Talk:In-N-Out Burger products

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)

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)

Are there any other wiki pages with detailed restaurant menus? The McDonald's entry as of this moment has seven lines on its products. Burressd (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

All moved. Drew (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?

Unless someone can bother to elaborate on how those two sections are unencyclopedic I don't see any reason to label them as such. SirBob42 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The section "Ordering an In-N-Out Burger" violates WP:NOTGUIDE and probably WP:NOTADVERTISING. And the section "The Secret menu" similarly fails WP:NOTGUIDE. This page has been subject to AfD twice in the past, and in both cases, the information contained in these sections were the primary complaints by the nominators and those who suggested deletion. I've labeled the sections as such rather than starting a third AfD because I feel the article and subject has some merit per the arguments in the last AfD. However, the concerns addressed there and in the comment by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) have not been fully addressed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I didn't know about all of the variations. Leave it be! 66.159.210.127 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that In-N-Out has a "secret" menu should be kept as it is part of the In-N-Out culture but it seems that it would better to not list all of the items on the secret menu and provide a link to reference the secret menu for those that are interested. 151.112.127.22 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

NO mention of road kill fries? they're french fries with ketchup and chopped hamburger patty. 98.224.80.87 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is horrible

I have worked on most fast food burger articles on WP and this one is one of the worst.

Problems include:

• This thing reads like a company brochure - WP:Notadvertising (as above)
• Weasel words abound.
• Massive redundancy, much of the contents is duplicated or triplicated
• It is overly explanatory - we do not need to explain every possible drink combo or variety. The majority of readers already know what a root beer float is, and if they don't that is what a Wikilink is for. (Root beer float) This goes across the entire article

I just copy edited this and will work on it some more. If it goes below 25K, I am renominating it for deletion. And in case you didn't know, I helped develop this article. Its creator used my input and knowledge from the BK and McD's menu items articles when creating it. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome- glad to see someone experienced take a hand here. I wasn't comfortable gutting it myself so I had tagged and tried to discuss, as above. Also... you said if it goes below 25K you'd re-nom? The version before you started was about 14.7K. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Supposed to be 2.5 kb.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited this beast and it is now about half the size it was before. I cleaned out all of the redundancies, ad-speak and POV comments. Lets keep it this way please. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done- the one thing I'd like to see though is a bolded article title per WP:LEAD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I guess one wouldn't be necessary- I'm just saying it'd be nice (with an adjustment to the page name to facilitate it) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I included the grain-fed part; but, please feel free to place the sentence elsewhere, or reword, but please keep the substance present on this site, as it is something many people wouldn't know without calling the hotline.(utc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.210.10 (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:InNOut.svg

The image Image:InNOut.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

John 3:16

I can not believe that this article has nothing about the bible verse on the cups and fry boats. I came on wiki to see why they are there and there is no mention of them. I would add it but I know nothing about why they are there. Chexmix53 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's more about them on the main In-N-Out page, since they're not specifically relating to the food and drink themselves. 74.236.79.85 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

#11

I went to the In N Out burger in Salinas, CA and tried to order a "#11" and the person working the register had no clue what I was asking. When I said add pickle to my double double she knew that. I did ask her if a #11 exist and she said she never heard of it. Has anyone been able to order a #11 or is able to cite a #11 exist? If not, it should be removed. Chad.hutchins (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are Yukon fries for real?

Someone added that to the secret menu--never heard of it. Can anyone confirm Yukon Fries? Rsjaffe (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No reason to include links to Burger King and McDonald's products

Someone added links to the Burger King products and McDonald's products pages, but it seems to me that (a) there's no reason to do so, and (b) if one does that, links should also be included to other popular burger restaurants (Wendy's, Carl's Jr....) --tgeller (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Secret menu - buns

I forget where I saw it on the internet, but there's a whole range of how you can order your buns cooked (or not cooked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: The Secret Menu section is missing "mustard grilled". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.11.218 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)