Talk:Burger Chef

SPELLING

Burger Chef is spelled with a "C". Super Shef and Big Shef products are spelled with an "S". To verify this, go to Google, do an image search on Big Shef or Super Shef. You will see photos of signage from that era showing the hamburger's picture with that spelling. Klimot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

• This is true. For the record, my first job was at Burger Chef and I questioned the disparity in spelling. I was told "Big Chef" was trademarked to another company, so they had no choice but to brand theirs with an "S". I don't know if this is important enough to add to the article. And even if it was, i don't have a source to cite.. Just something I was told by the manager back in the late 70's. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Plea to keep unsourced content

PEOPLE WHO EDIT THE ARTICLE ON BURGER CHEF

PLEASE RESPECT CONTENT. Much of the content in this article is difficult to find elsewhere. It is great to add content, rearrange it into new paragraphs and headings, but it is disrespectful to edit this article by deleting content! This page has been edited for nearly two years using this principle. Please, if you see a need to edit, do so, but do so without deleting content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimot (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Burger_Chef#Unsourced.2C_trivial_contant. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Contest

Does anyone know about a Burger Chef contest involving scratchers? My father told me about them; the object was that there were scratcher cards with questions on them, and if you scratched off the right answer, you won a free burger, fries or whatever. However, the fate of my dad's local Burger Chef was sealed when the employees just handed stacks of them out to people AND there was only about six questions... so a lot of people got free food. Now my dad said that they were from Burger Chef, but so far I haven't found anything about them. Maybe it was a local event? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks.... - Nick15

I do remember these. It seemed for a while in the early 70's that "Quiz Cards" became popular with several fast food chains. I don't remember what Burger Chef called the cards specifically. --Brad101 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Found something about a regional Indy 500 scratch-off game on the internet. SushiGeek 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how extensive Burger Chef's presence in Canada was, but they did have some outlets in Ontario in the mid-seventies. (I'm thinking here specifically of their outlet on Kerr Street in Oakville). That's the only one I can recall in Ontario, but there may have been others. We used to get it mixed up with the ads on Buffalo TV for Burger King, which hadn't arrived in our part of Ontario at that time. I don't recall how long they lasted, but the Oakville outlet eventually became a Swiss Chalet.--Wee Charlie 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable External Link

Should the following page (Burger Chef Project) be included as a link, as it appears to be a fansite of sorts (and has a very strong anti-Hardee's slant)? WAVY 10 14:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the following quote:

"This site and its related pages are dedicated to a Burger Chef Revival!

(A Mixture of Pure Hard Fact and Solid, Stubborn Opinion)"

Sound like a fansite? WAVY 10 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the website and article history before I removed it. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines for external links or notability. The website has no indications of authority (no rankings, mentions in news articles etc.), the owners are anonymous (or at least not noted on the website), it's hosted on Gmail/googlepages, and there's no significant information to be found on the website that would add to this article. And since the edits are being made by a number of anonymous IPs, there's no real place to request clarification from the editor/s other than here. Flowanda | Talk 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

Requested protection for this page. WAVY 10 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Burger Chef and Jeff?

I seem to remember that there were two characters called Burger Chef and Jeff. Anyone remember these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd add it. As it is, there's little in the article concerning the chain's history during the 1970s (seems to have a gap between the General Foods purchase and the Hardee's buyout). WAVY 10 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Added it. WAVY 10 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

Is this image really necessary? I don't think it's a very high-quality image, as you can hardly see the ex-Burger Chef for all the stuff that's in the way. I've also added a much clearer photo of a former Burger Chef (albeit of a different building type), so I feel that the other image isn't very useful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Prizes, contests, etc.

The subheading Collectible store fixtures, promotional materials, and prizes needs to be either heavily edited or deleted altogether. It is little more than original research, unsubstantiated claims, and opinion. --Frenkmelk talk 06:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

SPELLING

Burger Chef is spelled with a "C". Super Shef and Big Shef products are spelled with an "S". To verify this, go to Google, do an image search on Big Shef or Super Shef. You will see photo's of signage from that era showing the hamburger's picture with that spelling. Klimot (talk)

• This is true. For the record, my first job was at Burger Chef and I questioned the disparity in spelling. I was told "Big Chef" was trademarked to another company, so they had no choice but to brand theirs with an "S". I don't know if this is important enough to add to the article. And even if it was, i don't have a source to cite.. Just something I was told by the manager back in the late 70's. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hardees and Big Shef

Any reason why the stuff about copyright is in ALL CAPS? Looks very unencyclopedic to me! 75.216.203.56 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced, trivial contant

Material added to this article must cite coverage discussing the information from independent reliable sources. Please see WP:V. Information that is not the subject of this coverage does not belong in Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. Much of this article is random bits and pieces people remember about Burger Chef. Much of it is simply not encyclopedic. One way we typically determine what stays and what goes is by determining what material is verifiable. Material that is not discussed in independent reliable sources does not belong here. (Material that is verifiable might belong here or not, but we'll get to that.) For the moment, I am suggesting that unsourced material (such as the entire "Sandwich specifications" section and most of the supposed "innovations") be removed. What order ingredients were stacked is trivial. True "innovations" will have been discussed in independent reliable sources. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Having previously cleaned out some of the unsourced trivia, I have come back here as the result of several restorations of that material without sources. If the material is restored without independent reliable sources, I will remove it again. If the same editor is making the restorations, other measures will have to be taken.

Memories are great. They allow us to maintain a connection to a bygone time. Unfortunately, memories are not reliable. Your memories of things that happened years ago are not memories of those events, but memories of more recent recollections of those memories. The further removed from the time, the more layering of memories and the more errors there are. For this and other reasons, Wikipedia is not the place for you to record your memories of the Vietnam war, Welfare policies of the Reagan administration or how a defunct fast food chain added condiments to a cheeseburger. Instead, Wikipedia is for verifiable information. Information that does not exist in independent reliable sources is likely trivial and simply does not belong here.

Feel free to start a blog on another site and write down every last detail of every individual french fry you think you remember. Do not add it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 1/17/14

• The three other logos that Burger Chef used through the years need to be uploaded to the main article. The logos can be found on Logopedia and descriptions about these three logos can be found below.

• 1st logo: The first logo came out shortly after Burger Chef started. This logo was very basic and was a very common neon sign. This logo was used until 1970.

• 2nd logo: This logo was introduced in 1970 and was used until 1972. It had a family of 5 on it and it was never used on the signs. The words "Burger Chef" were in lowwer case lettering and the words "Family Restaurants" was above the family.

• 3rd logo: The third logo was used from 1972 to 1978. This logo had the Burger Chef with the Burger Chef lettering written in red on his hat. The chef had yellowish brown skin and he was sticking out his tongue. The chef's tie was blue with white pokadots.

• Well, there you have it. Those are the three logos I want on the main artical.

--24.147.1.197 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

In popular culture

Yes, the chain was mentioned in an episode of "Mad Men". Yes, we've listed this appearance in popular culture. This does not tell us anything about the chain, other than the trivial fact that it was mentioned in an episode of "Mad Men". This is trivial: "simply listing appearances". Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Expand on its appearance in Mad Men. We aren't going to dismiss it simply because its in a tv show. It's been cited, so it stays in. Feel free to roll up your sleeves and expand on that information, so as to make it less "trivial" to you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot make a trivial fact less trivial. The burden is yours to demonstrate that this appearance is a significant element of the history of the chain.

For comparison sake, I have determined that there are exactly 18,703 TV shows, films, books, operas, comic books, Burmashave ad campaigns, animated disembodied heads in the year 3000 and knock knock jokes featuring Richard Nixon. None of them are significant elements of the real Nixon's story. As such, they do not appear in Richard Nixon.

Chevy Chase's prat-falling Gerald Ford, however, is discussed in Gerald Ford. Why? Because The New York Times discusses the impact these SNL skits had on the President of the United States.

If 10 years from now someone writes a book about fast food and includes a chapter on Burger Chef, how likely is it they will mention that Mad Men episode? I don't see it happening. If it does, however, feel free to add the content to this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia

Material added to Wikipedia must be supported by independent reliable sources. This is called "verifiability", one of our core priniciples. "Burger Chef Assembly Posters dated 1975" is not an independent reliable source for material about Burger Chef for several reasons. 1) It is not independent of Burger Chef. 2) The reference is incomplete: There is no way to locate "Burger Chef Assembly Posters dated 1975". I could easily say the instructions are wrong and cite "Burger Chef Assembly Posters dated 1974"; can you locate that source?

Additionally, as repeatedly stated, this material is trivial. There are, quite literally, billions of "facts" about Burger Chef: How much they charged for each menu item, how much they paid for each bun, who made the buns, what happened to the first "fixings bar" from the 26th restaurant they opened, who worked the longest as a fry cook, how much sodium was in their cheese, etc. Including everything would make for a pointless article. People will disagree about what is "important" enough to include. Our basic shortcut on this decision is simple: Did independent reliable sources discuss it. No, independent reliable sources did not discuss the funny shaped fry you got there the Thursday after your 11th birthday. Too bad. Put it in your blog. Yes, independent reliable sources probably do discuss who the founder was. Find that source, add the material and cite it.

The repeated restoration of the trivial material without discussion will stop. The editor in question has been repeatedly warned. Discuss the issue or you will be blocked from editing. First a short block, then longer blocks and eventually an indefinite block. Or collaborate and see if any of it can remain. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If the writer of a Published Book on Burger Chef would be willing to agree that the poster information is correct, would this be considered 3rd party validation ? Klimot (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finally discussing the issue.

There are two issues here: 1) Reliable sources. Without seeing the source, there is no way to determine if it is a reliable source. Please give specifics. 2) Trivia. Even with a reliable source, the order in which toppings are added to a cheeseburger would be, in my opinion, trivial. A book about Burger Chef likely includes lots of information not included in this article. We obviously would not include all of the information in the book. Basic information on the founder? Yes. Two dime sized portions of ketchup on a cheeseburger? No. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Need pictures of architecture and signage from glory days in 60s (not from boring 80s)

The article shows no pictures of Burger Chef in its glory days back in the 60s. We need to find public domain photos taken of the buildings and signs at that time, featuring the incredible Googie architecture. It fantastic--truly the classic American burger joint look! Rather than showing the boring corporate-style 80s logo in the info box (who cares), instead we could show a blinking neon sign from the 60s. That would make the article appear a lot more interesting and exciting. If you go to Google images you will see what I'm talking about. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A few points here.

This is not necessarily a case of either/or. This can be both/and. The "boring corporate-style 80s logo" is certainly an appropriate inclusion (and a company's logo is typically what we use in the info box. A period photo or two of a restaurant up and running is also appropriate. Blinking? Not really appropriate.

As for public domain, yes, that would be great. However, it isn't a deal breaker. As there is no way to create an image of an up-and-running store in a defunct chain, I'm fairly certain we can use one under a "fair use" claim -- IF we can make a case that the image provides information relevant to the article. In other words, we can't just plop a photo in for decoration. The photo must convey information that connects with the content. We do not seem to have a reliably sourced discussion of what the restaurants actually looked like, so we will need to do some digging and expand the article first. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I was kidding a little bit, but yes, I agree that we can include both: we can keep inclusion of the 80s logo, etc. Of course, since the company is no longer in business, we are not necessarily required to put their last or most recent iconography in the info box the way we would be if they were still around (we can put the 80s logo into a later part of the article). As for pictures, we can keep the later one's, yes, that is part of the story, but we need to find some ones from the 60s (if available in public domain) and put them in prominent places in the article. As, for signage, we can try to find a picture of the old neon sign (I doesn't literally have to be blinking--day shots are fine), and put it somewhere prominent (keep in mind that a Wiki article about McDonalds would show pictures of the architecture and signage from early eras). Anyway, the current 80s picture has the building depicted as converted-to bank or library. But, the need for the older pictures is not just due to aesthetics and uniqueness, but to popularity. In the 60s, Burger Chef was a huge chain, I believe for awhile second only to McDonald's and ahead of Burger King. It went through significant decline in the 70s, to the point that, by the 80s, it was foundering (they had very few locations left) and eventually had to fold into Hardee's. The way the article appears right now gives the reader no indication of what the chain looked like in its glorious heyday. So, the images from the earlier eras would capture the essence of the way the chain is best remembered for future generations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the 1960s logo to the article and placed it at the top, because it best represents the most commonly-shared memory of the chain (at its peak of popularity in the 1960s). I have retained the 1980s logo, but put it in its chronological place in the article (the 1980s). So, both eras are represented. I removed the picture of the abandoned former location-turned-health clinic. It was unnecessary and did not reflect the chain as it actually was, even in its late days. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fancy Cut Lettuce

There was a Metairie Louisiana location we would eat at occasionally. I remember the lettuce was shredded and piled on big. I thought at the time that that may have been in keeping with the idea of a fancy burger, like more elegant. It was always a treat to go eat there because they were different than the other places. 174.171.79.18 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)