Talk:Hot dog/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It reads more like a "lifestyle" story from a weekend magazine than an encyclopedia article. There's no real defintion of the sausage (i.e. what parts of animals it's made of, how it is made, etc), there's no history before it came to America (or indeed outside of USA after 1904). Maybe an extended intro would do the trick? Zocky 01:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If I may also add, focus has been placed higher on condiments accompanying the hot dog, than on the hot dog itself. Perhaps to break out all the condiments talk into a separate subhead, and the ketchup debate subordinate to the condiments subsection. In any case information in the "Preparation and basic variations" section could be broken out into more clearly defined sections. Its a hodge-podge at best right now. --SFDan 05:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It might also be time to spin the whole regional variation section into a new article, perhaps.(?) Youngamerican 12:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am likely going to be researching and making a project of this page over the next few days (i've worked on the Coney Island links and this is a natural progression). I have been plagued by slow response time on Wikipedia, which has been driving me crazy. I don't believe regional variations needs its own page, it works where it's at as long as the rest of the stuff comports. The Ketchup debate -- however -- belongs on the discussion page. Jtmichcock

I reintroduced the ketchup debate to the article. "The Ketchup Debate" is not itself a discussion, but rather documentation of a debate that exists in much of the US (no doubt the world's largest consumer of hotdogs). Jtmichcock, please let me know if you disagree (and if so, why). As a sidenote, though, I wouldn't mind seeing the Royko and Dirty Harry bits moved to Wikiquote perhaps. --Nuffle 20:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I previously moved the ketchup on hot dog debate to the Talk page (I notic it's miussing but can obviously be retrieved). While the quotes were amusing, they were discursive from the general topic. It may well be that the debate deserves its own topic, "Ketchup on Hot Dogs," perhaps, with a link under "The Ketchup Debate" header. I'm certain that there are other communities besides Chicago that have opinions on the topic. Jtmichcock 21:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. The Ketchup Debate now has its own page

Ketchup on Hot Dogs

Thanks! --Nuffle 20:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom "hot dogs" are available made with regional British sausages.[citation needed] Howevever, such sandwiches made with British sausages different from frankfurters are arguably not true hot dogs. In addition, a hot dog sausage is always pre-cooked at the factory before packaging, which is generally not true of such regional British sausages.

But what is a true hot dog? Kosher hot-dogs are mentioned, but surely they are not "true" hot dog? At what point does a hot dog become true? Whitstable (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hot dog is a term coined in the USA that refers to a pre-cooked sausage with certain flavor characteristics. Kosher hot dogs are true hot dogs, they taste like hot dogs, they look like hot dogs, and no one differs on this. This is not an article about generic sausages in buns. For that, start a new page. --Zeamays 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a hot dog in the UK made with anything except frankfurters. I wish the person responsible for the statement above would cite a source for this as I am seriously considering removing it! TINYMark (Talk) 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking, maybe we should split this into Frankfurter for the sausage and Hot dog for the sandwich, heavily interlinked of course? The current text from Frankfurter could go to Frankfurter (dissambiguation). Zocky 10:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that both frankfurter and hot dog can describe the meat or the meat and bun. The more "common" usage in the U.S. is to say hot dog. While most people understand what a frankfurter is, the expression "would you like a hamburger or a hot dog?" is familiar; "would you like a hamburger or a frankfurter?" is not. For clarity, it would be best to have frankfurter direct over to the hot dog entry. Jtmichcock

I would tend to agree with Zocky. At the moment, Frankfurter as a sausage in itself is poorly explained (well not at all, in any article, really). Predominately 'hot dog' means the dish and and to a lesser extent 'frankfurter' means the sausage. Although both cross-usages exists they are mostly coloquialisms and just cause confusion. For example I doubt there are many people who first type in 'frankfurter' to look for this article. I would leave frankfurter as the current disambiguation page, set up frankfurter (sausage) (see h2g2 as mentioned above), then add a section here to clear up the naming confusions - starting with the second para in the history section on pre WWI US usage of the name 'frankfurter'. I imagine there will still be a few regions of the US, which still prefer the word 'frankfurter' to mean the dish and that should be clarified in the naming section. -- Solipsist 12:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that there is enough here for a frankfurter article. I think that the disambiguation is perfectly clear-- it can refer to a hot dog or it can refer to another sausage. If someone gets to the frankfurter disambig page they can figure out which of these they are interested in. As for dealing with the frankfurter in this article, the hot dog article, I think it makes it perfectly clear that it is an alternative name for the same thing. If there is some difference between the "hot dog" and the "frankfurter" then I think there is plenty of place within this article to elaborate on the difference. When there is so much information about the "frankfurter" wouldn't it then be appropriate to split it out to its own independent article? At the moment, I think having two articles without much to say in the frankfurter article would not promote clearer understanding. --SFDan 13:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain my thinking: Frankfurtes are popular sausages in Europe, but (at least in Central Europe and the Balkans) they're usually not eaten in a sandwich, which most people take "hot dog" to mean, but rather on a plate, with mustard and a slice of bread.

I'd suspect that in most of the world where frankfurters are eaten, the sandwiched sort is not its main usage, so the article on the sausage should mostly not concentrate on the sandwich. OTOH, hot dog as a sandwich is obviously an important element in American cuisine and it's popular all over the world, so it clearly deserves its own article.

I think solipsist provides reasonable argumentation for the use of the words "hot dog" and "frankfurter" above. I'm just not sure if there's anything else at Frankfurter that is really called just "frankfurter", so I'd still put the dissambiguation page at the longer title. Zocky 13:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with a split; was thinking of it just looking at the article. We should have Hot dog(sandwich) for the sandwich which in the UK at least normally contains a sausage that is NOT a frankfurter, and Hot dog(sausage) or frankfurter for the sausage itself that the current article claims is the norm in the sandwich in the US. M0ffx 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My addition of Category:St. Louis cuisine was rv-ed by Pharmboy on January 25, 2008.

My edit reasoning: The Hot Dog on a bun is often credited as having been invented and/or first sold at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair, though the true geographic origin of that now common pairing is admittedly likely never to be proven 100%. I felt that, accordingly, it could be listed as a part of the St. Louis Cuisine category. This is not intended to be limiting, of course. Chicago, New York and other cities can claim this as a part of their cuisine as well, due to their unique take on the foodstuff. Ultimately, something as ubiquitous in American (and global) culture as a hot dog may not belong segregated to one city's (or a handful of cities') cuisine categories. Then again, certain cities, such as St. Louis, have played a significant role in Hot Dog history.

I prefer (and Support) inclusion, but defer to the democratic nature of the talk page. Roscoestl (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the claim should be given supporting references, a link to the hot dog bun should be made in the hot dog article, and the information about the bun's origin should placed on the bun's page (upon gaining an appropriate reference).

The "St. Louis Cuisine" category implies that the hot dog + bun is well-recognized as a St. Loius cultural food or tradition, and may therefore be misleading to readers.

I'm going to vote to Disapprove the category's addition and suggest the alternative action.

--TarrVetus (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with adding hot dog to any city or state cuisine cats, but I wouldn't have a prob with an article on St. Louis hot dogs (or something like that) if it could be well-sourced and meet all inclusion guidelines. y'amer'can (wtf?) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• No Cat, add article As the reverter, my reasoning was that any city could add hot dog as part of their cuisine, ending up with many similar categories that wouldn't add context to the article, and instead create confusion. Also, adding it as a cat would be biased as a claim of who invented it. This seems to be the concensus here as well. Creating an article similar to
  talk
  ) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well-argued by all. I will get to work on a separate page per your suggestions. I will aim to make it thorough enough so it is not later tagged with a "Merge into Hot Dog"... ;) Roscoestl (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if it is, you can point to this discussion. The purpose isn't to fork the content, the purpose is to create new content that is related to, but not exclusive to

talk

) 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding different variations of hotdogs, I'd like to address the "Hollywood Hotdog".

In Hollywood, CA, often outside of late night venues you will find street vendors selling hotdogs on rollaway grills. These hotdogs include grilled onion, red and green peppers, bacon wrapped hotdogs, ketchup, mustard, mayo, and the optional jalapeno. I haven't been informed if a hotdog like this is offered anywhere else.

We've all heard of a Chicago hotdog, but I've never heard of anyone mention the Hollywood hotdog so I'd thought I'd give it a shoutout and coin it's name. =)

1. You may wish to check out the Mexico listing describing a "danger dog." This LA dog appears to have migrated from the south. Jtmichcock 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

does this article even say what animal parts make a hot dog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.134.113 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any specific parts. It's odds and ends of whatever. -- Zsero (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot dogs taste very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.134.254 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

the

There was an edit explaining the origin of the word "Hot Dog". I changed it to the one described (as legend) by the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council here. If anyone has any further info about the origin of the name, have a go. --Nuffle 19:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some work on it and some digging, left the myth/urban legend there since it's very popular. It's kind of absurd anyway, that a cartoonist wouldn't have a dictionary or check his spelling and totally make up a word where people might even know what it is.

Also something of note, it has been suggested on several sources that a large driving factor to the name change had to do with anti-german feelings around that time and WW1, which led to the name change from the more popular (german word) frankfurter as prior to that it was kind of seen more as slang or a seldom-used nickname that has roots from the '30s where companies allegedly used dog meat in sausage. It later lost that negative connection though.

Kind of like modern day French fries/Freedom fries in the US, but I've been unable to find a particulary reliable source and might not really be that important to include anyway... and might just be an urban legend/myth in the making ;) Oogles 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Trade groups are, well, trade groups, not historical sources and don't feel the need to reliably report something as non-earth-shaking as the origin of the term "hot dog." Frankly (you should pardon the pun), considering the association of Germany with sausages, and considering what a dachshund looks like, it's not amazing that anyone should associate "dogs" with "sausages." -- Cecropia 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The two pictures of hot dogs are very nice (one with mayonnaise and one with ketchup), but I expected to see a nice line of yellow mustard instead. Isn't that the most common condiment used on a hot dog? 68.45.122.185 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It has come up before, and there have even been heated discussions from anti-ketchup editors from Chicago, but so far no one seems to have bothered to photograph or locate an alternative, good image of mustard covered hot dog. -- Solipsist 09:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There's one there now. Jtmichcock 12:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

tube steaks - I've never heard them refered to by this name. Where'd you year this?

Also: We sould mention Harry Caray's idea about cloning hot dogs. --DanielCD 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be better for the Chicago-style hot dog article. Jtmichcock 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd smother myself in brown mustard and relish. I'd be so delicious.

Yea. Gotta miss ol' Caray. --DanielCD 14:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

People who absolutely insist that a hot dog can only be served with mustard tend to think that the only way to do things is THEIR way. Ketchup users tend to be more laid back about the matter- maybe the notion that ketchup contains "Natural Mellowing Agents" has some validity LOL. --Saxophobia 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

World's longest hotdog at 20m created February 25th 2006 at

Hello. I decided to be bold and spin off the regional variations chart into it's own article. It's at Hot dog variations. A table like that really needs to be in its own article. It was literally bigger than the rest of the article put together. I did add a link to the new page under "See also". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The hot dog (not frankfurter) was widely eaten as a street food in England. (Though its popularity may have been eclipsed by the kebab). -- Beardo 06:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you distinguish a hot dog from a frankfurter? -- Cecropia 13:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to expand upon that fact. All editors face systemic bias of one sort or another. In the case of this article, most of us are North Americans and can only really write about what we know. Therefore, the article will likely be over-represented by the various styles in the US and Canada and should get more contributions from editors like yourself. youngamerican (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also check out the hot dog variations article in the section listed above. youngamerican (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Beardo, but that's kind of a silly assertion. A hot dog is a hot dog (and there are a wide variety of these) and other sausages are what they are. There is no such thing in most cultures (including a lot of the US) as "the" sausage. Bratwurst, blutwurst, kielbasa, Nathan's franks, Oscar Meyer weiners, Linguisa, salami, Italian sausage, just to name a few, are all different, umm, "animals." If I'm having spaghetti and sausages, I wouldn't want the sausage to a be hot dog. Conversely, I don't want a blutwurst on a bun at a baseball game. -- Cecropia 13:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment about sausages was not made by Beardo, but rather by Matt dailey. He made a section in between Beardo's comment and his sig. youngamerican (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed this part from the history of the hot dog:

"and the earliest example of a hot dog bun dates to New York City in the 1860s."

That needs, at the least, some kind of direct citation and justification. We are saying that hot dog buns predate hot dogs in NYC by 20 or so years? Sounds like a soap opera plot: "A lonely bun in quest of a hot dog." If what we mean is that long soft rolls were baked in NYC then, that is not so remarkable. When this kind of sausage was first placed in such a roll is what would be significant. -- Cecropia 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it depends entirely if the person who wrote that meant a hot dog bun or a bun that would have been named a hot dog bun. In the 1880s, it would have been called a dog bun or frank/sausage bun. Still seems doubtful the bun was made then, but could be. Oogles 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

... ... Barry Popik here. Ignatz Frıschmann was widely credited for the "hot dog bun" in 1904 obituaries for him. These should not go without mention here. The evidence is more solid than many other histories about the hot dog: http://www.barrypopik.com/article/87/hot-dog-roll —The preceding

(Barry also wrote the following paragraph in the article, again linking his website. --Spondoolicks 11:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Barry Popik here. "Dog" has been used for "sausage" from 1884?? Over ten years ago, I provided numerous historical citations from the 1830s! Gerald Cohen and I wrote a book on the "hot dog" that is given credit just about everywhere (including the National Hot Dog & Sausage Council). I probably should rewrite everything here, but I'll leave that up to a committee of all of you. Anyway: http://www.barrypopik.com/article/86/hot-dog-polo-grounds-myth

Hey there - be sure to sign your messages with four tildes :) You can see the other section on this page (discussion) about the origin of the name, there I mention that 'dog' had been around as slang for sausage since the early 1800s, though then had a more negative connection. Didn't know if details of that should be included or not, since the article is about hot dog and not dog, but I did mention it briefly in the main article where I put Hot dog became an extension of the older use of dog to mean a sausage. As for changes, feel free to make them - especially if you have sources, if someone changes or reverts, can come here and discuss -- or suggest changes here prior, whichever you prefer :) Oogles 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article on the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council’s website states that there are people who assert that the hot dog was created in the late 1600's by Johann Georghehner, a butcher, living in Coburg, Germany. This is what is currently quoted in the article.

This article, however, states that “Although there is no exact documentation of where the first emulsion-type sausage was produced, there are some indications that it was done by the Vienna sausage producer, Johann Georg Lahner, in 1805.”

So it looks like either a) one of them has got it wrong (and mis-spelt the name), b) there were two butchers over a century apart with remarkably similar names who both laid claim to the invention, or c) there’s no evidence either way and they are both just versions of a legend.

Personally I reckon the Hot Dog Council have got it wrong, purely on the basis that the name Georghehner sounds like a mistake. Can anyone shed light on this? --Spondoolicks 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have verifiable information that contradicts what's there, you should feel free to fix it. Make sure you links connect the new data with the cite. Jtmichcock 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is I don't know if the different version is better or worse than the info in there at the moment. I was hoping someone else would know and make changes if needed. --Spondoolicks 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it depends a lot on how exactly you are going to define a hot dog. You could take the history of the frankfurter, but the problem with that is that is also a name and doesn't mean there was something before that that would still be considered a hot dog or a frank (But not named that) or if an early frankfurter would be different enough to not even be considered a hot dog. Problematic. Such as size, contents, casing and maybe even cooking and preperation method. Sausage, though, has much older roots but it all comes down to how exactly you are going to define it and then trying to rely on shady details to see which one is better. The other way is listing all the histories for the many 'predecessors' to things that would be considered a hot dog, like the frank and such. Which might be an OK idea, start with the most recent go back to sausage but it seems like there would be a better place for it. Oogles 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go to much into the ancient pre-history of the hot dog. Allowing that a hot dog and a frankfurter are different names for essentially the same thing, we need to look at three things.

1. When was the first "emulsion sausage" created. This is a sausage where the ingredidents are essentially mixed into a moist paste before cooking, as opposed to the traditional sausage which is made of ground, chopped or chunked ingredients?
2. When was the first such sausage, reasonably like today's "hot dog" credated?
3. When was said sausage put between bread for eating as a regular thing (i.e., when did it become finger food) and sold that way for consumption?
4. When was the name "hot dog" applied?

I tend to distrust a claim that goes back to 1200 or something, because, considering the nature of sausage making I would need to see not only evidence for the claim, but why such a sausage was produced and for whose consumption. The big advantage of an emulsion sausage in the modern context is that it is more amenable to mass production, not an issue 800-odd years ago. It's like saying the Chinese invented "spaghetti." The legend that Marco Polo brought back a "recipe" for spaghetti only implies that he brought back a recipe for thin noodles. It doesn't mean the Chinese made hard wheat based noodles that were sauced in a manner that we would identify today as spaghetti. -- Cecropia 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask Yahoo has weighed in on how the hot dog got its name. Jtmichcock 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask Yahoo! just used the same sources we already have for this, indirectly using snopes to use the Yale record which is already recorded in the article. They probably searched for it. Oogles 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Source? it says "most of the US" so what part of the US is this not the most commonly heard term and what is the source either way. Seems flaky. Removing this in a few days if no objections or no sources. Oogles 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Look up common expressions like "franks and beans" v "hot dogs and beans." Just today I was in a NY area supermarket and noted the many (especially pre-Memorial Day) brands of hot dogs/franks in the cases. "Frank" and "frankfurter" are ubiquitous. To say "in spoken language" suggests that the speaker is writing from local experience. Therefore, original unsourced research. -- Cecropia 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There goes my main contribution to this article. In all parts of the US I have known, I assure you, if you say "Hey, would you like a Frank?" you're going to get a real funny look. Nobody ever calls them that, everyone calls them "hot dogs", and they only see the word "Franks" on the grocery store package. Someone said it is normal to call them "Franks" in New York City, though.

ውይይት

) 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how many parts of the U.S. have you known? ;-) -- Cecropia 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many parts of the East and Midwest. Never been on the West Coast, so don't know about there. Canadians also call them hot dogs and not "franks". I wonder where "frank" is actually used except in New York area. Out of curiosity, I'd like to ask an informal poll of English speakers. Where you live, would you go in a store and ask for a "frank"?

ውይይት

) 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On Long Island, NY, yes, I would definitely ask for a "frank" whether from a cart or a truck. When Nathan's Coney Island still served from their long counter, there were separate stations for franks, burgers, french fries, drinks. In that case, those who bought regularly knew to just go to the counter (once you fought your way through) and you asked for "one." What the "one" (or two, or three, etc) was was obvious by which part of the counter you were at. Asking for a "hot dog" marked you as a rube. -- Cecropia 00:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In the south east USA I've seen and heard them referred to them either way, I'm not sure where Codex lives, but if someone (in my experience and in my area) asked a vendor for a frank -- or if I asked someone in a grocery store where the franks were -- I wouldn't have a funny look, I'd have an instant point in their direction. I personally call them hot dogs, but many of them are labeled franks. If you want a source for this, I'll provide it. Lowes Foods is a grocery store chain present only in SE USA. http://shop.mywebgrocer.com/shop.aspx?&sid=9047111&sid_guid=0d3005e6-c796-4b51-869d-6ef02a82f1d1&strid=BED3121&ns=1 The option on left menu states hotdogs, the words on the packaging says franks. Ball Park says Franks, Oscar Meyer says Franks and Weiners, Gwaltney says Hot Dog, Valleydale says hot dog, Bryan says Frank - Lowes foods (on menu) says Hot dog. Oogles 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

can anyone shed light on why mcdonalds, burger king, wendy's, etc. do not carry hot dogs? --- 152.3.194.147 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out hot dog variations. Maybe it is because people in neighboring counties cannot even agree on what should be put on a dog and keeping up with local preferences would not be worth the bother. Where would the dividing line be for McDonalds between where to keep hot dog chilli and where to keep kraut and cheese? And what kind of cheese? etc. I am sure there are other reasons, but this could be a big one. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A&W and Dairy Queen sell hot dogs. --SigPig 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hot dogs are also considered a 'cheap' food item. Such as ordering a bologna sandwhich at McDonalds. Whereas hamburgers and the such are generally viewed as more expensive. (and are, by a lot in grocery stores, though probably not in manufacturing costs for a fast food chain, but the view is very important) Oogles 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ray Kroc wrote at length in his 1977 autobiography that McDonald's would never serve hot dogs because they were unhygienic, and that the customer could not easily identify what was in them. Sure enough, McDonald's has never served them, a couple of field tests excepted. I wish I had the book, it would make an interesting quotation for the article.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 23:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Most U.S. movie theater chains serve hotdogs. Lordglenn 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone can actually come up with a link to the bylaw that states that only hot dogs may be sold as street food, I'm going to delete that statement. Mainly because: 1. Hot dog vendors also sell Italian sausage, Polish sausage, and often vegetarian sausage on a bun. This may be nit-picking, but the article seems to me to make a distinction between the hot dog and any other type of sausage. 2. you can also buy ice cream and ice cream products from ice cream trucks all over the city in the summer. I'm not just talking the pre-made Good Humor ice-cream-on-a-stick, but trucks that sell cones, sundaes, and shakes. 3. in the winter, you can get roasted chestnuts. Bought some in front of Holy Name church on Danforth last Christmas; nummy! 4. Down on Gerrard Ave on Sundays, almost every shop seems to be roasting corn on a barbeque (then rubbing them down with a lemon or lime then rolling them in some spice mix). And they're not all restaurants that do it. So, either they're all doing it illegally, or there is no such law here. I'd like to see a cite (other than just the link to the strict hot dog regulations). --SigPig 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to add some international variation here. I know that in Austria a hot dog is any type of sausage stuffed into a hollowed-out baguette bread. In Denmark they have something called a "french hot dog" which is the same as above but it uses soft bread. In fact I'm going to enjoy an Austrian hot dog right now, as I'm in Vienna. I'll take a photo of it. -newkai | talk | contribs 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Should something be added in about the Octodog? It was mentioned on the third episode of Ham on the Street. --Dr Archeville 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. It looks pretty marginal. -- Solipsist 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What are hot dogs called in french?

From the French Wikipedia, it appears to be "hot dog" there too, youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was in Paris, hipsters called them "chienne chaude".

Right. I think Simon Deering should be on this page because his nickname, Hotdogs, is a proper noun, while the disambiguation page is for hot dog, a common noun. Simon Deering's nickname Hotdogs isn't another use of hot dog because that isn't his name, and names aren't often written out in a way different to how the person whose name it is spells it.

I still do not think that he is notable enough on a global scale to be listed up top in that manner. I would prefer that he stayed on the dab, but I would be totally cool with mentioning him in the trivia section of this article. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My wanting him on this page has nothing to do with notability or my thinking that he deserves some sort of mention. I just think that as Hotdogs is a proper noun, and is not the same as hotdog or hot dog, it should be at the top of this page.

jd || talk

|| 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But this article is "hot dog," not "hot dogs" and I'm not sure if the proper noun thing matters. I have added him to the trivia section, for what its worth. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - this article is for hot dog, and the disambiguation page is for hotdog. The guy's name is Hotdogs, which isn't the same as either of them. The whole point of it all is

jd || talk

|| 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't

hotdogs already redirect to the page in question? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy

) 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it also links to a disambiguation page instead of redirecting to it instead.

jd || talk

|| 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That Simon Deering chose the nickname "Hotdogs" for himself has nothing at all to do with the food. From the perspective of a reader interested in the food, Simon Deering is irrelevant. IMO, he doesn't even warrant mention in the trivia section. It is difficult to understand why his article, of all those on the disambiguation page, should be promoted to a direct link on this page. It makes no difference that he is called "Hotdogs" rather than "hotdog". Hamburger (disambiguation) has about a dozen people whose given names are Hamburger and several articles that are slight variations on the word. Further, he's definitely not globally noteworthy. His article reeks of recentism and will probably be deleted soon after his show business career dies. -Anþony 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of putting a link at the top of the article is that a reader is directed to an unrelated article. It doesn't matter about global noteworthiness, he's on Wikipedia and that's that. The hamburger disambiguation page doesn't list any variations of Hamburger; each time it is there, it is spelt as hamburger. If the guy's name were Hotdog or Hot dog, I wouldn't have a problem, but as I've said before, the disambiguation page is for hotdog, and Hotdogs is not plural.

jd || talk

|| 19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, the city of Hamburg is listed on the disambiguation page though it does not share the exact name.

Hotdogs already redirects to Simon Deering, though even that will probably cause more confusion than it will solve. He has been given an appropriate mention in the disambiguation page so that people who are confused may find him. I see no compelling reason to give him a position any more prominent than that. -Anþony

04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though this is going to go anywhere, so although it makes me sick to my stomach, I'm hoping what I've done to the page now is a fair compromise.

jd || talk

|| 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You posted before I could commit my explanation to the talk page. Here it is:

The templates exist to enforce a standard style on Wikipedia for dab links, so we'll use them. (See

MoS:DAB

.) The situation with Mr. Deering is not unique, as I have shown, and is adequately handled by the current template. It is not necessary to inform the reader that the dab page includes terms that are not exactly spelt as hot dog since this is common practice on Wikipedia. The dab page is used here exactly as it is intended to be used, for any "articles associated with the same title."

PS, after edit conflict: If you expect me to agree to a compromise, I expect you to compose an argument in line with current Wikipedia policies and common practices or at a minimum find some flaw in mine. -Anþony 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning, I plan to revert back to {{

assume good faith and let's not have a revert war. -Anþony

21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert war? Who said anything about a revert war? And why are you throwing AGF about? Doing that often has an adverse effect, and it definitely wasn't needed in this case. I don't know what you're trying to get me to read, as I don't see anything in either of those pages that says that names spelt differently to the title of a disambiguation page should be included in one page. I also didn't see anything that says that the {{

jd || talk

|| 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Misspellings on disambiguation pages can be listed in a separate section entitled "Common misspellings" or "see also"

...
There may be a "See also" section which can include:

• Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
• Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

Either or both of these criteria can be construed to apply here: hot dog is a conceivable mispelling or confusion of Hotdogs, and thus a link to Simon Deering is wholly appropriate in Hot dog (disambiguation). I also remind you of the parallel situations I brought up before (Hamburger (disambiguation) and Dog (disambiguation)) which evidence the current solution as common practice on Wikipedia. If you wish to further argue that Hotdogs fits neither criterion, or that the use of the word "may" nullifies the recommendation, then I would argue that there is no place for Mr. Deering at all, as there is nothing that says he "may" be included anywhere else.
As for the use of the template, I direct you to the discussion of templates in

A new template isn't needed. It isn't stated anywhere that a template must be used, and I'm sure making something up instead of using one of the templates that are already there if it is better suited is allowed. You aren't the only person that is trying to "preserve the style and standards of Wikipedia", but

jd || talk

|| 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, this line of reasoning works at cross purposes to your intent. If hot dog is not a potential mispelling of Hotdogs, if it's pretty unlikely that someone would accidentally come upon this page looking for Simon Deering, then there's no disambiguation to be done: no entry on the dab page, no changes to the template, no toplink, no need to mention him at all. As to your other remarks, if you truly believe that

WP:IAR, then I emphatically suggest that you discuss the matter in Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation, so that we may come to a consensus that can be consistently applied to all articles in this situation (ex1, ex2). -Anþony

21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's every chance that somebody might come on this page looking for him instead. You don't want a note at the top of the page for people that might come here looking for Simon Deering, you don't want a modified note for the disambiguation page - do you even care about the people that might be looking for him but don't think to look at the disambiguation page because it says hotdog instead of hotdogs or Hotdogs? Modifying the note doesn't harm anybody, and there is no need to gain community consensus for a special template when this is but a single occurrence of the problem. I was trying to settle this with a compromise that we could both be satisfied with, but you went and reverted it right back and stated policy when it was not needed. At the end of the day, we all need to work together at this, but if you're not willing to accept what I think is a minor change that doesn't need all the attention it is receiving, it doesn't benefit anything, least of all the article.

jd || talk

|| 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one way to settle this: a hot dog eating contest. Ready, set, GO! youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(note: edit conflict w/Youngamerican)

Once again, I feel that you have mistaken my intentions; I am only doing what I believe is best for Wikipedia. I remind you also that this is not a unique scenario, as I have shown. I believe consistency is important. Allowing a special exception from the standards without good reason is simply unacceptable. However, I am more than willing to accept a compromise in line with the accepted standards and common practices. If you believe I am being unreasonable, you are welcome to discuss the matter with a wider and more experienced audience, whether or not the discussion leads to changes in the standards. I believe I have explained my position in more than adequate terms with plenty of support from several sources, so I will not bother to explain myself further. -Anþony 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown me anything where a similar thing to this occurs. The hamburger disambiguation page, as I have pointed out before, doesn't list anything that is similar to hamburger. The Dog disambiguation page had one thing that should have been on a different page, and another thing that uses the word dog in past tense. As I have said before, I'm sure a compromise is more than acceptable in this case, and you haven't shown me anything that says that disambiguation templates have to be used.

jd || talk

|| 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created an entry in

WP:RFC/STYLE. Hopefully we can have some more voices and come to an agreement. Hamburger (disambiguation) contains a separate entry for Hamburg under See Also. Dog (disambiguation) contains entries for three songs named Dogs, a manga called Dogs / Bullets & Carnage, and a man whose nickname is Dawg. The parallels are very clear to me. I'm not sure how to explain it any better than that. I'm not suggesting that the template must be used, only that it should be used in order to "ensure the uniform appearance of disambiguation links". It is conceivable that some truly unique and irregular situation might require an unique and non-standard dab link, but that is not the case here. -Anþony

01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

71.227.254.181 23:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people keep a close eye on it and revert it whenever it is vandalized. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"The only proper condiment for a hot dog is ketchup." appears in the text of the article, but I don't see it in the editable text in order to remove it. Please address this.

Remember to sign your posts with four ~'s. (See it's been addressed though). But yes, lots of people watch this post. Oogles 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some hot dog related userboxes which I made.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog}}

  This user has been known to eat a hot dog on occasion.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dogs}}

  This user loves Hot Dogs in all their varieties.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog_Self}}

  This user eats sufficient quantities of Hot Dogs to positively qualify as an Honorary Hot Dog in their own right.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog_Chicago}}

  This user prefers a true Chicago-style hot dog. With NO ketchup.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog_Chicago2}}

  This user knows that Chicago-style hot dogs are the only true 'Dawg.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog_Coney}}

  This user prefers Coney Island hot dogs. Preferably with enough chili and onions to require the use of a fork or spoon.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog_Coney3}}

  This user prefers Coney Island hot dogs. Preferably with enough chili and onions to require a side-order of Pepto Bismol.

• {{
  User:EReference/Userbox_Hot_Dog_Coney2}}

  This user knows that Coney Island hot dogs are the only true 'Dawg.

EReference 19:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one to make templates or anything but shouldn't the words Hot Dog in these link to the Hot dog page? Maybe there's a technical problem or a statue that says bad idea... I'm just asking since I'm wondering and don't seem to know better. --JohnCub 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this so damn long? I don't think there needs to be this much hotdog info. —The preceding

As a parting shot here are the words of super-star Sigourney Lopez: 'I demand hot dogs, nothing more nothing less.' Lolocaust 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The American story of the introduction of the hot dog, like the hamburger and ice cream cone, is often attributed to the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri. [1]

Above from the article.

This should be elsewhere in the article not the first sentance, it's not about the creation or even introduction of the hot dog, but about those things getting more exposure and made more popular, such as people having never seen them before (though they certainly existed prior). 1904 is at minimum 50 years too late (and really around 100). It wasn't created there, but it was seen by many there for the first time, or discovered through media from the worlds fair. Oogles 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)