Talk:Fudgie the Whale

Regarding this edit:

Saying that it was "not an ideal solution", and that the fit was "poor", are opinions. The statement that this was what endeared Carvel to people (rather than, for instance, the ice cream they sold) isn't even an opinion; it's unfounded speculation. These statements require sources.

On a more minor note, the bit about "headgear" is overly wordy (see WP:MOS) and, in fact, inaccurate; ears are not headgear. They're ears. Kafziel Talk 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"In the early 1980s David Letterman "Exposed" the cake as really being Fudgy The Whale in disguise." -- I don't understand this line. Are there some words missing? [User:Dreslough|Dreslough]

Taste
Fudgie the Whale is so famous- is it just due to its status as an item in pop culture, or does it have a renowned taste? Or both? 72.160.170.225 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

 * Comedian Patton Oswalt parodies Tom Carvel and his Fudgie the Whale commercials, particularly the re-cycling of the tray for holidays.
 * Billy Crystal parodies the New York area Carvel Ice Cream commercials on his 1985 album Mahvelous!
 * In an episode of The Simpsons, Homer presents Marge with a Fudgie the Whale on the night of their wedding in Las Vegas. The cake reads "To a whale of a wife."
 * A Fudgie the Whale cake was featured on WWE's RAW, being devoured by a Rosie O'Donnell impersonator.
 * In early episodes of Damages, main character Ellen celebrates her birthday with a Fudgie the Whale cake: "Nobody sing, because we all know Ellen hates singing!" "But I love Fudgie the Whale!"
 * Andy Bernard, a character on the show The Office, requested a Fudgie the Whale cake for the group birthday celebration in the Survivor Man episode.


 * Most of this content is loosely related and highly trivial in nature, such that it degrades the quality of the already-lacking article. If the more notable items can be rewritten into prose I have no objection to that, but we really don't need to dump on this article any further.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, not a policy. There are exceptions. In the case of a subject like this, which is mainly notable because it is often referenced in popular culture, a trivia section can help readers understand why it has an article in the first place. More importantly, everything currently in the section is properly sourced and shouldn't be removed without discussion. I only wish the rest of the page was as well-referenced as the pop culture section is. What is and is not suitable for Wikipedia isn't up to you; if it's neutral, verifiable, and not original research, it's in. If you don't like that, this isn't the place to make your point. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing trivia items because they are "trivial". The Office occurence is significant trivia (it's sad I even have to make this oxymoronic statement) in the sense that it is as significant as the others. Ordosingularis (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I have to agree this actually, this section actually detracts from the overall quality of the article. Rather than pile on trivia upon trivia where a cake is mentioned for 2 seconds (if that) in a television show, in passing, is there anything of historic value we can present about this brand of cake?  If not, perhaps the entire article should be deleted too.  JBsupreme (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already been covered: Wikipedia's content is not beholden to whatever arbitrary personal standards you may have. If it cites sources and meets WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, it's in. If you don't like it, work on making WP:N and WP:TRIVIA policies rather than guidelines. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Cookie Puss into a new article

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. KTC (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a single article on Carvel ice cream cakes would be better than having separate articles for two of the characters. --Alx xlA (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why would we move them to some arbitrary title someone made up, ensuring that everyone who searches for these items will forever have to be redirected? Both products have received enough press to stand on their own. True, they are magnets for trivial crap, but that wouldn't change if they were merged. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they really enough to keep on their own? Neither article is more than a single paragraph about the cake itself with a trivia section two or three times as long as any other. --Alx xlA (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. See my response from May 2008, in the section directly above. If they have multiple sources to demonstrate their notability, they can stand on their own. Trivia isn't necessarily a bad thing; for some things, the trivia is what makes it notable. This article was viewed more than 3,000 times last month alone. Cookie Puss, almost 5,000. So people are looking for them both. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.