Talk:Betty Crocker/Archives/2012

Retired
Betty Crocker appears to have retired. Now she's just a spoon. No race, no age, no ethnicity, hey, not even really a gender any more.

National Alliance
I'm not making up the business about National Alliance being upset about the new Betty Crocker. Here's a link to their page (one might find this offensive, I know I did...) Two Halves, who can't handle the truth...


 * That may be of interest in an article about the National Alliance, but it seems of no interest to an article about Betty Crocker, since the National Alliance is of no importance to General Mills, as far as I can see. Michael Hardy 03:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BettyCrockerLogo.png
Image:BettyCrockerLogo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Betty-crocker-cookbook-reissue-1955.jpg
Image:Betty-crocker-cookbook-reissue-1955.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Dunkaroos)
The result was: Merge, by silent consensus --B. Wolterding 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Dunkaroos into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Actually the Dunkaroos article has been around for a long time, and no secondary sources have been added, so it is quite unclear why this product is notable by WP:CORP independent of the company which makes it. Perhaps the best thing to do is to merge the content here, to avoid deletion.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunkaroos
I don't really understand what the Dunkaroos have to do with Betty Crocker (in terms of an encyclopedic page on "her" history). I could see why they might have seemed lonely on their own article page, but that doesn't mean they belong here, does it? No other products are talked about, and there are far more significant ones. The Dunkaroos portion sounds bizarrely out of place. Bluela 13:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also reasonably certain that there's no such thing as "Dunkelroos." --mtp85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.4.65.55 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this true?
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.182.11 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Betty Crocker: A Centuries Old Icon Gone?
Is the Betty Crocker line gone now? Is "she" no longer "alive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.89.229 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!!
Wikipedia just infringed on my heart's right not to miss a beat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.231.22 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprofessional Writing in final sections
The very end of the article contains the sentence "Due to the housewives adding their own egg it restored that good'ol American housewife mentality.[5]" I'm not sure what a 'good'ol American housewife mentality' is, but it is certainly something that does not belong86.26.15.84 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC) in an encyclopedia article.86.26.15.84 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?
I don't know if it warrants it, but would it be reasonable to add an In Popular Culture section? Although admittedly, I can only think of one example (Homestuck), although there might be others. SgeoTC 04:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we get this semi-protected from Homestuck ages ago?
209.250.175.254 (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)