that seem more "Adult Swim" oriented than a Fox Comedy. But I recognize what it is doing and acknowledge that, rather than trying to diss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidP1953 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand the statements being made to you if you call it a "dis"; from what I see, no one is saying, however passionately they speak, that it isn't relevant to the show. The outcry is to it's cultural relevance, and to it's subsequent relevance to Wikipedia. People know the term "couch gag", and can for the most part instantly relate it to The Simpsons, but most anybody you ask will not relate "Burger of the Day" with a cartoon on Fox. A lot of people might miss the gag altogether, as it is just a chalkboard in the background (I honestly didn't know they were doing anything with the neighboring business until this controversy started up), proving that it's not all that integral to the show after all. It just has no place here. And since your edit history (and for that matter, the history of your IP "friend") seems to exclusively exist for the defense and preservation of this issue alone, it would seem unlikely that you're "not a big fan", and warranted, based on that limited experience, that you actually take the advice of the editor onslaught and bone up on Wikipedia policy. There's a difference between creating a Bob's Burgers page and creating a Bob's Burgers page for Wikipedia. KnownAlias contact 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

actually you guys dragged me into this. I was pretty much minding my own business, looking up some info on this new show ( I had been a fan of one of the writers' previous efforts, "Home Movies", when suddenly one day the "Burger of the Day" info was missing, edited out by RAP I believe. I considered that info both fun and integral to each episode. I'm sure that the term 'couch gag" was just as unknown after only a dozen episodes of The Simpsons ... it's place in the popular lexicon can be attributed to it's longevity,, not any inherent "worthiness" as you indicate. And true my editing efforts previously have been limited to correcting factual errors or providing new ones, but I was appalled by this deletion. So please stop with the personal attacks. I am not a show "groupie", and probably old enough to be your grandfather, and I can recognize right from wrong.DavidP1953 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly was personal about suggesting you read up on policies you seem to any number of editors to be unfamiliar with? We're honestly trying to help, but you keep arguing in terms of what you feel is relevant, instead of what the policies we keep pointing out dictate is relevant. And that longevity was the source of the "couch gag"'s worthiness. If it hadn't been noteworthy there would have been no buzz about it, and they most certainly would have stopped wasting their time doing it. And just as you can guarantee the term was unfamiliar after only twelve episodes, you can also guarantee it was not introduced to Wikipedia after only twelve (or in the case of Bob's Burgers even nine) episodes; it's notoriety had long been established before it became a part of the Wikipedia page. And if you've spent any time editing other errors, it wasn't as DavidP1953. Except for a couple of edits in September 2009, and one in '08, your entire edit history on this account is dedicated to this issue. And more likely you're only old enough to be my dad, if that. If you were old enough to be my grandpa, you'd be dead. KnownAlias contact 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"it would seem unlikely that you're "not a big fan", " is specifically calling me a liar, and as such is a personal attack.DavidP1953 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"It would seem unlikely" explained my perception of the situation up to that point to give you insight into my thinking, and ""not a big fan"" was reusing your words just one note before that to make the point, hence it was a direct quote from you, hence the quotes. KnownAlias contact 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And try not to take offence at this, but you've still got a bit to learn about sources, too...you've provided none yet for the Neighboring business section, and only two of the burgers on the "Burger of the Day" interactive board on Fox's Bob's Burgers page you linked to has ever appeared in an episode so far, and neither of them is referenced to the episode; they're just there. The rest of the "Burgers of the Day" seem to be completely made up just for the website. KnownAlias contact 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RAP, I'm not sure how you missed it but we solved this dispute paragraphs ago and you just decided to ignore all of this talk and take matters into your own hands. One user even took the time to incorporate the burgers of the day and opening neighbor into an episode template. As mentioned above, people obviously do care about this section and your personal attacks to DavidP1958 are inappropriate. 131 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMondo131 (talk • contribs)

First off, what personal attacks? I removed them because per WP:TRIVIA, trivia is not widely allowed. I do not hate the show, i feel it has not established itself yet to contain what their running gags were. Besides would people honestly get a rat's *** about what episode 2's Burger of the Day was? No, i think not. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:42 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"We"? A bit too much MEAT in that argument for someone who only has one edit to his name. KnownAlias contact 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I really had an identity before but I'm 131.156.x.x from previous posts. It seems (hmmmm) my old IP is blocked on the discussion page or the discussion page only allows users with accounts to post now. Interesting.... And as much as I enjoy your hamburger reference, yes WE came to the consensus that the information was in good standing where it is currently placed and everyone was happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMondo131 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I and I'm sure DavidP1958 find it absolutely hilarious that you [KnownAlias] think we're the same person. Just FYI, sharing a common viewpoint doesn't combine 2 physical people, buddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMondo131 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t understand why this needs to be an ongoing problem. Rusted AutoParts (RAP) is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Also, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is consistently being stated subjectively. In this case WP:OSE is a perfectly valid argument as stated in the Wiki page. The Simpsons couch gag remains on Wikipedia and is no different than the burger of the day. This section is a notable, highly maintainable, and an iconic addition to Bobs Burgers. There are identical amounts of sourcing in proportion to the Simpsons and as the show ages, more will become available and added WP:BURDEN. As mentioned uncivilly WP:CIV WP:TPNO by RAP “Besides would people honestly get a rat's *** about what episode 2's Burger of the Day was?”. Assuming the way information will be accessed is not sound evidence for an argument. Let’s not forget WP:BITE being used in excess on this article. In summary, everything was solved 6 days ago, and now we’re back to square one.--BlueMondo131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the rest of us ever left square one, you just ran ahead with the ball, but okay, here we go. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is clearly not the case, as the argument by both [RAP] and myself, as well as many others on the other talk page, was clearly about the notoriety, not likability, of the information. QUOTE: "For example, while the "cruft" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential for verifiable inclusion". You have yet to verify it as far as cultural worth. And do you seriously think "Burger of the Day" merits at the level of a full television episode in the level of notoriety, because that's the level of sample your example provided. And you're the one espousing WP:INTERESTING off the very same page, so glass houses. When the rest of us ask WP:WHOCARES, it's not in relation to our own disinterest, it's in relation to sources, and NO ONE OUT THERE IS TALKING ABOUT THE BURGER OF THE DAY! Same on WP:OSE; just because it's out there, doesn't mean it belongs here. Ironically, that page is about what articles, not elements, should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia just because other articles like it already exist, and if you'd read it, that's the argument you've been making; "Well, The Simpsons has the "couch gag", so it must be important". And WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC? QUOTE: "What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia". And they are this, again, across the board; it lacks sufficient VERIFIABLE cultural notoriety to merit inclusion in the article. And read WP:BURDEN; QUOTE: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". WP:TPNO? Attacking the veracity of the edit is not attacking the editor, and WP:CIV goes both ways, "buddy". And trust me, if you were WP:BIT, it was only because you bit down first on the hands that were trying to feed you, and wouldn't relax your jaw no matter what. You simply need to accept, no one wants this but you. The overall, true consensus is, and always has been, that it doesn't belong here, at least not yet. It has been tolerated at best up to this point because everyone is tired of fighting your delusion that you're required to win just because you want it bad enough. But no one else has accepted it. And while you cling to the binky of consensus just because it's here as your last reliable straw, (remembering that you never really got consensus, you just dumped your garbage onto this page when the other one got locked down, and claimed consensus like you won a game of Capture the flag until I, always under protest, cleaned up your mess and made it even remotely usable), remember this; CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. And it just did. KnownAlias contact 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, your argument appears to be a personal attack towards me, which i'm considering reporting. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:28 6 April 2011 (UTC)

. . hey, i'm not some big fancy important wikipedia Big Fancy Important Guy like all of you seem to be, but i was just watching tonight's episode and for the first time i didn't get the burger of the day reference. so i came to the page here where those used to be, and it's not there anymore. you can call that trivia, but by the same standards at least 90% of wikipedia is trivia. get over yourselves and give us users the information we want. give us the information we don't want, even. we'll just scan through it to find what we're looking for, but still be glad it's there. 98.199.1.146 (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as the suffix insinuates, is an encyclopededia, and concerns itself more with relevant and factual information that is reliably sourced and verifiable. The previous section you refer to, aside from being purely trivia (as the numerous previous arguments on this and Bob's Bugers talk page pointed out), was woefully under-sourced; the one section was completely unsourced, and the source used to verify the other section contained mostly none of the information that was on this page, and the main body of the information it did contain was mostly made up for the website it was on, which is simply not acceptable by Wikipedia standards (and I won't even bore you with more rehashing of the numerous notablility arguments made; you can see for yourself). You might try Bob's Burgers Wiki on Wikia, or Bob's Burgerpedia, also on Wikia. "Wikia" (which sounds as much like "trivia" as "Wikipedia" sounds like "encyclopedia", you'll notice) is more a fan project suited to that type of fan friendly trivia. And in the future, please refrain from telling editors to "get over yourselves", especially when they are only upholding the rules and standards of the encyclopedia, as it appears uncivil, and violation of Wikipedia's civility policy could be cause for being blocked from it in the future. KnownAlias contact 10:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

in a much nicer voice, i think 98.199.1.146 is right. Just the other day i was lookin for the episode where they had the krauted house burger, and i couldn't remeber what episode it was. I was lookin here and couldnt find the list that was here before. I looked at all this stuff up here and i don't know why you have to fight. isn't the table of contents like smart enough? I'm gonna add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.16.240 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you guys just did. You blocked the guy above. Real mature. Not even a reason.208.115.237.169 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys are so funny, I didn't even do the above things and you block those people too. After one post too. *Cough* Admin abuse *Cough*. They should of at least got a warning. --BlueMondo or whatever you wanna call me this week Rubytuesdaysrocks (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's called we're not stupid, and know it is the same person, now, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass CTJF83 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

After you WP:DISRUPTPOINT --Rubytuesdaysrocks (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, you'll be blocked, again, soon enough. CTJF83 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And you'll increase collateral damage and we'll play again soon. Is it so hard to compromise and solve the problem? I never said the info has to be displayed as presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubytuesdaysrocks (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go to http://bobsburgerpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bob%27s_Burger%27s and http://bobsburgers.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page and put it there, instead of being a pain here. CTJF83 22:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry ctjf, but there's no point when it's here. Explain to me objectively the difference between this and the Simpsons cough gag. Let's leave wiki-policy out for right now, we can discuss that in a moment. --Rubytuesdaysrocks (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of episodes of the show, the "Burger of the day" has nothing to do with the topic, so I removed it (accidentally pressed the "minor edit" button at the same time). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please suggest what might be considered an appropriate location, if not here as originally proposed, wherein we might have a listing of the Burger of the Day? (which is specific to each episode BTW). Do we need to create a separate page for this info, linked from either the main page or the episode guide? This info, In my opinion, is not "trivia" ( like for example the color of Bob's Apron or his wife's blouse), but is worthy of reference as a running gag in the same vein as The Simpson's "couch joke". Simply declaring it trivia does not make it so. DavidP1953 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Provide us reliable 3rd party sources saying the burger of the day is notable. CTJF83 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying the "Burger of the Day" is not trivia, but it is. So is The Simpsons "Couch Gag" but it got people talking to the point where there was notable media mention of it. But notice the buzz became stale for the "Title Card" gag (whatever flies by when "The Simpsons" appears on the screen) and the "Billboard Gag". Nobody talks about these new additions, which is why they haven't been added to the relevant pages of Wikipedia.
The Simpsons address, "742 Evergreen Terrace" is trivia, but people know it.
USA's Covert Affairs named every first season episode after a Led Zepplin Song (second season is REM). Trivia.
Every episode of NBC's Outsourced has some reference to an Indian word or concept in the title. Trivia.
Trivia is anything that isn't relevant to the characters, or fails to drive the plot. In other words, if The Simpsons stopped doing the couch gag, people would notice, but it wouldn't change the show the way killing Maude Flanders did. And no one would bat an eye if they never mentioned the Simpson's address again. Now as far as Bob's Burgers, if Mexicans bought out rival Jimmy Pesto's restaurant, that would be relevant, at least for the "Development" section. If the kids started going to a private school, it's a change worthy of mentioning, if only once. But if the "Burger of the Day" stopped appearing altogether stating this week, it would do nothing to change the show itself. Relatively no one would even notice; Trivia. Not to mention, where does it stop? Everything has a running gag of some kind these days; do we note the name of every single doomsday machine the Professor builds on Futurama? Or, for that matter, every derogatory word for "human" Bender says? Do we note every job Peter Griffin ever held in his cutaway scenes on Family Guy? Or keep track of every appearance of Chris Griffin's "evil monkey"? Or the different ways Mr. Herbert has come on to Chris? The standard is whether or not it's notable, and the couch gag is, mostly because it was the first. Everything else is a couch gag sequel, and until it rises above the plethora of other running gags to the point that people are talking about it somewhere other than a blog or a talk page, it just isn't relevant. Sorry. KnownAlias X 23:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

KnownAlias, You spend an awful lot of time citing things which are NOT the same in terms of place and inclusion in the work of art known an as episode. That in your mind you cannot see the difference is no reason that others who do see the difference should be deprived of the information. As for being "notable", I reference for one that TVTropes.org has specifically referenced the Burger of the Day on Bob's Burgers as an example of "Things that are different in Every Episode", as a type of running gag ( at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DifferentInEveryEpisode ) DavidP1953 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm baffled at your inability to see it's exactly like every single item I've listed, plus the "Newspaper Gag"/"Roger's Costume" in American Dad!, the end credit audio quote on every King of the Hill or the producer insult on the end credits of Robot Chicken (friends of producer Seth Green, Sarah Michelle Geller and Mila Kunis, are included in the credits where their "job title" is part of a metaphor that insults one of the producers, such as "Free Spirit – Sarah Michelle Geller, Free Thinker – Mila Kunis, Free Clinic – Producer Name"). But let's go with your source. First, it notes in the header (without ever referencing The Simpsons) that the term "Couch Gag" refers to "where something different shows up every time in the opening sequence" (note, DavidP, that means that "Couch Gag" is so notable it is now the definition of such phenomenon, independant of The Simpsons itself), and refers to it's list of differences to "Not just the obvious story telling devices like characters, plot, and settings" (notable events), "but rather more mundane things that are different just because they can be" (the very definition of trivia in this context, and how I defined it just a post ago). So from this list, you would suggest we make a chart of every message on Frank's trucker cap on 30 Rock? Or every picture on Murphy Brown's Dartboard Of Hate? Or every sign outside Charles Darwin Middle School in My Gym Partner's A Monkey (or, for that matter outside of every church, school and community center in every episode of The Simpsons, American Dad!, Family Guy or The Cleveland Show)? If you fail to see how this is all the same as "Burger of the Day", then you're far more invested than your previous claim of being "not a big fan" lets on. And finally, DavidP, where's the list? Not of running gags, but of the burgers themselves? That sentence, "On Bob's Burgers, the Burger of the Day that is posted on the wall changes every episode. It will also change during episodes that take place over multiple days", is all that it is mentioned. And that's as noteworthy as "Burger of the Day" is, and as much equatable space as Wikipedia should ever devote to it. If we listed every burger, hat or billboard out there, half of our bandwidth would be trivia. Because that's all it is. The kind of thing you used to find under a Snapple cap. KnownAlias X 04:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

David, I'm baffled that you can think tvtropes.org is a reliable source for anything. CTJF83 11:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gee, am told that no-one cares about the info or it would be referenced somewhere .... supply such a reference, and then it's not a " good enough" reference. What a surprise. Knownalias, I get that YOU don't get the difference from trivia in this feature as part of the art of television episode writing. Let's acknowledge that YOU don't see or accept that difference. But there are others out there, myself included, who would like this information available. Now, if it was a case where the facts of the information were being questioned, that would be one thing. But it's simply that you don't think it's information worth knowing. I, and some others, disagree. So now we come to the REAL question: Why should YOUR opinion hold court? Given the facts of the basic information are not in dispute ( the listings of the Burgers of the Day), the choice is between making this info available or not. I believe that in such as case the decision should fall on publishing, not on censoring. No one is forcing you to read it if you don't like it. But it should be available for us to read if we want to. YOUR bias in this matter should NOT be judge, jury, and executioner, preventing this. DavidP1953 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to it not being a "'good enough' reference": looking at it, it does not appear to be a reliable source. Wikipedia has specific definitions for what is reliable (e.g., most newspapers) and what is not (e.g., most blogs, forums, and user-editable sites). If you're asserting that tvtropes.org is reliable, please explain how it complies with the policy. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, for God's sake, the issue falls on notability, not on my opinion. If it had the kind of coverage that the couch gag got, I wouldn't begin to dispute it. You're the one that somehow sees the "Burger of the Day" as more notable or special that any of the other trivial matters I've quoted (which you disassociate from by saying BOTD is "different" when it simply isn't, rather that defend that all of theses other obvious matters of trivia as also deserving inclusion, because you can't). I'm no longer humoring your delusional obsession with this trivia. And you keep saying other people are interested; you and who? BlueMondo131, whose obsession led to 30 unsanctioned accounts and an all out ban from Wikipedia because he couldn't stand not getting his way, and wouldn't simply discuss it like a civilized human being (which I'm giving you credit for, by the way)? Your source, a trivia page on a blog? Not the media at large, I can tell you that; I looked all over hell for a relevant source to support this crap and put this ridiculous matter to bed once and for all, but DavidP, it doesn't exist! Like your friend BlueMondo131, you seem to think I disdain the information itself just because I don't support your personal obsession for it. My aversion comes, I'll say it again and again and again until you start to see it, from its lack of notability. And you focus on me as being the enemy of your cause, in part because of all the editors opposed to this "information" I'm the one who principally edits the list page, and I'm the only one who will still have a conversation with you about this (though I'm ever so slowly joining the others in that the futility of that endeavor is finally starting to kick in), but recall that every other editor who came in contact with it has rejected it. The main Bob's Burgers page was locked down with full protection before I even knew this was going on (I'm a list tender, myself). Other people care about the info? Other editors deem it un-noteworthy trivia. Editors who know Wikipedia's policies on trivia and notability all too well, if the obsessive number of links to those policies haven't clued you to that fact. I'm hardly alone in my "opinion". KnownAlias X 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching over this dispute for a long time now and fail to see the issue. There are literally pages upon pages talking about this small section. Why is it so hard to come to an agreement. The only reason I keep checking back is to see if the burgers are updated. You've all cited different wikipedia pages and websites that void each other out or could be pointed the opposite way. The vandal bluemondo seems to have made you all trip over your words exposing all of your bias. (I wouldn't be surprised if you all suggest I am such user based on not having a wikipedia account and agreeing with DavidP and bluemondo) The fact that the page was protected at all is quite irresponsible if you ask me. As wikipedia editors I would expect your number one priority to be keeping the lines of communication and collaboration open.-68.164.9.96 (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The page was protected because BlueMondo refused to grasp the concept that his BOTD idea had no source and is not at all enclyclopedic. Also, with an attitude like that, it's hard for me not to assume you are BlueMondo. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:22 20 May 2011 (UTC)

C Fred: I was not referencing TVTropes for "quality" of their info at all; I was merely responding to the often repeated criticism that NO-ONE cares about this info, or alludes to it as a citation. Whether it was done so by TVTropes or by the Death Row inmates in Joliet prison is irrelevant. The reference was simply to convey the idea that yes, someone out there cares about it enough to specifically reference it.

Knownalias: man, you've GOT to get a life! What was it, mere minutes for you to respond to my last post? Some of us have regular jobs, families, etc. Anyway, you keep presuming I'm just a dumb schmuck who is too illiterate to understand the simple guidelines Wikipedia has posted, let alone find the time to read them ( my 3 university degrees aside). You can't seem to understand that my interpretation ( and others') of those guidelines differs from yours. And even if I conceded the facts in question were "Trivia" ( which I do not ), I would call attention to WP:TRIVIA which does NOT state that all trivia by definition should be summarily removed from any article as some have proposed here ... if anything, it embraces the idea that such facts should be incorporated into the article text, quoting : "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate." end quote.

Finally I would restate to you and RAP ( whom I believe is the one who unjustly accused me of sock-puppetry a month or so ago in an attempt to shut me up ... nice guy) that I did not start this: I was not the person who initially entered the information, or re-edited it a few times to make it fit better into the text of the article. In fact I cam pretty late to the game ... all I did was move it to this page rather than the original placement on the Bob's Burgers main article page, in what turns out to be a vain attempt at compromise with the 2 warring factions, while keeping the info around. You will note that I have NOT attempted to re-edit the page to re-include this info, preferring to reach a consensus first ( which I thought I had done once before when I moved it here). So why am I still here in the face of this constant sniping and attacks? Maybe it's just the stubborn old hippie in me ...it didn't sit well with me back in the 60's for someone to be telling me what I could and could not think, and what was "useful" or "useless" information by some-one else's definition, and I guess it still doesn't. DavidP1953 (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears that knownalias and the other parties no longer feel strongly about this topic, I've taken the liberty to add BoTD back to the episode page where it belongs.--Garbagecanyeah (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because no one has added it in awhile doesn't mean it's going to stay. Please don't "take the liberty" again without further discussion... Doc talk 01:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are people who would like to read this section, and the only one impeding it's admittance is evidently knownalias. With his silence, there is not reason to hold it back. Consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbagecanyeah (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

One editor is attempting to add it. Four have removed it. If there's consensus, it's to leave the text out. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And by one editor, multiple editors suspect that Garbagecanyeah (talk · contribs) is the same user as BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs); I've indefinitely blocked him accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This guy gets a "10" for single-minded, undying persistence; and a "0" for subtlety. Doc talk 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't we go back to pending changes? Did that end? Why? CTJF83 02:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The pending changes trial ended; articles already under PC could stay, but articles can't be newly placed under it. So protection, alas, is the only option. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

LAME! and stupid, now we have to deal with shit like this. There clearly needs to be a step between semi and full protection. CTJF83 02:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

CFRED: there's been more than one of us wanting this info. DavidP1953 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment this morning referred specifically to Garbagecanyeah's attempt to add it this morning and claim "consensus" even though he was the only (active) editor supporting the position. There might be multiple editors wanting the information; if the sockpuppetry has concealed that, then chalk it up as collateral damage caused by the puppeteer. However, there's still a gap between wanting the information and providing a policy-supported reason for including it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

CFRED: How about the opposite ... a solid policy supported reason for excluding it? And please not the old "it's trivia" argument; I've noted Wikipedia's policy and guidelines on so-called trivia does NOT automatically call for deletion as people here have argued! It seems to me that if there are 2 factions at play, one for publishing, the other opposed, the default position in the absence of a real "consensus" should be FOR publishing information, not excluding it. I'm appalled that the contingent opposed to this information being included here or on the main Bob's Burgers page get to delete it at will, and then cry foul play when others attempt to re-instate it. DavidP1953 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bother with this, DavidP, but I guess one last response before I join the majority of editors in frustrated silence seems appropriate.
1) C. Fred beat me to your last post by 22 minutes, but you didn't accuse him of not having a life (and read the post time...it took me 50 mere minutes, almost an hour, to respond, as opposed to the coincidental 6 minutes it took you to post that comment after I entered the season's last ratings). I think that accusation is more based on the infinite volume of content you've seen me post on this page, which you fail to recognize is always a response to you.
2) "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate". None of the language here requires trivia to be integrated, it just cautions editors to be wary of it's possibile integration, and most of the editors associated with this trivia don't consider it possible or appropriate because of it's (again) lack of notability.
3) I accused you of socking BlueMondo131, based on BlueMondo's behavior at the time (the collateral damage C.Fred spoke of). I expressed whatever concerns I had over being wrong on the sock report (which you have seen, according to your edit history, but obviously read very selectively not to notice your accuser, or how conflicted he was to do so at the time), contradicting my own evidence with my doubts and hoping the admins would check me if I was in fact wrong (it was only my second report, and the first was a lot more cut-and-dried than Mondo made this nonsense come out), and when BlueMondo's behavior escalated to the point of obvious I shifted the focus away from you, clearly defining BlueMondo as the real problem, or you'd have noticed the some-odd 30 accounts created in BlueMondo's name related to your report instead, and an indefinite ban on your account as well. If anybody did that to you, it was BlueMondo with his own disruptive behavior. He truly was and is the worst enemy to his own cause. Though, considering you've almost never edited on Wikipedia save to so passionately defend this edit to a show you say you're not even a fan of, I have to wonder if you aren't perhaps, to call back one of your own previous statements, BlueMondo's grandpa.
4) You're right that you didn't start it; BlueMondo did, and did so disruptively and combatively. You're right that you didn't integrate it; I did, and did so always under protest due to it's (wait for it) lack of notoriety. When Mondo proved himself to be nothing more than a bullying disruption cheating to build a false consensus, I withdrew my all too anemic support of the edit, and reverted my own work (or, more accurately, failed to revert RAP when he removed it as I opposed it anyway, resorting eventually to reverting it myself due to BlueMondo's childish relentlessness). But you're wrong that it was an attempt at compromise (you don't get a consensus by moving something, but you are supposed to get a consensus to move something). It was simply moving the disruption from one place to another, inflicting it on another page of unsuspecting editors (not unlike a re-parished priest), and done so after the previous page was already locked down so no one could edit it even after the consensus on that page was clearly against it; that move was more a matter of including one guy who refused to take "no" for an answer, and refused to play by anyone else's rules. And the "2 warring factions", as you fail to acknowledge, are you and BlueMondo131 (one devious, childish guy) and Wikipedia (the regular participating editors of these pages and the policies that govern them all).
5) You said you haven't added the info again, preferring to reach a consensus first. I'm forced to tell you what I told Mondo at his banning at An/I; "consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with you." The consensus has already been reached. It was reached on Bob's Burgers before I was even a part of this conversation. It is considered trivia, and not of note. As a "stubborn old hippie", I continue to be confused as to why you would keep siding with a tantrum throwing child over the due process of Democracy. What is "useful" or "useless" information wasn't determined by someone else's definition, but by everyone else's definition. Just not yours. Sorry, but you're just in the minority.

It just seems funny to me that you're now combatively addressing C.Fred as the "enemy" that hasn't properly explained himself, just as you previously addressed me. Same as Mondo addressed me after accusing the whole world on the other talk page. You may not like or apparently understand the explanation, but it has been explained ad nauseum. The "enemy", it seems, is anyone who will take (or apparently waste) the time trying to explain to you the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan page, then both you and your partner take it personally when that "enemy" becomes faceless because no one will bother to address you anymore. You said before you're not that big a fan, that you're not that invested, but 23 days after the matter seemed settled for good, you ended a near 6 week silence to come back the lone voice in wanting to reintroduce this baggage against consensus without any outside provocation to do so. You continue to say my calling it trivia doesn't make it so, but how about all of the other editors on this or the other page? How many people calling it trivia makes it trivia? The only one saying it isn't trivia is you. Doesn't make it so. For my part, if everybody else was telling me my definition was wrong, I'd question my definition. Or at the very least the context of it. Please just face it, because I'm dead tired of arguing about this, and, along with my brethren, refuse to do so from now on; it's time to stop beating the dead horse. The policies against that you told C.Fred you want to see litter these pages, but you and Mondo deliberately and selectively interpret them to a favorable outcome. We "cry foul" when the same person incessantly reintroduces the same edit over and over and over after than person has been told in more detail than most articles get why it's not a good fit. And that isn't personal. It took me a while to figure out what the rules of this place are, but the difference is, I made the effort to do so, and am an editor in good standing as a result. I've lost arguments, and accepted it (though in one or two cases even stopped editing a page because of how much I disagreed with the consensus), and supported change when reasonable arguments were made. Mondo is a sledgehammer who cares about his edit to the detriment of everything else, and as a result, will get no help or cooperation from the community that resides here. He alienated me, the one reluctant ally he ever had, by cheating and then turning me into the monolithic "face of evil" because I caught him doing so, accusing me most recently of being the "original edit warring user", when a plethora of other editors blocking this edit drove him from the other page to this one. Once again, selective interpretation forces people to not take either of you seriously, and just makes it so no one want to bother talking to you. And I'm done doing so. My position, at least to the majority, is clear.KnownAlias X 08:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

1. You spend a lot of time and effort ranting about this "Bluemondo" character. I'm not Bluemondo, I don't know Bluemondo, and frankly I don't give a rat's you-know-what about Bluemondo. If you have a problem with him then take it up with him, but don't be lumping everyone else who disagrees with you in the same basket and ranting to us about his misdeeds.

2. I never used the word "enemy". That you did says a lot about your mindset in these matters.

3. If you'd have spent 1/10th the time and energy trying to be inclusive for information rather than exclusive, I can't help but feel Wikipedia would be a better place.

4. You clearly don't understand what the 60's were all about. Democracy had nothing to do with it. The protests and marches and sit-ins were about protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It's a shame the educational system is doing such a poor job enlightening our youth about such an important time.

5. Your tendency to revert to personal insults leads me to believe you are fairly young and insulated in social events ...likely a grad student somewhere. You need to get out and interact with real people.

I'm starting to believe it was better to have the Burger of The Day references on the main page rather than in the episode listing. I'll be working on a new section to bring it there. DavidP1953 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add one additionally large point to prove Knownalias wrong. http://www.facebook.com/BobsBurgers The bobs burgers facebook page has a poll mentioning burgers of the day which has over 1000 unique votes on it. Notability. -66.167.182.116 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So? What does that prove? It doesn't show the topic has significant coverage. CTJF83 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. The lowest rated episode shows that 4 million people watched it, and you think 1000 people on a Facebook poll in the six months this show has existed is notable? And probably still don't understand how it hasn't made the cover of Time, either. KnownAlias X 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

An/I discussion; Bob's Burgers trivia sock

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

Protection level

There is currently a request to put this page under PC2 protection. To editors, please indicate whether or not you support the protection level being downgraded to PC2. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please respond at Talk:Bob's_Burgers#Protection_level CTJF83 23:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Red Links

I know what WP:REDLINKS said, Ctjf83, but I reverted it on the assumption that these pages will, in fact, not be created soon. Not a lot of effort has gone into creating episode pages for Bob's Burgers, or more would be done by now. The editor that linked those articles has a fairly sparse edit history, and hasn't edited at all since linking those articles this morning, and the dynamo that created the majority of those episode pages has hardly edited at all since stopping in mid April. If you're confident more will be done, then I'm happy to let it be for now, but this isn't The Simpsons or South Park; I'd prefer to see something getting done before I allowed a bunch of red links to glare up the page. KnownAlias X 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not that unlikely that since a lot of other episodes have pages, that these won't be created at sometime. Either way, I hardly feel strongly enough on this topic to have a long drawn out discussion. If you revert, I won't do anymore on the matter. CTJF83 21:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I say, if something gets started, it's fine. I'll leave it for now and we'll see what transpires. >.0 KnownAlias X 21:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a deal! CTJF83 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The red links were my doing. I was planning on making the articles, but life got in the way. I think I'll just do them one by one, once I get around to making an article for them. Postmeta (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was honestly expecting the other guy, Greg Xavier, to do some, but it looks like he got indef. blocked for a single incident on Justin Beiber. It'll be okay to add the red links if you anticipate getting something done, but when they lay around for a long time, it'll tend to be a problem for some. If you do expect to do something, you might want to add something like that to the edit summary when adding the links ("working on pages" or "articles forthcoming") to let people (like me) know not to rush the removal. KnownAlias X 16:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Weekend at Mort's" merger

It has been suggested at the top of the "List of Bob's Burgers episodes" page that the episode page Weekend at Mort's be merged into this article.

• Delete. With all due respect, merge what? Air date, ratings, episode number, and a very brief summary. It's already in this article. Either someone should start to build it into an actual episode page, or it should be nominated for speedy deletion. KnownAlias X 12:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. It was the start of a new article. It has since been expanded to include more information, and is now roughly the same level of standard as every other Bob's Burgers episode. Postmeta (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. What he said. KnownAlias X 13:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Depp and Keith Richards

I'm removing the source claiming that Johnny Depp and Keith Richards are to guest voice on season two; it's a video interview (HERE at 1:45) which the cast doesn't seem to take too seriously. In the section, in response to the question "Any guest voices coming on next season?", the initial reaction of John Roberts (far left) of grinning and then suppressing said reaction when Eugene Miriman says Johnny Depp, the add on by Kristen Schaal of "I was getting annoyed with how persistent Johnny Depp was", followed by a "Take 2" where Miriman then says "The answer is, sorry for wasting your time earlier today, but, uh, we have no idea". It makes it hard to verify the information by saying "We've got Deppp and Richards", goofing on it, then saying "We wasted your time, we don't know what we've got"; which part is the truth? Even the author of the article in her prose mentioned, "As you'll see in the video below, the cast is just as silly in person as they are behind the animation". I'm up to debating it, but the answer just seems like part of a goof to me, and can't be taken literally in this case. KnownAlias X 02:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding to that, I have yet to see Bill Hader in print as a possible guest star, and since he was mentioned in the same sentence with a dated reference like Jim J. Bullock, I'm willing to bet it's also a joke. It's certainly still unsourced up to this point, which should be a hint to editors trying to include it. The cast doesn't take these things too seriously, so wait for someone to print it, then add that as a source! KnownAlias X 14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Title for episode S03E14

I'm pretty confident that the correct title for episode S03E14 is "Lindapendent Woman" rather than "Lindapendant Woman." My TV tuner's program guide had it right but I have no way to prove that to anyone here, not that that could really be considered a trustworthy source anyway. However, this page confirms my belief, and the folks that maintain it tend be very accurate about this sort of thing: http://bobsburgerpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lindapendent_Woman

I blame this all on too many folks not knowing how to spell well anymore, but that's an entirely different discussion. The title is simply a play on the word "independent." If a pendant had also somehow been involved in the episode then I wouldn't be as sure of what the proper title should be, but no such item factored into the any of the plots.

Thanks in advance for correcting what is almost certainly a widespread mistake. 96.253.121.49 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bumping my own original comment about the incorrect title of S03E14 seeing as no one else has made the change yet after more than six months and, frankly, I'm too afraid to change a table here myself. I figured I could do more harm than good so I've left it up to those more comfortable with the process. Again, thanks in advance for the necessary correction. 96.253.84.38 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Burger of the Day stays.

If the articles for The Simpsons' episodes are going to list the couch and chalkboard gags, the Bob's Burgers articles will list the burgers of the days. "But the Simpsons has been on over 20 years!" I don't care. --67.171.164.195 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. But there is no list on this page anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Production codes

The production codes are unreferenced. Even for entries with a reference, the code in the reference does not match the code in the article, for example the reference for season 9 episode 1 is BOB-806, not "8ASA06" as listed. Bright☀ 14:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, the production code appears in the credits. Bright☀ 11:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Can Anybody Explain Why The TV By The Numbers Changed

It now is back to 2.99. I actually saw 3.02 when I made the edit. Maybe it was an Internet troll hack. I don't know.68.47.64.121 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

11th Production Cycle

User:Orange Mo - you don't know what you're talking about. The 2020 renewal was for the 11th production cycle, as shown in the links below that show every renewal the show has had:

production cycle 2 https://deadline.com/2011/04/fox-renews-bobs-burgers-for-season-2-120833/
production cycle 3 https://web.archive.org/web/20160617053425/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/05/14/napoleon-dynamite-canceled-bobs-burgers-renewed-by-fox/133961/
production cycle 4 https://tvline.com/2012/10/16/bobs-burgers-renewed-season/
production cycle 5 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bobs-burgers-renewed-season-5-fox_n_3998760
production cycle 6 https://tvline.com/2015/01/08/bobs-burgers-renewed-season-6-fox/
production cycles 7 and 8 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/bobs-burgers-renewed-seasons-7-830280
production cycle 9 https://tvline.com/2018/05/12/bobs-burgers-renewed-season-9-family-guy-season-17-fox/
production cycle 10 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/family-guy-bobs-burgers-renewed-at-fox-1186030
production cycle 11 https://deadline.com/2020/05/bobs-burgers-renewed-season-11-fox-1202931025/

This is clearly 11 (if you include the show's original order for season 1 that isn't listed above). You are simply WRONG. Any edits you make from here WILL be reverted. - Riggleby (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Seasons are referred to as BROADCAST seasons, not production seasons. Do you even look at the production codes? The entire season 10 was 9ASAxx, which according to Loren Bouchard is the ninth season. Again, according to Loren Bouchard, they go by seasons as production cycles while we as viewers go by the seasons that Fox provides. I’ve seen every episode and I’m constantly on the Bob’s FANDOM wiki editing. I know what I’m talking about. Two different things. Thanks for contributing. Orange Mo (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Riggleby. Seems straightforward enough to me. In May 2020, the show was renewed for an 11th production cycle which will (more or less) constitute the episodes for broadcast season 12 in 2021-2022. The TVLine article muddies the waters by calling this renewal a “season” rather than a “cycle”. Wiki presents lists of TV shows in their broadcast seasons. Barry Wom (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, with Fox's press it seems like they are saying it could be lasting for a while, however, Fox tends to "quietly" renew shows in advance before "officially" renewing them; but I will ask someone who works on the show at my Facebook fan group as well. I'm sure they can provide me some closure. Orange Mo (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any sort of confusion here or any need to reach out to anyone that works on the show. Your point about Fox quietly renewing shows is irrelevant as they have publicly and widely announced 10 renewals + the original pickup. The 11th order made this year will be for what will presumably be the BASAxx line which won't see the light of day for over a year - which makes sense as an episode of an animated show takes approximately nine months to produce. This is why the order has been issued so far in advance so that they continue to have enough episodes in the bank to air full seasons. - Riggleby (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Season 4 finale vs. Season 12 finale

Quick question ~ The direct analogue of the two-part Season 12 finale is the two-part Season 4 finale: each contains a story that spans two episodes, and each constituent episode has its own title. Yet, the formatting for the former is different from the latter. (Instead, 'Some Like It Bot' is being formatted in the same way as 'The Bleakening', which do note does not provide its constituent episodes with separate titles.) Seems like there should be some consistency, here. My two cents (as a non-contributor) is that I prefer the Season 4 finale set up, i.e., at present a reader has to click the link to the Season 12 stand-alone article to see that the titles of the two 'Some Like It Bot' episodes are '(Eighth) Grade Runner' and 'Judge-bot Day'. Seems unnecessarily tedious. Thanks Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)