Jump to content

Talk:Dagwood sandwich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of term

[edit]

Eventually, this article should also address:

-When did the term enter common usage? Dagwood Bumstead was from 1933, he made sandwiches at least as early as 1944, but possibly earlier. But when did people outside the comic strip begin using the term "Dagwood Sandwich"

-When did Webster's New World Dictionary first include "Dagwood sandwich"?

-Alecmconroy 10:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OED says the term originated in the 1970s. Potatoswatter 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   I'm another one of the jerks who actually consult OED, and i hereby attest to the fallibility of even OED as a WP:RS. You might BTW consider the fact that OED values the resource of readers who send in refs that are older than the current edition's first-use date; clearly they haven't gotten (or hadn't, 10 years ago) adequate info in this vital area. Or perhaps uses by the originator don't count? Is it a real word when only one person has used it?
--Jerzy•t 21:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holding together?

[edit]

An olive pierced by a toothpick usually crowns the edible superstructure (though skeptics remain doubtful of the toothpick's ability to hold the sandwich together).

Toothpick? Are you kidding? It'd be a skewer, surely? -- Logotu 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. are there seriously sandwich "sceptics" out there who doubt the hold-a-bility of toothpicks in dagwoods? And if so, can this be cited, or otherwise removed/edited appropriately.
3th0s (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandwichology is serious business. There's zoning concerns and everything. Proper skewering is like a building's foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AHHAHA ZONEING EH? LMFAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.137.213 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:Dagwood Sandwich 20070417.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC) "Fixed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We specialize in fantasy and imagination, what did you expect?

[edit]

It appears that the marketability of such sandwiches remains in question, also the existence thereof - Developers of Dagwood's Sandwich sue for fraud Asat (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Say, shouldn't the various ingredients cited have links to their own pages? I don't know how to do it, exactly, or I would do it. But... shouldn't they? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.70.144 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gandolfo's

[edit]

Gandolfo's New York Delicatessen has a sandwich they call the Dagwood. It has roast beef, turkey, ham, corned beef, swiss and cheddar cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickles, mayo, spicy mustard, salt and pepper. (There are no Gandolfo's in New York.) Bizzybody (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dagwood sandwich. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confession of a humor-impaired editor

[edit]

   "Now, I enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone... except perhaps my wife. And some of her friends. Oh, and Captain Johnson." And i imagine the sandwich photo would be easier to create using food, than to fake. (Interested readers will enjoy, as i did, the background information attached to the photo but not reflected in this article's link to it.) However, i doubt the image of a real-world dagwood adds anything in the way of 'pedia-worthy information relevant to the topic: any fool can see that as long as enough of an intelligence-compromising substance is involved, a bet could be made that will result in a construction comparable to that in the photo. Further, the photo provides no verified nor even noteworthy information about one or multiple r-w dw-ses (and even a Guinness BoWR entry would IMO fail to make the real-world sub-topic noteworthy, except possibly if a verifiably sustained DWS-race ensued). I am not unilaterally removing the photo, but

  1. i have recaptioned the photo from "A Dagwood sandwich" to "A real-world realization of the Dagwood-sandwich concept", to clarify that we do not assert that anything comparable has ever been constructed except under the influence of dangerous amounts of alcohol, testosterone, or other rationality-impairing substances. (The large majority of native speakers of English probably can recognize this photo as what i'll describe as a form of practical joke, but i, for instance -- tho i've contributed on de:Wikipedia -- am not proud enough of my German that i'd expect to correctly construe a German wikipedian's corresponding German-language caption for the same picture. How much potentially misleading info de:WP can tolerate is up to its editors; IMO the world role of English imposes tight anti-misconception standards on en:WP.)
  2. 1 or 2 sympathetic responses to this from colleagues could suffice to convince me to remove both photo and caption, without bothering with a formal poll.

--Jerzy•t 05:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dagwood sandwich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dagwood_sandwich&oldid=1201322407"