Talk:White Castle (restaurant)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink / Foodservice (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States / Ohio (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

White Castle as the "Official Food of the Kansas City Royals".[edit]

I think that White Castle should be the "Official Food of the Kansas City Royals". My reasoning is that the shield logo for the Royals has a castle motif. That's why White Castle would be a good identifier with the "white castle" identified with the Royals. It could possibly increase product awareness (via television) and increase sales.

Cliff Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.245.201 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What's that have to do with the Wikipedia article on the subject? (And why would White Castle pay for sponsorship rights to a team in a city in which they have no restaurants?)
Nateji77 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

5 Holes[edit]

Came across a different date for the introduction of the holes: "1949: The use of a five-holed hamburger patty begins, speeding the cooking time and eliminating flipping." [1]

But then:

"As both labor and meat prices crept upward, the company scrambled to find a way to cut costs. In 1951, the home office leadership decided to take the unprecedented step of trimming the size of its hamburger patty from one to eight-tenths of an ounce, effectively getting two additional patties from each pound of ground beef. To achieve this reduction in size, White Castle made its square patty thinner and bored its distinctive five holes in the meat.

Originally proposed on an anonymous employee suggestion sheet in 1947 by Cincinnati operator Earl Howell, this five-hole concept was slow to catch the attention or interest of company officials. But when White Castle finally "downsized" its patty in 1951, it publicly touted the inclusion of the holes as a way to make the meat cook faster, in less than a minute, while also allowing more steam and juices into the bun on top. Billy Ingram praised this new innovation for its speed and efficiency.The publicized rationale was accurate, as the patty did cook faster, but the main purpose for the five holes was to use 10 percent less meat--while still charging the same price as before.

… Few customers either noticed or cared about the smaller size. … Within a few months, all the White Castle areas has adopted this new patty … Almost immediately after the introduction of the patties with holes, the government lifted its price ceilings on retail food" (Hogan, Selling 'em by the Sack, pp.117-118)

But then "In 1949, an employee named Earl Howell calculated the amount of time that it took to break hamburgers apart in a presentable fashion, eventually leading him to create the perforated burger." from the History of the hamburger article. Looks like the source is Ingram's All this from a 5-cent hamburger (which I haven't read). Hogan's source is a copy of the original suggestion sheet on file at the Ohio State Historical Society. Nateji77 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposal. Although the proposed topic clearly gets the most pageviews, which is a good reason to move a page, the lack of international recognition for the proposed topic is an equally legitimate reason to maintain the status quo. bd2412 T 17:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

– I'm rather sure that the restaurant chain is the primary topic based on page views alone. All other pages on the disambiguation page have at max about 20 views in any given day in the last 30 days, whereas the restaurant has around 600 views on its most viewed day, and the rest of the days in that range are at least 100. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I think that it is fairly helpful that the search listing reads, "White Castle (restaurant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Gregkaye 13:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
add: Oppose as per WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." Gregkaye 12:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I was leaning towards oppose but Google Books supports the fast-food chain as Primary Topic [2]. Zarcadia (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – a restaurant chain is not more imporant than all the other uses; this is what disambig pages are for. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is clearly the primary topic. Add a {{other uses}} hatnote and move this to the title. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 13:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The castle in Wales is extremely significant. Nobody outside the US is likely to have heard of the restaurant chain (I know I haven't). No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The restaurant chain has 40 times as many page views as the castle in Wales, which is only viewed about 12 times a day. I don't doubt that the castle is significant enough to have an article, but the restaurant chain is clearly the primary topic with respect to usage. Meanwhile, the restaurant chain is also significant for historical and educational reasons: the chain is older than McDonald's, is connected to the popularization of sliders, has its own historic buildings on the National Register of Historic Places (White Castle Building No. 8), and appears prominently in cultural production. Dekimasuよ! 08:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As someone who has never heard of the castle in Wales, (as someone outside of the UK would obviously noovt likely to have heard of a castle in wales..) White Castle the chain restaurant is the obvious primary topic. There are movies made about it, it is a huge part of American culture, as opposed to a castle in Wales, which has little to no influence on the culture of Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support of course; primary topic by page views. Red Slash 01:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per Gregkaye, and Necrothesp (i.e. that "White Castle" the restaurant is only a potential "primary topic" in the U.S., not in the rest of the English-speaking world). --IJBall (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support largely per the argument put forth by Dekimasu. Additionally, comments that simply say that something is significant (or "extremely significant") without bothering to explain why is it significant aren't really saying anything at all and should be given as much weight as WP:Clearly notable comments are over at AfD.. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. I'm admittedly surprised at the impressive claims to cultural significance made at White Castle (restaurant) and also at White Castle Building No. 8, fascinating stuff, but on the other hand it's not even a national chain, let alone now represented in any other country (pity... I'd like to try them). Now look at the DAB... blue links to two castles, a small town, a whisky... the fact that Americans generally have heard of the hamburgers and not the castles is not surprising, but this is Wikipedia for all English speakers. Best left as is unless there's a lot more evidence than we have so far. Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's not even a national chain; even in the USA, for many the only significance would be having heard the name in a movie. Also, the DAB page only averages 40 views; even if all those were seeking the restaurant (which is unlikely, but without tracking of page clicks it can't be shown one way or the other) that small number of DAB hits suggests that not many people looking for the restaurant chain are landing at the DAB by mistake. From a world-wide usage perspective, the restaurant certainly wouldn't be a primary topic; and from a world-wide long-term significance, the restaurant would not be a primary topic. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The restaurant is certainly the primary topics in Canada, which is understandable given geographical proximity. That being said, I'm curious as to what areas of the English speaking work other than the UK that the castle in wales would be primary topic, and if it's even the more common topic in the UK. So I ran the a news search result through Google.co.uk for sources only in the UK. The result shows a preference for the restaurant, with 215 hits for the restuarant[3] and 55 for the castle[4]. For news result on Google India for India only (in English), 36 hits for the restaurant[5] and none for the castle[6]. Pretty much the same thing in South Africa[7][8]. So with that in mind, I'd like to see some demonstration from those opposing to show that the castle in wales is in fact more prominent by some method other than simply saying so.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: Good work and reasonable request, and you have me thinking (but no change of vote as yet). One quibble though... my reason for opposing is not that I believe that there's another primary meaning (such as the castle in wales) but rather that there is none. Evidence to support the move doesn't just need to show that meaning of the restaurant chain is more prominent than this one other, but rather that it's more prominent than all other meanings, taken together. Or that's how I read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Andrewa (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. Nobody is arguing the Welsh castle is the primary topic, just that there isn't one. The restaurant chain may be the primary topic in North America, but that's irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Long Island White Castle?"[edit]

Which Long Island White Castle? I'm not familiar with the show Impractical Jokers, so I can't correct this. But I live on Long Island, and there are at least 4 locations that I know of (and probably more) on Long Island: East Massapequa, Brentwood, Centereach, and Commack. 2001:470:1F07:383:104A:268B:AD61:6E59 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)