Talk:Moe's Southwest Grill

message: This article is still in progress.  I'm in the process of contacting Moe's corporate to ask them some questions that I need answered.  Also, this is my first major contribution, so, please bear with me.  Also...I'm using this to test my new signature.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend listing what the food items are (in a short description) for those who may be unfamiliar with the foods of which they represent.  - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 00:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced the menu item "Joey Bag of Donuts" is a  My Cousin Vinny reference.  The line in the movie is "Vinny bag of donuts" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/quotes).  There is no significant character named Joey in the movie.  The actor who plays Vinny is Joe Pesci, but would the menumakers at Moe's intentionally alter the quote by replacing the character's name with the name of actor who played him?  Unfortunately, after a fair amount of searching, I am unable to suggest an alternate theory for the origin of "Joey Bag of Donuts." --R.Yo 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is still in progress

message: On the menu of Moe's there is a $9.99 item "Cup of Fat" it should be discussed here.
I used to work at a Moe's. The "Cup of Fat" was actually a joke. Moe's doesn't used fat to cook any food, since they are vegetarian-friendly. It was mainly a joke item menu. --Resonant0ne 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cup of fat 

message: I don't think that the Moo Moo Mr. Cow has anything to do with the movie Annapolis.  That menu item has existed long before the movie came out.    00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moo Moo Mr. Cow 

message: I changed the quote about the tacos to "...while you still have teeth" because I was there tonight and that's what it reads.
On a different note, does anyone know who the artist is that creates the paintings of the tacos, burritos, nachos, etc.? It could be more than one person but seeing as they are all the same style, I think it's one person. Ladderphobia 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The silhouette with the guitar (I'm assuming that's Moe) should be included in the discussion about the paintings, as he's part of every one. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The walls 

message: After looking at other fast food articles like Quiznos Sub, Subway, and Burger King, I suggest the menu section be removed.  It reads too much like an advert.  If people want to see Moe's menu, they can go to their website.  I'm not saying remove all mentions of their food products, it just doesn't need a full menu in the article. Perhaps the article could say something like "Moe's menu choices include a variety of burritos, quesadillas, tacos, and salads".  Darry2385 14:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe the menu section should be removed.  The advantage of having the items listed is to give their pop culture reference.  This is the main reason I came to the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.67.49 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you.  Just because one person thinks it does not belong does not mean that it should be removed.  Menu should stay.--12.108.255.76 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not one person's opinion... it is several... the editor above seems to believe so, and so do I... the entire menu is not needed and un-encyclopedic... also, your undo of the other work that has been done to the article is not helpful... the menu will be removed for now, and if you wish, you can file for a request for comment as to whether it should be replaced... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The information for the menu falls under the Wikipedia guidline "Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research".  The menu is neutral and verifiable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.255.76 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that you are just going to revert any changes, without discussing said changes, so I have taken this to WP:3O... Yes, all articles must pass WP:V and WP:NPOV, but they must also pass notability... and the quoted statement is in regard to the article as a whole... that does not mean that you can add anything you want to the article... the menu listing itself is un-encyclopedic... there is nothing to show that the menu itself is notable enough to be included in the article... if someone wants to see the menu, they can go to the company's website... this is an encyclopedia, and as such should include encyclopedic content... infomation about the company as a company... your reverts are also removing other changes made, including removing the un-encyclopedic musical information and other minor cleanup... what kind of music a restaurant plays is just as un-encyclopedic as it's menu listing... look at McDonald's, do you see a menu listing or music section on that article? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a menu repository. I'm sure something could be worked in about the types of foods items served at Moe's, but not the full menu with descriptions that was there before. –xeno (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As I explained to you earlier, if there is some sign of notability for the menu itself, then feel free to provide a reference, and we can add it... If I'm a wikinazi just for following policy and reverting vandals, so be it... I don't mind someone insulting me, if that means that they are willing to discuss the article instead of just doing what they want without paying attention to policy or discussion... please, let me know exactly what it is about the menu that is notable or encyclopedic, other than that they use unusual names for common items...  Is there something unusual that they serve (horse, goat, snake meat)?  I would be more than happy to add a couple of the more notable or famous examples of said menu item names to the article, but we don't need a complete menu as part of the encyclopedia article for the company... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It can't be edited because I semi-protected it, which prevents anons and very new accounts from editing. I suggest that you get an account. As to the substance, I leave that to others. Also, please see WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menu 

message: Comment: Menu? No. Maybe if it has generated loads of coverage in reliable sources which isn't attributable to press releases. Basically, no. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Rd232 talk 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Menu 

message: Congrats to all.  What was once a page of useful info has now be chopped down to almost nothing.  Way to represent Wikipedia - I am sure ALL appreciate your accomplishments.
--24.131.43.223 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I think what you meant to say was "what was once a page full of useless cruft has been chopped down to a useful encyclopedic article"... please assume good faith in what other, more experienced editors are doing, and try to keep the drama factor down... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Warnings are good, but I still want to help this IP understand the basics and purpose of Wikipedia... I'm wondering what exactly he/she/it thinks is wrong with the article... it is concise, well referenced, and lacks any listcruft or POV content... meaning it's a decent start to an article... with the exception of adding the complete menu to the article (which was decided by consensus above was unencyclopedic), and the non-notable (and unreferenced) information about what kind of music they play, what else would you add or change? Why do you think it is useless now?  What purpose do you claim it defeated? I am more than willing to help you understand, if you are willing to discuss it calmly... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 12.108.x.x, I doubt any established user is going to take your side on the entire menu with the food description being included, but if you dial back the rhetoric a bit, I'm sure we can help you achieve the spirit of what you are trying to accomplish. (i.e. as I mentioned above). –xeno (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: was there any particular reason you copy/pasted the exact same message from my talk page to here?  Whining, crying, and insulting other editors is not going to get your point across any better than calm, civil discussion... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Please don't forget to sign with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). There are many reliable sources about Moe's that can be drawn on to make this article more informative. Perhaps consider creating an account and sticking around to help with that. –xeno (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: What other approach would you recommend? Your only edits to this article so far have been mostly vandalism, and edit warring to keep the unencyclopic content included... you have not made any worthwhile edits to this article, and looking at your previous contributions (for both of your IPs), most of your edits overall have been vandalism... I think the edits you made to Mannfield, Florida are the only productive work you've done (and even that you did in poor taste)... I don't see anything in the history of either of your IPs contributions that show an interest in helping better Wikipedia as a whole, only cause trouble and cry and insult people that fix your vandalism... I have tried to be civil with you, as noted here, here, and here... and through all that, you have yet to show a single thread of civility... I have asked you several times what was wrong with the article (other than your wanting the complete menu included), and have received nothing but insults and stubbornness in return... you have done nothing to better this, or any other article, and have wasted the time of several other worthwhile editors in the meantime... I am done trying to be helpful to you, and am tired of your immature attitude... (Civility be damned, sinking to your level now) You should pull your head out of your arse, learn to read, take the time to read the other comments on this page, and maybe (if you can stop whining and crying long enough) read WP:5, WP:ENC, and WP:NOT to learn how to be a productive editor... please just give up on this article, and go back to vandalizing Towne Lake... or, at the very least, change your edit pattern slightly... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, please dial back the rhetoric. No one's "credentials" have any bearing here but we do try to keep our articles consistent and in line with our goals as an encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks Great!!!