Talk:Cook Out (restaurant)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Facebook page?

I don't know if the Facebook group with the vulgar name (Cookout is the Shit!) is appropriate here in Wikipedia. But still, to even view that external link, you have to be a member of Facebook and logged in. Is is appropriate to have external links that not all people can view? I don't know if a college student group named after a restaurant is encyclopedia worthy, though a membership of 3500 is impressive.

Since Cook Out has so little info available on the internet, this is as good as it gets basically. Yes, it's bad that not all can view the page, but it's proof, and without it, you have nothing. As for vulgarity, it doesn't really matter. Look up Internet slang. :) --Triadian 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP has never been censored as a point. The name should remain uncensored.

Response

Yeah I know that it is thrown in at an awkward point. I was surprised that someone decided to censor the word shit from the name of the group. Cook Out plays a large part in college culture I think the facebook group clearly shows how popular it is among us. If someone could incorporate it immmmmmmmmnto the article better it would be cool. I'm sure some other people could do a much better job that I could.

(Djclimber 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Trying to avoid an "edit war" over the cities/milkshakes issue

Ok, I checked out the info on lists (from the link Diablo left), it looks like a list of cities, and a list of milkshakes both fit the guidelines for being included in a list.

I think knowing where the restaurant can be found is important and interesting information (Otherwise what good would an entry on "Jimmy's Crab Shack and Margarita Bar" be if you didn't know where it was?) The list of cities give information on how far Cook Out has spread as well as noting that no one has seen a Cook Out outside of NC.

The milkshakes, being one of the unique and identifying characteristics of Cook Outs, I don't see how listing out the 100flavors of milkshakes offered by cookout is any different than listing out the type of bones in part of the human hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_bone

So, there's my 2 cents, pls discuss here rather than rewriting the entry every week or so ;) Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredwolff (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory (please see what Wikipedia is not) and users don't generally come to Wikipedia looking for a directory. Do you honestly think that a bloated list of cities is really necessary to convey the fact that Cook Out restaurants are only found in NC? Shall we include the phone numbers and addresses for each location as well? There are plenty of resources on the internet to find restaurant information (locations, menu items, etc.) and Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) should not be one of them unless there is a particularly notable reason to include this information in an article. If a few of the shake flavors are unique, feel free to include them in the content of the paragraph, but this article does not need a list of every shake flavor available Cook Out (please see the articles on more popular fast-food hamburger chains. Do they list every menu item and location?) Also, please read Wikipedia guidelines regarding WP:LIST, lists are generally discouraged unless the information in the list is specifically notable and a list is the best possible format in which to present the information. Are you seriously comparing the a list of the bones in the human hand (in an encyclopedia) to a list of milkshake flavors available at an obscure regional hamburger chain that doesn't even have a web site? Do those two lists really seem equal to you in terms of their value to an encyclopedia? If you would like to expand the article, try writing some verifiable information from a reliable source and follow Wikipedia's style guidelines for formatting and the proper use of lists (see WP:STYLE). — DIEGO ^talk 19:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, calm down, just trying to talk this out, resolve the issue the right way and everything.

I've read the "Wikipedia is not a directory" and nothing in there seems to apply to listing the cities where a restaurant has locations, if you can quote any piece of the wikipedia style guide that you think applies, then that would probably make this discussion a little more directed. But basically, by entry in the wikipedia WP:NOT#DIR page:

1. The Cook Out entry is itself not a list, but it does contain lists, which seems to be valid.
2. This entry is also not a phonebook entry, there aren't any phone numbers, or actual addresses.
3. There was no "Current Events" info or anything like that in the entry.
4. The list of milkshakes are not a "sales listing", as there were no prices listed
5. And there was no cross categorization going on.

As for WP:LIST, I don't see anything about lists being discouraged, except for the case where an entire entry is nothing but a list. In fact, lists are common: "Lists are commonly used to organize information in Wikipedia articles. Lists may be found within the body of a prosaic article, or as a stand-alone article. This guideline explains when and how to use lists appropriately."

I think the lists were properly formatted and reasonable information. As I said before, the number and variety of milkshakes Cook Out has is a defining characteristic, and interesting information. Sure, I could pick out all the milkshakes no one else has and include that in a single sentence, but why not just provide a list of them all and let people decide for themselves which ones are interesting? And sure, I could just say that there are Cook Out restaurants all across North Carolina, and if someone wanted to know how many or where, they could look them up one by one, but why not save them the trouble?

And, on a more personal note - these two lists were, to me, the most interesting parts of the wikipedia entry on Cook Out. I live near one, but until I read the entry on them I didn't have any notion of how widespread they were. And while I've seen the list of milkshakes before when I've gone to the chain, I thought it was nice to have a reference online. That way if I tell an out of state friend or relative about them I could just give them a link to the wikipedia entry.

Finally, if you want verifiable information, I can go to the place and take some pictures of the menu, edit out the prices (because wikipedia is NOT a sales catalog) and post them on here and I can do the research on where they're located and provide sources if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredwolff (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hey man, calm down". What did I write that implied I wasn't calm? I certainly have more important things to get worked up about than this article. Here are some examples of Wikipedia articles that are comparably in subject to this article (please note the general formatting:

• In-N-Out Burger
• Sonic Drive-In (note the "locations" section)
• McDonald's (obviously a much larger company (and article), but still no lists.

This article is a stub. In its current form, neither of these lists adds anything of value (notable or encyclopedic) to the article. If there are notable shake flavors or notable locations, they should be worked into the prose as the article is expanded. If you don't believe me, feel free to conduct an RFC, where other editors will tell you the same thing. I have never been to North Carolina and I have never eaten at a Cook Out. My only interest is that this article not be filled with cruft and that it follows a similar format to other articles covering similar subjects. If you have knowledge of this company that can be verified through a reliable source, feel free to expand the article and add appropriate references. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about thinking you were getting wound up about this article, I probably misread/misunderstood your use of italicized words. *shrug*

I'm a little confused as to what you're argument is against the milkshakes and locations - so, I'm going to address all the things you appear to be concerned with.

• Stub form: Yes, this article is a stub, and I was hoping that by expanding it, or re-expanding it, it might become an actual article at some point.
• Notability: from the examples you gave, the Sonic Drive-In page has locations that seem to be no more notable than the ones that were listed in the Cook Out page, and the same with the menu items from the In-N-Out Burger as compared to the notability of the types of milkshakes Cook Out carries.
• Use of lists: I still think lists are entirely appropriate for the list of cities Cook Outs can be found in, and the list of types of milkshakes they carry. I still don't see anything on the WP:LIST page about lists being discouraged, for special use or special cases, or anything else that would disqualify milkshakes or cities being in list form. I know the Sonic page didn't use lists, and I think it looks sloppy by comparison.
• References: And this is arguably the most important of the issues, as I can totally see where you would be coming from on this one. I'll go and take some pictures of the menu and the store, as well as do websearches and list them as references for current locations of Cook Outs, or possibly call their main office for official information and list that as a resource.

In summary, I'll be happy to get the reference information for the flavors and locations if that will keep the information from being removed again, and I'll be happy to argue any specific points as to the validity of this information before modifying the page again.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredwolff (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My point with the In-N-Out and Sonic articles is that they both mention notable locations and unique menu items, but they are not in list form and they are not all-inclusive (like the two lists removed from this article); they have been worked into the prose. You might think it looks sloppy, but that is the format followed in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles (especially those articles with an A, GA, or FA rating, which are virtually list-free). Established practice on Wikipedia is to include information in prose form unless there is a compelling reason not to.

The specific problem I have with the list of shakes is that the vast majority of shake flavors on the list can be found at almost any diner, ice cream parlor, or Dairy Queen (i.e, there is absolutely nothing notable about the fact that Cook Out's shake flavors include vanilla, peanut butter, chocolate, Oreo-mint, strawberry, Heath bar, blueberry, etc.) When you cut out the shake flavors that aren't notable, any truly unique flavors remaining can be easily worked into the prose.

The same goes for the list of locations; there is nothing inherently notable about any of the locations, especially since they are all in one state. If some of the locations are notable, explain why and work that information into the prose under a "locations" heading. If the only thing notable about the cities on the list is that they happen to have a Cook Out, then that list does not belong in the article. Believe me, if the article remains a stub with two giant non-notable lists attached, that only increases the chances that someone will nominate the article for deletion, especially since none of the information in the articles is supported by a reference to a reliable source (articles on much more notable subjects have been deleted on these grounds). I have have no doubt that this article can be improved and expanded, but adding unsightly, unencylcopedic lists is not the way to improve it. — DIEGO ^talk 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the most elegant way to address this problem was to pull out the lists into serparate articles and append them to the See Also section; it keeps the article clean and the information is still available. But, apparently, having a separate article qualifies as "blatant advertising" and it was deleted even though I contested it--there are some thing about this place I'll never understand. I still feel like this is the best option, but I don't care enough to dispute it.--Apotheosis247 (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple things

I just added in some stuff about the general lack of indoor seating at cook out restaurants. There also may be a point to be made about cookout's practice of repurposing old buildings. I know a at least a couple locations were former gas stations, but I can't find any references to this online.

I also added some stuff about fresh ingredients, but when I tried to cite a source (an associated content article) it tripped a spam filter. The information is good from what I know about the chain, but the AC article was the only source I could find to back it up. I'm not a regular editor so I don't know about getting it approved or what problem wikipedia has with associated content, the link however is : http://www.associatedREMOVETHISPARTcontent.com/article/214155/cookout_restaurants_fast_food_done.html?cat=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by G3head (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I've reverted a couple of edits to the External Links section in the past couple of days. These edits have been made without comment, but I thought I'd try to address the issue here. Cook Out has no official web site. Therefore there is and should be no link in the infobox on the right. Only official sites should go there. The two sites listed in the External Links section are BOTH unofficial fan sites. One of these two links should not be deleted in favor of the other. Normally, these links would be excluded (see WP:EL), but they are included here since there is no official web site for the company. That's why I've marked each of the pages as an "Unofficial Fan Site." This is an unusual situation that needs to be clear to the reader.

Now that I've made my case, I expect any further revisions to be discussed here before they are changed. I am completely open to other opinions on this. However, further edits to this section without comment, discussion or even so much as the courtesy of including an edit summary will be treated as vandalism. Henrymrx (t·c) 04:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Official Page?

There's been some edit warring here recently about the "official" Cook Out page. We've had a couple of unofficial fan site links on the article for a while. This is a little unusual, but as there hasn't been an official corporate page for the chain, it seemed reasonable. Then someone added the site hosted by appiandigital. This page has a copyright notice claiming it is owned by Cook Out. That seems to give it some credibility. Others have claimed that this is not an official page, but haven't really offered anything to back their claims up. Thoughts? Henrymrx (t·c) 06:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)