Talk:Big N' Tasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image

Does anybody have an image? --68.220.111.227 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Wasn't this burger a responce to the whopper?

[edit] Subject Matter

All pertinent information is in this article already.

Everything is there.

It is no longer sold for 99 cents anymore.

[edit] Not 99 cents.

Was it ever 99 cents? iirc, it used to be on the Dollar Menu, the price went up to 2 dollars-something.

It all depends on which mcdonalds you go too, If the demand is high enough, certian stores raise the price for a profit. Personally the mcdonalds I work at, still sells them for 1$(not 99c) and since the comercials state the BNT being on the dollar menu, I say its still consered 99c/1$. Moon Stone 08:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK version

The UK version is totally different, and shouldn't be included here, IMO. Just look at the product build, it's completely different. If you are going to include it here you really should add the correct nutritional information. --Beeurd 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I've always found it to be rather ordinary size, perhaps the name needs to be changed.


well seeing as how that has nothing to do with this article that does not matter. The fact is, Big N' Tasty is the official name. --MJHankel 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Results

  • There have been no comments in opposition to the article merges for McDLT and Big Xtra in the five days since I posted the proposals. So I am treating the result as Merge.
  • The result on the merge proposal for McLean Deluxe was no consensus.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

It has been proposed that the following articles be merged into this article:

Please discuss here.

  • Merge - Variations on the same sandwich. All attempts to make a Whopper Stopper. - Jeremy (Jerem43 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose - I really don't think the McLean Deluxe is a version of the whopper. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 10:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Proposed merge Kiwiburger

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Results


It has been proposed that Kiwiburger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) be merged into this article, Please discuss here.

Proposal was made on 3 November 2007

  • Merge - Regional variations on the same sandwich. - Jeremy (Jerem43 16:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose - Burger that represents certain tastes of a country - Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Kiwiburger harks back to traditional burgers from New Zealand fish & chips shops and takeaway bars and therefore is distinct from Big N'Tasty. It also has sufficient seperate branding and advertising campaign to warrent its own entry. (Guest:JaztheTaxGuru).
    • Comment Neither of these is valid enough, they are physically the same sandwich with one or two regional ingredients added, otherwise they use the same meat, bun, lettuce tomato. You have failed to provide WHY they are sufficiently different to warrant their own article. (unsigned by Jerem43
      • Comment You have the criteria for merging wrong, as well as failed logic. First: The KiwiBurger and the BNT are NOT the same sandwich: they have Different ingredients (as you mention), different packaging, different names, and are available in different locations. I could not ask for a kiwiburger anywhere and get a BNT, nor could I ask for a BNT anywhere and get a kiwiburger. Thus, there is no basis to say outright that it should not have an article. UCLA and University of California, Los Angeles are the same - one means the same as the other. They would not merrit their own articles. This is not the same case as here.
The two factors to consider re: merging are:
  1. Are the two topics related such that putting one under the title of the other (or a new title) will relate to both topics
  2. Is there enough separate content in both of the articles to support two articles?
If the first answer is yes, and the second is no, a merge is probably supported. Otherwise, it isn't.
In this case, I don't see a single mention of the BN in the Kiwiburger article. What "relation" is there between the two other than being McD's burgers with the same sized burger and bun and having toppings that are common on many burgers in the world? Is there any explicit evidence that McD intended the Kiwiburger as a variant of the BNT, and did not just come up with a separate burger that happens to use the same size patty?
As for the content issue, I agree the Kiwiburger is cutting it close on the "enough content" line. I wouldn't argue either way on that factor. I also don't know if more info is likely to ever be added to that article. But if it's too small, but still not related to the BNT, it shouldn't be merged in here.
There was nothing wrong at all with McDLT having its own article - it was a unique product from the BNT (existing in a different time and different packaging and gimmick. The issue was that the McDLT didn't have enough info to sustain an article. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with the Kiwiburger having an article even if one thinks it is a variant of the BNT, if there is enough info on the kiwiburger to support an article. Canadian football and American Football are just variants of the same game with slightly different rules, histories and localities. But they definately have enough differences to support two articles. Similarly, draw poker, stud poker, and Texas hold'em are three different variants of the game of poker, but all have enough unique info to support articles. I'm not pro- or con-merge here, but I think you should use the correct factors. TheHYPO (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The same could be said for McOz because traditional Australian burgers has beetroot etc, but since this is about the Kiwiburger I'll just stop now. - Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two different sandwiches, two different articles. JPG-GR (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Competition for Whopper Jr.

Has McDonald's come up with any competition for the Whopper Jr.? It's hard to beat a one-dollar sandwich with lettuce, onions, tomatoes, etc. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crappy photo

Could we PLEASE get a better photo of this sandwich on here?? The one on there now was made very poorly and with expired condiments. I would take one myself, but I don't have a decent camera. I think it's slightly bias to display a photo of McCrap sandwiches when other fast food restaurants have very excellent photos. --Yurimxpxman (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difference from Quarter Pounder

Could you please explain how it differs from the Quarter Pounder? 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • A typical Quarter Pounder would have mustard, tomato sauce, onions, two pickles, and a piece of meat sandwiched between two slices of cheese on a sesame seed bun. - Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 10:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • the toppings are the only difference. Same bun, cheese, burger patty, ketchup (not tomato sauce), pickles, and onion but the BNT removes the mustard and adds mayonnaise, lettuce and tomato.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right Jeremy, there's no need to get all technical on the name of sauces. I know that McDonald's uses ketchup as the official name for the sauce, but as one of the many Australians to do so, I refer to Ketchup as Tomato Sauce (hell, even the ketchup article says it's also known as Tomato Sauce in the first line and also in the 'See also' line in the Tomato Sauce Article). This image also proves my point that we tend to call Ketchup, Tomato Sauce: http://www.aussiefavourites.com.au/cornershop/images/hnz_bigred600.jpg . Not trying to be an arse, but please, don't correct me on such minor things like that :P - Cheers, Vicer Userpage | Talk 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McDLT

Is that really the predecessor? What about the Big Xtra that was out before the Big N' Tasty? [1] [2]

Why isn't there a McDLT page? Ridiculous! 76.93.30.221 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • There was originally such an article under McDLT, but it was merged to this article. I proposed a new article called McD.L.T. because that was the official spelling on the packaging. The article I have created can be found here (right now it's a stub, but I believe it's still notable enough for now). Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I merged these articles because these are all the same sandwich, but with different names and packaging. They are all "Whopper stoppers", McD's attempt to create a sandwich to challenge the Burger King sandwich. It would be equivalent to creating a dozen articles on the exact same product. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
They're all the same sandwich? That's your opinion. If you had a source from McDonald's stating so, then it would be different. And when I Googled "mcdlt" and "big n tasty" together, all that came up were Wikipedia or Wikipedia-like articles with no source information. By the way, your removal of the merge tag I placed so soon in conjunction with your reply almost seems like a violation of WP:OWN. Anthony Rupert (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The "build" on all of these products is:
  1. Quarter Pounder patty
  2. Mayonnaise
  3. Lettuce
  4. Tomato
  5. Pickle
  6. Ketchup
  7. Mustard
  8. Onion
  9. Quarter Pounder roll
If that does constitute the same sandwich, then what does? The only difference between the McDLT, the Big Extra and the Big N Tasty is the name and packaging. You will need a more compelling reason why we need 3-6 separate articles for the same product and business concept, a "Whopper Stopper". The Big Tasty, is the exception because depending on the market, the product will vary the sauces.
It is not an "own" but knowledge of the facts and the previous merge proposal which I did due diligence on. Also, you failed to do it properly. Read up on the creation of split/merge proposal and you will see that you do not use horizontal rules, and you do set up a proper discussion section on the talk page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, you need to be civil. Second of all, the reason I added the horizontal lines was because I feel only part of that section needs to split, and I couldn't find a tag on the WP:CR page that stated something to the effect of "it is suggested that some parts of this section be split into a new article called...".
  • And as far as what you call the "build" of all the products, maybe you're just not getting it: where is the source that says the Big N' Tasty and the McD.L.T. are the same product? You're just giving your opinion that they are. And as far as being a "Whopper stopper", I checked the given source for that, and it does mention the Big N' Tasty being as such, but nowhere does it mention the McD.L.T.
  • One more thing: "setting up a proper discussion on the talk page", um, what do you think this is? I'm going to replace the tag and then let's see what other editors have to say first. Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have worked in this industry for the past 25 years, and am knowledgeable about the history of this sandwich. Try looking in the trade magazines and you will find that these sandwiches are an attempt after attempt by McDs to create their own Whopper-like product. This sandwich is akin to the Big King sandwich, which is a BK's take on the Big Mac. Try a search using the key words of "Whopper Stopper", "McDonald's", "McDLT", "MDX" and the other products mentioned in the article and you will find a myriad of links mentioning these products and others that failed. The articles shown in the results of that search will state that these sandwiches all fall into the industry category of mayo, lettuce and tomato burgers.
Here are some comments from results that I came up in in that search:
  • And what is a McDLT, you might ask? Well, I could say that it was McDonald's ill-fated 1980s attempt at aping Burger King with a "Whopper Stopper" of a burger that came in two compartments—one for the burger and one for the lettuce and tomato.[www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/04/coffee_and_burger_break.html Source is here]
  • "The MBX must deliver on value, which it does right now," said Ball, referring to the big beef, lettuce and tomato sandwich now in test, dubbed the latest "Whopper Stopper." Source is here
  • The Big Xtra, similar to Burger King's signature sandwich, was dubbed the "Whopper stopper" when it was launched in 1997. Source is here (the MBX was the test name of the Big Xtra)
  • Already being billed in some quarters as "the Whopper Stopper," McDLT has been positioned directly against Burger King's signature product in an effort to further widen the gap between No. 1 McDonald's and its closest competitor. Source is here
  • "In fact, it's even been dubbed as a potential 'Whopper Stopper'," restaurant consultant Dennis Lombardi of Technomic said of McDonald's "Big 'n Tasty," which is being tested in California. Source is here
I want to remind you of a favorite quote of mine from Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics.
Your argument that I need a source from McD's stating that they are all one in the same is faulty, industry trades can show that my point is valid and correct. These quotes are all from reputable sources, including Time, Nation's Restaurants News as well as other trade magazines referencing the commercial food industry. The trades often go into the nitty-gritty development that mass media sources do not go into, as the mass-media usually just wait until shortly before the introduction or termination of a product and give a minor summary of the product. You need to look deeper then the sources you quote in your sandbox article, which all appear to be solely from said mass media sources; though I browsed quickly through your test article and didn't read deeply into the whole thing so I could be wrong. What I did glean from the citations you used is that they only acknowledge that the sandwich did in fact exist, what they do not show is the other facts of the history of failed products the McDLT is part of.
Also, don't confuse terseness and sarcasm with incivility; this does not mean I being rude- it just means that I do not agree with your POV or opinion and presenting it in a way that I feel best gets my point across. I have seen incivility an this is by no means close.
When you do something, take the time and effort to do it correctly. When want to propose a split or merge, first you put the tag at the beginning of the article or section (the McDLT line is not a section). After tagging the article, you create a section on the talk page that starts with the heading of Merge proposal or Split proposal, and then you list your concerns and reasons justifying your proposal. The way you went about proposing the split does not conform to the WP:MoS rules as set forth in either WP:Merge or WP:Split, also read the WP:Common names style guide on naming conventions because your proposed new article does not conform to that guideline as well.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is it with you and not getting it? Only one of those sources you listed even mentions the McD.L.T., and when it does, it proves my point, not yours. And the amount of time you have worked in the industry has no bearing on Wikipedia's policies.
  • Looks like I'll have to take this to WP:3. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I'm sorry, Anthony, but I don't think that the McDLT needs its own page. There's not enough in the proposed article to warrant its own page; the majority of those sources are blogs/message boards/non-reliable sources, and I just don't think there's enough notability shown in the article. If I had to guess, I'd say that the article would fail AfD. Finally, I think this page is pretty good in its use of the McDLT text; the History section is pretty clear, and the one line about the McDLT under Discontinued says all that it has to. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The proposed split has been withdrawn by the editor who made it. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that the information concerning the McDLT sandwich be split from this article.

Proposal: There was originally such an article under McDLT, but it was merged to this article. I proposed a new article called McD.L.T. because that was the official spelling on the packaging. The article I have created can be found here (right now it's a stub, but I believe it's still notable enough for now). Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - please see my reasoning in the above discussion, as well a noting that the sandwich fails to meet the qualifications of WP:Note. The proposed article does not establish the notability of the product. The only two reliable sources are not about the product itself, but instead the citations primarily refer to McDonald's discontinued use of Styrofoam packaging. Further, the majority citations do not conform to the standards of WP:RS as all but the two mentioned are blogs or completely unrelated. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed article seems to fail WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We have bigger McFish to fry than this McSplit.... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.