Talk:Enormous Omelet Sandwich
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enormous Omelet Sandwich redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Let's be honest there is no reason to have two seperate articles on essentially the same thing.. EnsRedShirt 11:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, but the Meat'normous should go into the Enormous article as a variant not the other way around. That is how BK treats the Meat'Normous. Jerem43 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed changed the Merge headers as such. EnsRedShirt 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep two separate articles as they are two separate sandwiches. --Mrath 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the recent edits in this section, your reasoning is flawed:
On fast food restaurants with breakfast menus:
- There are only about a half dozen major QSR (Quick Serve Restaurants, industry parlance for fast food) chains that provide breakfast
- McD's and BK are the only two truly national chains that offer breakfast, Wendy's has yet to expand their breakfast line nationally.
- Other chains such as Jack-in-the-Box, Sonic, Carls Jr. and Hardees do not have the national presence, but do compete in the QSR market regionally.
In regards to breakfast sandwiches:
- There are only about four or five articles on competitive breakfast sandwiches, so only those articles that exist can be listed.
- The See also, Breakfast products from other vendors: is a sampling of other providers, not every product from every restaurant in the US that serves breakfast.
While there are easily be 5000 possible breakfast foods, and listing them as per your initial argument, would make the article unwieldy argument has flaws. It is only a sampling, limited to specific competitive products from the direct QSR competitors. Is adding a list all of Kellogg's breakfast cereals because people eat that for breakfast necessary? No, while Kellogg's does make breakfast products, they are not a restaurant chain. Does Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast need to be included? No, because Denny's is not a QSR chain, and neither are Friendly's, Waffle House, Big Boy et al (they are considered Family Style Restaurants in industry parlance).
Apples to apples, oranges to oranges is what it comes down to
To have a NPOV does not require you to provide every possible combination of every possible vendor with every possible combination of product. To provide a sampling of products from appropriate competitors is unto itself a NPOV, as you acknowledge the competitors and show that they have comparable products.
Jerem43 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's an article about this particular sandwich. I don't see links to burger king products on McDonalds sandwiches, and neither should there be. This is an encyclopedia, not a consumer guide to food. I feel to have links to a rival's product on any kind of product-related article is wrong, unless the comparison itself has been the focus of interest and coverage. DrumCarton 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen references on other articles to competitors products, I believe. I will look and see. Jerem43 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Naming and trademarks
"Burger [King] currently does not have any trademarks on the name Enormous Omelet Sandwich or its variants in the US and Canada" - I might be missing some context here, but why is this important? If there aren't any secondary sources remarking on it, that suggests it's not worth documenting. (Using trademark office search results seems like we're interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source beyond what "any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" would be able to discern.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trademarks are an intrinsic part of any product, they are legal components that help position a product. Violations can force the company to remove the product from the market. This has happened twice in the past few years to Burger King products, the "Hamlette" sandwich and their version of the snack wrap - both of which forced them to withdraw advertising and rebrand the products, which cost them a good deal of money.
- Trademark issues have also historically prevented them from doing business in Mattoon, Illinois and parts of Texas. See the Lanham Act, Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) and Burger King legal issues#Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:PRIMARY, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - although you are rightly avoiding giving any context to the reader about how this may lead to trademark issues and violations, in the absence of secondary sources, we should not present this fact as being significant (or even true) on the sole grounds that you personally believe that these two searches definitely prove an absence of trademarks, and that this is significant to an encyclopedic understanding of the product. --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)