Talk:Mission burrito/Archive 1

message: ::Below are several comments about chain restaurants. As the number of SF burrito-serving chains increases, I have deleted descriptive information on the page itself, while keeping a list of Qdoba, Chipotle, and Taco del Mar; the links to each of the chains can serve this purpose for those interested in learning more. Joewright 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about chain restaurants

message: Hi, I'm located in the East Bay, quite near Oakland, and I can safely say that "SF" burritos are not only found in the Mission District, but all around, and so I've added a few sentences in the introduction to reflect that. Nobody around here, obviously, calls them "San Francisco" burritos, or knows them as such. Jazzcello 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but the point of the article is that this particular style--Spanish rice, no potatoes (as in San Diego), the assembly line, the huge size and so on--started in the Mission District of San Francisco. I've tried to adapt your point into a sentence that better flows with the theme of the whole article. Joewright 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited "location" sentences at the beginning

message: I think these are properly known as "Mission" burritos, not "San Francisco" burritos, the name of this should be changed, dont you think?
:There are a couple of reasons for the title of this page. First, some San Franciscans would argue that respectable or even great SF burritos (or "Mission" burritos) can be found outside the Mission and while this proposition is debatable , I think Wikipedia does best with an ecumenical attitude about such things. Also, when the burritos are described outside of San Francisco, they are generally described as "San Francisco" burritos (e.g., NY's Benny's "Cal-Mex San Francisco style burritos", which also advertises a "Mission burrito" as their vegetarian offering). The Calvin Trillin piece cited in the article also uses the phrase "San Francisco burrito" while the SF Gate article uses the phrase "Mission burrito"; however, a google search for "mission burrito" brings up a Houston joint first, and I think that most non-San Franciscans will not understand the phrase "Mission burrito" as easily. For San Franciscans, specifying that it is a Mission burrito is a useful way of solidifying the point that the burritos in the Marina aren't any better than the burritos in Boston; for non-San Franciscans, however, the term does not signify anything other than (as in the Houston example) some vaguely old California/SW theme. However, I am adding the synonym and you can feel free to add a redirect page. Joewright 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your googling method is a bit off, I'd say; a googlewar seems a more appropriate.  And googling for "mission style burrito" and "mission burrito" yields 13000+ hits, while "san francisco style burrito" and "san francisco burrito"combine for about 2600.  Why do you think the first hit for "mission burrito" being a place in Houston is somehow a knock against the term being known or common outside of SF?  There are no historic missions in Houston, and their menu clearly supports the notion that the place is so named because they serve (or think they serve) SF/Mission-style burritos.  Google also tells me there are also "Mission Burrito" restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and I can attest that in Seattle, "Mission-style" is a common descriptor seen at Mexican restaurants.  Personally, I think the page should be renamed because it seems clear that Mission is more common than San Francisco, but I'll settle for simply making it more explicit that it's often called a Mission burrito. -- Severinus 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When seeking out these burritos, I've traditionally searched for "Mission burritos." I'd at least expect that the alternate(??) name "Mission burrito" be mentioned early on? -HiFiGuy 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are they Mission burritos or San Francisco burritos?

message: I just want to say that this article is fucking well done. I worry a bit that it might be a little too tongue-in-cheek in places for a serious "academic" discussion of the burrito. But as a resident of San Francisco I have to say that just about every single thing I've read here is spot-on correct ... except, maybe, that in my experience relatively few burrito joints melt the cheese onto the tortilla. I do frequent a few taqueries that do it that way, but most just throw it in there and let the heat from the cooked ingredients do the job. -NM
:I'm glad you liked the article. In re: cheese: now duly noted in the main article. Thanks for reading--and feel free to be bold in editing. Joewright 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In re: cheese

message: "The de-Mexicanization of America is a problem. See, now a burrito's not good enough. It has to be a wrap now. It's nothing more than an assimilated over-priced burrito. If it will make America feel better buying a spinach wrap—so be it. It's still a fucking burrito that you're eating.[12]"
Does this strike anyone as a little unnecessary? Could this citation be used without the long quote? As it stands it seems to be attacking anyone who eats a "wrap."—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with having this quote deleted, for reasons I will explain below, but it was not there for nothing. The point of it being there was to show that how some people view the wrap echoes general themes pointed out elsewhere in the article as they related specifically to wraps and debates about how the Mission relates to the larger culture (i.e., is it swallowed up by a new but less culturally-specific prosperity, or does it survive in its older form? this is a debate with lots of implications for ethnic politics, like them or not). And this was one source that could be actually cited that suggested one set of reasons that many San Franciscans exhibit disdain for the concept of the wrap, even though it also originated in San Francisco and has spread farther than the SF burrito idea. It might also be worth noting that an older version also contained a defense of the wrap that countered this criticism, but someone rightly pointed out that the defense had no cite (perhaps because no one cares enough about wraps to defend them in print?) and deleted it. As for me, I think the better reason to delete the quote is that it suggests that a wrap might reasonably be considered a burrito; on reflection I must conclude that the quote was a pointlessly inflammatory wrap-baiting insult to the burrito. Joewright 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I've removed the merge tag for the second time by User:Ortcutt.  After viewing the relevant discussion on Talk:Burrito, there does not appear to be any reason for the merge.  If the editor would like to add a summary of this article to that page, he/she is welcome to do so.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag 

message: Why does everyone put beans and rice in the burritos?  San Diego style burritos are far superior to what passes as a burrito up here.  If I order a Carne Asada burrito I just want meat and some salsa fresca and a little dab of guac.  And what is up with beans and rice on tacos?  This place is insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.137.210 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your passion for San Diego-style burritos can be put to a positive use by expanding the section on the "burrito" page about the topic, or starting a new page if you have enough to write about. Joewright 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI..this apparent burrito rivalry is but a subset of the NoCal v. SoCal debate, which has been raging for decades and is referenced in reliable sources.  I am confused as to the existence of the article entitled Southern California-Northern California rivalry.  Either it was deleted or has yet to be created.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worst burritos in the world 

message: I've just added a  tag to the gallery. I think that while it may well be notable enough to remain in Wikipedia, it does not belong in this article. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) (desk) 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Galleries.  Splitting galleries into separate articles was  deprecated and  rejected by the community some time ago.  You haven't given any reason why this section doesn't belong in this article.  Perhaps you aren't familiar with the topic, in which case I would ask you to read the supporting citations which list these (and other) taquerias as examples of the finest producers of the San Francisco burrito.  As such, these notable locations are directly responsible for the invention, manufactufacturing, and distribution of the San Francisco burrito, and are relevant to the topic.  In fact, an article without a section on notable taquerias in this vein, would be incomplete. —Viriditas | Talk 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on notable taquerias might be appropriate in this article -- if it were written better. However, this particular section is written like a travel guide, illustrated with photographs that are so bad as to be useless for illustrating the topic at hand, and too uncomprehensive to be of any interest. In any case, please do not remove the splitsection tag while discussion is ongoing. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) (desk) 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't valid reasons for splitting a section, let alone this section on notable taquerias.  The split tag is used for long articles, articles requiring merges, and duplicate or forked sections.  It sounds like you are looking for a reason, any reason, to add a tag to this article, which I find strange.  While the section can certainly be expanded and improved, there is nothing to split at this time.  Please take my previous suggestion to heart and actually read the article and citations.  As for the quality of the images, I don't see any problem with them, however you are welcome to leave a more detailed critique, as well as ideas for improving the prose you feel is poorly written.  I'm looking forward to your forthcoming advice. —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to split gallery into a separate article