DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Hamburger

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former featured article candidateHamburger is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

Article is being updated in-line with conclusion of discussions at Chicken burger and Chicken sandwich

[edit]

Please see above and use my talk page if any questions arise. Thank you! Strongwranglers (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not citing your information if you have the references to back it up? Why clear out sourced information? This is a pretty simple ask. Kvinnen (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the changes I made. They are there. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamburger#Variations#Other_meats
Please try to read the talk page. It's literally right above this post. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No point adding citations here when you have not added them in the page. I no longer wish to engage with you, you may do whatever you want. Kvinnen (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have a great day!
Notice how it didn't take me 2+ years to respond to you? (unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamburger#c-KongB%C3%B8f-20241126082500-Poor_definition_in_Etymology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamburger#c-75.4.219.145-20231017182900-Wrong_info)
LOL. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as you stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvinnen#c-Kvinnen-20250908103400-Strongwranglers-20250908101500, the "merriam" sources you said were "Inappropriate" were the content I removed from the article.
I also agree they were inappropriate. Glad we reached consensus on that despite some confusion as to how to read the diffs. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that an additional editor review the edits of 8 September 2025, particularly the removed material. The editor (Strongwranglers) provided a list of supporting sources in the previous talk page section ("Variations#Other meats"), and I looked at the first one listed (at www.sciencedirect.com), and was unable to discern how it provides any insight on the point of contention (which appears to have to do with whether or how there are differences in the usage of the word "burger" in different countries). I'm unable to research this in depth at the moment, which is why I looked at only one of the references, and is also why I suggest that some other editor take a look. --HLachman (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was achieved here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvinnen#c-Kvinnen-20250908103400-Strongwranglers-20250908100600), Kvinnen (talk · contribs) was confused as to how to read the diffs between edits. Strongwranglers (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the link where you said consensus was achieved and it didn't look like a consensus to me. As I mentioned already, I don't have time to research this further at the moment (I'm on a short break from work, may not be able to respond promptly), so I again suggest that another editor review the changes in question. --HLachman (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"3- Here you are adding a source from Merriam Webster that has nothing to do with the information that exists on the page, totally inadequate.
4 - Uncited information again, this block of info exists with no citations.
5 - Inappropriate Merriam Webster link again.
6 - Inappropriate Merriam Webster link once again."
The user's qualms were with things that I removed. We both agree those things should have been removed.
"it didn't look like a consensus to me"
Can you explain how in no uncertain terms? Strongwranglers (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question (of how it "didn't look like a consensus to me"), the last post from the other editor (Kvinnen, see above) said "I no longer wish to engage with you", which does not sound like a consensus regarding the edits to this particular article. I have nothing to add at this time (as I said, I'm at work now), just reiterating that having another editor take a look may be useful (as I suggested). If you have any further comment for me, I might not be able to respond promptly, and will likely just re-post my suggestion (that it would be useful for another editor to take a look). --HLachman (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always find it fascinating that there are users able to come out of the woodwork to make these kinds of comments but when you ask for participation on the talk page they're nowhere to be found.
Who are you, again? Have you ever contributed to this article?
If not, why are you here? Strongwranglers (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "steakburger" actually a unique/other meat type or should this section be reduced/removed?

[edit]

Steakburger appears to be an incorrect local convention/popular name for a hamburger. All "ground beef" is made from steak. Not sure this is a meaningful distinction for the page to make vs. other meat types, considering it's just a kind of beef. Strongwranglers (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't hear back on this in another week I'm removing the section.Strongwranglers (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'veggie burger' section

[edit]

There is an article for Veggie burger which covers all of the information in this article and more. It's already a very bloated article, does this *need* to be included? I think users interested in veggie burgers will simply go to that page if it's listed in the 'other meats' section. Strongwranglers (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for users interested in the general, entire topic of burgers. A very short overview and history of vegetarian alternatives seems worth including as part of that.
The article is only 4900 words, so it's currently well below WP:SIZERULE. Belbury (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I don't agree. If we keep convention with that we'll have to expand each individual meat section out fully as well in "other meats".
Can you explain why "veggie burger" is special enough to merit inclusion? Keep in mind I think that "steakburger" should also be removed as redundant. (see topic above)
Taking a look at Veggie burger, we're just repeating everything it says verbatim. "The essence of the veggie burger patty has existed in various Eurasian cuisines for millennia, including in the form of grilled or fried meatless discs, or as koftas, a commonplace item in Indian cuisine. These may be made of entirely vegetarian ingredients such as legumes or other plant-derived proteins."
Not sure why this is included within the article. It has its own article. I would support linking to it, but no more than that.
"This article is for users interested in the general, entire topic of burgers. A very short overview and history of vegetarian alternatives seems worth including as part of that.", no I think you're confusing this article with Burger.
Hamburger is specifically for the meat version. I do support a cross-link to veggie burger in "other meat" types still, just for the sake of posterity and for the benefit of the user. But overall I don't find your argument to have any merit here.
Veggie burger is also included in the Etymology section. There are 4-6 more references scattered throughout the article.
Can you explain in no uncertain terms why we need lots of veggie burger information outside of its current article?
Also, should we update the veggie burger article with a bunch of information and stubs about hamburgers?
Please explain.
Strongwranglers (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article at burger, it's a disambiguation page.
This article's definitional first sentence is A hamburger (or simply a burger) consists of fillings—usually a patty of ground meat, typically beef—placed inside a sliced bun or bread roll. So we should say something about what a burger is when it isn't "a patty of ground meat", rather than just cryptically mentioning to the reader that there's also a thing called a "veggie burger" which is one of the "other meats" (?).
Articles can and should summarise one another. Bacon#Alternatives includes three items which are not pork bacon at all. It puts them into context and says how they relate culturally or historically to the pork meat. Belbury (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Veggie burger should be marked for deletion and rolled into Hamburger then, yes? Strongwranglers (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bacon#Alternatives exists because those sub-types don't have their... own... articles...
Hmmm... Strongwranglers (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three subtypes have articles, they're all linked with clear Main article hatnotes in Bacon#Alternatives: Turkey bacon, Macon (food), Vegetarian bacon. Belbury (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're confused about what WP:SPINOFF means. Instead of keeping those items in the article, they should be removed and linked to as their own thing.
For whatever reason you think it's the opposite: that you should essentially double-paste articles into each other whenever they're somewhat related.
I find that silly, and also exactly contrary to what an article is trying to do.
Articles should not cover Life, the Universe, and Everything. Yes, it's all related and terribly holistic, but at the same time, consider that you can just link to things and let the reader wander about the site.
Trust me, if they -want- to see more about veggie burgers, there are ample opportunities in the article to do so.
Ultimately: it's inconsistent with everything else so pick your posion: 50+ meat sub-type inclusions or drop veggie burger to another item on the list. Strongwranglers (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPINOFF says to summarise, which is what this article currently does: Summary sections are used in a broader article to briefly cover the content of more detailed subarticles.
I don't know where you're getting the idea of 50+ inclusions from. But yes, the three chicken/buffalo/fish burger types linked in the article do seem like they'd be better written as sentences that tell the reader something about what they are and how they relate to other types of burger (eg. fish burgers apparently being common in Alaska where they are routinely offered as an alternative to beef hamburgers). Belbury (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because then you're including things from Fish sandwich.
Honestly I find this line of argumentation to be very unconvincing: just say that you need to push a non-neutral point of view and have done with it.
Everything you're saying to me SCREAMS that.
"no, we can't take out this one super special section that I personally like because..."
Because why, again?
If anything cheese and bacon burger should be getting their own sub sections, not veggie burger.
Strongwranglers (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK I got it: we'll make individual articles for every sub-type of an article and instead of just linking to those other articles we'll include the entire text from the sub-articles.
That seems nice and clear and friendly to the user.
Those little bastards need to read about EVERY type of damn thing under the sun, not just what they 'think' they want to read about.
Plus, if we don't have extended sections about vegetarianism in meat articles, how can we possibly defeat the great enemy that is WP:NPOV?!?!?!? Strongwranglers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Veggie Burger deserve special treatment in this article?
Can you explain in no uncertain terms? Strongwranglers (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this comment:

OK I got it: we'll make individual articles for every sub-type of an article and instead of just linking to those other articles we'll include the entire text from the sub-articles.

I interpret that as a sarcastic comment, namely, that that is the last thing you would want to do, but ridiculing it as a natural extension of something voiced by someone else, and then pointing out how dumb that idea is by carrying it to an extreme. If so, your sarcastic comment gets a pass here, but it is better to just be clear about what you support and what you oppose, rather than leave other users guessing about whether you are being sarcastic or not. Just to be clear about one thing: if you actually go so far as to make individual articles and duplicate the text here as you described above just to make a point, you may end up with warnings about disruption on your Talk page, so don't do that. It's better to just say what you mean, instead.
As far as the specific question at issue about subtypes, Wikipedia has a standard way to handle this question, used widely across the encyclopedia, and it is called Summary style. It involves a {{Main}} link and brief summary coverage at the parent article, and a lot of detail at the child article. That is how this issue should be resolved here. Mathglot (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot (talk · contribs)... I want to say thanks for this post.
I appreciate how it's keeping everything with the facts and points to a clear guideline.
I'm frustrated that other users haven't bothered to participate in any discussion about the article and essentially have laser-focused on small changes that I feel clean up the article overall. It is bloated currently.
I agree with your opinion that it should be handled in the same vein as Summmary style.
My -main- goal here is to make things consistent. I see the inclusion of "steakburger" and "veggie burger" as individual sub-sections inconsistent with the current article structure.
I'm advocating for no "special sections". Either all sections should be expanded or none. Strongwranglers (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I will remove this section unless I hear back in the next week.Strongwranglers (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a WP:SUMMARY section is appropriate here. If we find one another's arguments unconvincing, consider an WP:RFC. Belbury (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need WP:SUMMARY for every single piece then. Not just one. It's very -weird- to have a WP:SUMMARY that goes on nearly a page for 'steakburgers' which are arguably not a type of unique burger, and then for 'veggie burgers', which are not burgers at all, and have been included to appease the general insanity of vegetarians. Strongwranglers (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also say this is a direct example of why Wikipedia is still considered 'janky and unreliable' even going into 2025.
You -really- want there to be a section for Veggie Burger, and my guess is that you will have a big argumentative fight over this even though it's clearly not a kind of burger.
You can simply settle this by trying to feed one to a dog and seeing what it goes for.
Now, because it's more important to have a janky and personalized article as opposed to something standard, my suggestion is that we lean into the jank and really think about how we jank-ify the entire article as a whole.
Perhaps we can have a long and meandering section about anecdotes or some personal notes from each country as to where people go for burgers sometimes. Ideally without sources and then we can really go off the rails and unstandardize things by adding every single way that country bumpkins call burgers, and perhaps mention that burgers are 'sometimes cooked with steam, and called a Steamed Ham', because there is in fact ONE place in the USA which does that. (https://tedsrestaurant.com/) And, you know, despite billions knowing information to the contrary, if you include that it really gives a nice little anecdotal tale of what I personally think burgers can or should be.
Love it! :) Strongwranglers (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah we gotta get WP:RFC involved as well because I'm not certain if red is red or blue is blue anymore. They could be a whole range of colors that I personally perceive differently.
I mean, you say " If we find one another's arguments unconvincing" but you beat around the bush and HATE being straightforward.
So don't let me get in your way trying to make the article make sense.
JANK IT UP!!! TO 11! Strongwranglers (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Mathglot notes above, extended sarcastic riffs about something that you don't want (and that nobody else would want either) don't really get us anywhere. Belbury (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a certain point Diogenes will interrupt your polite discussion asking you to BEHOLD, MAN!
Your opinions are the well-discussed "featherless biped" he interrupts.
Take from this what you will. Strongwranglers (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There is an article for Veggie burger which covers all of the information in this article and more. Does this *need* to be included?"

  • No, it does not. Several replies to the fair question have been condescending, dismissive and masterful (a Wikipedia epidemic), which has led to sarcasm and a disagreeble tone here. Happens way too much. Respect is a two-way street. A mention of Veggieburgers in "See also" would suffice fully. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs), I am heavily inclined to agree with your position here as well. Strongwranglers (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the veggie burger section just yet, until it seems like you have achieved consensus for it; that could happen, but I don't think we are there yet. There are numerous angles to discuss regarding this, and I don't have time for all of them, but maybe I can start with some facts, and a historical view.

Facts: just so we are all on the same page:

...Interruption...
I was compiling some stuff when I noticed you had gone ahead and removed the section. I've undone the removal for now. Let's carry on with trying to achieve consensus here first. I will probably have to take a different tack, given the eagerness to go ahead with the removal, but that's okay. More tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the/a Veggie burger section fits well in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not saying that to benefit the article but rather your personal feelings.
You're ensuring the article stays in a crap/janky state because that's preferable to you.
I find this to be extremely stupid. Strongwranglers (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I find including a section on Veggie burgers benefits this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't here to have a serious discussion but rather to sow discord for your own amusement.
Kindly stop. Strongwranglers (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add one relevant fact: since the section was first introduced in October 2020, there have been 424 revisions by > 100 users. The Veggie burgers section remained stable throughout that period, a form of silent consensus. Consensus can change, but a decent respect for the work and opinion of those editors over a five-year period is warranted, and means we should investigate a new consensus. WP:BEBOLD is definitely a thing, and it's fine to try that, but when there is an objection then we are back to hashing it out here, which we have been doing, more or less, and we should carry on doing. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it makes the article janky.
Lots of Wikipedia is janky/crap because editors would rather leave unclear nonsense in the article as opposed to clarifying what it's talking about or means.
I don't really care for the whole 'argue with someone about whether or not something obviously janky/stupid' is so. It is so.
The desire of editors here is not to make a more clear article but rather to retain past information at ALL COSTS even if it makes the article crap as a result.
The article, by the way, currently IS crap, as a result.
It's a crap article. Makes no sense, talks about too many topics and can't specify what it means.
Much like every other editor I am seeing talk about this topic. Strongwranglers (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

Anyone who wants to keep this irrelevant section because of being a vegetarian or vegan, thus wanting only to promote their own personal ideals, not the quality of Wikipedia, should withdraw from this discussion. The rest of us should try to be civil and discuss without swearing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If helps any worries you have, I don't want to keep this section because of being a vegetarian or vegan (I'm not). I consider it on topic, and it's reasonable to give it a summary section here. This is a tip-of-iceberg article, and Veggie burgers are a WP:PROPORTIONATE chunk of ice to include. I disagree that it's irrelevant for the subject, and it's easy to find sources that considers it part of the topic. [1][2][3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's given undue weight in the article. There is already an article for Veggie burger, and no one is suggesting changes to that article, or even that we don't link to it.
Including it in an article about Hamburger is equally as unnecessary as adding sections into Veggie burger about meat.
If you flip the tables would it be good to include a lot of meat-related information in vegetarian-related articles? No.
Conversely, why would vegetarian information be given credence here other than a reference?
It makes the article worse, and doesn't inform the reader.
Why keep it? Strongwranglers (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the current content due. Meat is part or the hamburger topic, meat-less hamburgers are too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in no uncertain terms why we need Veggie burger (the article) in addition to an entire section inside of Hamburger for it?
This would imply that for vegetarian articles a large screed is needed in the middle related to meat. I don't find that convincing.
Again, can you explain this in no uncertain terms? Strongwranglers (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this acceptable as "no uncertain terms"? Fingers crossed, here goes:
IMO, that applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section is included erroneously here. It's like reading Genghis Khan and in the middle it has a long section about Mongolian barbecue. Strongwranglers (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If you flip the tables would it be good to include a lot of meat-related information in vegetarian-related articles?" If a meat protein version of tofu had been widely available in stores for decades, with producers and the public commonly calling it "meat tofu": yes, it would be appropriate to include a couple of paragraphs about that in Tofu#Tofu-like foods. Belbury (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Far-fetched. "See also" should suffice. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd though, which illustrates the point about the inclusion. Strongwranglers (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hypothetical. Your suggested "flipping the tables" comparison of meat in an article about vegetarian food just doesn't seem innately incorrect, to me, if I imagine some product with which to pursue that thought. Belbury (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be an erroneous inclusion for a vegetarian article to detour to talk about meat. Don't you? Vice-versa, the case would apply here.
I feel we're forgetting our dear reader. Strongwranglers (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a mistake, as you say, but the articles Hamburger and Veggie burger are not on an equal or parallel footing with each other, with respect to the concept of markedness, with hamburger being the unmarked term, so it makes sense that the solution is not parallel either. The point being, that ground beef hamburgers are the norm (thus, unmarked) and veggie burgers the offshoot or differing variety (marked) so that if you want a meatless burger you have to say so, but if you just want a hamburger with ground beef, you don't. So at the veggie burger article, we are using the marked term, so it *has* to be meatless. Beef burgers are not an 'alternate' type of veggie burger. But at the article with the unmarked term, namely Hamburger, one is not 100% sure what the contents are; by default it is ground beef, but then there are variations, of which veggie burger is one. So the non-parallel solution of having a brief veggie burger summary section here, and not having a hamburger section at the veggie burger article makes logical sense.
There is one caveat, and I don't want to open a can of worms, but a lot of argumentation on this page and some of the confusion is due, imho, to a missing article that sits higher in the WP:SS pyramid than hamburger, and to which a lot of the discussion about variation and alternate types should really apply, and that is 'Burger'. I don't think anyone would complain if we said hamburgers, veggie burgers, steak burgers, turkey burgers are all types of burgers. Maybe some types of burger deserve their own article per Notability, and others do not and just get a summary section in the main one. But the top level ought to be Burger, in my opinion, whereas currently it is a disambig page. It might even be turned into a WP:BCA, with links to the various types of burgers (both munchies and drinks), and then I think a lot of the strife on this page would go away. Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with your criticism, and the level of nuance and appreciation towards the overall goal of improving the article is again, extremely appreciated.
"But the top level ought to be Burger, in my opinion, whereas currently it is a disambig page. It might even be turned into a WP:BCA, with links to the various types of burgers (both munchies and drinks), and then I think a lot of the strife on this page would go away."
I think you really nailed it here. The overall goal should be consistency, and I think you're seeing exactly the problem I was noting. Thank you. Strongwranglers (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tbh, I've been thinking about adding something about consistency for some time, but this particular situation is not that. Wat I mean is, I can imagine someone opining that the lack of parallelism between the two articles is a type of inconsistency as the two concepts are currently handled differently, and on the surface that is true, but the non-parallel approach is still the correct one imho, for reasons previously stated, even if the approaches have some inherent inconsistency. Consistency is not the governing factor here, though it might be, elsewhere. For the moment, I think we have bigger fish to fry, and I may come back to this point later. Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, in this scenario, the WP hamburger-article would be "purged" of non-beef stuff like chicken hamburger, fish hamburger and meatless hamburger? As I see it, it's very common that sources use burger/hamburger as synonyms for the article topic (as in the something between something called hamburger or burger), so there is an argument that WP follows that practice. But that day, that discussion. We may get that CTOP yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Veggie burgers' and 'Steak burgers' should be removed from the "Variations" section

[edit]

Neither are notable enough to warrant their inclusion in the article. I propose removing these sections. They are already a part of List of hamburgers which is referenced in the article. Strongwranglers (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on steakburger, which to me is a marketing term, but veggie burger is notable enough for its own article. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Veggie burger does have its own article. I think it would be very reasonable to include it in the Hamburger#See Also section and remove the current blob from 'Variations'. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I said it was notable enough for its own article: because it has one. I think it's fine in variations, myself. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both variants seem relevant to the international cultural status and history of the burger. I don't think they should be unmentioned by the article and left as a second-degree link in list of hamburgers, if that's what you're suggesting.
I don't know how much weight steak burgers merit in the text or if it's worth splitting that section to its own article, but as discussed in the previous talk page section, some kind of short WP:SUMMARY would seem more useful to the reader. Belbury (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like steakburger is just another name for hamburger? Maybe all we need is the redirect, which we already have. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this position. 'Steakburger' is just a marketing term since it's ground cuts of steak, which is what ground beef is, by definition. The 'quality' of the beef doesn't dictate whether or not it's a hamburger. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of marketing terms throughout the article. If "steak burger" is a significant one then it's worth explaining what it means. Belbury (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury, rethinking a little here...I've just read through the section. Steakburger can be just a marketing term, but it can also refer to a burger that is made with higher-quality cuts, or a sandwich that uses an actual piece of steak as the burger 'patty'. As a higher-quality cut, it's a variant, but a steakburger that is actually a piece of steak is its own thing and if notable enough could be spun off, with a short mention here under variants (with a nod to the fact it may simply be a marketing term for a standard hamburger) and possibly under 'similarly named dishes' or something? Valereee (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article as a whole, it may be worth bringing together the various threads about higher-end burgers (Some restaurants offer elaborate hamburgers using expensive cuts of meat ... A high-quality hamburger patty is made entirely of ground (minced) beef and seasonings; these may be described as "all-beef hamburger" or "all-beef patties" to distinguish them from inexpensive hamburgers ... Many pubs specialize in "gourmet" burgers. These are usually high-quality minced steak patties ... burgers produced from meat stated to be of high quality and often organic) and mentioning steak burger as a common term for "higher-quality cuts" as part of that.
Splitting the "actual piece of steak" content to its own article sounds reasonable, although there's only a couple of sentences and not enough sources for it, at the moment. Belbury (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Steakburger itself could be spun off? It's a long enough section that (assuming those sources are good enough to show notability; I haven't checked) a separate article would be reasonable. I'd still want a summary here, but I was actually a bit surprised we don't have Steakburger or Steak burger as articles, but it looks like that was merged in ~8 years ago, which explains why the section is so long. Given that steakburger can mean so many things, it might be worth revisiting. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There could be enough sources for a separate article about "actual piece of steak" burgers, but if the two other meanings of steak burger are "higher quality minced burger" and "just a regular burger", those angles seems worth keeping in this article where we're already writing about gourmet burgers and all-beef burgers. Belbury (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. This should be covered here, either way. If it's fully covered elsewhere, we can summarize here like we are with veggie burger, but a lot of what's in the steak burger section could be eliminated as not important here, like cooking temp, how served, baseball parks, restaurant chains. It could be just a few sentences with a main article hat. Valereee (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true of the Veggie Burger section. Overall I think including both steakburger and veggie burger elsewhere is reasonable and helpful to the reader, but Hamburger should restrict itself to the overall idea/process as opposed to the individual recipes or implementations of the core idea.
By analogy, articles about sports don't go into individual games or "best ways to play the game", etc. -- removal of these sections isn't a condemnation of that "type of hamburger" but rather a correction to the overall topic.
In some ways the content is just a duplication of List of hamburgers and similar which should be linked to from the article in a prominent place.
Furthermore, if there are regions which prefer a type of burger, that should be highlighted within the article but as a part of the Hamburger#Region section, or so forth. Strongwranglers (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are only four sentences about veggie burgers, so I don't think it's overcovered here. Valereee (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Steakburgers' should be excised from the article.
'Veggie burgers' should be excised from the article and then included in the #See Also section as a link to Veggie burger; I do not agree that mentioning the variants is overly relevant, and there's nothing in any source to suggest that it should be included as notable. That said, it does warrant having an article (which does exist), and a link. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd objected to including veggie burgers originally because it wasn't notable enough. Obviously it is notable enough -- since it has its own article -- and now you're saying it isn't relevant enough? I feel like it's pretty relevant here. It is literally the thing vegetarians order when everyone else is ordering a hamburger. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing the issue. It deserves its own article but it doesn't deserve to also be another part of Hamburger. Strongwranglers (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now it's not irrelevant, but it's undeserving? Valereee (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state what you find unclear?
"'Veggie burgers' should be excised from the article and then included in the #See Also section as a link to Veggie burger"
I think this is very clear. Strongwranglers (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't being unclear, you were just moving from one argument to another each time I addressed an argument. I was just disagreeing that is is not notable, not relevant, or not deserving of being covered in a few sentences here rather than being moved to a simple link under See also. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from but I wholly disagree... that information is covered by Veggie burger. Repeating it in this article isn't meaningful. Strongwranglers (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating information that's covered by another article adds meaning to this one. It's the same as concepts like McDonald's, Big Mac, History of the hamburger and cheeseburger: we have full articles on these topics, but the broad WP:DETAILs are still worth mentioning in an overview of burgers.
We shouldn't be aiming for a short article about the very basic concept of a plain beef hamburger that avoids mentioning any of these things and instead ends with a list of links to See also: History of the hamburger, Big Mac, Cheeseburger, McDonald's, Steak burger, Veggie burger. Belbury (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to disagree, and I understand that you don't think anything about veggie burgers beyond a listing under See also is appropriate. I don't think you have consensus here for that. Valereee (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's 3 people talking. I'm going to request further comment here. Strongwranglers (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really three people talking. You've opened three sections on this question, and you've gotten pushback from others in the previous sections. My count is one person agreeing with you, four disagreeing. I mean, I guess you could open an RfC. Valereee (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Glossary has an entry for parent article.
The Wikipedia Glossary has an entry for child article.
I don't think you have consensus for removing it, and I don't see the logic of it. Pointing out that it is covered somewhere else in detail is not an argument for removing it here. In fact, a large part of article creation and organization occurs through observing the principles of WP:Summary style, which calls for topics with broader coverage, called parent articles, to exist in tandem with other articles with narrower coverage called child articles. The child article goes into a lot of detail on the narrower topic, and the parent article goes into less detail, having just a section about the narrower topic, maybe even just a paragraph that summarizes the content of the child article. The topics hamburger and veggie burger are in a parent-child relationship per WP:Summary style, and the articles properly reflect that relationship of the two topics: they should follow summary style, and do, currently. Consequently everything is in order and there is no reason to change anything. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, per my comments in the Talk:Hamburger#Remove_'veggie_burger'_section thread above, IMO the veggie burger section fits this article. We could also make some of the Hamburger#Other_meats burgers sections with a bit of prose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

trim to steak burger section

[edit]

I've trimmed this to the marketing term stuff with a mention of the new article at Steak sandwich (Australia), since the serving etc. just seems redundant. Happy to discuss if anyone objects! Valereee (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. We've lost the implication that sometimes steak burger is just a name given to a regular burger (Some baseball parks concessions in the United States call their hamburgers steak burgers), but reading the cited source I see that it wasn't actually making that claim (today is half-price steak burger day, certainly a cut above the usual ballpark burger). Belbury (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment:Variations#Veggie burgers should be removed from the article.

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Keep and follow summary style. -- Beland (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Veggie burger exists as an article already, there is no reason to include it over other types of burgers. This should be appended to the end of the article under the Hamburger#See_also section, or removed entirely from the article. Strongwranglers (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a prose section in the article, meat-less hamburgers should have some text in this article per WP:PROPORTION, it's a relevant part of the article subject (the something between something called a hamburger or burger). Quoting Mathglot [4] from one of the threads on this above, "...I don't see the logic of it. Pointing out that it is covered somewhere else in detail is not an argument for removing it here. In fact, a large part of article creation and organization occurs through observing the principles of WP:Summary style, which calls for topics with broader coverage, called parent articles, to exist in tandem with other articles with narrower coverage called child articles. The child article goes into a lot of detail on the narrower topic, and the parent article goes into less detail, having just a section about the narrower topic, maybe even just a paragraph that summarizes the content of the child article. The topics hamburger and veggie burger are in a parent-child relationship per WP:Summary style, and the articles properly reflect that relationship of the two topics: they should follow summary style, and do, currently. Consequently everything is in order and there is no reason to change anything."
We could also add similar sections to some other burgers, like chicken and fish, but that's a different discussion (or just some bold editing). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they are a hamburger variant, so they should be included in the hamburger article. They are also an obviously unique variant, being the most radical deviation from the formula. {{main|example}} exists for a reason. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, since it seems like discussion has previously gotten derailed; twelve hours ago I got two pieces of white bread, two patties, some bacon, provolone, American, and another cheese I don’t remember, and had a delicious lunch. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The section is very short, sourced, and summarizes what is at Veggie burger, which I think is an appropriate inclusion here as a veggie burger is a very common alternative to a hamburger, to the point that restaurants typically include them in the same section of menus. The fact an article exists at Veggie burger has literally nothing to do with whether or not these few sentences belong here. I'm not going to summarize all the previous arguments at Talk:Hamburger#Remove_'veggie_burger'_section and Talk:Hamburger#'Veggie_burgers'_and_'Steak_burgers'_should_be_removed_from_the_"Variations"_section above over the past three months, but removing this section from the article has already received significant pushback and little support. Valereee (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Belbury, Mathglot, SergeWoodzing as previous participants in the above discussions. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in a short section summarizing the child article Veggie burger, per WP:Summary style. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the short prose section per WP:summary style. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY style, as in similar article sections like Bacon#Alternatives and Sausage#Vegetarian versions. It's a variation so belongs in "Variations". The context of the ingredients and history seem worth summarising in a few sentences. Belbury (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per summary style. I would prefer that the section on "other meats" be prose-ified, and I think a two paragraph Variants section could do away with the current subsections. Probably the second veggie paragraph could be trimmed, and we can note the development of commercially available frozen/refrigerated veggie burgers without listing brands. Same with the meat-like versions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 1 December 2025 (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.

Overarching Burger article?

[edit]

Given the discussions on this page regarding the suitability of the inclusion of burger variations on this Hamburger page, maybe the solution is to create an overarching Burger page that starts with a short history of how Hamburgers evolved into variations that includes veggie, chicken, etc. burgers and then has a short paragraph on each type with a link to the detailed page for each one. Then, all the non-beef variations would be removed from this Hamburger page because its purpose will then be limited to beef (or ground beef)? Christopher Rath (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting hamburger/burger to beef would be a Wikipedia invention, I'd argue that sources don't do that in general, though of course people have definitions they prefer. Fwiw, this article is nowhere near WP:TOOBIG. This is the overarching article, with spin offs like History of the hamburger, History of the hamburger in the United States, Veggie burger etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we take the information that's currently in this article and split it off to Burger as an article as opposed to a disambiguation link that we gain a lot of niceties: Equal weight can be applied to different types of burgers which use the term, and it'll act as a true jumping-off point to other articles like you mentioned, and then for Hamburger itself we can limit that to being about the meat version, whereas Burger can be either a Hamburger, Veggie Burger, Salmon Burger, Bison Burger, and then all the regional variants as well.
Furthermore I believe that doing so creates a natural sorting/hierarchy which is fair to all parties. In a way, I see this as sort of replicating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(biology), whereby the container definition is that which is the least specific to a certain type, and then from there you get the other families of burger. Strongwranglers (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in support of this. Ultimately I think this article needs a re-write to actually act as the overarching article, instead of being muddied with having to share space with a myriad of unrelated topics. For example, all of the "By Country" section variants that are also listed within the article which don't actually describe a Hamburger.
Or the bottom section, 'Unusual Hamburgers', which is interesting information but isn't really related to Hamburger itself. I think also with the rise of many meat variants being called a 'Burger', that would be a superior catch-all as opposed to 'Hamburger'. Strongwranglers (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]