Talk:Hot dog stand

New Stuff
There needs to be a citation regarding the "Hot Dog Stand" game, because the author makes an unsubstantiated claim that the player usually fails in his/her efforts to work at the stand. If this is to be included, it ought to have a longer description of the game, and more details. Zminer (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Old misc stuff
This article needs to be expanded. Hot Dog Stands are extremely common in the United States. Knowitall 21:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone include a mention of the popular computer game hot dog stand? TAngled 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the infamous Windows 3 color scheme Hot Dog Stand? http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000341.html?

WP:FOOD Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
I replaced the gallery section with a list of text links to notable stands, and it's been added back. Does the article need both?

WP:GALLERY says that a gallery may be appropriate to illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Is this gallery doing that? Lord Belbury (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Lord Belbury! Yes, the article needs both the list of text links and the image gallery.  Yes, the gallery illustrates aspects of the article that can not be described in words, viz. the variety and colorfulness, and sometimes architectural oddness, of various hot dog stands.  I think in this particular case the gallery is a big plus, even though it has more images than are typical on WP.  The images "collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject", etc., as per WP:GALLERY.  — Mudwater (Talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. It's about half the article and as a reader I'm not getting much from it beyond the idea that some stands are kiosks, some are larger buildings, and some have novelty shapes or signs. The first two aspects are already covered by the two lead images, so I'd say we only needed another two images to illustrate novelty architecture and signs - not thirty.
 * Of course, there may be more aspects worth illustrating, but it's not immediately obvious to me what those are. The images should per WP:GALLERY "be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject" rather than just giving the location. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I really think that the gallery as it is now significantly enhances the article, much to the benefit of our readers. The prose of the article can say what you said -- "some stands are kiosks, some are larger buildings, and some have novelty shapes or signs" -- but it's the photo gallery that conveys the great variety of imaginative architecture that words just can't capture.  Yes, it's a huge plus!  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:GALLERY these images should "be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject". The fact that the Coney Island Colorado is remarkable for being a building that's physically shaped like a hot dog is worth pointing out, and should be stated in the caption, not left as something for the reader to (maybe) notice while looking over 30 broadly similar thumbnail images of hot dog stands. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)