Talk:Waffle House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Food Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Food and drink task list: Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Food, Bread, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom) Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine, Chocolate Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Burger King Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate Review articles currently up for FA status: Butter

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Radio call

Please discuss the radio call reference here. Also be aware of the three-revert rule. Isopropyl 02:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is about fact, and this is referenced. It does show how Waffle House is iconic to it's fans.

• It would be ridiculous to list every documented mention of Waffle House on a radio call-in program. The quote about WH's status served the purposes of an encyclopedia better than compiling primary evidence, which amounts to original research. --Dystopos 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• The reference in question is absolutely ridiculous; it's a bit surreal to even be discussing it. One mention on one local radio show. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the above points. In addition, please remember to be exercise caution when reverting; do not label content disputes as vandalism. Isopropyl 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any legitimate content disputes. Everybody engaged in the discussion appears to agree on the content. On the other hand, 66-208-136-88.arpa.kmcmail.net is making a concerted effort to compromise the integrity of this article. He's the only one who's in danger of violating 3RR. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)