Talk:Waffle House

Radio call

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

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

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

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

During the begging of an economy collapse?

The last paragraph in the history section uses the words "during the begging of an economy collapse".
What's the meaning of that prepositional phrase?
Exactly what did the writer try to say?
What's the "begging" of a "collapse"?
Do we now see a "collapse" of an economy?
Is that the right word?
Further, did the alleged bankruptcy of the parent firm result from its purchase of the franchisee?
The paragraph in question lacks a tone of authority, professionalism, and credibility.
Is it possible to express the subject ideas -- and the interrelationships among them -- in a clear, direct, accurate, straightforward manner?
DocRushing (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh go away. This is just stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.66.17 (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No one likes a pedant, Doc. 24.144.38.141 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

An online encyclopedia, of all contexts, is a place where one should use and expect proper, correct, precise, and effective language.

By the way, some people also take note of those who bravely hide in the anonymity behind IPs rather than using names.

DocRushing (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So fix mistakes where you find them; there is no need to engage in conspicuous pedantry. 24.144.38.35 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I did fix it -- by removing the confusing, superfluous, tangential, and incomprehensible phrase.

On this page I described the problems with the expression in question.

That's a proper purpose of this talk page -- to discuss the article, including the problems in it.

It appears that you never saw the subject paragraph in its previous form.

In the future you will find it to your advantage for you to look into the surrounding circumstances before you start making impudent or impertinent comments to others.

DocRushing (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Waffle House signature greeting .... HI!!!!!!

The signature Waffle House greeting by the employees is twice the strength of the coffee they serve. Most times the greeting is polite and welcome but sometimes it borders on annoying. The greeting HI!!! bellowed at six am can be quite the wakeup. 68.55.58.46 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately, it's also company policy that all staff and managers on the floor greet the customer. 75.91.233.240 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Will

Advertisement?

I've read this article, and I can't seem to figure out what the request at the top is supposed to be about. What part of this article is written like an ad? Are we supposed to qualify every article with "negative" information? What if there isn't any? How do you find "negative information" for something like an oak tree or a type of fabric?
I suggest removing the box thing immediately. 67.77.198.183 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Waitress/server debate

If it's inconsequential, as you suggested, then why did you revert it?
The undeniably overwhelming majority of the "servers" at WH are unmistakably waitresses.
Why not continue to use the more precise -- and well established -- term for those women waiters?
Or why not wait for a "reliable source" to refute the irrefutable truth about the gender mix of those who serve food at WH?
There are cases where it's proper to use a gender-neutral term.
This one is not one of those.
In this case the quest for supposed sociological correctness reduces the precision of the language.
Does that serve a useful purpose?
DocRushing (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion because it doesn't make sense to revert an edit on the grounds that you don't like the edit summary. Moreover, "servers" is undeniably correct. The term makes no statement about the gender of the people giving you your WH hashbrowns. Nor should it, IMO: As I said, it's rather inconsequential, the gender of the people employed by Waffle House. But if you insist upon the engendered term, the onus is upon you to find reliable sources to back up your assertion that the "undeniably overwhelming majority" are female. The term "servers" needs no such sources, as there can be no logical refutation of the premise that the person who serves food is a "server". But again, if you insist, be my guest. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the past three years and more, the sentence in question has referred to "waitresses".

Suddenly an anonymous user substituted the word "server" and added a contentious or belligerent comment.

I reverted to the previous word, which is accurate, and which is more precise.

Yes, both "server" and "waitress" are correct.

However, "waitress" is more precise and is absolutely accurate.

When you ask for a "reliable source" for the waitresses at WH, you might as well ask for a reliable source for whether the sun set again this afternoon.

Why is the onus not on those who undertake to change our language?

Who or what has decreed that we should never again make an objective reference to the gender of any person?

Does that not reduce the richness of our language?

Does that not cause our language to become less specific, less lively, and more nearly sterile?

Again: What useful purpose do you purport to serve by substituting the forced or strained word "server" for the idiomatic word "waitress"?

DocRushing (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, sorry to barge in, but I was starting to get the impression from reviewing WP P&P that discussion of contentious edits belonged on the Talk page for the article. It seemed to me that any of the 54 editors who watch the article might have an opinion worth considering. I'd particularly like to hear from User 96.5.81.156 if "she" (sorry, she's a she in my brain until and unless she states otherwise) has anything to add. For what its worth, I vote for "servers". (Actually, I vote for "wait staff" but I'm not willing to make a big deal out of it.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct. The preceding conversation has been moved here from my talk page. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In case any editor may wonder in the future, the issue is addressed in the official style guide for Wikipedia. Wikipedia Manual of Style in section 16.13 (Gender-neutral language) states,

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), or where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school (when any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

The section is accompanied by an associated essay on the topic for further clarification. The exception to the guideline seems to be "all" rather than "most". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Officially the title for servers at WH is salesperson, but at the moment, I can't find a citation for that. Triona (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As a male server at Waffle House, I take offense at being called a waitress. It's true that the in house term is "salesperson." "Waitress" is an archaic and discriminatory word and if I catch Wikipedia using it, I'm suing :p 24.144.38.141 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody here has called you a waitress.

Has anyone under any circumstance ever called you a waitress?

The word "waitress" has appeared here only in connection with those who clearly and undeniably are women.

Archaic? Discriminatory? Hmmm.... Your personal views on that pair of points are interesting but not defensible.

The juvenile nature of your humorous threat to sue betrays your shortage of wisdom and maturity.

DocRushing (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of waitresses behind counter

Thanks, Billy, for the picture of the waitresses behind the counter.
Now will one of the new-age revisionists demand a "reliable source" to confirm the biological sex of those "women waiters" in that picture?
Since those particular "servers" are clearly and undeniably women, is it OK to use the correct term by calling them "waitresses"?
In my constant travels in my business throughout the nation, fairly often I eat at Waffle House restaurants.
I continue to watch for men waiters at those places.
Many years have passed since I last saw even one man waiter at a WH location.
They're still women, and they're still waitresses.
Thanks again, Billy.
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One employee does not a profession make. My store only has a few female servers, actually, most are males. I'm not sure why you'd want to keep any profession gender specific, males are just as capable of serving food as females. I know this whole debate is old, but I commented anyway, boo hoo. 24.144.38.141 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel curious.

At which Waffle House do you work?

If my travels ever allow, I'll try to stop there and see it myself.

Many years have passed since I last saw even one man waiter at a Waffle House.

By the way, in English composition, when an accurate specific term is available, that specific term is preferable to a less precise general term.

DocRushing (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, my orders have been taken by and received from males in at least four Waffle House locations in Alabama and Florida over the last couple of years. --Dystopos (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that heralds the onset of a new trend -- that is, an increasing number of men alongside the women behind the counters (rather than just at the grills) -- in a departure from the prevalent practices of the past throughout the WH chain.

[Several years ago I began to notice a relatively small but increasing number of women alongside the men at the grills, where the men appeared to be predominant.]

DocRushing (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think by calling it a "new trend" you appear out of touch, Doc. Are male nurses and female soldiers also a "new" trend?

Between us, I admit to the conscious social engineering some of us engage in in order to shift the perception of the masses before they notice what's happening.

"Didn't you know? Have you been living under a rock"

"Well, humph, of course I knew, I'm no out of touch old fogey."

You may have a better memory than the masses, Doc, but no one else will believe things were ever at all different than they are presently. This is a good thing in many ways-- it's how we reconcile sins of the past, such as slavery and institutional racism. Attempting to assign occupation by gender is just another sin we're trying to bury through the propaganda of pretended perception shift. First comes the pretension, then comes the actual shift. I think this is how public opinion is always formed: intellectuals decide on the desired perception, pretend it has always been, then the public catches on so as not to be out of touch. To value reality over perception is to be a rebel in reality.

I don't make the rules, I only sit in bemused observation. My store is in Fayetteville, AR, stop by any time. 24.144.38.35 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

When I responded to the cordial and constructive comment by Dystopus -- that is, when I wrote of a "new trend" -- I clearly and undeniably referred to what Dystopus had just mentioned -- "that is, an increasing number of men alongside the women behind the counters (rather than just at the grills)".

Then I made it even more obvious and unmistakable by describing it as "a departure from the prevalent practices of the past throughout the WH chain".

Please read carefully, and please try hard to understand what you read, lest you reach wrong conclusions, and lest you make inappropriate comments off the track.

Please also follow the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia by refraining from personal insults against other users.

This discussion pertains to the nouns used to describe certain waiters or servers -- the waiters or servers who happen to be women.

This is a matter of specificity.

If we discuss a group of wheeled conveyances, we can refer to them as vehicles, or we can choose to use more particular nouns, referring to them as cars, trucks, ambulances, or whatever else.

If we narrow the discussion to cars or to trucks, we can describe them even more particularly by using the brand names Ford, Chevrolet, Jeep, Kenworth, Freightliner, or ....

We can make it even more specific by referring, for example, to a turquoise-and-white 1957 Chevrolet BelAir four-door sedan with a V-8 engine and a PowerGlide transmission.

Or, if you prefer, we can use your logic by referring to it as merely a vehicle, on the theory that those details are irrelevant.

Just as it's helpful and appropriate to describe a car with one degree of specificity or another, so also it's helpful and appropriate, if a particular writer or speaker wishes, to describe a woman waiter or woman server with a degree of specificity -- by referring to her as a waitress.

Again, this is a matter of using our language in a way which enables us to achieve a degree of precision -- by using a specific term rather than a general term.

This has nothing to do with racism, slavery, "sins of the past", or any of that other psychobabble into which you wandered away.

Under the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia, as under the more inclusive rules of etiquette in a polite and civilized society, when we find it necessary to disagree with a thought, an idea, a concept, an expression, or a position, we have a duty and a responsibility to disagree without behaving in a disagreeable way.

That is, if or when we attack a concept, we must avoid attacking the person or the people who hold or express that concept.

Again, if or when we must disagree, we should disagree without becoming disagreeable.

Your IP address appears to be connected to an ISP in Conway, Arkansas, whereas you've said that you work at a Waffle House in Fayetteville.

That's a distance of about 160 miles, so that requires a round trip of about 320 miles.

Do you make that commute five days each week?

DocRushing (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have now shown yourself to be not only a pretentious pedant, but also a creepy stalker. 24.144.50.102 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user, please see WP:NPA and keep it respectful from now on. Blowagoat (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To the anonymous user at 24.144.50.102:

Are you the same person as the anonymous user at 24.144.38.35 and 24.144.38.141 -- the one who has previously made several comments on this page?

All three of those IP addresses appear to be connected to the same ISP in Conway, Arkansas.

Any user at Wikipedia is free to think whatever he may wish.

However, every user here is bound by not only the general rules of social and business etiquette but also the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Those precepts require us to refrain from expressing ourselves to others in an impolite, discourteous, disrespectful, or otherwise inappropriate manner.

It's OK to disagree with the content of an article or a comment on a talk page.

However, it's not OK to make a personal attack on any other person.

Labeling and name-calling do not help; they do not contribute to discussions or resolutions.

Quite to the contrary, they are counterproductive, and they mark those who take part in such.

By the way, I've noticed that another user has corrected you for similar misbehavior on another talk page.

I saw also that you responded to that reprimand by ordering the other user off your talk page.

If you wish to continue to participate at Wikipedia, please follow the rules here.

DocRushing (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Diner lingo"

The term diner lingo here is misleading. While the method used to call orders has similarities to diner lingo, it's actually part of a specialized system that's been designed to get orders on the grill faster and more accurately, without the grill operator having to constantly refer to tickets.

• Pull drop mark is the call-in system. The server says pull, then gives a count of meats on the order by cooking time, then the server says drop and the number (but not toppings) of hashbrowns, and then finally mark, and the actual order, all using specific terms.
• During the "Pull" part of the call in, the grill operator "pulls" the meats onto the grill.
• During the "Drop" phase of the call in, the grill operator "drops" hashbrowns onto the grill, "in the ring" or "scattered" depending on if toppings are desired.
• During the "Mark" phase of the call in, the grill operator uses a system called "magic marker" to "mark" plates by arranging condiments on the plate or platter to indicate the order - the specific placement of which determine what is to be cooked. A poster describing the system is often taped above the sandwich board or to the vent hood above the grill, often to one side for the reference of the grill operator.
• After the mark, the grill operator calls back the order to insure accuracy.

The above differs quite a bit from diner lingo, in that a number of terms from diner lingo are either not used, or are used in very specific ways. The pull, drop, mark call-in is unique to Waffle House and is intended to maximize throughput. I'll try to find a reference for this. Triona (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

The source cited for the last line in this section refers to ALLEGED discrimination. The sentence here ends "... for the rise in discriminatory behavior." Seems you're bordering on libel; so much for adhering to Wiki-policy! 66.81.255.162 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Waffle House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060510151831/http://rumored.com/glossary/W.html to http://www.rumored.com/glossary/W.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929171030/http://bomplist.xnet2.com/0208/msg02537.html to http://bomplist.xnet2.com/0208/msg02537.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110521115645/http://wafflehouse.com/your-house/waffle-house-records to http://www.wafflehouse.com/your-house/waffle-house-records

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Waffle House Jukebox

I'm working on gathering data for a potential new section - they have their own label, and every Waffle House has a jukebox with Waffle House songs on it. This is what I've found so far for their song listing.

• Waffle House Family Pt.1
• 844,739 Ways to Eat a Hamburger
• Waffle Do Wop
• I'm Cookin'
• There Are Raisins in My Toast
• Saturday Night at My Place
• Special Lady
• I'm Going Back to the Waffle House
• Good Food Fast
• Waffle House Thank You
• Bert
• Over Easy
• Save Me
• 50 Years and Counting
• Make Mine With Cheese
• Waffle House for You and Me
• Waffle House Steaks
• They're Cooking Up My Order

Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

References so far http://www.allmusic.com/album/waffle-house-jukebox-favorites-vol-1-mw0001084437 https://www.amazon.com/Waffle-House-Jukebox-Favorites-Vol/dp/B005FTRAWW

Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's an article on NPR about this: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/15/470554245/a-b-side-with-your-bacon-waffle-house-has-its-own-music-label

Big Wang (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Map

Shouldn't there be a map of Waffle House locations? A lot of other chains have such maps. Jgera5 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree this would be helpful. had to look up on Google maps myself to verify that Clark's summit was the east most WH 107.127.11.44 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Fights

Waffle House needs its own page dedicated to fights with the videos cited, for research purposes of course. 2600:100C:B24A:8951:D493:3635:A7AA:9540 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Incidents

Hello, would removing Incidents be something that would help the page be more encyclopedic as there could possibly be incidents pages any any geographical location if they are only referring to happenings or mentions in news papers of tragedies. I am split between if these should be mentioned here, since they are relevant based on sourcing, but I don't know if they should be listed here as they feel a little odd. Maybe they should have their own page, or possibly an Incidents at Restaurant's separate page. Idk, wanting to hear you thoughts. Thanks Datsa54 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Waffle House Has Found It's New Host discussion.

As of right now, anyone trying to add this will likely be removed under Wikipedia:Recentism. It is just a trend at the moment. However, if it progresses more than it is at currently then it's notability and significance to the company will have to be added eventually - not much is happening currently so future editors please don't add for now! Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"History" needs editing

Are you aware that somebody has replaced the names of the actual founders with "Jackson and Dylan Copus"? I'm unable to edit, but I at least hope those in charge of this page are aware. 174.50.53.81 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

History

In the history section, please replace Jackson and Dylan Copus with Tom Forkner and Joe Rogers Jr. https://www.eater.com/2017/4/28/15468844/waffle-house-founder-death-tom-forkner 2600:100C:A215:E059:21A6:219A:FA81:8A9D (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done This was a piece of vandalism that was missed. Thanks for the heads up. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidents?

Hello all!

Do you think the Incidents section is needed as there are likely many more "incidents," and that section could become its own page if the research was done? Should it be removed or merged into a new page? I'm open to doing more research to see if I can come up with other sources for other incidents for a page move/merger or vote to see if a removal would be a better option as it's not all-encompassing.

Uri24 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The chain has tons of locations and many of them are open 24/7 so it stands to reason incidents happen. Is that worthy of a mention here? I'm not sure the coverage warrants a mention here unless there's a significant coverage of incidents happening because of Waffle House. - Nemov (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I am open to hearing more point of view if anyone has objections. If not I will go ahead and remove the section under WP:BOLD. Thank you. Uri24 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Restaurant count inconsistency

Hello! Whilst reading, i noticed that the count of restaurants presented in the introduction ("[...] is an American restaurant chain with 1,900 locations") differs from the one in the short overview ("Number of locations 2,100").

For the sake of consistency, wouldn't it make sense to use the most recent count in both cases? Gamerik (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I updated the numbers with the most current data. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Food Safety

This section appears to be a product of recentism and doesn't seem significant enough to warrant a section in this article. If there's not strong objection, I'm going to remove it. Perhaps some of it could be moved to the history section if someone believes it's relevant enough to be included. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Politics section

I removed[1] a section about political contribution from 11 years ago that doesn't seem to have received enough coverage to justify inclusion. Some may disagree, but seems undue to add to this article. Nemov (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Redirects

I have removed two redirects. One was Pancake house which is barely receiving any traffic and it's not clear how anyone is confusing it with Waffle House. The other is a song that was released in April that's about Waffle House. Neither of the redirects are necessary. Nemov (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)