Talk:Steak sandwich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This must be a regional thing[edit]

Where I come from (upper Midwest US), a "steak sandwich" refers to an actual steak on a bun; the type of sandwich described here might be called a cheesesteak (despite the lack of cheese) or a Philly steak sandwich. 65.190.6.86 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I feel like I've had that before somewhere, and didn't really like it much actually as I seem to recall struggling to be able to actually bite through the darn thing. But either way, any more info, especially a photo, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! BillyTFried (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Places I've visited that offer that sort of steak sandwich typically offer it open-faced; you eat it with a knife and fork. Biting through a whole piece of steak is a bit impractical! 1995hoo (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While reviewing sources, I read that one of the differences between Geno's and Pat's is that one of them has a tighter sandwich to ensure that it is not eaten open face style. one of the guys si (don't recall which) is pretty proud of that.Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this similar to what you're referring to? BillyTFried (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chivito (sandwich)

Closed proposed merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Discussion


These articles should be merged as they are about essentially the same thing. Cheesesteak, Italian beef, French dip sandwich, and Steak sandwich. BillyTFried (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

A French dip Steak Sandwich
A cheese Steak Sandwich
An Italian beef Steak Sandwich
A Steak Sandwich
A Wagyu Steak Sandwich
A roast beef Steak Sandwich

Discussion[edit]

  • Oppose - I completely disagree, they're nothing alike --especially the two I'm most familiar with, French dips (from Philippe's and Cole's) as well as cheesesteaks (from Pat's and Jim's). These aren't merely different names for the same thing. --Bobak (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)This comment copied from the Talk:French dip sandwich page. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. What is the difference? The type of cheese? Just because they put Cheese Whiz on it in Phily doesn't make it a whole different sandwich. Also, how does adding a side of gravy/au jus make it different? They are variants on this sandwich. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By that logic, there's no regional differences in any food: how about chow mein, Lo mein, Yakisoba and Spaghetti --heck, a ribeye and a filet mignon are both just meats from a cow. I don't think anyone who's had a French dip sandwich from Philippe's and a cheesesteak from Pat's could ever agree merging those two. It's a well-meaning but misguided idea (or perhaps including the French dip is an au jus too far?). --Bobak (talk)
  • Support — Steak sandwich is the encyclopædic title for the article about hot sliced beef on bread. The differences (type of bread, type of seasoning to the beef, type of cheese, name of variant) are best handled sectionally in Steak sandwich. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comment - The cheesesteak, Italian beef and French dip sandwiches all have sliced (or chopped) beef in common. I can see them in one article. However, as noted in the first section of this Talk page, there is the other "steak sandwich" common in US steakhouses, composed of a steak served on (or in) bread. I added a photo of such a "steak sandwich" to the collection of photos above, by way of example. See also this page [1] from the lunch menu at Taylor's, a fifty-plus-year-old steakhouse in Los Angeles: in the "Luncheon" section, the "Thick Steak Sandwich" is described as a "broiled top sirloin." (Forgive the self-research, but it consists of a small, whole steak served on top of a piece of garlic bread, accompanied by chips (fries) somewhat similar to the "Wagyu steak sandwich" in the photo above.) Geoff T C 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Thanks for the comment. I agree with you. So I take it you Support the merge right? The main article for Steak sandwich should have subsections for Italian beef, Cheesesteaks, and whole beef steak sandwiches like you described as well. There should also be a section for Roast beef sandwiches too, which get no treatment on Wikipedia at all right now other than a redirect to this page. It's also possible that French Dip would fall under that sub section. I've added a pic for that as well. BillyTFried (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Yes, and I've edited my comment to Support/Comment. Assuming we can get consensus for a 'grand, unified steak sandwich' article - there seems to be a general preference across en:wiki for stand-alone articles in many cases. But something like you suggest might just work. Trying to think like someone looking up 'steak sandwich' in an encyclopedia, it seems to me that one article with subsections for the major types would work the best, assuming the various types/names redirected to the 'grand' article. Geoff T C 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The steak sandwich article should certainly mention the different kinds and cover them appropriately per a broad article. But a French dip and a philly cheesesteak are most definitely not the same thing. Throwing together subjects with different history, cultural significance, and that aren't the same thing gets very confusing. Please don't mix these things together because some of the ingredients are similar. Independent notability is very well established ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - So if I ask for melted cheese on my French Dip and no side of au jus gravy what do I get? Or if I dip a steak sandwich or an Arby's roast beef sandwich in a small bowl of beef gravy, then what is it? BillyTFried (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should have just one article for pies. After all. If I mix together an apple with a cherry pie, and drop it into a rhubarb pie, what do I get? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This proposal really surprises me. There is no possible way one can make the claim that the Philly Cheese Steak and and the French Dip are one in the same thing. Might just as easily say that we should only have one "sandwich" article or one "book" article. There is a glorious array of steak sandwiches, just as there are a glorious array of books for us to read, and each of them, if meeting notability requirements, deserves to have its own Wiki article.P.S. those pictures are making me hungry. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I never claimed that the Philly Cheese Steak and French Dip are one and the same thing. They are just variations of the same main sandwich called Steak Sandwich, which also includes roast beef sandwiches, as well as whole steak version, and maybe others. BillyTFried (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I had a feeling the French Dip might be a sticking point for some, but I would appreciate if those who are expressing opposition to merging that sandwich also address the others too. I would bet most would not argue against the nearly identical Steak sandwich, Cheesesteak, and Italian beef being merged. BillyTFried (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I would wholeheartedly contend that those three sandwiches are most certainly not nearly identical. Your French Dip example was a poor one, but I don't think your argument becomes any stronger when these other varieties of sandwich are proffered instead. JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, please explain exactly how my arguments are Poor instead of just claiming they are. And I have restored the "Be Civil" tag that you removed just before calling my example Poor without backing that up in any way. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it's self-evident that these are separate sandwiches, each with its own peculiar history, and each deserving of separate articles and indeed each having separate articles. Given that the separate articles exist, I'd suggest that the burden is on you to prove that they should be merged. The people who favor the status quo don't have any obligation to argue that they should be separate articles. It is not as if there was one article and some editors decided to write forks. If you disagree with the consensus that appears to be forming I imagine that you could list those articles for deletion, but my hunch is that you would not succeed in that endeavor. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken in your assertion that I have not presented my arguments for the merge quite clearly. I have done so. Then you responded that they were poor. And then never backed up you assertion in anyway. When you say that a persons arguments are "Poor" then the onus of proving so clearly lies on you for making that claim. BillyTFried (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a link to your arguments? All I see is a sentence at the top of this section: "These articles should be merged as they are about essentially the same thing," and your responses to the opposes, none of which are convincing. If that is all you have, I don't think your proposal will succeed. As I said, the burden is on you to convince others. The people who oppose you on this are under no obligation to talk you out of your opinion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Philly has a reputation and story that are worthy or a separate article (not from there and not in the industry). The article needs improvement but seems of decent length to be independent. It looks like the others have some history as well even though they don't come across as note worthy to me personally. The articles aren't just about the ingredients.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while fixing the citations in the Cheesesteak article, I came across an interesting line They began selling the concoctions at their hot dog stand near south Philadelphia's Italian Market. They became so popular that Pat opened up his own cheesesteak restaurant in 1930. This restaurant still operates today as Pat's King of Steaks. The restaurant's website calls the preparation a "steak sandwich" (not a "cheesesteak"). So if one of the most famous cheesesteak places in Philly calls it a steak sandwich, what does that say about the article? Also, it appears that Philliy is where the sandwich gained notoriety, and if merged, that would be the contained in the history of the sandwich. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The website also calls it a Philly Steak and cheesesteak so if anything it shows they are inconsistent and that they are in Philadelphia. Will more readers from out of the area looking for it google some variation of "Philly cheesecake" or "steak sandwich" when looking for this one in particular? It has become iconic for some people (not me, I like muffulettas) and merging it into a subsection is not needed especially when considering that its note worthiness can support an independent article. If anything there should be a small subsection in steak sandwich with a further/more/main section tag to it.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I did not read the whole arguments yet for TLDR, but Philly cheese steak is clearly different from other sandwiches, so unless I can find valid points for merge, I can not agree with the whole sale merge.--Caspian blue 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They aren't really the same thing, with different heritages that merit their own article. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion break[edit]

I have a better suggestion, lets do this like the hamburger and cheeseburger articles. The main article will be steak sandwich with a link in it to the cheese steak sandwich article. I would also make a suggestion to rename it steak and cheese sandwich per WP:Common name, but that is secondary and could be the subject to a later debate. The cheese steak article itself needs a major rewrite per my comments on its talk page, the most central would be that it should not be an article about Philly and its culture, it should be an article about a sandwich with origins in Philly. See the table below for my idea. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed format of articles:

Steak sandwich Cheesesteak
Will have the following articles:
  • Just a thought - A while ago, I looked up the town I grew up in, Middlesex, New Jersey, and noticed it made no mention of the WWII Atom Bomb Uranium Processing Site that was there and the resultant soil contamination. So I added a whole section on that myself using a government source. But recently I noticed someone did something to it called WP:Transclusion where they broke off that section into its own article called Middlesex Sampling Plant that now automatically feeds to that section like some kind of include file. If any content changes on one page it automatically changes on the other. Does anyone have any experience or opinions on this? My view is that the Middlesex page should absolutely have a section on the Uranium Site, but I have no problem with it also having its own page. Likewise I think there is no doubt that the article called Steak Sandwich should have section on Cheese steaks, but also leave open the option for it to have its own page as well via WP:Transclusion. Make sense? BillyTFried (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, I decided to WP:Be bold and go ahead and make this change. I hope everyone finds it to be a workable solution. BillyTFried (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

Let's say I go to the store and buy some thin sliced beef and some oblong bread roles to serve my guests some sandwiches.

Guest A asks for his pan fried with no peppers and no cheese. A plain Steak sandwich.
Guest B asks for hers sauteed with peppers and juice dripped on it. An Italian beef.
Guest C asks for his roasted with a side of beef gravy for dipping in. A French dip.
Guest D asks for the same thing as Guest A with melted cheese. A Cheese steak.

All of my guests got the same thing. A Steak sandwich And regardless of the minor variations or differing names that go along with them, they should all be listed under the same article. If I am mistaken please explain how. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you're demonstrating is that there are minor variations between distinct and notable dishes, each with its own history and each, in my opinion, warranting the separate article that currently exists for each.
Let's see what, if anything, others have to say.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern would be the length of the merged article and how well developed each variation section would be. If you look at omlette or scrambled egg articles, there is just a small description for each variation. I would hate that a merged page would become a edit warground with editiors for each regional variation trying to outdo the other in scope and length on whose version is "Best" or "Correct". Shinerunner (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I succefully merged Hoagie, Hero sandwich, Grinder sandwich, and Submarine sandwich, and that article has not suffered such a fate, despite some very heated debate prior to the merge. BillyTFried (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These food don't share the same ingredients, don't have the same history and culture surrounding them, aren't made the same way, and aren't served the same way. But they do all include meat. Should we merge in carne asada too? And maybe we should merge the whole thing to the beef article? These are just variations on serving it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, please correct me, the previous merge seemed to be a difference in regional names for the same dish. I think that perhaps it's the origin for each variation that is the sticking point for this merge. If the origins were well referenced and explained, not to the point of an advertisement, I don't see a problem with a merge.Shinerunner (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have favored a merger of grinder, etc. etc. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I have over four guests of my own and decide I'm going to serve them pasta in red sauce. Guest A requests that his pasta be long and thin, Guest B requests that it be hollow, short, and cylindrical, Guest C wants his corkscrew-shaped, and Guest D is Tucker Carlson and wants his pasta to look like little bow-ties. I cook the pasta to their specifications and serve. Now, most people would say my guests are eating pretty similar dishes, with only superficial differences. Yet all these types of pasta have a different page because they're fundamentally different in a basic way. They are quite like these steak sandwiches, which are all distinct variations on a similar idea, each meriting its own page. Thedarkpenguin (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Counter arguments-
  • CoM - they contain sliced, fried beef with different condiments. Your argument is akin to saying a cheeseburger on a bulkie roll with cheddar cheese, lettuce and tomato is a totally different sandwich from a cheeseburger on toast with American cheese, bacon and pickles. Your assertion that we would need to include carne asada is spurious at best as it is a different dish served in a completely different manner.
  • Shinerunner - The argument here is that these are variants on a type of sandwich. According to one of the first cheesesteak restaurants in Philly, Pat's King of Steak, the cheesesteak is a steak sandwich. It appears that somewhere along the line other restaurants changed the name for one reason or another - most likely as a marketing ploy.
  • JohnnyB - When we have a food and drink article that lists variants on a particular dish, it is the responsibility of the contributors to the article to populate the variants with as much information as they can. If they choose to only put a small blurb in, that is their choice. If you choose not to expand on that, that is your choice.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 18:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, I've never edited any of the articles that would be merged, and only learned about this in the Food and Drink Wikiproject. I think that its well settled that proponents of mergers need to make their case, and that the burden is not on defenders of the status quo to describe why the articles on French Dip etc. are valid. Actually, these articles strike me as being very well done and useful, far larger than would seem apropos for a merger. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Jeremy, I think that I stated in my comment that all are variants of a type of sandwich. What source do you have that shows the creators of Italian Beef or the French Dip, for example, were ever in Philadelphia or were competitors of Pat's? The French Dip was developed in 1918 and the cheesteak at Pat's in the 1930s. It is more likely that they are just ethnic/regional developements of a similar dish. Shinerunner (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staying focused[edit]

I fear the wording of the proposal has caused unintended offence. Let's all please take a few deep breaths, siddown and have a cuppa tea (or whatever you're drinking) and remember that this is not a referendum on the validity of any or all cultural or regional variations on the theme of beef sandwiches. They're all valid. They're all delicious. They all have interesting histories and proud devotees. None of that is up for debate here, because all of it will remain true whether the individual single-sandwich articles are kept or they're brought together into one article.

What we're trying to decide is whether we can most encyclopædically treat these various types of beef sandwich in a grand unified article. I think we can. I think it's the most encyclopædic way to do it, for it will make it easier for us to describe the similarities and differences among the different types of beef sandwich, and their evolution and cultural heritage relative to one another, without awkwardness or clunkiness.

Another thing to consider: over the years I've put in a good amount of work at Automotive lighting. Please go take a look at the table of contents, and notice all the different devices handled in that one article. Many of them had their own separate articles, but were merged into the one big article, and one thing I noticed was that the pace and degree of improvement and expansion really quickened noticeably after the merges. It's simple mathematics, really; bringing all these beef sandwiches together into one article — each with its own section, of course! — will mean more readers seeing each photo and each bit of text, and more readers means more editors, and more editors means more contributions, and generally that's to the good. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've ever come into contact with any of these articles, as I am responding to a notice in Wikiproject Food & Drink. So I have no personal investment one way or the other on either side of the issue. However, examining the individual articles on French Dip and such, each showing the distinctiveness of each variation, it's hard for me to find much basis for a merger. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge direction?[edit]

Er, has everyone noticed that BillyTFried has implemented a proposed solution by placing links in the Steak sandwich article to each of the other articles, making Steak sandwich a kind of compendium with more details available in the linked articles, as is a common practice throughout en:wiki? Does the group accept that solution or do we need to keep discussing a complete merger of all the articles? I'm happy with Billy's solution as it seems to provide the benefits of merging while allowing the separate articles to remain. All the articles can use some more work, of course, but can we move on and close the merge discussion? Geoff T C 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's sensible. Allows articles on notable subjects to be expanded and covers them broadly in the main topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles[edit]

The articles are not the appropriate place to try to prove your argument that they should be merged.Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesesteak[edit]

We do not need this uch info about the cheesesteak here since it has its own article. A paragrahph or to with the further info tag is sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I first did the WP:Transclusion there was only brief mention, but since all the work that was done to the Cheesesteak page, the "closing" transclusion tag has been screwed up. I'll fix it now. BillyTFried (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be done as a transclusion, You should be doing it in summary style. Just nit-picking... --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither article is complete without acknowledging Lehigh Valley (PA) Italian-style steaks and cheesesteaks topped with marinara or other tomato-based sauce. The rest of the country was ignorant until the late 80s and now thinks Philly had the ONLY authentic sandwich due to prejudicial promotion. 173.64.111.235 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roast beef-based sandwiches?[edit]

I have never heard any of these roast beef-based sandwiches (roast beef, Italian beef or French dip) referred to as a "steak sandwich." I have only ever heard that term applied to cheesesteaks and other sandwiches made using steak that meets the definition given in the first paragraph of the article ("broiled, fried, grilled, barbecued or seared"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.68 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by tag[edit]

This article has recently been tagged with the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

yet the tagger has left no sign here on the talk page of what items he or she believes need sourcing. I will remove it until such time as the tagger gives us some guidance here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steak_sandwich&oldid=1203050153"