Talk:Hot dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Picture with Hotdog

The Picture should show a hotdog with mustard as it is much more common and putting ketchup on hotdogs is a rare oddity.

Not rare at all here in NY State--Saxophobia 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the Eastern US and I can assure you that around here ketchup / catsup is by no means a rare condiment on a hot dog. JohnCub 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a Polish dog?

A kielbasa. - knoodelhed 10:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard a hot dog referred to as a "tube steak"

Me either, but a Google search shows it used this way, so i think it's legit. Foobaz·✐ 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

tube steak has been around for many years -- but it's used facetiously.... Hayford Peirce 16:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I remember reading an article on "hashhouse slang"; basically, the argot of the old-fashioned formica-and-vinyl-booth diner; apparently it is the origin of such terms as "hold" for "omit" (as in "hold the onions"), "BLT" for bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwich, etc. Their term for beans and wieners was "tube steak and repeaters." --SigPig 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, it's about time there was a decent picture of a hot dog here.... Hayford Peirce 19:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name change?

I just reverted 152.163.100.130's blanking of the page. But, before he blanked it completely, he redirected it to Frankfurter. Is this a common name for hot dogs outside of the USA? If so, i think that may be a more appropriate name for the article, because as the article states, they are named hot dogs for political reasons. Foobaz·✐ 23:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As an Australian, I've always called and heard the particular kind of sausage used in hotdogs called a frankfurts (or franks, with the adjective 'skinless' when they don't have the red skins). 'Hot dog' (or 'dog') refers to a frankfurt in a (long/hotdog) roll. I've never heard them called 'frankfurters', but I've seen it written often enough. If it's not a frankfurt, it's not a hotdog; bratwurst in a roll is just bratwurst, or a normal everyday sausage in a roll is just a sausage in a roll (though usually sausages go in bread, not rolls). I would never've called a hotdog a sandwich, though, like in the intro to the article, but I suspect that's a difference in my definition of sandwich; if you offered me a sausage sandwich I would think you sliced up a piece of sausage and put it between two slices of bread, perhaps with some other condiments. 203.82.183.147 10:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would have said they are clearly different things. A 'frankfurter' is a particular type of sausage, in the UK they are commonly sold in tins and cooked by boiling (however I would be surprised if these were considered authentic in Germany). Meanwhile a 'hot dog' is a dish of a sausage served in a long bun.

The confusion perhaps arises because the frankfurter is the most common sausage used for making hot dogs in many areas (at least in New York, although it is not true where I live where grilled sausage hot dogs are much more common). As such frankfurters are also sometimes refered to as hot dogs even when not served in a bun. Oh, and that suggests the frankfurter disambig page is wrong to point back here. A better guide is to be had at h2g2. -- Solipsist 22:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. In my British experience, hot dogs can be made with just about any kind of sausage. Sometimes a frankfurter, sometimes a soft sausage a little thicker than (what I know as) a frankfurter (typically labelled as "hot dog sausages"), sometimes a typical grilled/fried/barbecued/whatever sausage. -- Smjg 08:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Gimme a break, these are HOT DOGS not frankfurters. They've been called HOT DOGS for a century or so. Just as we wouldn't change French Fries to Freedom Fries cause Georgie B says so we also aren't going to change HOT DOGS to some out-of-date hickville term like frankfurters cause some bloke down underwhere says thats what his mommy calls them. Times change, buddy. And Australia has a grand total of 20 million people, half of them speaking English as a third language. (comment added by User:155.91.19.73 01:35, 26 Apr 2005 -- Solipsist 09:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) )

George Bush never said anything about changing the name of french fries. It was just some crazy people who went wild against the French. Also the president's name happens to be George W. Bush not "Georgie B"

In New York they are most often called Franks, and that is what they have always been called at the frankfurter meccas of Nathan's and (the long gone) Feltman's as well as at any Kosher deli. Ditto the most popular cart franks by Sabrett's. The better variety of all of the forgoing have natural casings. "Hot dog" in NYC suggests the more bologna-like soft "skinless" sausage popular in a lot of the heartland. New Yorker's may not eat anywhere near the majority of franks/hot dogs in America, but we know our bun stuffings. Put it another way, if you put ketchup (or worse "catsup") on it, it's a hot dog, if you put mustard on it, as nature intended, it's a frank. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

... ... There ıs a book that should be cıted: Title: Origin of the term "hot dog" / Gerald Leonard Cohen, Barry A. Popik, David Shulman. Imprint Rolla, MO : G. Cohen, 2004.

Well, I see that Mr. Cohen does write books on word origins, such as "shyster" but I can't find the existence of a "hot dog" book on amazon or bookfinder. Do you have an ISBN? I know there are lots of books on esoterica, but a whole book on the name "hot dog" takes the cake (or the bun). A web page maybe. -- Cecropia 18:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

... ... New York Publıc Lıbrary: http://catnyp.nypl.org/search/aCohen%2C+Gerald+Leonard%2C+1941-/acohen+gerald+leonard+1941-/-2%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=acohen+gerald+leonard+1941-&3%2C%2C5 ... ... UMR News and Research: UMR professor writes book on origin of 'hot ... Dr. Gerald Cohen, a professor of foreign languages at the University of Missouri-Rolla, has just published a 300-page book Origin of the Term 'Hot Dog' ... news.umr.edu/research/2004/527.html - 16k - Önbellek - Benzer sayfalar ... ... Kansas City Star | 04/02/2006 | Frankfurter, she wrote: Hot dog ... Gerald Cohen spent more than one-third of his life doing research on the hot dog and finally published a book on it in 2004. Surprisingly, he doesn’t like ... www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/14218513.htm - 33k - Önbellek - Benzer sayfalar

Spent 1/3 of his life researching hot dogs, and publishes a book... Yikes! Anyway, the book doesn't seem to be available yet. -- Cecropia 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

... ... It was publıshed ın 2004. It ıs ın the New York Publıc Lıbrary and other lıbrarıes. I have read ıt and ıt ıs a weıner.

[edit] Kosher hot dogs

I changed the wording mentioned kosher hot dogs, which had several misconceptions. First, most consumers seeking kosher food in the U.S. and apparently other nations as well are no longer Jewish, no less observant Jews. Among other consumers who knowingly purchase Kosher foods are vegetarians (because of Pareve), Seventh-Day Adventists, some Muslims when they can't obtain what they want in Halal (dietary law is similar though not identical), and many consumers who perceive Kosher foods as being safer or of higher quality. BTW, an observant Jew almost certainly wouldn't buy a kosher hot dog at a sports stadium for lack of confidence in how it was prepared and handled. In fact, I have a Muslim friend in Brooklyn who won't eat at a Kosher restaurant until he's seen who certified the Kosher cert. No joke. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Variations

After we get some more entries in this section, I was thinking about spinning it off into its own article. does that sound cool to everyone? Youngamerican 19:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added something about White Hots and Red Hots. Here in Upstate New York, we have two types of hot dogs. Whenever I travel, people have no idea what I mean, but if you have ever had a white hot, then you would know it is a different type of hot dog and not a sausage. They can also be called Pork (White) or Texas (Red) Hots. Many restraunts around here offer both types. - martianpenguin

Why does Youngamerican keep deleting my information about Hoffman franks in Upstate NY? Information about the most popular brands in NYC and Zweigles in Rochester gets to stay, but what's considered the best brand in Central NY can't be identified because of "Wikipedia policies"? That is highly inconsistent.

When did I do that? I have never deleted anything on Central NY. Check the edit history more carefully. Some of the regions I put up were deleted, too, and I re-added those. Feel free to put upstate new york or anywhere else you want. Youngamerican 19:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I checked the edit history, and I think you are mixing me up with jtmichcock. he is the person that used the term "wikipedia policies" Youngamerican 19:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies.

After some edits, I'm researching how dogs are eaten in various parts of the American South. I've been trying to get this as specific as possible and thank everyone for their contributions. Youngamerican 12:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted my previous edit of the Germanic countries paragraph (originally written by me to describe the Danish hot dog, but coopted first to cover the entirety of Europe, and then next to cover the Germanic countries). I was corrected by a native Dane, and therefore I reverted the text back to the Germanic countries, and inserted a separate paragraph specific to Denmark. Accoding to Danish standards, what is described in the Germanic paragraph is not at all a "hot dog", but a "sausage". A hot dog, after Danish standards, must be eaten on the bun, and is really a "sandwich type" (although there is a "hot dog sausage" too, but which when eaten held in the fingers is called a "red sausage"). Other sausages (such as a knækker) served on a bun would also be called a knækker hot dog because it is served hot dog-style. If what is described in the German paragraph is indeed a generic sausage and not a "hot dog", then perhaps we should question it's appropriateness here in this article. Sfdan 17:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Red dogs? as a Maine version? I am a Mainer, on the coast, and I have never heard that term.--Dumarest 21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

After some more research, it appears to me that JTMitchcock continuously deleted my comments last year because of ignorance and arrogance. He somehow believes that it's not NPOV to mention that Hofmann's brand is considered by many to be the best in Central New York. If he would only do some research (Google the brand), he would be disabused of this notion. While some people around these parts may disagree that it's the best, even they will admit that most others do think so. It is famous around these parts, the preferred brand of almost every street vendor and Heids (who lost a lot of business when they switched to another brand for a few years), whether JTMitchcock likes to think so or not. Newspaper articles he can easily find online if he only cared to look would confirm that. Not only inside CNY, but people in other regions routinely mention Hofmann's in online forums dedicated to hot dogs. But Mitchcock is too busy already knowing everything about all hot dogs around the world. --24.92.241.215 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the "Dodger Dog" truly "world famous"? This doesn't seem NPOV. I know I've never heard of it, nor has anyone I know. 24.92.241.215 23:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty famous. I've heard of it and I'm not even close to Los Angeles. In the regional variations section, the NPOV rule tends to get stretched a bit since it's the one area you can talk about "your" hot dog. Jtmichcock 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recipie removed

Argue if you choose. Wikipedia isn't a place for general lists of information. I may be misinformed, so tell me if so. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it has long been established that recipes go in [Wikisource]. -- Solipsist 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Definition

I changed the definition at the top so there was some reference to what a hot dog is. It was reverted. My new definition read:

"A hot dog is the reprocessed flesh of dead non-human animals, classified as a type of sausage or, alternatively, a sandwich on a suitably shaped bun with the sausage and condiments on it."

This is a literal description of what a hot dog is. There is nothing "NPOV and redundant" about it. If someone disagrees, please make your comment here. Otherwise I am reverting back to my change.

Above was by User:Cogent 15:09, 6 Jun 2005

"Flesh" and "dead" have negative connotations. "Meat" would suffice, but "sausage" already means all of that. "Non-human animals" is redundant, and is also implied by "meat" or "sausage". If someone really doesn't know what a sausage is, they can click the "sausage" link. If you want to expose the hidden truth that meat is made out of dead animals, I think the Meat page would be a more appropriate place to do it.DenisMoskowitz 15:38, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan

I added a piece on the michigan hot dog and I also wrote an article on the Michigan.

Not to doubt your hard work, but I've lived in Quebec (and a rather Francophone part of the province) for ten years and it's always been "un chili dog." Nobody but NOBODY calls them 'chiens chaud', in case somebody is wondering. MattShepherd 20:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other meanings

added a culture reference to "chili dog" that i have heard from numerous sources. it was removed as "vandalism" but i'm adding it back in

Try listing it under "chili dog (sex act)." It does not belong in the hotdog article, however. Youngamerican 14:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Type "chili dog" in the search box. you come to this page. if wikipedia puts people here for chili dog, this is where it should be.

If anything, make a disambiguation link at the top of this page. DenisMoskowitz 19:58, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

[edit] Meat type

Hot dogs are usually made of beef or a mixture of beef and pork
And what kind of beef or pork? Shoulder? Sirloin? Liver? Offal? This article needs more information about the composition of the hot dog. -Timvasquez 00:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

USDA rules are pretty strict in one respect -- if you use offal you have to indicate it on the label. It isn't usually done because of the labeling requirements. Now the issue of fat content is a little different -- I've heard some shady stuff goes on there regarding meat/fat ratios, but unfortunately that isn't a labeling issue according to the rules. As far as the actual cuts of meat used, probably a lot of scraps and cutter/canner grade stuff, nothing specific -- you don't really need high-quality meat to make a decent hot dog. Or a hamburger for that matter. Haikupoet 04:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Here's another point I'd like to throw out, and something that my family has obsessed over for almost a decade. Don't most standard skinless hot dogs contain pork, beef, and chicken (and/or turkey in some cases)? In my area there only a few brands here and there at the supermarket that don't put poultry in their hot dogs.--SHFan06 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the terribly vague "vegetarian ingredients" to "meat analogue," which is a valid and useful Wikipedia article. Somebody has reverted this before, and I honestly don't understand why they're so squeamish about the term. It's precise and the article has useful information, unlike the previously linked vegetarianism article which tells all about the reasons for the practice but not what might be in the hot dogs. -- 24.92.241.215 09:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article has serious issues

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)

[edit] Split?

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)

[edit] Hollywood Hotdog

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. =)

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)

[edit] Origin of "Hot Dog" (name)

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)

[edit] Where's the Mustard?

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)

[edit] Trivia

World's longest hotdog at 20m created February 25th 2006 at Curtin University in Perth. [1] Nachoman-au 12:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot dog variations

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)

[edit] Very US centric article

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)

[edit] Hot dog bun in 1860s?

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 unsigned comment was added by 85.99.180.131 (talk • contribs) .

(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)

[edit] Hotdog can't win

Either way you took at it the hot dog will never be as good as the sausage.

[edit] History of hot dog sausage - possible mistake in article

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.

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?
When was the first such sausage, reasonably like today's "hot dog" credated?
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?
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)

[edit] "Hot dog" is the most commonly heard term in spoken language in most of the U.S.

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. ፈቃደ (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"? ፈቃደ (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)

[edit] Capitalization needed.

First section, third paragraph, last sentence.

[edit] why national chains dont carry hot dogs

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)

[edit] Only hot dogs legal in T.O.?

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)

[edit] International Variation

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)

[edit] Octodog?

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)

[edit] In French?

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)

[edit] Simon Deering

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. jd || talk || 13:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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 resolving ambiguity, and putting Hotdogs on a disambiguation page that doesn't use his name as the title won't help the people that don't know his name and wouldn't think of looking there. If Hotdogs were plural, I wouldn't see the problem, but it is singular, and a proper noun that shouldn't be modified for the sake of a disambiguation page. 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. Dog (disambiguation) links to articles relating to a man called Dawg, a TV episode called Dogged, and even several things using the plural Dogs if the parallel wasn't clear enough. 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)

Okay, and we've just somehow gone right back to the {{otheruses}} template... Reason? jd || talk || 21:01, 25 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 WP:DAB and 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 {{otheruses}}. I provided my reasoning to put it back; you've yet to provide your reasoning for making the change in the first place. Please 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 {{otheruses}} tag must be used on a page. I saw the word can used, but not must. jd || talk || 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted from your tone and actions that you're becoming exasperated. I wished only to clarify that my sole intent is to preserve the style and standards of Wikipedia, which why I linked to AGF. I apologize if I did not convey that impression adequately. More to the point, I would direct you to the following lines in MoS:DAB:

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 WP:DAB: "a number of templates have been created to ensure the uniform appearance of disambiguation links" (emphasis mine). You are correct to note that they are not strictly mandatory; WP:DAB is, like all of the policy pages, only a guideline. However, it is an established consensus recommendation which I see no reason to contradict. If you believe the guidelines to be inadequate or if you wish a new dab template to fit your purposes, I would suggest bringing up the matter in Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation. -Anþony 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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 you don't have to stick to the policies and guidelines all the time. Hotdogs isn't a misspelling of hotdog, and it's pretty unlikely that a person would "accidentally" search for hotdog or hot dog instead of it. 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:DAB has a blind spot and you wish to invoke 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)