Talk:IHOP/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old discussions

So is the proper name "The International House of Pancakes" or just "International House of Pancakes"? Is it "IHOP", "I.H.O.P.", "I.H.P." or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.167.31 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 January 2005 (UTC)

• "International House of Pancakes" and "IHOP", look at the logos. -- 209.182.101.246 18:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was it called International House of Pancakes? What's international about it?

• As the article says: "The "international" appellation of the chain derives from its three core crepe-style pancakes: "German" (served with lemon butter and lemon), "French" (served with orange marmalade), and "Swedish" (served with lingonberries and lingonberry butter)." --W.marsh 12:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Menu offerings such as French toast and Belgian waffles further reinforce the international theme." - French toast isn't from France. It's named after somebody with the surname French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.43.101 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

employees

How come in a company with > 1000 outlets less than 900 people work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avitya (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IHOP is a franchised chain. So the company doesn't own a majority, or any of the locations. They're owned by independent businesses. —Cliffb (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be corrected as it is very misleading. --64.21.235.212 (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

International is a reference to the fact the IHOP was an operating division of international industries in 1959. Info is at the following link which references another 17 articles for sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.178.60 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

International House of Porn??

The second picture in the middle of the article was (sub-)titled, "International House of Porn"... since i'm not the one who posted the pict, i don't think i should be the one who change it... Hey, it could be the real thing...

But in case it's vandalism, which i think it is.. Someone please change it back..125.160.99.58 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

On the controversies section some of the claims are not verifable and presented as fact. Specifically the following

"Tens of thousands of consumers called and emailed IHOP to urge the company to switch some of its eggs to cage-free to address the animal cruelty and food safety crisis within its eggs supply.[6] Hundreds of complaints were also registered from many long time customers of IHOP via the company's own Facebook page,[7] however IHOP has repeatedly deleted many of these posts in its attempt to curb damaging publicity."

These statements are not proven or mentioned on the sources sited. Wolvesgod (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the first half of the text that User:Wolvesgod removed, as the references for that text are valid and verifiable. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Syrup

Boysenberry is being phased out in many restaurants, replaced by plain, "old-fashioned" pancake syrup.[citation needed] <-- citation needed? just walk into any ihop!! They don't have boysenberry out anymore, just the plain ole good stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.75.174 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth. WP:Verify. Doniago (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Heated syrup is no longer served either. It's a bummer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.179.211 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though this may be a shocker to you, not all of us can walk into an IHOP (or any location, for that matter) just to prove a Wikipedia source is correct. Please include a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.198.186 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am an IHOP employee. We have four syrups in our syrup caddies: (1) Butter Pecan, (2) Blueberry, (3) Old Fashion [i.e., maple], and (4) Strawberry.

We do serve hot syrup, but only when it is requested. We either take the syrup dispenser off the table and heat it up in the microwave, or we put some warm syrup in a tiny, black, plastic cup-like thing. Most often, it's the Old Fashion that customers want heated, but every once in a while, the customer will prefer one of the other syrups heated.

I have never seen Boysenberry syrup, but it is not impossible that it is served in other IHOPs. All I can say with certainty is that it is not served in mine. I have spoken about the syrups with other employees, some of whom have worked for IHOP for eighteen years. According to these older employees, Boysenberry was indeed served at one time.

We also have sugar-free syrup, but we only deliver it upon request.

Obviously, you will want to find sources to back this all up should you wish to improve the article. I offer this information simply to give you, the dedicated wikipedian, a useful guide in your endeavour to improve this article.

Cheers,

96.244.8.128 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Boysenberry is still available, in some locations, by request. I'm looking at a bottle right now. (Gaithersburg, MD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:180E:3CAB:F165:BA0A:26B2:413A (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter Marsoobian

I looked up Peter Marsoobian and found out he was not a founder, but the executive chef for IHOP. He developed the pancake recipe the company uses to this day.

Here is the reference:
Berry, Kate (7 March 2005). "IHOP finds right ingredients for turnaround, stock rebound". Los Angeles Business Journal. The Free Library. ...the company's success came from its proprietary pancake batter, developed by Peter Marsoobian, the second American to graduate from France's famous Le Cordon Bleu culinary school. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Article tagged since April 2010. Please feel free to reincorprorate with appropriate sourcing! Doniago (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

History

Since then, locations have been opened all over the United States, in the Canadian province of British Columbia and in the Mexican cities of Monterrey, Tampico, Hermosillo, Querétaro and Mexico City. It also announced on October 23, 2006, that it is expanding into the province of Ontario as well, and in 2010 has opened up in the province of Alberta with a location in Edmonton. IHOP is headquartered in Glendale, California. The company uses "IHOP" as its primary name, though they still use "International House of Pancakes" as a secondary name. The restaurant chain originally adopted the franchise-business model, where individual entrepreneurs who were granted permission by the IHOP ownership group could start and run their own IHOP restaurant. For example, Benson Gidan, an in-law of Jerry and Al Lapin, owned and operated one of the busiest and most popular IHOP franchises in the 1970s, located on Fairfax Ave. in Los Angeles, California. The original concept was a restaurant which featured various types of pancakes and similar foods such as crepes and blintzes from around the world, at affordable prices. The chain was notable for their syrups of several different flavors. In 1973, the chain shortened its name to "IHOP" for marketing purposes, and the two were officially interchangeable until 1994, when the company shortened its name to simply "IHOP." On March 2011 IHOP officially launched its first Central American location in Guatemala City.

Pancake Day vs IHOP's Free Pancake Day

I'm in Canada, but someone told me that today, Feb 28th is IHOP's Free Pancake Day. Now, like the web page, I got confused with pancake day which is another name for shrove tuesday which was 21 Feb this year. Perhaps this page shouldn't link to 'pancake day'

174.116.53.88 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Transgender controversy

There have been several edits adding and removing a section titled "Transgender controversy" with the contents On May 21, 2018, members of the Transgender Education Network of Texas and the Transgender Law Center were "denied service" at the Elliston Place IHOP in Nashville, Tennessee. The IHOP issued an apology.

Should this material be included in the article? I don't have strong opinions, but suspect that it shouldn't, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. A single event at a single restaurant isn't terribly noteworthy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it needs included - it's about one restaurant out of thousands, not the company as a whole. We are not a news site and as mentioned above, it is undue weight for the entire company. IF it's worth mentioning, create an article for the individual restaurant (though that won't happen because it won't pass guidelines). It is standard for a company to issue an apology as whole for this sort of thing, even if it was just at one individual restaurant. Corky 18:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to agree. In doing a quick search not much else has happened. IHOP apologized and it seems everyone moved on. Mattspac 18:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd exclude this along with "something that happened at a McDonald's one day".

The line we're trying to find is that between chains with official/unofficial policies of notable (and, in this case, unacceptable behavior and chains where people at one location did something one day. The chain wouldn't serve women who are alone after midnight? Noteworthy, and it's in the chain's article. The chain openly discriminated against African Americans? Noteworthy, and it's in the chain's article (actually, several chains have this in their articles). An employee at one location murdered a co-worker at the location/sold drugs/used racial epithets with customers/etc.? Not noteworthy, not in the various chains' articles.

The easy way to spot this is coverage in reliable sources. Yes, the customers complained. Yes, the chain responded. Then, nothing. It ended. Had this gone on to a boycott (ala Chick-fil-A), most of the chain closing for a day of training (Starbucks), protests (Woolworths) or lawsuits (too many to list), there would be a lot more coverage and a lot more to say. We don't have that here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fæ that the corporate response makes it notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

So you are saying that every time there is a minor controversy in a restaurant franchise, it needs included in their corporate's Wikipedia article simply because corporate issued an apology? How come we don't have this in an article, or this controversy, or this story? How about this story? Each of these restaurant chains issued an apology yet we don't have them in the articles. Wikipedia is not a news site, and such content does not belong, unless like SummerPhD said and is a Chik-fil-A-related controversy. Corky 01:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your revert/blanking was wrong and its rationale in the edit comment was bullish and not based on the facts. This transphobic incident is no less significant than the racist incident that resulted in Starbucks closing across the U.S. for diversity training. [1] --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Two points. Starbucks changed a corporate policy over it, and in a AFAIK completely unprecedented action, closed all their stores for a day to implement it. That means that the news event effected a long term change, which is one of the tests we commonly apply to differentiate news from history. An apology is not a change. Second, chains like IHOP and McDonald's are primarily franchisors. The brand holder has no direct input or direct control over staffing issues, which is exactly what hiring a store manager stupid enough to do that is. If the actual company that owns the store where this occurred is notable, it may (only may) be reasonable content for that article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realize that by saying it has nothing to do with the entire chain itself was bullish. Learn something new everyday. It didn't effect the entire chain – certainly didn't effect the IHOP restaurants where I live – so again, it has nothing to with the entire chain, just the Nashville restaurant. Corky 04:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, this is not a question of racism vs. transphobia (or any other -ism). We are not here to establish a hierarchy of suffering or to right great wrongs.

I see it as a question of WP:WEIGHT. There was an incident. The would-be-customers contacted the chain to complain. The chain responded and the customers seem to have been satisfied. The whole thing was covered in one article by both sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is precious little to summarize here and no indication of anything lasting for the chain, other than perhaps a better understanding that their training might need to be more explicit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There are now five RS. The staff had to be retrained, and the customers saw IHOP's response as a denial of transphobia.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me be a little clearer here. It's irrelevant how many sources covered this event which occurred 3 weeks ago the week it occurred. Coverage of immediate news events is by nature primary coverage. There are no secondary sources. And likely there won't be. Of course we don't know that yet, because, again, this happened three weeks ago. If there are lawsuits, or someone writes a detailed piece on how there is systematic bias against a particular group by IHOP, not just an isolated incident at one store, then we've got something. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. People get shat upon by business establishments on a regular basis, for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure, given how many franchises they have, a serious crime occurs at some individual McDonald's store every single day, day in and day out, year after year. Does that make McDonald's in general an unsafe place? No. Does a single instance of very poor behavior mean IHOP discriminates against trans people? No. But by including this single incident, that's the picture we paint. I'm one of the bigger enemies of promotional editing here, but at the same time, I am wholly opposed to adding things to articles that do little to inform and much to shame. By the way, there is no consensus for including this and the information is negative. Why is it in the article? Clearly it should be removed unless or until a consensus is reached. John from Idegon (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I just removed it again, mostly per undue weight, and recentism. Please stop with the citation overkill; for those supporting keeping this content, twenty-seven reliable references about the same, single event and apology does not help your case. What would help your case (and make me change my mind or put it back myself) is to show that this isn't one of a zillion incidents happening in commercial establishments or in franchise settings every day, that have no "news legs" after a few days of coverage, thereafter to sink beneath the waves and never be heard from again. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; the stuff that is burning our ears on Twitter and Facebook today, are utterly forgotten a month from now, let alone a year or two down the road. How many barroom brawls, how many knife fights, how many shootings take place daily? The fact is (sad or not) that not every one of these deserves to be in an encyclopedia. When some folks got refused service at a lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina on February 1, 1960, I would have reverted you had you added that to Wikipedia on February 3, 1960. But it quickly became clear that that incident had enormous repercussions, which became clear in due time, and now the Greensboro sit-ins have their own Wikipedia article. Nowadays, local franchise screw-ups get reported in the news all the time; some of them require corporate apologies, these are news, but they are not encyclopedic until they start making a significant impact beyond just a flurry of news articles that then quickly disappear and are forgotten. If you want to see an article that contains controversies that are worthy of inclusion, see the United Airlines article, where a few incidents are mentioned which garnered nationwide reaction, including the famous "guitar" incident, as well as others which caused a nationwide backlash. There have been innumerable other embarrassing gaffes by United lately, but they are (rightly) not in the article, because the press about them had no staying power. The incidents at IHOP were regrettable, they were appropriately reported in the news, and corporate had to jump in. And that was the end of it. Unless it blows up again, or causes some kind of continuing attention in the media, or some kind of nationwide backlash, or someone writes a song about it that becomes famous on YouTube, it isn't worthy of an encyclopedia, and that's the main problem with adding this material, it just isn't encyclopedic. Come back in a month or two, demonstrate how this has had a lasting importance, with continuing attention by reliable sources, and then I'll vote with you. Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The Greensboro example is interesting but I am not sure it works as a comparison, because Southern businesses were segregated by law, weren't they? Transgender people are not banned anywhere (as long as they don't want to use a bathroom, and that was not the case here). Yes, this incident only happened in one IHOP restaurant, and the text already mentioned that. Given the staff retraining and corporate response (including a possible denial of transphobia on IHOP's part) supported by weight of reliable third-party sources, I think it is due and not necessarily recentist--controversies don't have to turn into mini-revolutions to be notable. But we disagree, which happens. Would an RfC help?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

On the surface, you make a very good point. And as far as a legal brief or essay, you'd be right, that comparison is flawed in that sense. However, this is Wikipedia; whether something is legal or not, has really no effect at all on whether it has sufficient weight and notability to make it into an article. So, whether the Greensboro actions were legal or illegal, they merit entry into the encyclopedia for fulfilling the guideline we well know, of sufficient notice in multiple, independent, secondary, sources. The governing guideline for IHOP is exactly the same, even though the legality (or illegality) in question is the opposite. And I don't think it quite meets that bar of sufficient independent notice yet. But it might; let's wait and see. There's no rush, right? This is not a newspaper. If it happens, then it happens, and it goes in.

You could, of course, call for an Rfc. Have we exhausted other editors' opinions yet? There's also Third opinion, before we get into the formality of an Rfc; 3-O is less formal, but I think we're all being civil here, trying to find the right solution for the article, so 3-O could possibly be a good avenue to explore, here. But I won't dissuade you from starting an Rfc, if you wish to. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There are too many editors involved already for WP:3O to be of use. An RfC may be needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There are other means prior to starting an RfC, which will be open a month. Perhaps you should make identical neutral notification to the projects that follow this article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely there will be consensus for anything more than a 1-sentence mention here (and probably not even that), and also think based on this diff that Zigzig20s will not be happy with such a consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The text we want to re-insert is only two or three sentences. The mainstream media under-reports LGBT issues, and that has an impact on Wikipedia as a whole given our reliance on third-party sources, but there isn't much we can do about that. I do think the change of name just after this incident is potentially suspicious, but we would need an RS for this. Until we do, it remains coincidental. But everything in the two-three sentences that were redacted was referenced multiple times.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be right about an Rfc being inevitable, but if it is, we will have more data at hand to consider, if we wait a few weeks before starting one. Starting one now, will inevitably be tainted by the uncertainty of knowing if this story has legs or not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we run one now, inevitably votes will be based on what people think is going to happen in the next few weeks. Unless, of course, they think this event is already relevant and important enough to merit a mention even if it's never mentioned again by any RS, but that seems a tough row to hoe. There is virtually nothing to be lost by waiting a bit. Unless, of course, one believes that Wikipedia is a newspaper in which case, there's not a moment to lose. Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you just saying we should not report controversies? Those are usually one-time events. We already have enough reliable third-party sources. I don't understand why you think we need more. NOTNEWS would apply if this were trivial, but it's not, because of the staff retraining and corporate response. (An example of NOTNEWS would be if the restaurant had to close early one day because the manager was sick, or the bathroom had stopped working, or drunk customers had had a fistfight, none of which would have led to staff retraining or a corporate response).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact I do oppose controversies sections. But that isn't on point. The point you are missing is that items that do not get enduring coverage in widespread sources just do not belong in the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter what the subject is. WP:STICK is beginning to apply. You've not addressed any of the arguments made against your position, nor have you presented any policy based arguments in support of your position. Numerous editors have and are continuing to oppose your position; no one has offered continuing support. As a matter of fact, you've WP:CANVASed for support at the LGBT project, and they too advised you to drop it. There is no RfC needed here, one editor just needs to stop engaging in IDHT. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I notified members of a relevant WikiProject and asked for a second opinion... If we decide that weight of reliable third-party sources is irrelevant, then the content may be undue because the LGBT community is not a protected class and it is therefore legal for businesses to deny services to transgender customers in Tennessee...so they wouldn't be able to sue. I think an RfC would ensure we are not leaving out significant content, but I am bored by this topic now. I am surprised by the vigorous responses on this talkpage however.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: John from Idegon's point is even better than mine was, and seems sufficient to put this matter to rest. But if you need yet another good reason to let it drop, consider this: go have a look at section #New name... higher up on this page, and the related follow-up move request, now closed. The people pushing for that, just couldn't wait a bit for things to settle down and become clear, and in their headlong rush to push for something that hadn't settled yet, they really ended up with egg (pancake batter?) all over their face. I agree with John that just dropping this is the best course here. But if you disagree, at least wait a bit, so you don't end up like they did with an Rfc that goes nowhere. Part of being an editor here is just sucking it up and moving on to something else when everybody seems to disagree with you. You have great abilities in finding references, and I can see from your contributions that you're prolific in that regard and really good at it. So, if no one else has said it yet, thanks for all of that, and keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't fully understand why my editing contributions about historic buildings has anything to do with this topic (I haven't looked at your contributions), and I certainly do not understand your allusion to being egged, but I am bored by this topic. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn – An IHOP spokesperson admitted this was just a publicity stunt. JE98 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC) JE98 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

IHOP → IHOB – I am assuming that the name change is official at this point? I have some doubts considering this could be just a publicity stunt, but I am not sure. JE98 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the section above the one above this. This move request should be withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with move. Go their website and look for your local location - it says "My IHOP". Their app is still shown as IHOP 'n Go. Gift cards branded with IHOP. The company's name is IHOP Restaurants LLC. IHOb is clearly a marketing campaign, not a real change to their long term name.Bitmapped (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this still is a marketing campaign, and if you believe otherwise, please provide references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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

In case this comes up again on this talk page, see here for a ref stating it's a temporary publicity stunt. Lizard (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

look here and on their official Twitter account they said clearly they become IHOb--مصعب (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your source says, "Whether it’s a temporary promotional stunt or not..." The Chicago Sun-Times source immediately before this clarifies that the "tongue-in-cheek name change" is "for the time being". - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018

change IHOp to IHOb change International House of Pancakes to International House of Burgers Ihopnotihob (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You provided no sources, but plenty of experienced editors have provided multiple reliable quality sources that unambiguously say your assertion is totally and completely incorrect. John from Idegon (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you look in the marketing section you'll see that it mentions the name change. So I don't know why you made this request. Plus, I think the name change is not permanent. It is might just be promotion.Bowling is life (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

Change "IHOP" to "IHOB" Change "International House of Pancakes" to "International House of Burgers" Col of Cthulhu (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed several times, and it has been determined that this is just a marketing stunt. Bradv 03:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2018

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. As has been discussed on this page many times, this is merely a publicity stunt. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 14:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

---

IHOP → IHOB – International House of Pancakes has changed its name to International House of Burgers. From now on, instead of serving pancakes, the restaurant company will be serving hamburgers. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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

IHOb in the lead

Why can't the temporary name change be mentioned in the lead too? It is important as it is getting alot of news coverage. Bowling is life (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is a few weeks in 2018 as important as things that have occurred with lasting impact over time? We do not have anything about "See the USA in your Chevrolet" in the lede at Chevrolet and that was a two year long ad campaign that even had a full length song composed for it. WP:RECENT. John from Idegon (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

IHOP has been around for 60 years. For one week now, they've referred to themselves as IHOb on social media (but not on their signs, legal documents, etc.). That's 1/(60*52) = 0.03% of their history. By sentence count, this little marketing stunt is over 6% of the entire article. I'd argue that WP:WEIGHT all but dictates that this minor blip in the company's history shouldn't be included at all. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For a comparison, see the Wendy's article. In 1984-86, the "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign was universally known, and you may have heard of it even if you were born after that year. It was so entrenched in the culture that it reached the level of U.S. Presidential campaign politics. The few sentences about it in the article comprise 86 words, for a total of 1.2% of the article.

When you can tell me in retrospect that "IHOb" reached this level of notice, then it will merit 1.2% of this article, as well. Do you remember IHOP's "Eat up every moment" campaign? Me neither. It was from only two years ago. Maybe the IHOb campaign will have more impact or more staying power. Only time will tell. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

Please kindly change the pronunciation guide from US: /ˈaɪhɑːp/ to the more accurate and precise US: /ˈaɪ.hɒp/ EYE-hop. Also, the semi-protected status probably should be removed at some point, as the recent disruptive editing was merely the result of the advertising campaign. Once the buzz from campaign has calmed, it likely would be prudent to remove the semi-protected status. I humbly submit a date for this reversion of no later than October of 2018. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this request. 2601:547:A00:ADC4:9518:2458:E1C1:D7FC (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the pronunciation? And I agree, the protection has just about outlived its usefulness. John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, John! Here are links to two I. H. O. P. advertisements in which the given pronunciation is more similar to the one that I had previously recommended. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEelYk8y_O4), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XpjEzW9K0) (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)