Talk:Mac Tonight

Commercial Appearance

I added the comment about Taiwan and made it based on what I just saw on television, but have no way to verify that fact besides knowing I saw it. Would a photo help my citation, or what?

Kerui 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Commercial

I have a commercial with this character from a 1988 Monday Night game between the Giants and Philadelphia.

WAVY 10 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is from 13 years ago but do you still have it? Queenfan194 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction

The campaign included television commercials, with Doug Jones playing Mac Tonight. [...] The actor playing Mac on the television commercial was DJ "Danger" Kelly.

Pick one. tgies 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Village Voice

I recall the the Village Voice getting into a snit about this campaign in its "Op Ad" column, in which the writer (Ridgeway?) whined about the evil irony of using music and themes originally penned by German socialist Bert Brecht to advance capitalism, etc. Can anyone track this down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.73.102 (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Song Question

Wasn't his song, "It's Mac Tonight" based on the song "Mac the Knife"?

Yes. Will note. Wavy G 05:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody put some stuff up on the main page which clearly doesn't belong:

"After Mac Tonight's successful tenure as the McDonald's mascot, upon being retired from advertisement, Mac Tonight reportedly played the role of Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth. Also, the moon-faced swinger has been noted as a national deity in the country of Borneo.

Recently, Mr. Tonight has had several run ins with the local police department, due to conduct unbecoming of a national diety. When arrested Mac is known to exclaim exuberantly "time to head for golden lights!"

The links lead to different sites than claimed(which makes sense considering that the "facts" are fakes anyway). I thout I'd let the main page editors know. sono_ryuu_sochi 20:39, 17 May 2007 (MST)

Does any of this paragraph even belong? There are no citations, and I certainly never heard any of this. I think it should be removed.

"Many children of the 80's and early 90's were petrified of Mac Tonight commercials, such as the creepy nature of him in commericals such as "Study Break" where people only see his shadow while he sits on their roof laughing.[citation needed] He falls in with other creepy mascots such as the Burger King's King, and the Corn Pop Zombies.[citation needed] Some pop culture references note Mac Tonight as an evil mastermind, distracting people with Big Macs so that aliens can abduct them.[citation needed]" GregE625 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NEW Mac Tonight.PNG

Image:NEW Mac Tonight.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 this Wikipedia article 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 Wikipedia: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 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 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon Man

Should we add a section on the Moon Man meme on YTMND? The meme is based on Mac Tonight, and shows a .gif from one of the commercials and features "Moon Man" saying highly derogatory, racist, ann sexual things. Jackjackjackjackjack (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah somebody should add that. I think Moon Man is currently more popular than Mac Tonight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.134.214 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead thread, ik. but id like to reopen the conversation on whether or not we should still necessarily include moon man in this article. as its a very separate thing, it really only shares the design Colmedy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Daughter?!?

As far as I can see, Bobby Darin only had one child, a son, and it was he who filed the lawsuit: [1] Updating the article to correct this error. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Page rewrite

I may be peforming a complete page overhaul soon, with updated and more accurate info and hopefully more photos Queenfan194 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mac Tonight Animatronic - Woodbridge, VA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

The Moon Man also appeared in McDonald's in Plainview NY, but we re-skined as "Roary" the Lion. Itsmekb1494 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2022

cardboard was spelled carboard. 24.8.24.82 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. General Ization ^Talk 19:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please try not to remove any of the information presented

I understand adding citations, there was an issue with someone restoring a revision of a version of the page by Citation Bot. this version however happened after someone named 'SounderBruce' removed a lot of information from the article. Please try not to revert the article or delete any information present, thanks. Colmedy (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of commercials and fan trivia; that belongs on fan wikis. Everything included must have a reliable source and proof of significant coverage. SounderBruce 18:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources. Secondly, it included necessary information to fully showcase the history of this character. Its long ofc, but its a character thats been used in so many ways. Please can you focus on other pages. All your doing is removing important information from an article made for people to understand the history of Mac Tonight, and the character as a whole. Colmedy (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also all of the trivia is relevant to the topic, and to the character, everything is relevant to the character, and to the campaign. having a list of the main commercials is very important as it establishes an important timeline of the campaign. It is detailed, but thats no reason to delete a bunch of information on the page, and then claim an info war on my userpage. Colmedy (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Maintenance templates must remain until the issues are resolved" you keep updating this but you wont properly respond to my reply, i want to have a civil conversation about this, all of this is neccessary for the article. this ad campaign is very large, thus why the page is so long. Colmedy (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

what is your problem dude why do you keep adding those tags for smh HectorHawk9 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Overuse of Maintenance Templates

The overuse of Maintenance Templates is an obvious attempt to generate hostility, thus attempting to start an edit war. 4 Maintenance Templates are way too much. Colmedy (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

also the fact he cares more about keeping them up rather than resolving the situation further indicates that this is a hostile attempt at an info war rather than a conversation. Colmedy (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(by rather than resolving the situation further, i mean responding to the messages and having a civil conversation on the importance of this information) Colmedy (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Consider that the changes are so substantial that it takes time to review changes and check for accuracy, on top of copyediting. A volunteer has no obligation to speedily respond to anything. SounderBruce 21:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Changes don't need to be made to the article, yes it's long, but the tone afaik does match the professional tone of Wikipedia. And a lot of the issues the maintenance templates are there for aren't accurate to the article. I know you have no obligation, but it's so frustrating this sense of entitlement over your contributions on Wikipedia and your demands that this article must be changed to be shorter. Please can you focus on literally any other article, this is so annoying having to see if you replied to any of the messages or did any changes to the page every day dude. The accuracy is confirmed by the references I have stated. "Volunteer" aren't you a contributor like everyone else on this site, please stop acting so high and mighty Colmedy (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately.

This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately.

Lol i literally didn't. I think i used one source that was accredited to me, and it was a video showing a comparison of Roger Behr's voice in a movie, and in the new zealand cards ad. Theres a lot more times i couldve used a self published source, like when i did a video interview with Peter Coutroulis (even though thats verifiable lmao). Or the time i interviewed Brock Walsh. This adds into how you overused maintenance templates just to try to start an info war. even though the template you used was inaccurate. Colmedy (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

once isnt excessive, esp if its literally a comparison. its like saying my mac tonight head evolution picture is a unreliable, since its a self published source. even though its a fair use collage of all the different heads used in the commercials. Colmedy (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is original research. A reliable source must be the one to make the comparison. SounderBruce 21:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me?! I didn't????? Colmedy (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I listed it as a video for an area in trivia, that's it, if you want me to remove that source, fine. But like I said, there's no other self published thing in there. You're being overly anal over something that minut. It's obvious that you're trying to instigate this to become a bigger thing, I gave my reasons as to why I removed those irrelevant templates and I'm in all right to remove them, as they're inaccurate to the article! Colmedy (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Accusations are not civil and such behavior is not tolerated. Stick to criticism of the content, not the user. SounderBruce 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to be civil when you care more about updating templates rather than discussing on the talk page about what changes you feel should be made and us having a civil conversation, rather than continue this strange back and forth of adding templates, ignoring my messages inquiring for more details, removing templates, and having them brought back despite not being accurate to the article. Colmedy (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And I in no way mean to accuse you of doing this maliciously, it is just an assumption I have based on how little context provided there is in relation to the maintenance templates Colmedy (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant template

The self published template is incorrect as there are no substantial uses of self published sources. According to WP:WTRMT a template can be removed "When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant"

Colmedy (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

the tone is pretty formal, there isnt really any part thats more informal than any other page ive seen, so it seems pretty irrelevant Colmedy (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

it feels like hes talking about his own standard and not wikipedias standard. although i would love to see what he means by that if he ever responds Colmedy (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What issues are there with the article???

When I ask this I don't get a clear answer. Where do I not cite my sources??? Which parts do I have to add sources too! It doesn't help to infrequently respond with nothing of substance. You claim I used sources sourced from myself, which If you read the article, you would've known that this isn't accurate. Aside from one video in trivia that showcased a comparison between an actor and a clip showing his other work.

"You must have a reliable source for every claim" This is what you said to me on instagram. When in fact, I have a reliable source for nearly every claim last time I checked. Unless I'm missing something, which I'd be happy to hear, the article does not require a rewrite, and it doesn't need large chunks deleted like you attempted previously.

I have not done anything against the rules on this page as far as I know, and I'm disgusted by your conduct, deleting large chunks of the article, adding several templates instead of bothering to talk to your fellow contributor, and discuss changes you feel should be made to the article, an article I must add, that you hadn't touched before. You think this article about something you have no interest in researching is too long? Say that to the people who actually want to learn about this character. For everyone else, there's a perfectly good summary right at the top, if you just want to cause trouble and not help, then get out. Colmedy (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

Please remove the #Trivia section from the article per MOS:TRIVIA. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:D17A:1EB6:D46C:8CDE (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Edits by Smuckola

Hey, the edits you're making are really big, you're basically deleting a large percentage of the article. These chunks are not in violation of any rules afaik. Could you stop? Colmedy (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No. I simply deleted the unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT, again starting to save the article. Again. After everyone else repeatedly did the same. This is presently not a content issue, or any legitimate dispute, but a personal and policy issue so it's back at your Talk page once again. WP:RS WP:PRIMARY WP:YOUTUBE WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA WP:NOT WP:ASPERSIONS WP:NPA WP:3RR WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Everybody welcomes content sourced by reliable secondary sources, in not-WP:UNDUE weight, and with civil discourse! @SounderBruce and XCBRO172: thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 03:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing it out. Also @Smuckola did you delete Homestar Runner because it is too trivial? XCBRO172 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@XCBRO172: Hi, yeah definitely, and because there's no given source at all, let alone a WP:RS. So it's just in a WP:LINKFARM of WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA. Even one RS wouldn't change that. There probably isn't ever going to be a reliable source because that passing mention is so trivial among an entire genre of sketch parody and pastiche. This is presented as if the existence of comedy is mind-blowing. Shows like Homestar, Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons, and Family Guy, exist to do that, so it's rare that they do it so uniquely well or controversially that they get a bunch of RSes. Some prolific subjects that have serial pop culture mentions can be summarized in one sentence about TV shows with all the RSes following it. Check out WP:POPCULTURE. You have had the right idea about the policy mandate for RSes, and talking about WP:NOYT and WP:YT.

Wow, thanks for all those recent tags, because I lost countless of them in the blinding ocean of the WP:LINKFARM. This article was made into basically a linkfarm, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Those trivia items need to be deleted as long-term failures of sourcing, and if a RS can ever be produced then they can be pasted out of the history. That's not deletionism and deletion is not the end!

In general, if there are tough old sources like print or foreign countries, that you can describe but you need help getting a copy, there's the reference desk at WP:LIBRARY. Wikipedians can apply for membership there to access tons of free search engines of old magazines, newspapers, and books like at Newspapers.com and EBSCO. I have that. — Smuckola(talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll possibly check out WP:Library, and I see now that the example falls under an unremarkable example. I would however point out that the source I put in was conforming to WP:NOYT, as it explains: "However, official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher." So I agree with you that in hindsight it was too trivial, however I used a reliable source. Either way, thanks for explaining. XCBRO172 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@XCBRO172: Yeah that's cool, but see the thing is we need WP:SECONDARY reliable sources to establish notability (WP:N). That's why we don't just constantly cite every episode of SNL and Family Guy with {{cite episode}} as one should for Homestar, though in the case of Homestar being officially and legally published online it would be {{cite episode | url=...}}. Because at that point, it's just a statement of "A thing exists! I, a person with a computer, found a thing! (p.s. and WP:ILIKEIT, tee hee)" which is WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA. Yeah I guess technically citing a Homestar episode is a WP:PRIMARY WP:RS because it is accurately and verifiably a real Homestar episode published and accessible under copyright law. But that's not WP:N, which must then be established by a secondary reliable source to specifically say that it's not just a real Homestar episode, it's not just a good Homestar episode, but that it is emphatically notable as an example of Mac Tonight within Homestar because of journalistically relevant reasons. And again, not just due to journalistic trivia like any little top ten list! ;) lol. Yes, we must even discern between different types of top ten lists. The utmost pillar of the encyclopedia is notability, WP:N. The WP:RS is the means of establishing WP:N. Yes this is extremely nuanced, and extremely difficult to learn and retain. I'm not kidding when I advise people to read this stuff a zillion times, and that's not even a real start without a dedicated tutor or experience with excellent examples. It's a trap and almost a crime that Wikipedia falsely encourages absolutely anybody to edit with no intensive training or reputation. Most people will never learn anything this hard except maybe driving a car. This isn't even a biography of a living subject, and wait til ya see the standards for legal, military, and medical subjects! — Smuckola(talk) 00:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair XCBRO172 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"Make it mac tonight" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Make it mac tonight has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 19 § Make it mac tonight until a consensus is reached. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)