Talk:Monster Thickburger

Someone take a realistic picture. Please. Lotsofissues 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen one, but I imagine that picture isn't too far from reality. doesn't look all that spruced up.--Alhutch 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, those food photos are always spruced up to the point of inedibility. Here is a picture of the actual thing:  http://www.78west.com/eden/tmw_images/hardees3.jpg Spejic 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that pic looks nasty
how can anyone eat that? @_@
 * I'm not sure. All that oil makes it look...flammable.--Planetary 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for bigger burgers. Who wants to deal with puny burgers with one 4 inch patty and alot of ketchup to make up for it. :P -- Riffsyphon1024 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * God, my mouth is watering. --Paraiba 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * wOw O_O - Mlaheji 08:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Image size
Could someone please explain why the picture of the Monster Thickburger should be so large? &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's big, its name is monster, so why not for the shock value. It is the biggest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs)

Calories
Can someone explain why the text says 1410 kcal but the infobox on the side says 1736 cal? The numbers are inconsistent and it's unclear if wikipedia has any standard on saying "kcal" or "cal". The nutrition PDF from Hardee's linked to the article gives the 1410 kcal number so I'm inclined to change it to this. sam 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Free photo needed
This should be very easy to get, for Pete's sake. I'm not a big fan of this free-image jihad, but here they have a point. There was no reason for this article to have relied on a publicity photo for over a year. Not when anybody can go to Hardee's and just take one. Daniel Case 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)