Talk:Submarine sandwich/Hoagie archive

Hogg Island
My father-in-law, an Italian immigrant who worked on Hogg Island tells a slightly different story. The men who worked on Hogg Island were not ship builders but rather ship destroyers, cutting up old ships for scrap metal to be used in the war effort. Several men were chosen to be cooks each day. It was their sole responsibility to prepare lunch each day. An account was kept and on pay day each man paid for his lunches. In addition to hoagie sandwiches, sausages, pork chops and chickens marinated in olive oil and Italian herbs, were laced onto poker-spits and cooked over a wood fire. As the meat cooked, the pokers were removed from the fire and blotted on split loaves of crusty Italian bread allowing the juices to soak into the bread. He also spoke of shooting song birds in the New Jersey pine barrens and cooking them on the pokers. Originally posted by 130.49.221.74.
 * That fact they were building (and not destroying) ships at the yard on Hog Island is well documented and verifiable. See our article on the subject (this article unfortunately fails to cite its sources, so let's recity that!).ike9898 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Hog Island shipyard was originally built during WWI to build cargo and transport ships, and about 120 ships of two similar designs were built there into the early 1920's. After this production run, the facility was used for various purposes including scrapping, but was eventually dismantled and the area evolved into an airport prior to WWII, when many similar facilities had to be built to meet wartime needs. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the Delco Times article linked in this article.
I've read the Delco Times article... I'm completely unconvinced. Nowhere is an explanation for the term "hoagie" as in the Philadelphia based narrative and nowhere is there an explanation of how the sandwich migrated to Philadelphia. Unlikely story.

I don't think the article meant to doubt the Hog Island account. I am sure that the Hog Island account is true. The point may have been that the actual sandwhich was developed in Chester, and DePalma came up with the name when he saw the men eating the sandwhiches. Chester isn't too far from Hog Island.

By the way, someone should post the original hoagie story...


 * Here are two versions in a single article: http://citypaper.net/articles/070695/article020.shtml --BillFlis 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only a Philadelphian food
I've had hoagies as far north as Canada, and some of the best hoagies I have ever had were from North Eastern PA establishments (they were even listed as "hoagies" on the menu). To say that they are local to Philadelphia is ridiculous. --204.152.176.70 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, subs are everywhere, but the name "hoagie" (like "cheesesteak") is very much associated with Philadelphia, just like "muffuletta" is associated with New Orleans and "baguette" with France. BillFlis 12:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My experience is that decent implementations of a hoagie can be found with ease within a radius of 100 miles of Philadelphia. This includes samples from as far afield as Easton, Lancaster, Camden, Wilmington, and even Baltimore.  New York tends to get it wrong, and the proper bread is not available locally in Washington DC.  I'm not so sure about this "vinegar" thing; I've been pretty strenuous about avoiding posting on controversial subjects, but as a Delaware native who used to work in Center City, the choices are "oil" or "mayo"; never seen "vinegar" among the offerings in a traditional sub shop (the Quizno's, Jerry's, and Subway chains need not apply, mkay?).  Anyone else share this opinion?  Ke4djt 13:09 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that vinegar is not standard on hoagies. I'm dropping it from the article. ike9898 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've visited at least three Lee's Hoagie Houses (it's a rather loose chain), and I don't remember seeing anything but oil and mayo. But Dietz & Watson markets a "hoagie dressing" of oil, seasonings (mainly oregano), and, I think, a little vinegar, making it a sort of Italian salad dressing; unfortunately, their website doesn't even show this product. Salumeria, of Reading Terminal, offers also a "hoagie spread", which looks creamy, like a seasoned mayo (I like it, even though I'm sort of morally opposed to mayo on a hoagie--what is that, a French hoagie?).
 * Almost every hoagie shop in the Philadelphia area use oil and vinegar as a standard; they may offer other stuff, but if you don't say anything thats what they'll put on it. TheNobleDuke

Cheese hoagie
"There are cheese-only hoagies (Provolone, American, or Mixed), which replace the meat with extra slices of cheese, but many Philadelphians will not admit such is a hoagie." That last bit is rather POV, and what's more, I don't agree with it. Cheese hoagies are widespread and have been around as long as I can remember (30 or more years). Cavanaugh's used to make a nice one with Provolone, American, and, believe it or not, Swiss cheese; I'll take mine with "hots"! Lee's Hoagie House's menu lists a Cheese Hoagie: http://www.leeshoagiehouse.com/images/menu.pdf BillFlis 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think I put some variation that "Philadephians won't admit such is a hoagie" but it was only revised, never removed. I think the premise was that original hoagies are what today the shops label "Italian Hoagies." Since then it has derived into many other varieties. And, unfortunately as was also discussed on this page, places like Pittsburgh have drastically altered the original hoagie and still call it "hoagie." Dan 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be POV, but most Philadelphians wouldn't consider cheese and a roll a hoagie, though I don't know if thats because they're from Philadelphia. A hoagie needs some kind of center to build around, otherwise its just a cheese sandwitch. TheNobleDuke

Cut vertically?
I've moving this: "Hoagie rolls are always cut vertically, in the same manner that a hot dog bun is cut." here to the Discussion page because it's not factual. Not trusting my own recollection, I found several pix of hoagies on the web    which clearly show them cut sideways. I remember seeing them cut vertically in some places too, but I can't even find any evidence of that on the web. Furthermore, just about all the hotdog buns I buy are cut horizontally too.--BillFlis 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Any long sandwich in a "Hoagie" bun will be split like a hot dog roll, in the Philadelphia area. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.246.233 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal
Hi. Please refrain from spamming the Philadelphia portal template on articles that are only tangentially related to the city. While it's acceptable to use on articles relating directly to the city, putting it on articles like Pretzel, Hoagie, and Stromboli is taking things too far. Thanks. - EurekaLott 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really want to assume good faith about your post, so before I take offense at your use of the word spam I am going to post my justification. The article is listed under Category:Philadelphia cuisine, and features Philadelphia in the article. Philadelphia is an eating-town. The portal is appropriate. --South Philly 13:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoagie = Sub?
Hoagies are Subs. Don't use the word Sub.
 * This dictionary defines "hoagie" as a kind of submarine sandwich.--BillFlis 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Submarine sandwich
"That's what we call them in Philly" is not sufficient for a separate article. There may be enough here to develop a section in Submarine sandwich with a title like The Philadelphia hoagie (or similar), but since hardly anything on this page is sourced, maybe not. / edgarde 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)



Old Survey

 * ''Add  * Merge   or   * Keep   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

C'mon guys!Wikiapples (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is a sub! same toppings, and not even called a "hoagie" in philly.


 * Merge. Same sandwich. Discussions like "vinegar" (not to mention feta, or varieties of provolone) are not specific to the Philadelphia hoagie, and the Regionalism section of this article shows the word is not bound to any distinctive formulation. / edgarde 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Absolutely not to the merger. While I realize that while they are the same basic concept, there are vital pieces of information that are important to different regions, being familiar with the culture of Pittsburgh.  Cool Blue  talk to me 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep They are two distinctly different classes of sandwiches. BroadSt Bully 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge Come on. This is silly. It's a submarine sandwich everywhere in the US (even globally thanks to Subway), and should be merged into a regional section of that article for sure. Nobody else in the country eats Hoagies in the car on the Turnpike driving from Upstate NY going Down the shore to hit up the Boardwalk! [[image:Gnome-face-smirk.svg|25px]] BillyTFried (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was deadlocked. Please do not modify it.

Old Survey Comments

 * So would Po' boy (what they call them in New Orleans) be merged there as well? What about spuckie and hero sandwich? Hmm, grinder sandwich seems to redirect right back to submarine sandwich. Then there's the steak bomb! Sounds like a lot of work.--BillFlis 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the Hoagie merge. Other regional names for the same thing should probably also be merged, but those are separate discussions.
 * What would probably end up happening (now that I think about it) would be an expansion of the Submarine sandwich Regional names and variations section (rather than a subsection for each region's sandwich name). Remove all the WP:OR and unsourced statements and it wouldn't really be that long. / edgarde 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since neither "submarine" nor "hoagie" are the oldest names of the generic multi-layer sandwich that originated the whole concept, why should this be combined under "submarine?" While I do agree that "submarine" or "sub" is probably the term most often used(in the U.S.) today, I would think that separate articles would be more useful. Or are you gonna throw in "Cuban Sandwich" under "submarine?" After all, "Cuban Sandwich" predates "sub" by about 40 years. Samclem 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For all we know, the Earl of Sandwich called it something else in 1763.
 * In this case, the most common name would be the correct one for the article title. / edgarde 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I propose we use "Sandwich" as the article title, and "submarine" can be listed as a variety of a sandwich. Sound OK? Samclem 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandwich is a superset of hoagie that contains other types of sandwiches, so they're not the same thing.
 * Can you explain the difference between a hoagie and a submarine sandwich? This article fails to do so. It's a duplicate article and needs to be merged. / edgarde 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I could be convinced that Hoagie doesn't need be a separate article, but I disagree that Submarine sandwich is the generic term for all sandwiches of this type. I actually think that a Hoagie has certain distinguishing features (bread sliced vertically, normal veggies included are lettuce, tomato, onion; normally no pickles or mustard), but others seems to disagree with me. ike9898 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, Merriam-Webster defines a hoagie as a type of submarine sandwich. However, this dictionary agrees with you that there is no generic, all-inclusive term; "submarine" is regional too (if you look up "hoagie" there, it refers you to this page, titled "submarine, grinder, hero, hoagie, Italian sandwich, poor boy, sub, torpedo"). That would suggest that "submarine" and "hoagie" should not be merged, unless it is into an article on "submarine, grinder, hero, hoagie, Italian sandwich, poor boy, sub, torpedo". So keep.--BillFlis 15:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoagie is commonly used in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.  Its history and regional influence (Philadelphia is particular) make it unique.  I think it is important to recognize that people (like myself) frequently use the term "hoagie" and do not view it as a submarine sandwich.  Part of what gives wikipedia value to so many people is that it has articles on topics that traditional encyclopedias neglect.  This page is one such example.  I would be willing to add a section on the history of the term "hoagie" to provide its uniqueness if that would allow this article to exist (Would require a lot of research to be correct, plus cleanup of my typos once I am finished).  In the meantime I have to go and checkup on the Scrapple and Panzarotti pages.  Jackspenn 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

* Keep Hoagie is a unique type of sandwich within a broad category of sandwiches. It is not a sub-type of submarine. ~

For those claiming a Hoagie is NOT a Sub please state exactly how it isnt
When I go to Subway and order an Italian BMT on italian bread with ham, salami, provolone, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, peppers, and vinegar and oil... what am, I getting? BillyTFried (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming the person earning minimum wage hears you right and follows your requests, you would get an Italian BMT on italian bread with ham, salami, provolone, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, peppers, and vinegar and oil. Heck, technically, it's a Hoagie, Sandwich, Meal, Lunch, Entree and a million other things. Maybe we should merge them all into Noun? Or maybe we should merge Sub into sandwich because you could go into a sandwich shop and order a sandwich that would meet the definition of a sub? We'll have to eliminate BLT, Cheesesteak, Dagwood sandwich, Gyros, Hamburger, etc.
 * The other side of your question is intriguing: What would you get if you went into a hoagie shop and ordered a hoagie with chicken, pickles and mustard? Like ordering a steak sandwich with swiss, you'd probably get laughed at. If you got anything else, no one would call it a hoagie. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, before I changed it THIS was the last line of this article's opening paragraph. "Hoagies have a resemblance to sub or a hero sandwiches, but are distinct." Too bad that is a complete falsehood and is the very premise for this article’s existence. And second, all the foods you mentioned are totally unique from a typical sandwich and from eachother. However there is NOTHING unique about an Italian Sub, that some folks prefer to call a Hoagie. Therein lies the problem. It's not an article about a special regional VARIETY that is unique to that region. It is an article about the EXACT same thing you can order in almost any city in the world. A Sub, and there is already an article about that. With your logic the article for Shopping cart should be split into 3-5 articles! "A shopping cart (also called a trolley in British, Australian English, and New Zealand English; sometimes referred to as a carriage or shopping carriage in the New England region of the U.S.; also known as a bascart in some regions of the U.S., basket in others, and buggy in the American South and parts of Western Canada; ) is a cart supplied by a shop, " Maybe there should be one article for Soda and another for Pop, eh? BillyTFried (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To the extent that you can find reliable sources that make a shopping cart different from a trolly, buggy, etc. and produce sufficient material unique to each of them there should be separate articles. Since that is not the case, there shouldn't. We have reliable sources giving a unique origin (WWI, Hog Island, Philly) and other specifiers that make a hoagie distinct from a submarine sandwich (Boston, WWII) and a hero (late 19th century, NYC). It sure sounds like Italian immigrants brought the founder to each location. The Founder effect applies. They are now distinct variations of the original Italian sandwich (panino?). Whatever. For our purposes, the question is moot. I do not believe we can fit all of the sourced, unique info from this article into the sub article without creating a royal mess. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin section sounds too anecdotal
The section on the origin of term sounds far too anecdotal be reliable, especially since the author seems to combine two explanations into one -- attributing the name both to Hogg Island and to the idea that the workers looked like hogs while they ate. Neither concept seems credible. References would be necessary, and I suspect there's a more accurate explanation that would trump both these silly ideas. 75.24.244.98 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, this article contradicts itself more that once. The other is first saying a hoagie is a very Italian style cold cut sub, and then listing a ton of other very different ones and still claiming they are all Hoagies. So now a hero roll full of Tofu is a Hoagie now?!?! BillyTFried (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Grinders
im from philly and no one really thinks or uses the term grinder. i never heard of it till i moved to pittsburgh for a short stint. i think the article has the use of the word grinder backwords in the first paragraph. grinders are not a philly thing. plus i they dont use the word hoagie in pittsburgh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.180.48 (talk • contribs)

I have a lot of friends from Pittsburgh and have visited them there. None of them use the word "hoagie" as the article insists, and I personally have ordered from a shop on the East Side that called them grinders. Someone doesn't know Pittsburgh as well as he or she thinks. 167.115.255.20 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)LINKBook
 * In Philly, a grinder usually means a hoagie that's been toasted under a broiler. A meatball grinder is a meatball sandwich, with sauce, cheese on top, melted under a broiler.--BillFlis 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've lived in the Philadelphia area for 15 years and never heard the word 'grinder' used to describe any type of sandwitch in the area. I know parts of NY use it for a sandwitch similar to a hoagie, but in Philly a toasted hoagie is just a toasted hoagie. TheNobleDuke —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i've lived in conshohocken, just outside of philly my whole life, and grinder is not commonly used, mostly i believe because not many people order them, but everyone i've ever met from the area will agree that they are basically a hot hoagie. Funbox360 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've lived in north/west Pittsburgh my whole life and everyone I know calls them hoagies, not grinders. However, I wouldn't say that the food is an important part of our cultural identity like pierogies are. I've never witnessed a fight over the definition of a hoagie or what it should be called. So there's one more piece of anecdotal evidence for you.72.95.217.2 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
"May 5 is National Hoagie Day."

Yeah... SAYS WHO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.141.27 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Hoagie and Hero sandwich articles be merged with Submarine Sandwich?
The result was merge. , non-admin close. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Merge. The Hoagie is without a doubt an WP:Alternative name for the well known Submarine sandwich, and no conclusive arguments have been put forth to the contrary. BillyTFried (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - That the hoagie is (or is not) an Italian/regional variety of the sub is a moot point. (We have -- as we should -- articles on notable ethnic/regional varieties of languages, music, foods, drinks, dances, etc.) If the hoagie is 1) notable based on references in reliable sources and 2) contains enough information to exist beyond stub size, it should exist as its own article. As both of these conditions are met, the article can stay put. If, for whatever reason, it is determined that these conditions are not met, a merge to sub would require proof that a hoagie is a variety of a sub, rather than the above argument that it is a variety because no evidence has been provided that it is not a variety of a sub. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge It is mad to have an article on every name variant of every type of sandwich. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not merge Geographical variations are important. Unless there is really firm proof that there is identity, they are different things. DGG (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That picture from Subway shouldn't be on that page as it is clearly not a Hoagie. There should at least be on from Wawa or better.66.251.89.226
 * Please merge already. That something is called different things in different places does not justify separate articles. Regional variations should be handled in the article body. Please end this silliness, per Content forking and Redirect. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per BillyTFried. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. I think the Hoagie is simply a variation of the sub. It's the same style of sandwhich, and it's the same type of toppings. Please merge the article, but have a special section. This is a sub! same toppings, and not even called a "hoagie" in philly.C'mon guys! Wikiapples (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - as a 25 year veteran member of the foodservice industry, I can say that hoagie is just a synonym for a sub. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough references provided for the Hoagie article to make it notable on its own. While the sandwiches are not substantially different, the origins and theories of the origins appear to be the real encyclopedic topic.  This proposed merger would bring a larger article into a smaller one, and we then face the issue of which is the more notable name for the merged article: "hoagie" or "sub".  Per the etymology of each article, it appears that the sandwiches evolved independently and the hoagie may have preceded the sub.  Though "sub" may be the more current colloquialism, at WP we strive to avoid "recentism". --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a repeat survey, where a previous survey (Old Survey above) was inconclusive, defaulting to keep. Many pertinent comments and opinions were expressed in the “comments” section rather than in the "Survey" section.  Consider WP:FORUMSHOP and consider whether the issues have changed or people with higher energy levels will persevere while other become ambivalent.  I'm less concerned with this merger than the process here.  Bill F has done an excellent job at the Sub sandwich article, and I am closer to the fence on this issue, but I'm really concerned about forum shopping at AfDs and by extension this type of quasi AfD through RfC. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep In the minds of many, hoagies have a distinct identity from subs, whatever the origin of the word. That's sufficient to keep a separate article on the subject. RayAYang (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - there does not seem to be any overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that there are substantial differences between a sandwich called a "hoagie" and a sandwich called a "submarine sandwich". -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree that the various names are descriptive of the same sandwich. Geoff (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge And as someone who has lived in some of the various geographical areas involved, as well as elsewhere in the U.S., and has consumed many of these tasty sandwiches under various names, I'd like to add my voice to those who believe that they're all names for the same thing -- an Italian-American meat sandwich on a roll, with significant regional and local variation. And the great preponderance of third-party sources I've seen concur as well. --MCB (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. Hoagie more than satisifies WP:N and WP:V to warrant its own article.   BroadSt_Bully  [talk]  21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. No significant difference in the products, and encyclopedic discussions of the terms can be easily handled in a single article.  Powers T 22:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge I done a bit of research on this before commenting, and looks like they are the same thing. Seems to differ from region to region, this can be explained in the article. Hoagie could have it's own section with a detailed explanation. Hoagie should redirect to sub sandwich. Landon1980 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. For some reason, Kevin Murray thought that this needed to be brought up on WP:AN/I.  Having examined the issue, it seems apparent that 'Hoagie' is simply one regional term that is essentially synonymous with 'Submarine sandwich'.  Any finer points of usage can be (and apparently already are) adequately addressed in the merged article.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not merge Per Summer's arguments. "Hoagie" meets verifiability and notability reqs, and it seems that it's co-identification with "sub" is contentious at best. Since not all RS co-identify them, we should not totally conflate them by a merge. It seems sensible with these circumstances to summarize hoagies within the sub article, but to provide their own article as well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Note - I also posted this merge discussion on the WP:FOOD and WP:Foodservice project pages. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument that "hoagie" is simply another name for a sub is disputed by numerous sources. At most, we seem to have an argument that a hoagie is a non-notable sub-type (NPI) of the sub. We might be able to assert that all hoagies are subs, we certainly cannot show that all subs are hoagies. (Similar to Ale being a notable sub-type of beer. All ales are beers, but not all beers are ales.) There are legitimate varieties of sub that, when ordered as a "hoagie" would meet with laughter or a blank stare. Clearly, this is not a content fork. To argue that all subs are hoagies, me would have to establish that our sources dictating that, say, mustard is not a legit hoagie ingredient are wrong or unreliable. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sub and Hoagie- Same thing I think that this should be merged, but with its own section. Wikiapples (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then place a vote for MERGE in the poll just above. BillyTFried (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No consensus to merge After a week no consensus has emerged to support a merger. The notability of this seems evident from the reference section; however, an AfD could be proposed to gather more opinions.  Result: close RfC and remove merge tag.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What?!?! RFCs will be automatically removed from the lists after a period of thirty days and right now it is 6 to 3 for MERGE!. BillyTFried (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, BillyTFried's argument is that the hoagie is a type of sub. This is not a reason for merging. Ale is a type of Beer. Sub is a type of Sandwich. The question is whether or not it is a notable varient. Based on the substantual, reliable sources currently in the article, it is a notable topic. Regional? Yes. A type of another notable topic? Yes (possibly the sub). Notable on its own? Yes. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From this article's #8 reference: a b Wilton, Dave. Verbatim Vol. XXVII No. 3, Autumn 2003. "A Hoagie By Any Other Name". Accessed 21 November 2008. - "You see a hoagie, a grinder, a sub, and a hero are one and the same thing. They are simply regional names for a sandwich served on a large Italian roll and filled with Italian meat, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, and sprinkled with olive oil and spices. Variations on the basic recipe are made by filling the sandwich with other things, such as tuna salad, roast beef, ham and cheese, meatballs, and all manner of other ingredients. Subs can be served either hot or cold." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2573/is_/ai_n29058284 BillyTFried (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * REDIRECT "This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym. It leads to the title in accordance with the naming conventions for common names and can help writing. It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with a piped link. For more information, see this reference page and the Category:Redirects from alternative names." Hoagie is clearly an Alternative Name for Submarine sandwich. BillyTFried (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hoagie is already listed under a sub section of Submarine sandwich called "Regional names", NOT Regional "Variations". See: Submarine_sandwich (And, no I didn't put it there) BillyTFried (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * hoa·gie also hoa·gy   (hō'gē)  Pronunciation Key  n.   pl. hoa·gies Chiefly Pennsylvania & New Jersey See submarine. See Regional Note at submarine.
 * sub·ma·rine   (sŭb'mə-rēn', sŭb'mə-rēn')  Pronunciation Key  n. A large sandwich consisting of a long roll split lengthwise and filled with layers of meat, cheese, tomatoes, lettuce, and condiments. Also called sub1; also called regionally Cuban sandwich, grinder, hero, hoagie, Italian sandwich, poor boy, torpedo, wedge, zep. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition BillyTFried (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked the #1 source for this article that was used for the bulk of its content: ^ a b c Trudgill, Peter et al. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003 "Social Dialectology". ISBN 1588114031, 9781588114037 and it starts right off with THIS>
 * "The submarine is a sandwich on a long roll, split in half. In its basic form it is filled with a variety of cold cuts, cheese, shredded lettuce, peppers, onions, salt, pepper, oil and vinegar. In addition to the general term submarine or sub, local terms in current use are grinder (New England outside of Boston), wedge (Westchester County), hero (New York City), torpedo or torp (Albany and Troy), hoagie (Philadelphia), zeppelin or zep (Norristown, PA), poor boy (New Orleans). Here I will be concerned with the spread of hoagie from Philadelphia to the next largest city in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh." BillyTFried (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that BillyTFried has provided pretty substantial evidence that 'hoagie' is just another name for a submarine sandwich. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt! But it wasn't hard considering all I had to do was glance at the article's main source which is inconspicuously named  ! BillyTFried (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Having separate articles for each of these is a complete joke!
 * A submarine sandwich or sub is any of a variety of North American originated sandwiches that are made on an oblong roll of often Italian bread or French bread. The contents typically include meat, cheese, vegetables, and various condiments, sauces, dressings or spices.


 * In the United States, the terms "submarine" and "sub" are widespread, but there are also many regional names for the sandwich, especially in the northeast part of the country: Cosmo, Grinder, Hero sandwich, Hoagie...


 * A hero sandwich, also known as an Italian sub or Italian submarine sandwich, is said to have originated in New York in the late 19th century when Italian laborers wanted a convenient lunch that reminded them of home. The hero is traditionally at least two Italian meats and provolone cheese on a small or half loaf of crusty Italian bread with roasted peppers, vinegar, olive oil, and lettuce.


 * Synonyms and similar sandwiches are called elsewhere in America: heros, subs, grinders, hoagies, Submarine sandwiches or Po' boys.


 * A hoagie is a style of deli sandwich popular in the United States that consists of an elongated roll typically packed with a selection of cold lunch meats, sliced cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, sweet or hot peppers, oregano, and olive oil. The roll is sliced down its length forming a cradle for the ingredients, somewhat like a hot dog bun.


 * The regional term hoagie is synonymous with submarine sandwich, grinder sandwich, and hero sandwich.


 * BillyTFried (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Billy, this is clever using the same picture for each, but does the single-meat sandwich of the photo really demonstrate the classic hoagie concept. Regardless, I think the articles are about a term and an evolution, not the similar results of the evolutions and the current abstractions which overlap.  From what I see a tuna & sprouts hoagie is an aberration like an apple & chocolate martini.  This an article including history and culture not a sandwich by itself.    For me each WP article should answer a legitimate question for our readers.  This answers the questions: (a) what is a hoagie and (b) where did that strange name come from. Cheers!  --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! But I only added that photo to THIS article, not the other ones. And you wanted to dump that pic of the Subway Hoagie anyway! BTW, every question you have about Subs, Heros, and Hoagies, can all be answered with ease in a SINGLE comphrehesive article. Northerners call it Soda, Southerners call it Coke, Midwesterners call it Pop, but rightfully so, each REGIONAL NAME does NOT have its own article, but falls under Soft drink. Exactly as Hero, Hoagie, and Sub should be. BillyTFried (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the pic for now, but I think we can do better if not merged. I think this situation is straddled by the analogy of sodas and the concept of varieties of a similar concept such as Stew, Soup, or Chowder, or regional branding in similarity to Buick, Pontiac and Chevrolet.  In the absense of a clear path, what is the harm to WP of some redundancy? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions BillyTFried (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What harm is there in having three separate encyclopedia articles about the exact same thing? 1. You get three sub-standard articles instead of one all inclusive fully comprehensive one. 2. It causes confusion for the reader who comes away not realizing they are the same thing. 3. Its just simply unprofessional and goes against Wikipedia standards per Content forking and Redirect.
 * This is legit: As a 25 year veteran member of the foodservice industry, I can say that hoagie is just a synonym for a sub.
 * This is not: In the minds of many, hoagies have a distinct identity from subs... That's sufficient to keep a separate article on the subject.
 * As far as the pic goes, once the three articles are merge into a proper all encompassing page, I will replace that pic with this photo that I took at Morty's in San Francisco and I will also add info on 6-foot Giant Subs/Hoagie/Heros, The unique story of Sub shops, as well as a brief mention of how Subway and Quiznos stole the idea and turned in into a billion dollar global franchise (ala Starbucks), and how that has affected the popularity and availability of the sandwich. BillyTFried (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement "As a 25 year veteran member of the foodservice industry, I can say that hoagie is just a synonym for a sub." is just POV and OR. This person's personal experience is not relevant, nor is it verifiable.  What food service?  However, I do like the picture and I'd support its use immediately, if you are willing to.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and OR? Huh? How is my personal field of work either of those? I have worked in restaurants since before most of the people commenting on this were out of diapers. In my years of slinging food, I have found that the terms grinder, sub, hero, hoagie et al are just synonyms for the same thing. This is not just from my personal experience either, almost all industry publications including Nations Restaurant News, QSR Magazine and others also treat them as synonyms except when doing a local interest story.

Now here is a little policy based reason for merging: Several of the sources used in this article do not meet the standards of reliable sources. Basically, all of the Philadelphia-based sources (The Philadelphia Visitors Bureau, Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, Thirty Fourth Street magazine, etc, etc) that are being used to establish verifiability and to bolster the argument for keeping are not reliable because they are inherently biased for the hoagie. This is because in most of these cases they are coming from primary sources based in Philadelphia that are trying to promote the uniqueness of the city and encourage tourism and are basically self publishing. Because the sources are biased and self promotional, they cannot be used to establish notability under the guidelines of notability, however they can be used to establish the regional name for the product. On the other hand, the sources and points provided by the nominator in the article and within the discussion do meet the WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V tests and are valid arguments for the merge. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 02:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then what are your credentials in the food service industry? Without specifics, there is no verifiability of your knowledge. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have worked or am working for Applebee's, Burger King, Legal Sea Foods, Papa Gino's and Pizza Hut as kitchen staff, manager, and waiter since I was 14 (I turn 40 in June). I am serve safe (food safety and sanitation) certified, have several relatives that are in this or related fields with whhom I discuss the state of the field on a regular basis (one chef, dietitian and food technologist amongst others). I am planning on taking my training and applying it towards a degree in the field with in the next 18 months. I have been working on food service related articles on WP since day one of my exposure to this site. I have worked on several GA articles, revamped most of the major international fast food restaurant articles all the while learning a great deal about the history and structure of my industry in the process. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 09:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Perhaps someone who claims that there is one can tell me what the difference between a hoagie and a sub is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A long resume indeed.   So from your perspective, which is mostly in corporate franchises, the hoagie, sub, hero are synonymous.  That makes sense especially from the standpoint of advertising and naming products.  In my industry, housing, the terms cottage, villa, bungalow, etc. have been tossed about for decades the ad writers as synonyms for small homes  -- to the extent that they are meaningless for the average person; however, the real meaning of each is truly varied.   My interest is not in the colloquial, but in the history and evolution of the concepts, which in my mind are separate (see below).  Cheers and thanks for sharing your experiences. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, I see the difference as more in the origins of the word and concept, rather than a difference in the colloquial use. I think that at one point "hoagie" described something much more specific than "sub", and per the text of our articles the term "Hoagie" (WWI) likely predated the term Sub (WWII).  I am not passionately involved in this topic, but I am passionate about the WP project.  I became involved here as a result of my research and writing about sailing and ships.  There is some evidence that the term hoagie developed from the Hog Island Ship Yard, and my research on the history of the Hog Island ships brought me here.  What I found, several months ago, concerned me as it was substantially non-verifiable POV, which hurts the credibility of the project.  I've been watching this for a few months and as time permits trying to cleanup the article.   I think that WP is well served by the inclusion of this article at this level of disaggregation of topics.  Clearly it is subjective whether a topic merits an article or a section within a larger topic.  My gut feeling says this is standalone; not important, but clearly notable.  In this case, no individual reference or even a few together demonstrate notability, but in total the 12 references would be compelling in an AfD decision, which is in essence what this has become.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that a hoagie and a sub are the same thing but that hoagie is the earlier name. If they are the same thing, and no one has yet made clear what the difference is, then the two articles should clearly be merged, with the earlier name of 'hoagie' being more prominent in the merged article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is tht the terms are used synonomously in many cases today, though the history is separate enough to warrant an article for each. I also think that this article overclaims the importance of the term hoagie in that is describes grinders and other sandwiches as being versions of the hoagie.  I think this still contains a Pennsylvania regional perspective (POV).  This article needs an international perspective and needs to avoid recentism.  Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you read the current Submarine sandwich article and are really interested in the history of it all, it states that the Sub originated in Paterson, NJ with Italian immigrant Dominic Conti (1874-1954), who opened Dominic Conti's Grocery Store in 1910.


 * Hoagies History
 * Hoagies are essentially the same as Submarine Sandwiches, though some Philadelphians insist that the bun should be a bun that is crusty outside, soft inside. In Philadelphia, the same sandwich heated up becomes a "grinder". There are competing claims and ideas about the invention and the naming of the sandwich. Most speculation centres on the sandwich having evolved from various types of Italian sandwiches ("panini"). Some feel that the first person to use the Submarine Sandwich name might have been a Dominic Conti (1874 - 1954), owner of Dominic Conti's Grocery Store on Mill Street in Paterson, New Jersey, after seeing the recovered 1878 submarine called "Holland 1" in the local Paterson museum in 1927. Some sources support tales linking the name "Hoagie Sandwich" with Italian workers at a Philadelphia shipyard on Hog Island during World War I (1914 to 1918). The workers were reputedly called "hoggies", and their Italian-style long sandwiches named likewise, with the sandwich name becoming "hoagies" over time. Sadly, there's a missing link -- there's no print record of the sandwiches ever having been called "hoggies", aside from misspellings that still occur to this day of the word "hoagie". Some credit the name Hero Sandwich to The New York Herald Tribune food writer, Clementine Paddleford, when she wrote about the sandwich saying, "You'd have to be a hero to finish one." in the 1930's. 1
 * BillyTFried (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead
I reworked the lead to what I think more clearly discusses and describes the purpose of the article. Please let me know whether I am going in a good direction with this. If so the lead still needs some serious work, and the bulk of the article needs some real cleanup and consistency. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are going in the wrong direction to some degree, particularly regarding attempts to describe what an AUTHENTIC Hoagie is or was. Especially if attempting to demonstrate that it is or ever was unique from what a Sub or Hero is or ever was. Also, almost every source I have seen including those used FOR THIS ARTICLE refers to the term "SUB" as the most all-encompassing "GENERAL TERM". So using that in Wikipedia as the GENERAL NAME is not "recentism", it's simply logical. If the obviously most general term Shoes came much later than some regional name for them in Medieval Europe calling them Footies but had NOTHING unique about them other than their name's origin, I doubt you'd find much support for an individual article outside of Shoes for Footies. The same goes for Hoagie and Sub and WWI or WWII. It would not matter if Hoagie dated back to the Civil War, the most widely used general term would still trump it. The regional term's age would only justify worthy mention under the General Article - Submarine Sandwich. To me, what you are attempting to do here would be time much better spent on the combined Sub/Hoagie/Hero article. By the way, I don't know if I said this yet, but I DON'T believe the quite unique Fried Fish Louisiana Creole Po'Boy Sandwich should be merged with the three basically identical Italian Cold Cut Hero/Hoagie/Sub Sandwiches. Same goes for the famed Philadelphia Cheese steak.

The rewrite that I propose is something like this:


 * Submarine sandwich
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * (Redirected from Hoagie)


 * A Submarine sandwich, also known as a Hoagie, Hero, or Grinder, is a type of deli sandwich that originated in several different Italian American communities in the Northeastern United States from the late 19th to mid 20th centuries. The sandwich generally consists of an oblong roll of often Italian bread or French bread, sliced down its length and packed with cold lunch meats, sliced cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, peppers, sauces, and spices. The popularity of this Italian-American cuisine has grown from its New York and Pennsylvania origins to most parts of the United States, and with the advent of chain restaurants, is now available in many parts of the world.


 * 1 History and Etymology (Ordered by age, if possible with refs to waves of immigration from Naples, Sicily etc.)
 * 1.1 Hoagie
 * 1.2 Hero
 * 1.3 Sub
 * 1.4 Other (Grinder, Zeppelin, Torpedo, Wedge, etc.)
 * 2 Ingredients and preparation
 * 2.1 Common Recipe (The epitomes "Italian Sub")
 * 2.2 Regional differences (To the main recipe, if any can be clearly demonstrated)
 * 2.3 Variations (Meatball/Cheese Steak/Po'boy/Vietnamese Hoagie)
 * 3 Popularity and Availability (PA/NY--->USA--->Earth)
 * 3.1 Domestic
 * 3.2 International
 * 3.3 Restaurants (Pizzerias--->Sub Shops--->Supermarkets--->Chains)


 * BillyTFried (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Another great example: Me and a gazillion other people grew up calling the green leafy stuff Cilantro and the brown powdery stuff Coriander. But guess what? It's the same plant and those two links go to the same article. And I am glad, because now I know something I had never known before thanks to Wikipedia. After all the years I had tossed a few cilantro sprigs in pasta or dashed some powdered coriander into sauces, I finally realize they are the same thing. And I MAY NOT HAVE if they both had their own separate articles. Also, everybody from Jersey knows they are called Garbanzo beans, but for some reason the REGIONAL NAME I learned from my Italian-American upbringing doesn't seem to justify it having its own article instead of simply redirecting to Chickpeas! What a world!

Some more history for you:

Right now Italian sandwich redirects to Submarine sandwich. Maybe Hero, Hoagie, and Sub should all be merged into an article more aptly called Italian sandwich with the very first See also going to Panini (sandwich). BillyTFried (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Demonstration of a practical merger
I think that Billy has demonstrated some concepts toward a practical merger. While I still oppose the merger for several reasons, including making one unwieldy article. I'd be willing to work together on a sandbox version of the proposed result of a merger. I'd also say that we should prudently trim the fat from this article toward an agreement of what is encyclopedic -- this will help in evaluating the effects of a merger. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you consider an unwieldy article and what you consider a comprehensive one, but the current articles for Hoagie, Hero, and Sub are all WP:Stubs that you and I both know describe the exact same thing but with different regional names. It should not be a big deal to merge three stubs about the same thing. How about this former featured article: Cheese? Unwieldy or comprehensive? As far as the sandbox suggestion goes, I'd prefer to wait till it's clear the merger will go through before I spend any more time on a "Demonstration" than I have already. Also, take a look at the articles for Bigfoot (Redirected from Sasquatch) and Yeti (Redirected from Abominable Snowman) for two more perfect examples of exactly how this topic should be handled. Both of which provide information on their Etymology & alternate names. By the way, I support your removal of the gazillion variations of what a Hoagie supposedly is. BillyTFried (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point about Cheese. That article is not unwieldy because numerous varieties of cheese have their own articles. If we merged the various regional varients, all made of coagulated milk, we would have an unwieldy article. However, you have since edited your original comment that the hoagie was a regional varient of the sub, so I'm unsure where you are going at this point. My !vote and its explanations remain the same, and unaddressed. We have significant unique content here that cannot be cleanly merged into the sub article. We also have sources claiming to differentiate hoagies from subs. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes my view has changed slightly here and there since the beginning after reading and re-reading from source after source including this article's own references as well as those for Hero and Sub that the Hoagie is NOT even a regional VARITATION, but simply a regional ALTERNATE NAME, reinforcing my belief that it should be merged. And if you would criticize me for being open minded enough to alter my view after reading such concrete info time after time, I would counter that your "Sticking to my guns" position is simply one of inflexibility and stubbornness and a refusal to see reason no matter how clearly it is shown to you and no matter how much clear documentation you are provided with. And the separate articles you speak of about cheese are in fact separate variations in ingredients, preparation and many other things. That is NOT the case with Hoagie Hero or Sub which are the exact same thing. Unlike the Po'Boy and the Cheese Steak which ARE in fact variations and do deserve their own articles. I have no problem with American Cheese having its own article separate from Cheese. I would however object to there being THREE separate articles on American Cheese simply because they may call it Sandwich Cheese in Chicago, Yellow Cheese in LA, and Queso Americano in Miami. That would be just silly. Same as having three separate articles for the Italian sandwich AKA Hero/Hoagie/Sub.
 * We have significant unique content here that cannot be cleanly merged into the sub article.
 * Dead wrong and you have no basis for that whatsoever.
 * We also have sources claiming to differentiate hoagies from subs.
 * What sources? Authoritative ones? I feel quite confident I can provide 10 times as many that prove otherwise.


 * I realize you're from Philadelphia and your Hoagie is dear to you, but I'm afraid it's not as unique as you thought. But feel free to keep lining them up Ms. PhD, I'll keep knocking them down. BillyTFried (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please limit your comments here to the article and efforts to improve same. My comments about your changing your earlier talk postings are meant to emphasize that while you are certainly entitled to change your opinions, changing comments you have posted to a talk page after they have been responded to is disruptive and confusing. When you do so, the response may no longer match the comment it was intended to address.
 * Please realize that whether or not we merge articles is not going to be the result of a vote. We use the term "!vote" to indicate that the not-vote should not be counted as one vote, but rather considered based on the content of its explanatory text. Thus one !vote from an anonymous IP editor with no history may easily upset !votes by numerous other registered editors. We are seeking consensous, not a democratic election.
 * Re Cheese. Yes, American Cheese is different than Cheese. It uses a subset of the methods and ingredients used to make cheese, making it a variety of cheese. Hoagies do not use several of the ingredients and methods used for subs, perhaps making a hoagie a variety of the sub.
 * Unique content in this article includes the numerous possible origins of the name "hoagie", the growth in the standarization of its spelling, the spread of the term, ingredients used (which have changed over time), etc. All sourced.
 * The number of sources that you can provide stating, flatly, that hoagies use the same ingredients as subs (no ifs, ands, or buts) is unlikely to be 10 times the converse. This is not a significant poinat, though, as Wikipedia aims to provide information on significant alternate points of view. The existance of a number of reliable sources differentiating hoagies from subs (wedges, Cuban sandwiches, heroes, etc.) clearly establishes the concept of "hoagie" as distinct from "sub" in some reliable sources. That is sufficient. You repeatedly allude to some editors wanting to keep separate articles based on distinctions in name only. That is clearly not the case.
 * Your guesses as to my feelings and your opinions of same are not part of this discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. You are from Phili and contribute very very heavily to Wiki-articles "of same" LOL... (including 157 edits to Philadelphia slang which includes the Regional Slang Term Hoagie that it says "would be referred to as a "sub" in other parts of the country" LMAO!) and you are here to defend your city's "official" sandwich at all costs, no matter how much material I have presented about its lack of uniqueness (and I've presented a ton). That is my opinion and I am perfectly free to express it in this discussion despite your stern yet laughable claims to the contrary. From WP:Consensus: "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality" It is clear that "neutrality" has no place in any of your arguments but only defense of your beloved Hoagie, which is against Wikipedia policy. If you can't separate your love for the Hoagie with this redundant article, I suggest you step away from this one.
 * What I have asked for repeatedly was proof the CONTENTS of a Hoagie have anything unique about them going back FOUR MONTHS ago, and neither you or anyone else has come forward with an answer or any proof to back it up. That is because there is none.
 * First you dodge the unique content question by simply saying there are sources that prove it. SHOW US THE SOURCES! Show us the proof that the contents of a Hoagie are unique because they ALWAYS have Melted Cheese and Hot Beef in them or Fried Fish and Canjun Spices. Yes my proof of the "converse" WILL be Ten Fold. Then you go on and on about how the NAME and its ORIGINS make it unique enough for its own article... THEN you turn around and claim that I "repeatedly allude to some editors wanting to keep separate articles based on distinctions in name only. That is clearly not the case." CLEARLY EH? "I see the difference as more in the origins of the word --Kevin Murray" And you really basically HAVE done the same by constantly dodging the WHATS THE DIFFERENCE question yourself. Please refrain from degrading Wikipedia with your unreasonable and unrelenting defense of your hometown sandwich. It's quite unproductive and un-doctorly. BillyTFried (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please limit your discusion here to the content of articles, not editors. Whatever your opinions of me, other articles I have edited, etc. are, they have no place in this discussion. I do not intend to "dodge" anything. However, the rapid growth and change of this talk page and the article is difficult to follow, especially with the on-going misunderstandings.
 * Wikipedia rarely uses votes for supstantal decisions. Straw polls are never binding, consensus should be reached on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll, Editors should exercise extreme care in requesting that others participate in a straw poll (like this). Unregistered editors are allowed full input in such discussions despite this. If a straw poll was called on an issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly. In fact, all of this applies.
 * I submit that you are not seeing that the decision you have reached misses that fact that the polls (both of them) were particularly controversial. As a result, I am asking that you request closure by an uninvolved administrator. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not the same as unanimity. "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best." I believe that person is you. You are neither an uninterested editor nor are you one who is here to strive to make great food-related articles on Wikipedia (like the rest of us). You are a Philadelphia-o-phile (nothing wrong with that) who is here to fight for Phili's "official" sandwhich's right to keep its own page despite being outvoted and having tons of solid sources posted clearly showing that it is the same thing as a Sub, Hero or Grinder. (lots wrong with that) Finding and posting all the sources I have has been my good faith effort, as well as Demonstrating a Practical Merge Example as Kevin Murray said. Yet you have provided none. All you have done is attempt to hijack any attempts at a merge. And why have you not fought to defend the pages for Grinder and Hero also? Because you are not NYC is my guess. That's not cool. And you have still to this very day failed to answer the cardinal question from months ago of What Is The Difference, proving that you have no real arguments on that issue. As stated a while back by edgarde, "That's what we call them in Philly" is not sufficient for a separate article. You can contact an admin if you'd like but I think it would be more helpful for you to simply move on, or help contribute to the Submarine sandwich article that I have now turned from a stub into a much much better article that I am proud of. BillyTFried (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please limit you discussion to content, not editors. I am not asking for unanimity, I am asking you to understand that this is not about voting, thus (whether I am right or wrong) I am not "outvoted".
 * As to "what the group feels is best", the group has gone fairly quiet. The last comment from anyone other than the two of us is Kevin Murray restoring a comment you inappropriately deleted. Prior to that, the last meaningful addition was Kevin Murray [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hoagie&diff=255237228&oldid=255209918 still opposed to the merger. Since then, you have decreed that it is decided, even pointing to Kevin Murray as deciding to work with you. I suggested you take it to an uninvolved admin to make the call. You declined. Instead, you are moving ahead. I am again asking you to consider this a controversial decision and handle it as such. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Silence implies consent. And let's be clear here. All I have done so far is merge Hero which had no support for Keep, and reconstructed Submarine sandwich into a proper article complete with tons of sources. My time is being spent trying to build that article into a great one. Your time is being spent posting messages on my talk page threatening to get me blocked. I am being constructive and you are being disruptive. Again, please move on. BillyTFried (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My work has begun
The straw poll has been in favor of MERGING from the beginning a few weeks ago and now stands at 8 to 5 for MERGE with one KEEP vote being from an anonymous IP address that’s made just eight contributions to Wikipedia since a year ago this week, and the two most substantial dissenters have ended up being one who has decided to work with me on the new article and the other being an unreasonable Philadelphia-fanatic with no arguments of any substance who just came here to support her city's regional name for the sandwich. Therefore I have begun to move the relevant info over to SUBMARINE SANDWICH and reconstructed that entire page adding many new photos and also merging Hero into it, which never garnered any support for its own page along with Grinder. Please help me make that the best article it can be. Thanks!


 * BUON APPETITO!!! BillyTFried (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Hoagie
A user has requested informal dispute mediation from the Mediation Cabal
 * Links: Case page • Case talk page

What's the conflict?
The conflict is over the the merge of the stub article Hoagie into Submarine sandwich. The articles for Hero sandwich and Grinder sandwich have already been merged. Hoagie was finally incorporated under its own section and merged as well but has been blocked by User:SummerPhD. And all info that is on the Hoagie page now exists on the far more comprehensive article for Submarine sandwich. Hoagie is simply a Philadelphia region WP:Alternative name for Submarine Sandwich. I called a vote that after weeks stands at 9-5 for Merge. Then two people strongly protested and I tried to work toward consensus with both. The first person who was a neutral editor eventually agreed to work with me on the merged article that I've begun that he referred to as "excellent" and the second, SummerPhD, who appears to be a Philadelphia fanatic per WP:Don't be a fanatic demanded I prove Hoagie, Hero, and Sub were synonyms. At her request, I provided many different sources proving so, however she has refused to stop her WP:Disruptive editing and relentless blocking of the merge process, without giving any argument for why other than that I have somehow not addressed her complaints, which I have, thoroughly. Instead of showing WP:Good faith herself, she has instead posted multiple warnings on my talk page of getting me blocked from Wikipedia for calling her WP:Disruptive editing exactly what it is. BillyTFried (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding Billy's excellent work in both cleaning up this article and incorporating information into Submarine, I don't see a valid reason to delete this article. (1) Neither the AfD process nor the RfC process are votes, so a count of popularity is invalid.  (2) The ongoing requests for merger over the last year seem like forum shopping, until the desired goals were attained.  If you evaluate the comments over the last year as a whole, there is no compelling consensus for a merger.  i think that the advocates for merger just wore down the oppponents.  I don't see why there is a need to eliminate this article.  I think that the sub article and this each have a place at WP. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion by uninvolved editor

 * Please refrain from commenting if you are already involved in this discussion

I saw a pointer to this merger discussion reappear on the Wikiproject Food & Drink page, and thought I would look in on it. I have edited a large number of food and travel articles, but have not edited any of the Sub/Hoagie/Grinder/Hero articles (that I know of). What I see here is a consensus for merger of the articles into a single article, along the lines that BillyTFried proposed above. The main article would be Submarine sandwich, with the other names being redirects to it. In the article, there would be comprehensive coverage of the all the regional names and variations, properly sourced and attributed, etc.

And as someone who has lived in some of the various geographical areas involved, as well as elsewhere in the U.S., and has consumed many of these tasty sandwiches under various names, I'd like to add my voice to those who believe that they're all names for the same thing -- an Italian-American meat sandwich on a roll, with significant regional and local variation. And the great preponderance of third-party sources I've seen concur as well. --MCB (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup comments

 * Thanks for your input MCB. Seeing as you're an administrator, hopefully your statement will satisfy SummerPhD's "request for closure by an uninvolved administrator". BillyTFried (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Billy has requested a mediation, then I think it makes sense to pursue that process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, and when that's not enough what process will it "make sense" to pursue next? I tried regular discussion on the topic... not enough. Tried a straw poll that's won by a landslide since day one (even though someone here tried to call it the other way and deleted it)... not enough. Made an RFC that only brought in more pro-merge comments... not enough. Was challenged to prove my assertions and did so thoroughly while my calls for proof of the contrary went unanswered... not enough. Posted merge proposal tags all over the place... not enough. Built the Submarine sandwich page into an "excellent" article providing far better treatment of Hoagie than this redundant stub... not enough. Made a request for mediation... not enough. Someone here demanded I have an "uninvolved administrator" step in and then one does (without me requesting it) and calls it consensus for merge... not enough. You may feel that all of this "makes sense" despite generally conceding that Hero, Hoagie, and Sub are synonyms, but I completely disagree. However, merging three stub articles that are all simply alternative names for the exact same freaking thing into one comprehensive article? Now THAT makes sense! [[image:Lixa.gif]] BillyTFried (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Billy, you seem to have take this on as somewhat of a passionate crusade of personal ownership, which is contrary to the nature of WP as a cooperative project. I suggest that you stand-down a bit and let the process evolve toward a friendly consensus.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense Kevin, but the last time you suggested that I "stand-down" was when you popped in here a week after I posted the Merge Proposal Tag, Straw Poll and RfC and claimed that "no consensus has emerged to support a merger. Result: close RfC and remove merge tag. Cheers!", and then unilaterally removed the merge proposal tag and closed out my RfC, instead of allowing me to "pursue that process" which goes for 30 days, and despite the fact that the poll results at that time stood at 6 to 3 for Merge (now 10-5). Obviously that did not "make sense" to me. I'm not sure if that kind of polite cleverness is "contrary to the nature of WP", but being gullible enough to fall for it (even on the 2nd try) is contrary to my own logic and reasoning. BillyTFried (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be a fanatic --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be dense --BillyTFried (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, you two arguing isn't going to help the case. Instead of trying to take this personally, I suggest you give us some ideas here ;). -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  14:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I only brought this up here, since Billy has used this essay to describe the actions of SummerPHD above. My comment was not meant to be pejorative, but I'm asking Billy to read the text of that to which he is directing us in the description of Summer.  Sometimes we can get a bit carried away in our fervor and create escalating commitments to trivial concerns.  For something so minor to become so passionate only attests to the potential notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it kinda silly to suggest that if someone is passionate about fixing something that is wrong it somehow implies that nothing is actually wrong at all. I would be just as passionate if Midwesterners tried to create a separate article for Pop or if Northeasterners tried to do the same for Soda. Fortunately people haven't been as WP:Dense about that one and WP:Common sense prevailed with them both redirecting to Soft Drink . BillyTFried (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks for the uninvoled comment. I'd like to just note that while we're discussing this here, please remain calm and keep a cool head. Discussion might get heated here but let us respond in a civil way and work towards an agreement. Also, while I'm at it, I'm looking for reasoning rather then voting. Wikipedia is a cluocracy and not a democracy, nor a vote to skip discussion. -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Kanonkas. Thanks for accepting my request for mediation. What kind of ideas are you looking for? I feel that I have provided an exhaustive amount of credible sources that support my assertion that Hoagie, Hero, Sub, and Grinder are all simply regional WP:Alternative names for the same thing. And the vast majority of editors who took part in the straw poll agree. I would also suggest that most of the comments for Keep don't hold much water, such as "Keep In the minds of many, hoagies have a distinct identity from subs, whatever the origin of the word. That's sufficient to keep a separate article on the subject. RayAYang (talk)". What? No it's not! However, SummerPhD and Kevin Murray have emerged as the chief proponents of keeping this article around. In my efforts to reach a consensus, I have asked that those opposed to the merge provide at least a fraction of the amount of sources that I have that prove that there is really anything unique about Hoagie other than the origin of its name (which is now fully documented in its sub-section of Submarine sandwich), and nobody has provided any. Also, after successfully merging Grinder and Hero into Submarine sandwich, I greatly expanded and improved that article to cover all three of these main alternative names as well as all lesser known names and variations, complete with historical background, etymology, and photos along with previously missing info on the sandwich's growth in popularity and global availability. All of this is properly sourced and thus does not warrant removal from the Submarine sandwich page. And I do not feel that I have degraded any of these in my treament of them. Therefore this article is simply a redundant stub that's identical to the Hoagie sub-section of Submarine Sandwich. In my opinion, this is counter to the goals of Wikipedia and is a lot like having a separate article about Soda called "Pop" with identical content but existing simply because Midwesterners call it Pop. It just doesn't make sense. And the two main opponents to the merge, in my opinion, have not provided any persuasive reasons to oppose the merge. I will try to sum up their arguments and provide my counter arguments.


 * Keep - Kevin Murray is a boating hobbyist who wound up hear after reading about boats at Hog Island and was intrigued about how the name Hoagie came from Italian-American workers from there. He seems to agree that the names are indeed synonyms, and has stated "I see the difference as more in the origins of the word", but he feels that the unique origin of the name is notable enough for it to have its own article, despite all of this info now being included in the more comprehensive Submarine sandwich page, which he has described as "excellent". He has also said that he is generally on the fence regarding the merge but is concerned that I may have done Forum Shopping or have somehow handled this situation inappropriately. I am sorry he feels that way. I have tried my best to be clear, honest, and concise about my beliefs and intentions. He has commented on the article's history going back a year ago however, I only arrived and began editing it in August. I believe he would be OK with the merger but just wants things to be done properly. I felt that posting merger proposal tags, a straw poll, and an RfC was the proper thing, and have now also made a mediation request as well. I think it may be my drive to see what I believe is the right thing be done that makes him uneasy despite his agreement with most of my arguments.


 * Keep - SummerPhD is a "Phili-phile" (as she calls it) who contributes extensively to Philadelphia related articles and that association is what brought her here. The Hoagie, as they call it in Philly, was designated by their former mayor as the "Official Sandwich of Philadelphia", and Philadelphians are as passionate about their local name for this sandwich as they are about their local sports teams. I can respect that to a degree, but the simple fact remains that it is just a regional alternative name for the same sandwich that is called Hero and Grinder in NYC and a Sub in most of the rest of the country and world. SummerPhD has at times made claims that the contents or preparation of Hoagies was unique and claimed there were sources to back that up, but she has never provided any and I have gone over all of the cited sources and found that they actually corroborate my assertions with statements such as "You see a hoagie, a grinder, a sub, and a hero are one and the same thing. They are simply regional names for a sandwich served on a large Italian roll and filled with Italian meat, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, and sprinkled with olive oil and spices" (1). Instead of backing up her claims, she seems to have bounced back and forth between falling back on the "Unique Name Origin is Enough" theory and assertions that I was breaking Wikipedia rules. Even if she could come up with one or two sources that claim all Hoagies always have a pickle or something, that still really would not warrant having a separate page for Hoagie and would be easily incorporated into its sub-section of Submarine sandwich. She has also stated that all the unique info on the origins of Hoagie on this page could not be successfully incorporated into the Submarine sandwich page, however, I have already done so successfully.


 * Merge – BillyTFried. I'm just a foodie from New Jersey, living in San Francisco, who grew up calling this sandwich a Hoagie around people from Philly, like my mom (who also vehemently contends that Hoagies are unique but never says how – "They just are!"), and a Hero or Sub around people from NYC, and all three around people from NJ, depending on which part of the state they're from. What brought me to this page was affectionately referring to them as Hoagies to my CA-native ex-gf who had no idea what I was talking about, and so I Wikied it and was stunned to find that Hero, Hoagie, Sub, and Grinder all had their own shoddily put together stub articles suggesting they had little to do with each other. In fact, when I first got here, the opening paragraph stated that, "Hoagies have a resemblance to sub or a hero sandwiches, but are distinct.", and had a {vague} tag after it. So my first action was to WP:Be bold and simply delete that false and unsourced claim. It appeared to me that people like my mom were running the show and were filibustering any attempts at what they likely saw as trying to marginalize their local name for this sandwich. I felt that was totally wrong and degraded Wikipedia and began to work towards rectifying the situation. To my surprise it has never been suggested that I was trying to force my own regional NJ bias by deeming Submarine sandwich as the appropriate name, but if it had been, my rebuttal would be that I really don't care what name is used, as long as these identical sandwiches were merged somehow, although, the most widely used name, probably thanks to the Subway franchise, is clearly Sub.


 * I did a WP:Search engine test using Google just to make sure:
 * About 618 for "Grinder sandwich". (1st non-recipe link: What are known as grinders in New England are called subs, submarine sandwiches, po'boys or torpedos in the rest of the US.)
 * About 9,930 for "Hoagie sandwich". (1st link: Known by various names depending on where you live in this country. Some of those names include: Submarine, Heros, Hoagie, Grinder, Po' Boy, Rocket, Torpedo, Dagwood, Hero, Zepplin, and Italian Sandwich.)
 * About 48,200 for "Hero sandwich". (1st non-Wikipedia link: It is certainly known by a lot of other names. It can be called a Po’Boy in New Orleans, a sub or submarine sandwich in Boston, or a hoagie.)
 * About 59,500 for "Italian Sandwich". (1st link: In a world of hoagies, heroes, grinders and submarines, Portland, Maine is known as the birthplace of the Italian sandwich.)
 * About 205,000 for "Submarine sandwich". (1st non-advert link: The same basic submarine sandwich may be known as a hoagie, a grinder, a bomber or a hero in different regions of the United States.)


 * At one point I even suggested the main article be called Italian sandwich and have all of them redirect there, but that never caught on. I'm also not some big article-merging nut either. The only other merge I've ever done was for Coppa and Capicola, which actually stemmed from MY OWN mistaken belief that they were two separate things. I even found a sign that shared my mistaken belief!


 * As far as your request for ideas, I am not sure what to tell you. For me to be convinced that the stub article for Hoagie should remain while identical content for it is on the Submarine sandwich page, I would need to see substantial conclusive and credible proof that the Hoagie is in fact distinct from Subs, kinda like how Root Beer is significantly different from Cola, and NOT how some people call it Soda and others call it Pop. I think Kevin Murray simply needs assurance that it is being handled properly and then he would agree to withdraw his opposition to the merge. However, as much as I'm sure she considers this a personal attack worthy of having me banned, I believe that SummerPhD will continue to reject all merge proposals and defend her local regional name for her city's "Official Sandwich" no matter what, and therefore falls into this category: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best." The group has spoken and the vote stands at 10 to 5 for merge. Like I said before, Everybody from Jersey "knows" they are called Garbanzo beans, but for some reason the Regional name I learned from my Italian-American upbringing doesn't seem to justify it having its own article instead of simply redirecting to Chickpeas. Clearly the same should go for Hero, Hoagie, and Sub. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your condescending tone throughout the process is not appreciated, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and does not help your cause. And if you're going to use Google as a benchmark, at least use proper lexicon when searching.  Of course entries for "grinder sandwich" and "hoagie sandwich" are going to be severely limited because those words never appear in that order next to each other in common usage.  That's like searching for "Coca-Cola soft drink" as the end-all, be-all benchmark for finding all instances of that particular beverage.   BroadSt_Bully  [talk]  11:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. My tone is a problem. I'll work on it. Though I'd hope that you would not take the position that whoever is the most polite is the most right. I doubt focusing on my tone (that I'd characterize as exasperation rather than condescension) instead of the facts related to the article is in the spirit of Wikipedia either. So as far as the actual topic at hand goes, got any ideas there? I noticed you voted in both polls for Keep and commented "They are two distinctly different classes of sandwiches.", but you never say how or why, or what "classes" you mean, let alone offer and credible sources to back up that claim, as opposed to the slew of sources I have shown refute such a claim. So why not do so now? Better late than never. BillyTFried (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, a Google search for "Hoagie" returns 578,000 results. Google searches, of course, don't prove much of anything. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Hoagie searched for alone gets a lot of hits since it's a man's name. A search for just Sub gets 431,000,000 results. I tacked on the word Sandwich to try and make it more specific, but of course I realize that searching Google is not the end-all-be-all. Either way, I don't think the fact that Sub is the most commonly used general term for this sandwich (as noted in all provided sources) has really been disputed anyway. BillyTFried (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Hoagie" alone turns up a whole raft of unrelated articles (though most seem to refer to the sandwich). Ditto "Sub". The 9 of the first 10 "Hoagie" results are the sandwich. "Sub" is 2 out of 10. Whatever. The point is a Google test is not meaningful data in this context. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, then let's get back to the mountain of other sources I have provided already. And please feel free to also provide your own or refute any of my above statements to our mediator Kanonkas or give him some ideas as he's requested. BillyTFried (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term "hoagie" is widely used interchangably with sub. Much like calling portland concrete "cement" and asphalt concrete "asphalt", usage and reality are not the same thing. How many legs does a lamb have, if we call its tail a leg? Ask Lincoln, and he'd have told you four. "A hoagie is not a sub or a hero" . "Contrary to popular belief, “hoagie” is not just a euphemism for a submarine sandwich." Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation


 * While some sources will list hoagie, sub, po'boy, Dagwood sandwich and Italian sandwich as synonyms, they are distinct items.

"...the Italian sandwich, a category that includes both the hoagie and the cheese steak, among others....A hoagie is what you might think of as a hero or a submarine sandwich. But, it's not the same." The Foods of Philadelphia


 * One of your sources makes the claim that they are all simply different names for the same thing, but you have yet to begin trying to merge Po' boy and Dagwood sandwich to sub. Clearly, they are not the same thing. So what's wrong? The source is relying on broad usage. Heck, I can find reliable sources that will tell you a gyro is another name for a hoagie (I'm sure you'd agree that is absurd) or a recipe for a "Philadelphia hoagie" that isn't even a sandwich. Oh no! Sources disagree! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! Whatever will become of us? Well, when a significant opinion says disorder X is simply another name for disorder Y, we have articles on both, with text covering the disagreement. Ditto breakaway republics, etc. A sandwich, while neither a disorder nor a republic, can easily follow a similar mold. Harmony is restored. The Earth keeps spinning. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You see the sources you just cited do the same thing I have been complaining about since DAY ONE. They CLAIM uniqueness but then never back it up. The one says "A hoagie is what you might think of as a hero or a submarine sandwich. But, it's not the same. Slice a fresh Philadelphia Italian roll. Sprinkle lightly with oil. Then add shredded lettuce, onions, your sandwich fillings, and sliced tomato. Finally, sprinkle with oregano, basil, salt, and pepper." WTF??!? How on Earth can anyone tell me that what you just made is NOT a Hero or Sub? The fact is that you and I and most everyone here knows YOU CAN'T. There is NO SPECIAL INGREDIENT that makes a Hero, Hoagie or Sub unique from the other. And even if some folks CLAIM one always has to have Mayo or the other has to always have Olive oil, that damn sure doesn't justify separate articles on each one. And yes I do agree that it would be "absurd" to merge Cheesesteak, Gyro, or Po'Boy, because we all know that each one DOES in fact have a very unique set of ingredients that DOES make it notably distinct. With Hero, Hoagie, and Sub, that is simply not the case. Walter Peck: "SHUT IT OFF!" :-P BillyTFried (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW SummerPhD, regarding your "request for closure by an uninvolved administrator", MCB, who is an uninvolved administrator wandered in on his own, went over the topic, and then called it consensus for merge. So then hasn't your request been granted? BillyTFried (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy
According to Wikipedia Policy, this article sastifies the criteria for a merge as follows:


 * Criteria_for_deletion
 * Content fork (A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.)
 * REDUNDANT or otherwise useless templates


 * Merging
 * Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
 * Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.
 * If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.


 * Redirect
 * Redirect
 * Template:R_from_alternative_name
 * Category:Redirects_from_alternative_names
 * This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym. It leads to the title in accordance with the naming conventions for common names and can help writing. It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with a piped link.


 * Naming_conventions_(common_names)
 * Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. Search engine testing might in some cases assist in discerning which of two alternative versions of a name is more common.

BillyTFried (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a productive way to handle this conflict
Talk about showing WP:Good faith eh? Talk:Submarine_sandwich BillyTFried (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Would the editors who wish to keep the article please answer these questions? "If you don't give the person you're reverting a reason that can be potentially disputed or agreed with ... [then you are not discussing] --User:Father Goose". -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  15:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A) Why don't consider it a fork?
 * B) How they would consider it a fork ?
 * C) Why do you think the supposed fork is good?
 * D) Why they think people will agree that merging is not in the best interest of the project?

Kevin's answers:
A) Why don't consider it a fork? I see the content fork policy as meant to prevent articles/topics from spliting over POV or content disputes (Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.). Whether the end result of the evolution of the terms Sub Sandwich and Hoagie may be similar, the encyclopedic interest for me remains in the evolution and history.  While Hoagie may now describe a broader type of sandwich (like a sub), the origins appear to be in a narrower definition of ingredients. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

B) How they would consider it a fork ? I don't see this as a fork.  It is a matter of what degree of aggregation of topics is desired. This is subjective.  In this case Hoagie has enough references to justify a stand alone article, at least from the typical criteria in practice at AfD. Some recent editing by Billy does make it look like a clone article, and I think that this should be discouraged.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

C) Why do you think the supposed fork is good? N/A since I don't see this as a fork. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

D) Why they think people will agree that merging is not in the best interest of the project? People won't agree on this topic, because it is a matter of personal opinion without a clear policy,  just like there is rarely unanimity in AfD discussions.  I also think that there is a bit of a drive-by phenomonon, where people taking a quick look but anxious to offer an opinion are being convinced more by rhetoric than reason, and not looking at the difference in the evolution of the terms, but are looking at the similarity of the current uses of the terms (recent practice).  Recently Billy suggested that because I am a Californian I have never heard of a Hoagie and am not familiar with the issue.  However, I've heard the terms Hoagie used for years in advertising and had no idea of what it meant -- the value of WP is that I now know.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Horologium
I saw this discussed on AN/I, so I am here to offer another uninvolved opinion. FWIW, I was born in Philadelphia (Chestnut Hill to be precise), and all of my relatives except for my immediate family live in Philly. I grew up calling this type of sandwich a hoagie, and I don't think I've ever heard my father refer to it in any other way.

That said, I strongly support the merge proposed by Billy T. Fried. Outside of a few dodgy sources (which are overwhelmingly balanced by many reliable sources), there is no indication that this is anything other than a regional name. The etymology is interesting (and certainly deserving of a section in Submarine sandwich), but doesn't rise to the level of an article of its own. It shouldn't be deleted outright (as noted by Kevin Murray about references and AfD), but nobody is suggesting that; a merge was what was suggested. As noted by another commenter above, Cilantro and Coriander are the same plant, and redirect to the same article. The Hokey Cokey and the Hokey Pokey (which redirects to the former article) are the same song/dance, and the article specifically notes the regional differences in the song and its background. The same should occur here.  Horologium  (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan  &#124;   39  17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to let people know, I requested this. I feel that this is getting out of hand, people are editing the article to support their POV which is bad mojo. Please refrain from editing until such time that the Merge discussion is concluded. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good choice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good choice indeed!
 * 07:30, 21 December 2008 Kevin Murray (Talk | contribs) (7,806 bytes) (Revert)
 * 06:05, 21 December 2008 Kevin Murray (Talk | contribs) (7,806 bytes) (Revert)
 * 03:28, 21 December 2008 Kevin Murray (Talk | contribs) (7,815 bytes) (Revert)
 * BillyTFried (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is getting pretty heated! Can you guys please try and remain cool? -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  21:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
Would some editors please answer this question? It would be really helpful for me & others to evaluate the case.
 * A) I'm wondering why is the article itself notable to stand on it's own? It seems to be the only reason to keep this is because of the regional origins of this sandwich. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. That is the only reason. And it is fully covered under: Submarine sandwich. BillyTFried (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it is just the regional origin.  This is a widespread term which evolved separately from the terms Submarine and Hero, likely preceding either.  It meets two of my criteria for the notability of an article, as used at AfD: (1) it meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:V, and (2) it answers a legitimate question reasonably asked by a broad range of people.  In this case, the arguments on either side are compelling enough to tie.  In the case of a tie, where nobody is harmed by either outcome, I would advocate maintaining the status quo -- inclusion.  Redundancy is not catastrophic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that "Redundancy is not catastrophic" is the same as saying WP:Content forking is WP:NOHARM.
 * WP:Content fork - Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia and violate one of our most important policies.
 * WP:NOHARM - Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept.
 * BillyTFried (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

←We should discuss some of the issues here with everyone involved. What do you all think? -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  22:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you be a bit more specific please?. This "discussion" has been going on for a long time now as you can see from all the comments above. At this point, I am not sure what else there is to say. I have made my case for the Merge very clear, provided more than enough sources that support the Merge, cited more than enough Wiki-policies that support the Merge, put more than enough time and effort into building the Submarine sandwich page into a comprehensive one which covers all relevant info, including regional origins and terminology. I posted an RfC and Kevin posted this on ANI. We've had a straw poll that shows a solid majority support for the Merge, and we've even had three Admins now step in and support the Merge. Just how long do you allow a tiny minority to push their POV that the Merge should be blocked while providing no credible reasons why? The only Wiki-policies Kevin has cited are for Articles For Deletion, which causes the info to be eliminated, but as the Admin Horologium stated above, that does not apply at all to this situation which is not a Deletion but a Merge of redundant content. I believe we should work towards ending this debate rather than prolonging it. BillyTFried (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I abhor Billy's tactics and find him unpleasantly zealous and equally insulting (and I'm sure that he feels the same about me with some justification), he has done an excellent job of rewriting the sub sandwich article and incorporating the salient issues of this topic there. So while I remain concerned about the principles, I am happy with the work and feel that enough people have now looked at the issue.  While I would prefer to see this as stand alone, I remove my objection to the merger and wish all the best of luck.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevin! Cheers! BillyTFried (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Analogy of the Death of the Hoagie Article
I feel like someone has denied my culture. It is very much like someone erased my Irish heritage and merged it with being "white." Alas, I am proud of my culture. Non-Philadelphians will just never understand it, and it is unfortunate. Dan (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well now, that was melodramatic. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 10:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)