Talk:Mission burrito

Questioning relevance
This article seems kind of silly and overblown. There is really no area where it states the difference between a burrito and a San Francisco burrito? What about a brurrito in Los Angeles or San Diego?? This sounds like a tourist ploy, insisting that San Francisco has a burrito that is somehow more historical than anything burrito in Los Angeles, Texas, or even Mexico. Im sorry but this sounds like an attempt at advertisement and embellished-up history. It feels like patrons of certain places have decided to enter in on the 'creation' debate and use this forum for advertising a favored taqueria. Either way, the article is WAY too long considering its topic. It needs to be thinned out and freed of unnecessary fluff. Does burrito production in San Francisco really differ from that anywhere else...?? Or is it implied that the 'assembly line' style of making a burrito was invented in San Francisco?? Come on. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.179.219.251 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article is ridiculous and I can't imagine how it satisfies Notability. There is essentially a single source that is cited in an attempt to establish why the "San Francisco Burrito" is distinct from just a plain old burrito and it's a New Yorker article that I'd say is not reliable. It's hardly scholarship or news, it's really more of a creative non-fiction piece which is largely humorous in tone. Not to mention that the justification this article gives for the SF burrito's uniqueness is incredibly weak: "the amount of rice and other side dishes included in the package and ... size." Give me a break. Does anyone think if someone is served a burrito in Chicago that is very large, has a lot of rice, and comes with chips and salsa they'd think of it as "San Francisco style"? It's obvious that someone has spent a lot of effort on this page, so I feel bad, but I think this article should be deleted or at the very least merged with burrito. DanyaRomulus (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It’s clear you have never had a burrito in the Bay Area. —Wiki Wikardo 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One, you're wrong, because I grew up in the Bay Area. Two, it's a terrible standard of notability to say, "if you had personally experienced the awesomeness of this, THEN you would realize why it is worthy of being included in an encyclopedia." Three, once again, this article's defenders only resort to geographic bias and circuitous notability claims...instead of insulting me (incorrectly) for something irrelevent, you could actually take the time to explain to me what is different about the San Francisco burrito from the standard burrito, which no one, including the article, has yet been able to do. DanyaRomulus (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * San Francisco burritos are pure crap. San Diego burritos are the real deal and are nothing like the pathetic excuses that pass for burritos in San Francisco  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.46.241 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Defending relevance
I was the original author of the article. I have very much appreciated all the work done on it by others, as well, in particular the noble efforts of Viriditas. This page has survived several attempts to merge it because a careful reading will demonstrate that its claims of a unique local history of burrito production are supported by a number of sources cited in the article, not simply the New Yorker article. Although it's worth stating that Calvin Trillin is a notable and well-loved food writer and has credibility to spare.

This assembly method and the style of burrito have spread widely over the last ten years, but yes, this particular style of burrito and the means of producing it--the combination of elements and the way the taquerias were set up--existed first in San Francisco. As the article explains, many of the chains seen elsewhere who make this kind of burrito can be directly traced back to origins in San Francisco (for instance, all three major Boston burrito chains, and Chipotle). If someone eats a burrito like this in Chicago (by, say, going to Chipotle) their ignorance of the food's origins would not mean that the food did not originate in San Francisco. In fact, your example would be all the better argument for the existence of this page, which would school them in burrito history.

Though it is not evidence that can be easily cited in an article like this, when I wanted to check my own judgment about the worthiness of the topic, one of the things I did was to go to Chowhound, a widely used food forum now housed within chow.com, and look up postings about burritos in its various cities. As I knew from when I moved to other cities from San Francisco, San Francisco exiles (or even former visitors to San FRancisco) regularly post plaintive pleas for help in finding the kinds of burritos they had grown to love in San Francisco. Thus, many cities' forums that are not San Francisco had people asking where they could find San Francisco-style or Mission-style burritos, for instance, http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/563861

Of note, I did not title this page "Mission-style" burritos because of the likelihood of confusion to people outside of San Francisco who would not know the Mission as a specific neighborhood in San Francisco. But the common use of this phrase in discussion forums around the country again emphasizes the very specific origins of this style.

Though unfortunately some of the following google searches have multiple duplicate posts because of the set-up of chow.com, in sum I believe they readily make the point that this is an accepted category of burrito, to which lovers of burritos can refer and find others who understand their reference.


 * 1) Site: Chow.com, "San Francisco burrito"
 * 2) Site: Chow.com, "San Francisco" burrito  (This search reveals how many people are also looking for "California-style" or San Diego-style burritos when visiting the Bay Area, where they are hard to find.)
 * 3) Site: Chow.com, "Mission-style" burrito

In contrast, the larger burrito article explains the overall concept of a burrito, which did _not_ start in San Francisco, and variations on the theme that exist in other regions. The San Francisco content would either have to be eliminated (for which I think there is no justification) or would overwhelm the rest of the burrito page.

I thank you for your attention to this page but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I believe that a more thorough examination of burrito history and sociology justify the page's existence. I appreciate the continued attentions of other burrito scholars to the project of further improving this page.

Joewright (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Recipe
Anyone got a recipe? Is it relevant to include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.217.11 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant as long as it is incorporated into the prose, particuarly into the production section. There is a lot of room for expansion. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Production
does the tortilla really have been steamed to be a san francisco burrito? i've eaten many that were grilled and actually prefer it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.30.150 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Elasticity
Then it wouldn't be a S.F. burrito... The steaming stretches the tortilla elastic so it can hold a lot of stuff. A grilled one would make it somewhat stiff and wouldn't be as effective. (e.g. soft taco to crunchy taco). I grew up one block from one of the originators of the S.F. burrito-La Cumbre. The huge burritos were known as 'super burritos,' and in the 80s they usually cost 4-5 bucks (7 nowadays). At the time I took these for granted not knowing that this was an actual San Francisco-based food tradition that was taking place. It was dinner and lunch during my college years. What was described on how to eat this massive burrito is actually very accurate, because that's how I ate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.208.21 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The jury is still out on the grilled vs. steaming technique. The SF burrito makes use of both, however your point about La Cumbre is taken, as they are known for steaming not grilling.  There are several different grilling methods. Taqueria Cancún probably has the most notable grilling technique. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I prefer the steamed tortilla method -I've always had it that way since I had my first one in 1980. I've noticed that it's hard to find some of these taquerias in Union City 30 miles from San Francisco. I might have to pay 5 dollars on the train to cross the Bay to get to one of these restaurants or head out to Oakland's Fruitvale district where they have such places.  My favorite burrito place happens to be Pancho Villa on 16th & Valencia - it's still there after 20 plus years with the long lines.   There was also another I frequented on occasion which is half a block from AT&T Park -it's still  a hole in the wall - they have been there since 1985. Neither has changed much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.149.45 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried El Burrito Supremo in Union City? I saw it listed on burritohpile.com.  Your best bet is to use a website like that.  If you are in Union City, wouldn't Fremont be closer?  Try this. They recommend Los Cabos.  Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know where that is. That's in a strip mall with other ethnic businesses (Pakistani/Indian, Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Korean). LOL - i will definitely check it out - thanks for the tip.

20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.210.66 (talk)

Imitators...
What is with the Imitators and descendants section? In each of SF's neighborhoods, some food involves wrapping a tortilla around something? actually that is only true in the mission. the chinese and japanese do not wrap a tortilla around anything, the russians certainly don't do it, and there are no other ethnic groups represented by a neighborhood. what an annoying comment. Zmbe (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. That particular aspect isn't supported by the sources, and I'm combing through the previous versions to find a source that supports the material written by the original author.  I'll tag it for citation now, but if nothing turns up soon, I'll remove it. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Meat fillings
This section is unsourced and is no longer about common burrito fillings. An editor just added "ojos", which are not as common, and rarely (if ever) used in San Francisco burritos; they are actually used in tacos. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable taquerias
I would suggest that due to the huge controversy and strong opinions this section be restricted to taquerias notable for slightly more objective reasons. Including La Faro due to their supposed development of the super burrito is sourceable. Including La Taqueria, which is notably very controversial due to their lack of rice and higher-than-average prices, probably isn't a good idea. Even with individual articles the objective ratings are too inconsistent to merit inclusion based on one source alone. If a taqueria is to be included due to sheer popularity I would suggest that this be based on consistent, long-term acclaim: e.g. Taqueria Can-Cun, though it has detractors, has been voted the San Francisco Bay Guardian's Best of the Bay for nine out of the past ten years. This would thus be indicative of lasting, widespread (as the award is based on reader votes) popularity. 69.181.55.239 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but I'm going to assume that you are. Arguing against La Taqueria cannot be taken seriously, as it is considered one of the best examples of the "San Francisco burrito" style and there are multiple sources available.  New additions, of course, are always welcome, and we are in agreement on  Taqueria Cancun; it should be added. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, La Taqueria is one of the originals, been around since the 1970's, and it's packed all day, every day (i grew up on their burritos), not to mention their wall is covered with awards too. It would be wrong to not include it.  It has gotten pretty expensive unfortunately, but it's still worth it.  I actually prefer their style of burritos, with no rice (there are quite a few places which seem to load it up with rice, and then skimp on the rest).67.101.34.117 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Images
I LOVE EATING FOIL. All the burritos in the article are wrapped in foil and do not show the actual burrito. Is the San Fransisco style burrito strictly for robot consumption? Skooma2112 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what? You are absolutely right.  I'm in the process of uploading additional images. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh! That's pretty funny! Good observation Skooma. -- M P er el  00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wish we had more comedic criticism. It's a great way to make a point. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of San Francisco taquerias
The data is easily available. Last time I checked there were 100 entries. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to grilled or steamed
As an addendum to an earlier comment I posted this year. I've had both living in the Mission for over 20 years. I prefer mine steamed, because it doesn't break apart. Come to think about it, I've had one as big as my forearm - and had to cut in half (half for dinner and half for lunch). Once you eat one of these - there's no need to eat another meal for the rest of the day.

20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.210.66 (talk)

Page name

 * I did not title this page "Mission-style" burritos because of the likelihood of confusion to people outside of San Francisco


 * Doesn’t matter; one visit to the page should get them schooled. Why so reluctant to assert West Coast hegemony? San Francisco burrito is a great redirect, but common usage dictates that leaving the article there is OR. People may not know Greenwich is a section of London, but you wouldn't move the article to “London Mean Time.” Yes, it is from San Francisco, too, but that’s not what it’s most often called. —Wiki Wikardo 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If nobody objects, I’m about to be bold + move this to Mission-style burrito. Yeah, OK, maybe no one outside the City knows where the Mission is, but I bet few people know where, exactly, Champagne is. Still, I never hear no one call it “France-style bubbly wine.” —Wiki Wikardo 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop trolling. The page is appropriately titled.  I do not support your proposed move. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * wtf… It’s not “trolling” because you disagree. —Wiki Wikardo 11:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with what? Your trolling? Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi I don't have a dog in this fight. I just have questions. What is the evidence for one way or the other? What are the key sources of the definition - do they use 'mission burrito' or 'san francisco burrito'? Lets remember to be civil - and not make accusations of trolling plz. This has nothing to do with whether people know where the mission is, and nothing to do with Champagne. It's about the burritos folks. lets not forget the burritos. I could do with one just about now... --Karl.brown (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the current title? Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You yourself seemed to imply Mission-style burrito is the more common nomenclature. I don’t know if a Google Test will solve this or not, but it also seems that way to me—anyone who’s eaten one, knows about them, asking about them, etc., is more likely to refer to a “Mission burrito.” —Wiki Wikardo 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I appear to have been mistaken about who it was that decided to name this page. That said, my point still stands. —Wiki Wikardo 23:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to Mission burrito.  Mini  apolis  14:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco burrito → Mission-style burrito – Mission-style burrito is a much more common way of referring to these. Many websites and books and articles refer to mission burritos or mission-style burritos. The arguments about using the name SF Burrito to avoid confusion should be dropped - wikipedia article titles are not there to coddle the user, we have many obscure topics here, and pages should be named based on the common usage; based on my research to date, and eating many mission burritos, I believe Mission-style burrito is the best name. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Mission certainly is the most common term in printed sources. If there are distinctions these should be made clear in the lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Meaning Mission burrito, sorry wasn't clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The term is "Mission burrito" not "Mission-style burrito", so the move request is malformed. As for which term is "common" in the sources, this can get complicated because many sources use both terms in the same article.  First, the term is ambiguous. The word "Mission" in the context of California and food primary refers to Spanish missions in California.  The Mission District got its name from Mission San Francisco de Asís. The San Francisco burrito originated in the Mission District, a neighborhood (or subregion) of San Francisco, but has nothing to do with Missions. Second, in terms of Mexican food in general, the word "Mission" is closely associated with Mission Foods, one of the largest suppliers of tortillas in the U.S.  This article has nothing to do with Mission tortillas.  Third, in terms of usage and currency, when the term "Mission-style" is used, it is primarily used to refer to burritos outside of San Francisco, whereas "Mission burrito" refers to burritos within the San Francisco Bay Area.  This article is not about imitators and descendants; it's about a regional burrito variation in San Francisco.  Further, when "Mission-style" is used, it has almost no currency outside of print.  That is to say, you can find hundreds of "New York-style" and "Chicago-style" pizza restaurants throughout the United States advertising that style with "X-style" names, but Mexican restaurants rarely if ever do this.  There may be several instances of such usage, but hardly any at all.  Fourth, when the term "Mission burrito" is used, it does not necessarily refer to burritos in the Mission District.  Interestingly, the term is primarily used in the literature to refer to burritos found in the greater San Francisco Bay Area region. To conclude, the advantages of keeping "San Francisco burrito" at this stable article title since 2005 appear to outweigh the disadvantages of moving it to a new title.  The title is currently appropriately disambiguated. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * comment I don't have strong feelings on Mission vs Mission-style; but I also don't really agree with your point that this article is not about imitators and descendants; in the same way I might expect an article about Chicago deep dish pizza to discuss where and how it has spread, it would be natural in this article to talk about how and where these burritos have spread - we don't need to only focus on those available in SFO. I know Mission burrito doesn't only refer to burritos bought in the Mission, but is more a general "type" of burrito. Mmm - now living far from SFO, and missing my mission burritos :(--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I already refuted that point in my above comment, so I don't know why you are repeating it. I'll repeat it again: unlike "New York-style" and "Chicago-style" pizza varieties, which appear on hundreds, if not thousands of restaurant signs, menus, and advertisements around the country, the term "Mission-style burrito" has no currency outside of print.  That is because, aside from academic discussions by food historians and writers, the burritos are not marketed nor known in that way.  Whether it is because the "Mission burrito" style is unknown outside of food writers and the burrito subculture or if is because its descendants and imitators are almost nonexistent is anyone's guess.  What we do know is, that writers will refer to the precise term "San Francisco burrito" in print to remove ambiguity.  For example, outside the U.S. the "San Francisco burrito" has currency.  In The Guardian, Anna Pickard discussed regional American foods like the San Francisco burrito.  She didn't mention a "Mission burrito" because that would involve discussing where to get it and explaining why it is called a "Mission" burrito.  To avoid ambiguity and to encourage precision, she used the term "San Francisco burrito".  In other words, what precisely is a "Mission burrito" and what precisely does it refer to when the term is used?  It refers to a burrito style made famous in the greater San Francisco Bay Area.  Per WP:COMMONAME, we use the precise, unambiguous term for the topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean has no currency outside of print. A simple google search gives thousands of hits, including yelp reviews, chowhound discussions, and even restaurants that tout their mission-style burritos. Outside the us, you have enterprises like  or  - so even outside the US the "mission burrito" moniker remains. In any case, redirects will remain, but I think it is a disservice to the reader when there is a clear dominant name here, even if it's slightly less descriptive than SF burrito.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article title policy favors more precision and more description over less—in the face of more sources saying otherwise. "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." There's no currency for the term outside of experts and its associated subculture. We have lots of article titles that use precise, unambiguous titles instead of popular terms.  We do this as a service to the reader. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * *shrugs* I disagree. I think people familiar with the burrito are more likely to know it as a Mission burrito.
 * Incidentally, if I could get some independent body to certify me as a burrito expert I would totally apply for that. —Wiki Wikardo 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguably “Mission burrito” is more descriptive than SF burrito cuz it specifies wherein. —Wiki Wikardo 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support "Mission burrito". All three phrases are used to refer to burritos within and outside of the Bay Area: see Google Books searches for "San Francisco burrito"; "Mission burrito"; and "Mission-style burrito". Both with raw results and when subtracting redundant and irrelevant results, however, "Mission burrito" seems to predominate in sources. This is true for sources discussing the burrito style both within and outside the context of SF or the Bay Area. For example, significant sources such as Gustavo Arellano and Jeffrey Pilcher use "Mission" or "Mission-style burrito", with the Pilcher quote clearly referring to burritos outside of the Bay Area. There are other, more literary uses of those two, that show its currency both in and outside of SF. (And while we likely couldn't use those sources for the content of the article, we can use them to answer the question, "What do sources call this burrito?") "San Francisco burrito" is found in sources such as Gourmet magazine. Calvin Trillin uses both in the same paragraph. On balance, "Mission burrito" predominates, and would appear to be the best title for the article. Dohn joe (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONAME, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". "Mission burrito" fails that test. Further, COMMONNAME states "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." To prove my point, you yourself cite history professor Jeffrey M. Pilcher up above in favor of changing this article name, but you fail to note Pilcher observes the ambiguity of"Mission burrito", writing that the burrito "derives its name from the Mission District of San Francisco rather than from Catholic evangelization on the northern frontier".  So your own academic source notes the ambiguity which could confuse readers.  "Mission burrito" might be used more frequently, but our policy on article naming dictates that we favor 1) precise titles that unambiguously define the topic, and 2) avoid ambiguous or inaccurate names even if they are used more in the sources.  For more detailed problems with your argument, see my oppose comment for additional examples of ambiguity. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We'd need to consider ambiguity only if there were another "Mission burrito" that did, in fact, derive its name "from Catholic evangelization on the northern frontier", or there were a "Mission burrito" made with Mission brand tortillas. But since "Mission burrito" refers to one food item and one food item only, ambiguity is not an issue here. "Mission" by itself is ambiguous; "Mission burrito" is not. Ibadibam (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tried to google strings that would be more unambiguous, such as "[had|ate] [mission (style)|san francisco] burritos" or "looking for a mission burrito". —Wiki Wikardo 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * support Mission burrito, per evidence that mission predominates in sources. anecdotally, i dont believe that the SF term is used in the bay area, where mission is the term used. "style" doesnt seem necessary, though it may be technically more accurate, i dont think its used. probably just keep it in the lede as an alternative.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] —Wiki Wikardo 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, the arguments, and links provided, made by Dohn Joe show that the common name of the subject is 'Mission burrito. Although San Francisco burrito can also be verified, its usage does not appear to be as prevalent as that of Mission burrito. Reminds me I miss this place, and Chipotle is a sad imitation IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Mission burrito - as nominator. Dohn Joe's arguments are compelling. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have refuted his "compelling" arguments. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support "Mission-style burrito" - While "Mission burrito" does appear to be more common, I will note that a Google search for "mission style burrito" tends to return articles about the food, whereas "mission burrito tends to return listings for businesses named "Mission Burrito". Using "Mission-style" may reduce ambiguity in that sense, and better parallel existing regional food articles like St. Louis-style pizza, Kansas City-style barbecue and Seattle-style hot dog (although I'll give that -style is not used universally, cf. Montreal hot dog). Ibadibam (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME. “We’d need to consider ambiguity only if there were another ‘Mission burrito.’ ” —Wiki Wikardo 21:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is definitely not an issue with "San Francisco" vs. "Mission", which is what my above response to Viriditas concerns. Among burritos there is only one widely accepted variety that is described as "Mission", so ambiguity is not a great reason to retain the current "San Francisco" name. I mean more to suggest that "Mission-style burrito" might be less ambiguous than "Mission burrito" for those users who might have been searching for a business called "Mission Burrito". Especially if one of those businesses ever becomes notable enough to warrant its own article. Ibadibam (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Good point, I hadn’t thought of that. But Mission burrito is different than Mission Burrito and I’d think that WP:UCN takes precedence over any preemptive disambiguating. —Wiki Wikardo 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Mission burrito per “trolling” above. —Wiki Wikardo 21:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This page living here for over five years has almost undoubtedly helped slide usage in that direction. —Wiki Wikardo 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support mission-style burrito or mission burrito, with preference to the former. I cite WP:ENGVAR as my justification--in the USA, these are most commonly referred to as mission (-style) burritos. (Burritoes?) Red Slash 05:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support rename to Mission burrito. "-style" is odd-looking/redundant, of course it is a style.  Support the rename because Wikipedia should be written in the language of the locals (as opposed to the tourists).  To apply a global uniformity over local vernacular is to discourage local knowledge contributions.  This applies to San Francisco as much as to small Argentinian villages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some aspects of the lede
Viriditas and I seem to have gotten into a little bit of a content dispute over some of what is stated the lede, so I'll start a discussion here about particular aspects rather than just continuing to edit the article in ways that have previously been reverted. The first aspect of this that I'll mention is that twice I have changed "Calvin Trillin observed" to "Calvin Trillin said", and twice that change has been reverted. My view is that, as described in the Manual of Style section at WP:SAY, the use of the word "observed" rather than "said" may seem to express a degree of unverifiable subjective bias. Can we please change that to "Calvin Trillin said"? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I did not notice your previous change. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that's done. My next comment is about the clarity and location of the definition. If a "San Francisco burrito" is a particular type of burrito, I would like to know what type of burrito it is. I think the opening section of the article should contain a clear definition of the term, so that I can determine whether any particular burrito is a San Francisco burrito or some other type of burrito. I also think that the definition should be found as early as possible in the article. At the moment, I do not see a clear definition, and I am forced to read through a description of two other types of burritos before I get any idea at all of what a San Francisco burrito might be. When I do get to some sort of description, I find a vague description of some "amount of rice", and I don't know whether that's referring to a large amount or a small amount of rice (although I suspect it is a large amount, and would like to see that stated more clearly), and I find something about "side dishes". My understanding of a "side dish" is that it is something separate from a "main dish", not something mixed into it, so I think the term "side dish" would be better phrased as "side ingredients" or "extra ingredients" rather than as a distinct dish. I also see the word "sheer" used as what seems to be a non-neutral synonym for "large", and so I think it would be better to use the simpler and more neutral term "large". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's break this down into chunks. You say, " If a 'San Francisco burrito' is a particular type of burrito, I would like to know what type of burrito it is." Well, that's exactly what the current version does by explaining Arellano's classification in the next sentence.  I think we may be reading this completely differently or you must have missed this point.  This is the regional definition.   But, back to your argument.  You are basically saying that the lead does not present a clear "definition" of the regional variation.  Looking at the first paragraph, I see that a San Francisco burrito a) became popular in the 1960s in San Francisco, b) is one of three burrito styles in the United States, and c) is distinguished from other burritos (the other styles) by the amount of rice and side ingredients, resulting in its large size.  My understanding of your argument is that you are not satisfied unless all of these things appear in the first sentence, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no strong feelings on the amount of rice depicted as long it follows the sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the "side dishes", that was Trillin's original wording from the article (added here by Joe I believe), and I'm definitely open to your changes as they make sense. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This rewording would work for me. I agree with BarrelProof's point - get to the definition straight away:
 * "The San Francisco burrito, also known as a Mission burrito, is a type of burrito that first became popular during the 1960s in the Mission District of San Francisco, California. Originally a Mexican-American food, the San Francisco burrito is distinguished from a regular burrito partly by the larger amount of rice and other side ingredients included in the package, and also by its large size.[2] Author Gustavo Arellano classifies the Mission-style burrito as one of three major styles of burritos in the United States, following the earlier, simple burrito consisting of beans, rice, and meat and preceding the California burrito containing cheese and potatoes that was developed in the 1980s.[1]"
 * If we rename the article, the lede would change accordingly of course.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lead would change very little, if at all. Your rewording reverses the definition by distinguishing the burrito from a style that has not yet been explained.  This is the same mistake BarrelProof made.  Arellano's classification introduces the styles (regular burrito) and this must be done before the the differences can be discussed. Is this clear?  As I said above, lead goes from the general to the particular, as it introduces the region in terms of history (became popular in the 1960s in San Francisco), explains that the variation is one of three in the greater region (one of three burrito styles in the United States), and finally highlights differences between this variation and the others (distinguished by the amount of rice and side ingredients, resulting in its large size).  Further, why is it necessary to explain how this burrito is different in the second sentence?  The burrito is different from the other styles, which is why it explained after the styles are introduced. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I don't think we need to introduce all other burritos first. Getting straight to what defines a mission burrito, then you can get into categorization later. I think we could do even better and define it even better in the first sentence, like this:
 * ""The San Francisco burrito, also known as a Mission burrito, is a type of burrito that first became popular during the 1960s in the Mission District of San Francisco, California, and can be distinguished from a regular burrito by its large size and the larger amount of rice and other side ingredients included.[2] Author Gustavo Arellano classifies the Mission-style burrito as one of three major styles of burritos in the United States, following the earlier, simple burrito consisting of beans, rice, and meat and preceding the California burrito containing cheese and potatoes that was developed in the 1980s.[1]"
 * I don't see why we need to go from general to particular - it's better to get specific right away, and then broaden the discussion. Look at the lede here United_States - it starts very specific, then zooms out to place the US in the broader geographical and political context.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please use a GA/FA food article for comparison, not an article about a country. There is no single style for lead sections.  They can go from the particular to the general, or the general to the particular, or they can be written in various forms of summary styles that reflect different aspects of the topic.  Second, the example you provide is certainly a worthy one, but it's a mouthful. The readability is poor due to word repetition and sentence length.  If you split the sentence up and remove "from a regular burrito", then I might be favorable to your changes:
 * "The San Francisco burrito, also known as a Mission burrito, is a type of burrito that first became popular during the 1960s in the Mission District of San Francisco, California. It is distinguished from other burritos by its large size.  Author Gustavo Arellano classifies the Mission-style burrito as one of three major styles of burritos in the United States, following the earlier, simple burrito consisting of beans, rice, and meat and preceding the California burrito containing cheese and potatoes that was developed in the 1980s."


 * I might be more amenable to something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That would seem fine to me. I suggest the following additional refinement:
 * "The San Francisco burrito, also known as a Mission burrito, is a type of burrito that first became popular during the 1960s in the Mission District of San Francisco, California. It is distinguished from other burritos by its large size and inclusion of extra rice and other ingredients.  It has been referred to as one of three major styles of burritos in the United States, following the earlier, simple burrito consisting of beans, rice, and meat and preceding the California burrito containing cheese and potatoes that was developed in the 1980s."
 * (This drops the name of the author, which seems unnecessary and distracting, and adds a mention of the extra ingredients that seem to be part of the distinguishing factors.)
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your changes. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, now that's done too. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my "Mission" has been accomplished, and won't suggest further refinements at this time. Thank you for your help in improving the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Alameda-Weehawken Burrito Tunnel
What does add to the article? It's a fun and whimsical passage, but it seems like an awfully long quotation if all it's doing is illustrating that someone once wrote a short story about Mission burritos. And the author doesn't really seem notable either. Ibadibam (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * only for whimsy.. Feel free to shorten or eliminate - but i do think its useful to retain the ref to that story, as an example of fiction inspired by the mission burrito - would be good to add other examples as well... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Some good arguments made by both supports and opposes below, and they balance each other out. It appears both names are used quite frequently, so we have no consensus to move. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mission burrito → Mission-style burrito – Google results etc. are misleading, because the phrases "Mission Burrito" and "Mission-style burrito" refer to two different things, the former being a restaurant chain and the latter being the subject of this article. --Relisted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Foogus (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not necessarily opposed to the move, but it should be noted that sources use both "the Mission burrito" and "the Mission-style burrito" to describe the food, and that "Mission burrito" appears to be more commonly used. (Using "the" in the search helps to remove most hits for the restaurant chain.) While either title is appropriate for the article, there's probably no need to retitle the article, unless someone can convince otherwise. Dohn joe (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We've got a non-notable, six-location chain in England and a non-notable, 4-location chain in Texas, which recently changed its name to Überrito anyhow. This move would be well-suggested in the event another topic became notable enough for an article; in the meantime, the 2013 move discussion reached a consensus that "Mission burrito" is the preferable term. Ibadibam (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And perhaps some (minor) possible ambiguity with Mission Foods (e.g., http://www.missionmenus.com/en/products/view/mission-burrito-whole-wheat-10ct). Apparently, the name change of the Texas chain was forced by Mission Foods per this. There's also a place in Simi Valley (http://www.missionburritosimi.com/). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mild support seems more natural to me, but less concise Red Slash 00:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per frequency in books; "Mission burrito" seems common enough, but "Mission-style burrito" is less so. The existence of restaurants of a similar name is a non-issue.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. Maybe I should explain why I was even thinking about this. As a Northern California native, I always thought that a "burrito," ordered "to go" from a hole-in-the-wall restaurant, meant an entire meal, in your hand, for cheap.  I am currently in San Diego, where up is down, winter is summer, and the most authentic, sought-after burrito seems, to my alien palate, to be just grilled meat in a tortilla.  Trying to find what I was used to down here, the useful-looking links all have the word style in the summary.  Links with the phrase "Mission burrito" are, at best, food writers talking about what they bought in the actual Mission neighborhood in S.F., which would do me no good.  Unfortunately the TL;DR is still that people like me are Philistine hippies who should be eating at Chipotle. Foogus (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, your disappointment in San Diego burritos is somehow a move rationale now? I'm not following.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are not actually in the Mission District, there is no such thing as "a Mission burrito." You can't order a "Mission burrito" anywhere in Kansas City.  The food is called a Mission-style burrito. Foogus (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to find the Kansas City restaurant to which you alluded, but haven't been able to find any establishment there advertising either a "Mission-style burrito" or "Mission burrito". Do you have a link? Ibadibam (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grilling
If anybody is familiar with how the burritos are made in San Francisco, does grilling occur after the burrito is assembled? The alternative reading is that the tortillas are sometimes grilled prior to adding ingredients and folding the tortilla, which seems like it would make them brittle. I've eaten at restaurants that grill the assembled burrito, but those were outside California. Heaviside glow (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative reading of what? I can't find a passage in the article that discusses grilling. Ibadibam (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources (and this talk page). In fact, some sources discuss the Wikipedia article, insofar as there was a debate about grilling vs steaming. But I think that there is confusion about when the grilling occurs. Heaviside glow (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the sources are unclear and divided, it sounds like we should continue to omit grilling from this article. Ibadibam (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mission burrito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://airtranmagazine.com/contents/2007/11/the-best-burrito/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mission burrito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080704144006/http://airtranmagazine.com/contents/2007/11/the-best-burrito/ to http://airtranmagazine.com/contents/2007/11/the-best-burrito/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mission burrito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111063713/http://www.burritophile.com/articles/cylindrical_god.php to http://www.burritophile.com/articles/cylindrical_god.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)