Talk:Cheesesteak

Schuylkill water makes Amoroso rolls special?

I'm moving this here. It's been marked unreferenced since March 2008 but has been in the article, unreferenced, for far longer than that.

“

Locals believe there is something about "Schuylkill Punch", the nickname for Philadelphia's drinking water, that, by its alkalinity, makes the rolls distinctively flaky and airy.[citation needed]

”

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh-heh, I've heard it's the "limestone" in the water. Ah, food mythology!--BillFlis (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Best of Philly winners

Yeah, I know Philly Mag gets a fair amount of local attention from their awards, but is this really encyclopeadic? Surely there are other local press outlets doing similar "work". I personally don't pay much attention to them. Do they get coverage outside of their own magazine? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• The purpose of including the "Best of Philly" winners was to set an objective, verifiable criterion for inclusion of cheesesteak restaurants... and therefore to give an objective criterion for throwing out all the drive-by additions of people's local faves. Why did you delete Sam's Steaks? Because it's not in Best of Philly. Not in Best of Philly, not in the article. Easy, simple, two different editors can agree on the criterion.

Without such a criterion, what do you do? Not mention any of them? Not even Pat's and Geno's? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged with the other articles

That are about essentially the same thing. Steak sandwich, Italian beef, French dip sandwich. BillyTFried (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The French dip is nothing like cheesesteak. --Bobak (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with user "Bobak"; these are all distinct things when made properly. True, there are many places outside Philadelphia that claim to make "Philly cheesesteaks" that turn out to be closer to French dips, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The use of "Philly" strikes me as a false attempt to imply authenticity, sort of like the place I saw in Copenhagen that called itself "Manhattan Deep Pan Pizza House"! I also note that the article about "Italian beef" specifically identifies said sandwich with Chicago, which further suggests a difference. I think the current setup in which the links to other Wikipedia articles include the other sandwiches you've mentioned is a perfectly reasonable solution. 1995hoo (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are useless unless you go to the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So copy them there, as the box above said you intended to do. 1995hoo (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Read again. I already did for those who originally posted here. The notice is in regards to any further discussion, ie you. If you make a comment here, your voices won't be heard in the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

This article has a lot of problems; I have corrected several of them but it is still of poor quality.

Here are some things I found wrong:

1. WP:Not violations
   1. The list of award winning cheesesteak is a violation of WP:Not a directory.
   2. The instructions on how to cook a cheesesteak violated WP:Not an instruction manual ie a cookbook
2. WP:OR
   1. The section on "imitation" cheesesteaks at Quiznos and Subway is pure WP:synthesis
   2. The commentary about why cheesesteaks not being authentic because only rolls from one bakery can be used is also unsupported opinion

No, it's not. It's well supported opinion, that was sourced until someone removed the source. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is still an opinion, thus violates WP:NPOV guidelines. Jeremy (blah blah...) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Massive WP:NPOV violations and weasel words are spread throughout the article.
2. Parts of it read like an essay on the sandwich and its cultural place in Phily.
3. Large parts of the article are uncited

It borders on trying to be a travel guide on explaining the culture of Philadelphia; this article is about the sandwich. It should have a history section, a description of the sandwich with its variants and a section on some of the famous restaurants. That is it. No etiquette section, no commentaries on how you can't get a real one outside Phily or how sandwiches with or without a particular ingredient list don't qualify. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards of WP:NPOV.

Because of the problems I have downgraded the article's rating to C-class. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• This article has a perpetual problem with drive-by additions of unsourced material. However, you've thrown out some babies with the bathwater. The list of award-winning cheesesteaks, for example, is there for a reason. Before we had it, there were constant additions of people mentioning their fave cheesesteak places. I suggested that restricting the list to "Best of Philly" winners was a way to keep the list verifiable, and an objective way of deciding what places got included.

Now that the "Best of Philly" list has been eliminated, I expect that the article will again experience rapid addition of personal favorites, and that some people who add them will feel justified in edit-warring with people who remove them, because there is no longer any objective criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Not, specifically Wikipedia is not a directory, that is the only object criteria that should be used. Additionally this could be a copyright violation as it is the work of a magazine. Please remember, this is not an article about Philadelphia or restaurants in Philadelphia - it is a article about a sandwich. The whole thing needs a rewrite from the lead down. Read the lead and then the article, they are two different things. This should not be an article about Philly and its culture, it should be an article about a sandwich with origins in Philly akin to the cheeseburger article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been in Philadelphia and have no Philadelphia connections. I base all my editing actions in this article on what I read in good sources. Balance in the article is a legitimate matter of editorial judgment. But the idea that there should be no reference at all to Philadelphia culture and context in an article about Philadelphia cheesesteaks is extreme. The dish is as tied to the locale as any food can be. One might as well suggest that New Orleans is irrelevant to the article on Oysters Rockefeller. Please see WP:IAR. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree that there's anything wrong with mentioning that, like it or not, the most prolific makers of Cheesesteaks are the large GLOBAL chains Quiznos and Subway. It's not up to us to decide what constitutes a "Real" or "Imitation" Cheesesteak. And if you happen to live in Tokyo or Berlin, the fact is that you DO NOT need to travel to Philadelphia or even America to try a Cheesesteak yourself. If Subway makes "Imitation Cheesesteaks" then McDonald's makes "Imitation Hamburgers" but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that all mention of McDonald's should removed from the article on Hamburgers. The same should go for this article.BillyTFried (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that complicated. "The sandwhich has grown in popularity yada yada yada and versions of it can now be found throughout the world/at chains/wherever".Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I have already re-added the section I wrote up on their global availability that had previously been removed. BillyTFried (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You removed all the names of the continents. That's fine I guess. BillyTFried (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of the company's menu's is also weird. It would be better to find reliable sources showing note worthiness for the trend in chains. Instead of using the menus, google news it and you will see tons of articles related to Doninos, McDonalds, Subway, Hardee's, and more. These news sources offer a better context and more informaiton to the reader. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and related pages for info on the use, format (no space in between ref tags), and principles of citing sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: This aticle needs clean-up. Information is getting stuffed in with disregard to layout and guidelines to the point that it is a mess. The sandwhich description can be easily fixed by making it easier on the reader. There are two pretty decent sources that can be used to get it going: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090710/LIFE/907100334 http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_cheesesteak_cometh/page1 These will take care of all of the citation needed flags and give the reader some understanding as to what the sandwhich is.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Cheeses: This should be conolidated into the prose instead of 1 line subsections.
• Sources: Editors need to try harder to find some that improve and verify the information provided by the article. These should be put in a better context for the reader
• The cheesesteak wars could info could use expansion Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one. This is from the Food in Philly catagory listed at the bottom of the page. Try doing some poking around and you will find much better sources than expected: Brookes, Karin; John Gattuso, Lou Harry, Edward Jardim, Donald Kraybill, Susan Lewis, Dave Nelson and Carol Turkington (2005). Zoë Ross. ed. Insight Guides: Philadelphia and Surroundings (Second Edition (Updated) ed.). APA Publications. ISBN 1-58573-026-2. Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• There needs to be some description of chicken cheesesteaks, as those are more popular than most varieties on the article. --Kibadunno (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But it WAS referenced... originally

Several different facts in the article were referenced to a single source, so a named "ref" tag was used, and the reference itself given only in the first of them. The remaining "ref" tag no longer referred to anything, so the fact it supported as removed as "unreferenced."

This is the third or fourth example I've run into in which editor A removed a valid reference, usually through carelessness or clumsiness, and then editor B removeds the fact as unreferenced. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, but it's pretty frustrating.

Quite a few sources say that the rolls used in Philadelphia are important. This is suggested by the fact that some restaurants outside Philadelphia go to the effort of having Philadelphia-baked rolls shipped to them. That's verifiable, too, but I don't have the time to track it down now. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is neither clumsy or careless - the source was not reliable. That is just as bad as being unreferenced. I know exactly what I was doing when I removed them.--Jeremy (blah blah) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

The images need some work. I do not know how to fit the ones in right now since they are too big for the text (my opinion not manual of style). The "how to order" sign is OK. It was under locations (which describes the "war" and is also a sign seen in other locations throughout the county. If it compliments the text it should be in. The images used could also be better. I will check to see if there is a commons page so that we can find some higher quality ones.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: For the sake of improving the prject, please add images to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cheesesteaks[ before deleting so they are easily accesible to editor's in the future.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a picture of a vegetarian cheesesteak is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.73.211 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How to order a cheesesteak

Anyone else think that there should be a section on how to order a steak in Philly? From personal experience, if you go up to the front of the line at Pat's or Gino's and if you don't know what you want, you get sent back to the end of said line. A simple section of the basics (wiz wit, wiz witout) would be cool, especially for the Philly locals that are tired of tourists taking 3 minutes to order a simple wiz wit, ya know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.252.155 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

probably not. The specific procedure for ordering a specific cheesesteak at a specific restaurant likely falls outside of the realm of what Wikipedia is designed for. See WP:NOT. Even though Gino's and Pat's are the most famous cheesesteak places, the quirks of each restaurant doesn't really belong in a general article on cheesesteaks. --Jayron32 05:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Philadelphia, lived here my whole life, and I'd go with not mentioning it. Philly locals don't order like that, and I hate the image the tourism market paints of the whole thing.--SexyKick 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheese steak page edits

(This discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhD&oldid=424972887 began at my talk page. As the discussion was solely about the article contents, I'm moving it here.)

Dear SummerPhd: The edits to the above page were made for the reasons given: the Olivieris did not invent the cheese steak, no matter popular attribution: the history directly above their mention establishes the sandwich existed at the end of the 19th century. They popularized it.

The edit attributing the popularity of Cheeze Whiz to Pat's introduction is not unsourced or unsupported. It simply condenses what is established elsewhere in the article. You want to trim that down to merely re-state that Pat introduced it and no more, be my guest.

The "Variations" subhead is a flytrap for all manner of variation. I had cheese steaks yesterday and today from two different places. You want me to list them, too? A cheese steak is a cheese steak: steak, cheese, onions, peppers and mushooms if you please. Going beyond that is not encyclopedic, it's fanpage stuff. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summaries do not summarize your edits. They should. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Point made. I'll endeavor to do better. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the history directly above says "The cheesesteak was developed in the early 20th century" and the sources say the Oliveris are "credited with inventing" the cheesesteak. I've made this correction again. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I find no source elsewhere in the article claiming Pat's introduced Whiz, I've added a {{cn}} tag for the moment. I've returned a reduced version of the varieties section, keeping only brief descriptions of the very common chicken cheesesteaks and pizza steaks, as sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of cheese in general and Whiz in particular has a bit of unsourced competing claims in Pat's_King_of_Steaks. Pending a source, I've removed it from this article. Further discussion re edits will go to the article talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I see you prefer a patently erroneous "sourced" claim to simple reality - as stated at the top of the History section - that the sandwich existed for some thirty to forty years before the Olivieris as credited with having "invented" it. This is preposterous, and thoroughly non-encylopedic editing. "Citing" an error does not make it so. Respectfully, Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirty to forty years (unsourced) before 1930 is no longer the "early 20th century" cited. 1930, as sourced, is. I'm moving this to the article talk page. Please respond there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, move it. I'm done with it. "1930, as sourced, is". Is what? Transparently in error. Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

1930, as sourced, is in the "early 20th century" (also cited). Your various claims, including the factually incorrect claims about what the article says ("Pat's introduction (of Whiz)... is established elsewhere in the article" and "the history directly above their mention establishes the sandwich existed at the end of the 19th century") are unsourced. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pat's did introduce whiz though...and I wouldn't even call it popular, as Pat's is just about the only cheesesteak place where whiz is the default cheese, instead of white american. Most places don't even offer whiz as a choice, just American, Provolone, and Mozzerella. You can find swiss cheese about as often as whiz. Whiz is what we use to make fun of foolish tourists.--SexyKick 09:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, at some point I'll have to take a better picture of a regular/normal cheese steak.--SexyKick 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We have used some decent sources and have tons to pick from. I get that there is some dispute but am shocked that it is a big deal. "Source A says x. Source b says z". Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Who introduced what and what is common are all moot points without reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And which source says whiz is common? I've started to ask most vendors in the street (center city Philadelphia) if they have whiz, and they don't.--SexyKick 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

While your study of Center City street vendors may someday be published as a resource on Center City street vendors, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Get it? Low brow food + high brow lit = humor. Har.) Anyway, the sources that were there covered the subject. Unfortunately, the tendency of newspapers to either kill off old web content or bury it behind a paywall have made those sources hard to get to. (Your local library can rustle them up, of course.) So, I added another source. Seems the Inquy looked into your vexation recently and placed whiz as the third most popular cheese (though a runaway favorite at some venues). In my search, I also found a number of reviews of shops outside of Philly trying to produce a Philly-style vibe (shipping in Tastykakes and such), with reviewers either pointing to the use of whiz as a sign of "authentic" or grousing about someone trying to "pass off" other cheeses in its place. Maybe it's offered mostly at spots with a decent tourist population. This would explain the food carts not bothering with the stuff. Further, food carts often don't have fries. Cheese fries with whiz seems common. If I ran a high-volume, cheesesteak heavy fast food joint, I would stop just short of encouraging whiz, as it stores well (in cans) and is easy to add after cooking (no mess on the grill, no need to cook to order). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A handful of the out of the area reviews claiming whiz is obligatory: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Actually, the last one has the guys saying whiz is for tourists, but the seem to sell a good bit of it. Frankly, I hate the stuff. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is relieving to see articles that mention those things. The sourced poll article even mentions Larry's, my personal favorite, though it's actually on 54th street (54th and City Line Ave, which 54th turns into "Old Lancaster Ave" once you pass City Line Ave, the real Lancaster Ave does not have a Larry's on it at all).--SexyKick 21:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

image

File:PatsCheesesteak.jpg is superior to File:Cheesesteak3.jpg. More detail and more common cheese. I am reverting based on BRD and precedent for the previous one even though it looks like a stupid edit war is starting.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as per our discussion and sources in the article, whiz is not the more common cheese, it's 3rd place. The picture that was in the article is much more accurate for what cheesesteaks actually look like, until Val changed it we were doing fine here with no issues. I also disagree that a picture with a sharpness filter is higher quality. We can easily add the same sharpness filter to any other picture.--SexyKick 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with SexyKick's reasoning here: the more common cheese wins. (Additionally, by not including brand-identifying trappings, it avoids unnecessarily bringing up one side of a petty local feud. The caption alone is problematic.) - SummerPhD (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiz is popular even if a poll said otherwise. I as not aware provolone was also popular but the source does not say definitively as I read it. Note the articles use of historic versions without cheese or different cheese and that it is not a "runaway favorite" which implies that it is still a favorite. That is why the article was written in the first place. It is commonly believed that it is the most popular even if it might be a misconception according to some very weak data.

• But disregarding that reasoning altogether, since this is more important: the one you suggest is not clear. The toppings are not showcased which leads to ambiguity. If you provide a picture with provolone that shows more detail then I might agree You uploaded File:Cheesesteak2.jpg but its frame is all off so it is not as quality of an image. And File:Cheesesteak1.jpg is not clearly representitive since it has extra cheese, thus not showing a common version that emphasizes one ingredient over others.
• Furthermore, I believe showing a sandwich from a shop that is discussed in the article makes sense. I understand your fear of promotion but it is a knee-jerk reaction to illustrating something discussed in the article and sources in great depth. Reducing what could be seen as promotion in the caption is fine with me even if I do not think it is 100% necessary. We should be concerned about SexyKick engaging in just as much promotion if promotion is a concern. Note the images he has uploaded say "Larry's Steaks - Home Of The Bellyfiller". Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't think about the promotional implications when I wrote that in there. I'll just delete the mention of Larry's, I was just following suit from what I saw on the Pat's/Gino's uploads.

The Philadelphia Inquirer is not a weak source by any means, and while Whiz is the most popular at Pat's and Gino's, they happen to only be two places out of thousands in the city.--SexyKick 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the summary is too over the top (it might be a good idea to remove the "Home of the..." bit.

I didn't say the source was weak. I said the poll they used provided weak data. I can find plenty of sources that back a claim that Whiz is the most popular. See The New York Times piece in the article. But that is not the only reason for the reversion. The image simply does not show the sandwich as clearly as the one you replaced. This isn't about elevating one shop over another. It is about illustrating the subject as clearly as possible. I would not disagree with it in the article but the lead image should be the one of higher quality.Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the peripheral toppings should be showcased, I don't really think we should show an open cheesesteak either, as most of the time the sandwich is closed. That's why I didn't go with cheesesteak2, which could just get a sharpness filter like the Pat's image to make it more "detailed". The Pat's picture isn't high quality just because of a sharpness filter, if anything that makes it tacky, and as the lead picture is extremely misleading, since out of nearly all cheesesteaks I've eaten in my life, none of them looked like that (and I've lived in Philadelphia my entire life, and it's one of my favorite foods to be clear).--SexyKick 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear, I don;t mean additional toppings. I just meant the cheese and meat. I do disagree that the sharpness does not make it superior. I think the sharpness and frame make it much better. The closed v open argument makes sense. However, an image you uploaded (I put it in the cheese section already) is an example of how the camera getting a better angle of the inside of the sandwich makes it a more descriptive image.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel about this? I think it is Provolone (it could be white American?). It has an angle that I think is superior to the others. The clarity is good enough for me if it makes a compromise possible.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel too good about that one either. Cheese goes under the steak, unless there's extra cheese specifically requested on top. We don't want to perpetuate the "upside down Boston cheesesteak" (an actual thing that exists at a random Boston corner store deli called Alexander's, that picture looks just like it). We should keep with Cheesesteak3 for now.--SexyKick 01:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You are now edit warring. And if you consider the first removal a revert (it did alter someone else's) then you are officially in violation of 3/rr. I am at 3 but have not crossed the line. I would prefer to simmer down and not think that way though.

I have reverted until you come up with another idea or seek further dispute resolution. Simply hitting revert over and over won't cut it. You have not sufficiently refuted the argument that the image you took is not as good as the one already in. You have instead jumped primarily on the which cheese is better argument. You can tell from the sources alone that is not a good argument since both are common (Cheeze Whiz is so common that a contrary article had to be taken with a single unscientific poll as "proof"). I don't care which cheese is shown. I don't care which shop gets a word in. I do care that your image is not good enough.

Instead of edit warring, you can take a better picture tomorrow or we can even open an RFC with multiple images up for discussion. Stop reverting since it is lame (I'm doing it too!). We can wait a couple days to come to the best solution.

And why was a second picture removed. It is common for multiple images to be in an article especially when it pairs with the text and is inline with the MoS. Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, since Summer concurred with me...and since it's still the most accurate image we have, your opinion of it being "not good enough" is not shared, and is even mirrored with my opinion of the current picture. I don't know why the second picture was removed, but I agree we don't need more than one in the article since there is a link to the commons gallery.--SexyKick 06:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

His opinion was based on the cheese thing. I offered an image with white cheese. He actually kept the image when it was reverted but adjusted the caption. You then decided to make it about how the cheese is loaded. If your argument is how the cheese is loaded you need to look at the images you provided since they are similar. I don't know why you are moving the needed goals around. There has been sufficient reasoning given to you as to why your image was not good enough. I failed to say that it actually looks like a some junk in some smooshed bread (I believe it tastes good but am just saying what it looks like). That is just as good of a reason. It looks so poor that it detracts from the article. Instead of edit warring in your preferred picture (that you took and that contains marketing in the edit summary) you should take the opportunity to get a better image or open an RFC instead of edit warring. And if you do not understand that it is common to illustrate articles then you need to go look at some FAs. There was room to add in one of the images you actually took. For you to prefer not using it since it did not get top billing is something not een worth discussing. Go look at the MoS. So do you want to open an RfC or should I do it for you? Neither of us can revert anymore withou getting blocked so I assume you will be up for that option.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The "just as much promotion" argument is, on the face of it, absurd. A photo with a brand name in the photo and in the file name (and the caption added with it) is clearly far more promotional than one that merely includes the name of the shop in the file description. (Adding the mutually beneficial feud mentioned in this article amplifies this concern.)

That one or the other looks "smooshed" is a bad argument. While I understand the desire for "good looking" images, most cheesesteaks are served rather rapidly. As a result, they're often served somewhat sloppily (we really should replace that photo at Big Mac to reflect what a real Big Mac looks like...).

Toppings... whatever. Every sandwich article I could think to check shows the sandwich closed (not "open face") as that is how they are eaten. A somewhat disheveled photo is more realistic. (Ever get one to go? They look like hell.)

As for the budding edit war, the process is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, discuss, undo revert...". While you are both in the wrong, the first misstep was returning the "new" image.

Of the images currently available, I !vote for the File:Cheesesteak3.jpg image. This is based on the cheese (as sourced, over opinion), the promotional aspects of File:PatsCheesesteak.jpg and a few trivialities. If a "better" photo is uploaded later, we can certainly discuss it at that time. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I second the vote for File:Cheesesteak3.jpg--SexyKick 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're done voting?--SexyKick 03:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not voting. a "!vote" is a "not-a-vote". As you two have had a bit of an edit war on this, I'm not touching it for a few days, to allow for cooling off and any additional comments. Failing any policy/guideline based discussion to the contrary, though, I'm switching the images back in a few days (unless anyone else takes action first, of course). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this massive edit war that was sparked due to my revert. Just to put in my two cents, the current picture is not descriptive, in fact one can barely tell what type of sandwich this is. The meat and cheese is barely shown. Whiz and American are the primary choice not provolone. Some may argue that American is more popular than Whiz, however in Philly whiz is still considered primary. Regardless the Pat's photo is vastly more detailed and accurate of a Cheesesteak than the Larry's photo. Valoem ^talk 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: [7] This citation shows that Whiz is in fact the primary choice in Philly. Nowhere have I ever seen provolone as the main choice (not saying people don't request it). Also suggesting that only Geno and Pat's uses cheese whiz is completely false. Tony Luke's and Jim's have Whiz as their primary choice for customers. Steve's also offers it therefore the cheese argument does not hold. Secondly unlike Tomato pies vs pizza how cheese is put on a cheesesteak is not defined. Some places do put cheese last, although I am aware that most do not. Valoem ^talk 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The "cheese is barely shown" but the "wrong" cheese is a concern? As for provolone being the "wrong" cheese, you provide GPTMC's flat statement that "Generally, the cheese of choice is Cheez Whiz, but American and provolone are also common choices." as an indication that Whiz Is The Way. The Inquy article cited, however, offers data specifically aimed at that flat claim (for the record, I rarely indulge but I choose American). To this you add that Peno's/Gat's, Tony Luke's and Jim's have Whiz "as their primary choices" (whatever that means, there are certainly shops that don't offer Whiz at all). Whatever. IMO, we need a photo that does not promote anyone, especially a side in the little tourist spat at 9th and Passyunk. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually responding to your claim "the most common cheese wins" by showing that based on that guideline American and Whiz are more common. Regardless, SexyKick's defense of the current image shows some bias as he took the image himself. I neutrally believe that the Pat's image is clear and better portrays a cheesesteak. I have not seen any solid defense of the current image and it seems that the consensus is in favor of Pat's image. I will do a bold restore if there are no issues while avoiding any promotion. Valoem ^talk 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How does Pats picture better portray a cheesesteak if 90% of the cheesesteaks from other resturants, food carts, and elsewhere in the country look completely different???--SexyKick 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Who said they look completely different? Do you have a citation providing this claim? Here is a list of cheesesteak images [8] each of them provide a better picture than the one on the article and look completely different. Valoem ^talk 18:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I found this picture to be the most accurate from the google results. You have to keep in mind that most sites are going to try to make this appear overly elegant and high class, when in reality the sandwhich looks most like the one pictured in the article. No one wants to profile a picture from some common cart or random Philadelphia pizza place, but I think this article should profile the common Philadelphia cheesesteak, not the tourist trap Philadelphia nonsense. I can assure you, most people in Philadelphia laugh at tourists who buy into that "wit whiz" lunacy.--SexyKick 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I didnt replace the Pat's image was because the logo is in fact image and therefore would be a promotion. I am personally a fan of Tony Luke's and Jim's, but I found this image File:Cheesesteak1.jpg to be much better so hopefully we agree. Valoem ^talk 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't agree, but I guess I'm going to need to take some more pictures since half of you demand an open faced picture and I regret that special order.--SexyKick 15:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am staying away from which is "right" and which is "wrong" in regards to cheese. The whole matter is wholly subjective, thus cannot be claimed by any means by anyone. It should only described as being a matter of opinion, as it is now in the article.

In regards to the matter of the picture, the image proposed by Valoem is much better in regards to composition over the second image. I think we should stay with the Pat's image and note what it is in the description of the image. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

i recently moved here to philadelphia, and ive never heard of whiz on a steak and cheese yet. Whenever I order one from a pizza place or lunch truck they come with american cheese. It never even occured to me to ask for other cheese. I think the current picture looks more like a steak and cheese (or cheesesteak lol) which i have received recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YifferFox (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)