Template:Did you know nominations/Steak burger

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Steak burger

(

)

~~... that the first commercial steak burger offered to consumers in the U.S. appears to have been invented in 1934 by A.H. "Gus" Belt, the founder of Steak 'n Shake?~~

Reviewed: Eloy Mestrelle

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self nominated at 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, QPQ done. Image correctly licensed (as are all the others), looks good at this resolution, and is used in the article. Article is neutral, well sourced, and there are no indications of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hook is cited in article. Good to go. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This was pulled from queue by The Rambling Man based on the discussion initiated by EEng at WT:DYK, who summarizes the hook as "an extraordinary claim sourced to a dubious source". Under the circumstances, this either needs a better source or a new hook; the discussion also noted this document (FN12 in the article), which apparently dates "steakburger" back to the 1920s. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I didn't initially see the 1920s reference in the court case source above. I have copy edited the History section of the article per this information. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Below is a new hook. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

New hook: ... that in July 2004, the term "steakburger" (example pictured) became the subject of litigation, whereby Steak 'n Shake sought a preliminary injunction against Burger King to cease using the term?

Don't be mad at me, but the court's opinion is a primary source which the article can't use except in very narrow circumstances -- probably OK for the judge's review of routine historical background, but absolutely not for the status of the litigation, meaning of the opinion, etc., because there are too many technical things that can happen between a given ruling and its effect IRL. But fear not! There are good secondary sources [1] [2]. And search [3] for steakburger burger. Let me suggest

ALT2 ... that while testifying in a 2004 lawsuit involving the meaning of the word steakburger (example pictured), a corporate CEO was grilled on the witness stand?

EEng (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added another (secondary) source to the article to better-verify content of the new hook. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you going to say anything about the fabulous hook? 10,000 clicks, guaranteed. EEng (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I love ALT2!!! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

<bows, acknowledges applause and cheers> I would like to thank the DYK Academy, my agent, and all the DYK "little people" who have made this hook possible. I couldn't have done it without the great raw material. I am unworthy. EEng (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the new hook and ALT2 equally. Need a new review to move forward at this time. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: you outdid yourself! ALT2 is fantastic, AGF and cited inline. All other criteria from the original review still hold. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes me sad, though, because this is obviously the peak of my hooking career -- all my hooks from now on will be compared to this one, and found wanting. They say old hookers never die -- they just get laid off.

(One of Leicester's finest hookers, always loves a good burger Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

ALT2 can be verified at this search page [4] by entering steakburger burger (both words). It's in the second article's synopsis. EEng (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What a delicious hook, EEng! 97198 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Eat me, 97198! EEng (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC) I can't wait to hear what Belle and Martinevans123 have to say.

That's outrageous! Someone ought to tell Angus what Burger King has done! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The hook is great but it should have ('pictured') next to CEO, so you can use my newly created Steak Burger CEO image. Belle (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since, as everyone now knows, this got pulled from MP in an act of philistinism, I'm reopening this nom to prompt someone to find whatever rule there is -- I can't find it -- about what to do in a situation such as this one e.g. re-run the hook (or not, depending on what the rules say). And yeah, it's because I'm pissed off. EEng (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, you can't beat a good "Philly Burger". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The only word for you (well, not the only word...) is irrepressible. EEng (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I must press on. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

For the amount of time the hook was present on Main page, it received 9,648 page views, per Stats.grok.se. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's ALT3 below, the same as the "new hook" above, which was struck per a preference for ALT2, which was pulled while it was on Main page per this discussion at WT:DYK. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that in July 2004, the term "steakburger" (example pictured) became the subject of litigation, whereby Steak 'n Shake sought a preliminary injunction against Burger King to cease using the term?

It wasn't pulled per the discussion you link (which, in fact, shows that the action of pulling it was almost universally condemned), but rather per a knee-jerk non-discussion [5]. It should be re-run as it was. EEng (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The same admin who pulled it last week is still out there, and if this nomination is posted with the same hook (which is clearly your intention) it's likely to be complained about and pulled again, probably even in the quirky slot. This nomination ran for over five hours on the main page, which is a pretty good run as a lead hook; if we were still at three sets a day it would have been clearly sufficient and the nomination left closed. (There aren't any hard and fast rules, since hooks are so seldom pulled from the main page; it ends up being a judgment call.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BlueMoonset: ALT2 was on the main page and was the hook that was pulled, not ALT3 above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care about this, but it's so irksome to have the ignorant and unread running around second-guessing without knowing which end is up. Despite what Maile66 thinks I get plenty of approbation elsewhere for what he so solicitously calls my "brilliance", but for someone else this could have been their moment of glory -- as Maury Markowitz said, "It was a great hook, killed by bureaucracy at its worst. Want to know why editors are abandoning the Wiki? This." No cognizable reason at all was given for pulling it so, yes, I think it should run again as it was, just on the general principle that one hypersensitive admin tail shouldn't wag the Wikipedia dog, and if Phil Knight wants to make a further fool of himself by pulling it again, that's fine. I don't think he will, however. EEng (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. to NA1000: Trust me, you won't get 10K clicks with "preliminary injunction" like you did with a CEO grilled on the witness stand!

P.P.S. As luck would have it, a friend draws my attention to a headline today: "Oscar Pistorius Trial: Witness Michelle Burger Praised for Facing Down Defence Grilling" -- now there's a juicy hook you can really sink your teeth into! EEng (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"That's no friend, he's just my hooker!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthAmerica1000, I know which hook was there and which is being proposed now; EEng clearly wants ALT2 reprised to make a point, and seems likely to get his way. I'm not at all sanguine about it surviving for 12 hours on the front page—it's bound to get complaints, and there's a reasonable chance that an admin will agree and pull it, even if it isn't the same admin as before. PS: no need to post talkbacks on my page. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to make a point so much as to give millions a laugh. There's nothing at all offensive or inappropriate about it. Anyone who thinks so really needs to get out more often. How is this different from saying someone was "wounded" by criticism or "shot down" in proposing something (perhaps after being "raked over the coals", but before "falling on his sword"), or that Bill and Hillary were roasted at the White House? EEng (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my favourite... The Clintstones!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please run it in the quirky slot and skip the picture. Everyone's ready for a good laugh at the end. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)