Talk:In-N-Out Burger menu items
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2007. The result of the discussion was delete. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Keep the secret menu
let's keep the details of the secret menu. thiese are detailed facts that are not necessarily documented anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.101.206 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 July 2007
IAWTC... totally. I logged INTO Wiki just now to see if details of this secret menu I had heard of were here. Lo and behold they were... but the threat to delete them is here!!! Thank you wikipedia, for having the info I needed. Shadowycat 13:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)shadowycat
[edit] Quote in citation
The citation about the protein-style burger was originally added[1] to correct an inaccurate statement, the details of which can be found over at Talk:In-N-Out_Burger#Whammy_Burger. The point behind the citation I added wasn't to say "protein-style burgers exist at In-N-Out", but to say that the 1954 date of introduction didn't make much sense. As the fellow who added the original statement has a sound edit history, I was curious as to whether he or anyone else had a counter-example that could be verified. Given that no one has come forth with one, I'll go ahead and stick an early 1970s introduction date into the text.
Turning to the question of whether supporting quotes should go into citations, I think it acts as an aid to fact checking. Having a brief quote from the cited work also helps to anchor the meaning of the citation so that future rewrites of the section don't change the meaning of the citation. Further, a number of the citation templates, such as {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}, have a quote field present in the template itself.
I also do not trust the durability of URLs to news articles. Should a particular URL become invalid or access become restricted, having a snippet of the text to search for makes finding alternate copies easier. — VulcanOfWalden 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to disagree. The citation makes the reference, not the quote. If the quote is relevant, it belongs in the article. The Associated Press article, which is the source of the quote, will exist regardless of the URL. The URL is a convenience, but does not determine verifiability, as an article in print is just as valid a source. It's really a stylistic discussion at this point, so I don't consider it that big a deal.
- On the addition of the source to back up the commitment of freshness as a reason to stall expansion - this is what I gather from the article: "company officials said that the company has no plans to move east." Is there more? I'm probably missing something, but this does not satisfy the fact tag it replaced in relationship to the company's 'commitment.'
- All this and it may get deleted anyway. Sigh. But hey, we want it succinct as possible while it's here, right? the_undertow talk 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No consensus on AfD. Merge a good compromise?
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-N-Out Burger menu items as no consensus. However claims that the article contains indiscriminate info have merit. I have thus tagged the article with a suggested merge to the parent article. This of course would require pruning the article which can certainly be done: why for instance do we need a list of soft drinks? Why do we need a long bulleted list of secret items with super-explicit descriptions? (especially since it's wholly redundant with the following sections) In fact, a merge is a perfect way to face the editorial problem of presenting the info concisely. Pascal.Tesson 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't we just trim the fat of this article and keep it short and concise. the_undertow talk 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree with a merge. there may or may not be issues regarding the current content, though I'm not convinced of anything in particular being a serious problem, but I think this is a perfectly sustainable article on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where did the "largest burger" reference go?
I noticed that undertow removed the reference to the largest known burger from this page. My guess is that someone saw that it was a 666x666 and thought it must be vandalism. It's not; that was a real burger.
The evidence (including a picture) shows up in the book _Legends of Caltech III_ by Mason Porter and Autumn Looijen, published by the Caltech Alumni Association in May 2007. The book can be bought via the Caltech Bookstore's website (and will be available on Amazon once they've confirmed that it won't throw their non-profit status into jeopardy). The ISBN number is already in the editing history -- I added it when the book came out, since people were asking for a cite. The burger was also documented in Caltech's student newspaper, _The California Tech_.
Is there any objection to putting it back? I didn't see the removal discussed anywhere, but I don't usually edit here and don't want to step on any toes. (I also left this message on undertow's talk page over a week ago, but haven't seen any response.)
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.2.131 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Capitalization fix needed in article name
I see that in late December some "helpful" editor moved this article, apparently without discussion, from the proper "In-N-Out Burger menu items" to "In-n-Out Burger menu items" citing WP:CAPS. That's nice and I'm sure the edit was made in good faith but the plain fact is that the chain is called "In-N-Out" and the parent article is properly entered at In-N-Out with a capital "N". I'm a little fuzzy on the procedure to get this moved back to the proper naming but if any admin could jump in and fix it, I would be quite appreciative. - Dravecky (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
