![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sriracha sauce was copied or moved into Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
MoniqueAlden.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:OVERLINK about why common terms such as 'United States', 'label' and 'sugar' should not be wikilinked. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is advertising/ marketing dressed up as a article.
If the people that started this page want the world to know about Huy Fong Sriracha sauce a list of available Sriracha sauces should be made on non branded Sriracha sauces article.
This article should be deleted. Wikipedia is no a place for advertising/ marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75382624/ Great article in the LA Times about this sauce's history recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.49.75 ( talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Evidence: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-7/html/iss007e06460.html ??? -- PFHLai ( talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick note for now. This week the City of Irwindale sought an injunction to shut down the plant that produces all the Sriracha sauce. Claimed it was a public nuisance because of the smell. Today (Halloween) a judge declined to issue the injunction.
David Tran, chief executive and founder of Huy Fong Foods, offered the second-best California court-related rhyming couplet of all time: "If it doesn't smell, we can't sell."
Opus131 ( talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's been a proposal to (once again) merge Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) with Sriracha_sauce posted at Talk:Sriracha_sauce#Proposed merger since mid July, 2013. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 03:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thought I'd post some links I came across while looking for references for the 'Media' section. Some may be useful to other editors looking to flesh out the article.
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 20:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) →
Sriracha sauce (brand) – Per
WP:NCDAB, disambiguating titles should be as general possible: The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic.--
ukexpat (
talk)
12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Noting that the photo of the Huy Fong Foods product that appeared on this page for some time has been removed, and including a link to the discussion that resulted in its removal. Dwpaul Talk 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot edit the article itself because I do not know the phonetics, but for someone who can, please view this "authoritative" YouTube on the pronunciation of the name (which matches the pronunciation on the generic [non-Huy Fong] Sriracha sauce page in Wikipedia).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKgUVxsLAk
Thank you. -- garyZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.206.172.2 ( talk) 05:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You guys are literally arguing here and finally agreeing upon pixelating a bloody rooster, not because the company would have anything against it being shown, not because it wouldn't be covered by fair use, but because of your own inane and ostensibly conflicting policies. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare...I'm just some dude that casually strolled in to learn about Siracha sauces and literally wanted to compare the logo to mine because mine says it was made in Thailand but also has a rooster. Screw you guys, screw you guys so much. Yes I can (and will) go on the coporate site. But really? Should I have to?
Edit: Upon further inspection mine is some other bird but the design is very similar. Copy cat product I guess, I wonder who was first tho...Well my journey countinues scouring the net. but you guys...you should do better. I was thinking of joining the last conference held in Europe but I don't know if it would've made any difference bringing things like this up. 83.252.117.38 ( talk) 17:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: Instead of the present photoshopped fantasy image (with a blank transparent field where in reality a rooster image resides) perhaps it would be more honest and encyclopedic to cover the offending area with a sort of digital 'sticker' explicitly indicating that relevant information has been redacted? Like a black field with "trademarked image redacted" written across it, or some such? Or maybe better yet simply blur out and pixelate the trademarked rooster in a manner similar to how TV shows often redact logos on clothing and such captured in candid footage (a format likely familiar to many readers and hence largely self explanatory; ie. 'least surprise', perhaps)? It seems to me that there'd likely be benefit in displaying something other than the present (fictitious) contrivance 'as is' without qualification.
If some agreement/shared will towards such arises I'm willing to fire up GIMP and perform the necessary image modifications and submit some examples here for consideration but would like some indication that there are others who at least endorse such a change in theory before investing time and effort into image editing.
p.s. -- In the interest of being upfront with the readership, I'm going to at least note the redaction in the infobox thumbnail text for now.
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Use of graphic logos, which says:
If I am reading the policy correctly, we may use the rooster in the infobox at Huy Fong Foods but we must not use the rooster in the infobox at Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods).
In general, it is safe for any Wikipedia editor to use any image from Commons, and if anyone objects, the proper procedure is to challenge it at commons, which is what was done in this case. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So the issue is the trade-marked rooster? In that case what about an image of the bottle taken from an angle that doesn't show the rooster? I have a bottle of the stuff right here and I can take a picture quite easily. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
this entire discussion is ridiculous and you should all be ashamed, especially Elizium23 for forcing your incorrect legal interpretation on everyone else. a manual of style is not a strict policy that requires bending over backwards to satisfy. here is the actual policy: WP:NFCCP if you are so blinkered as to consider that an image of a bottle of hotsauce is a work of art, note that all of the relevant conditions in the non-free image use policy are satisfied to allow the use of the image in this article. pixellating or censoring is not even correct wikipedia policy. -- 157.131.95.172 ( talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not clear from the current version of this article: are some or all of the chilis used by Huy Fong Foods now grown in Mexico? 76.190.213.189 ( talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sriracha sauce was copied or moved into Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
MoniqueAlden.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:OVERLINK about why common terms such as 'United States', 'label' and 'sugar' should not be wikilinked. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is advertising/ marketing dressed up as a article.
If the people that started this page want the world to know about Huy Fong Sriracha sauce a list of available Sriracha sauces should be made on non branded Sriracha sauces article.
This article should be deleted. Wikipedia is no a place for advertising/ marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75382624/ Great article in the LA Times about this sauce's history recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.49.75 ( talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Evidence: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-7/html/iss007e06460.html ??? -- PFHLai ( talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick note for now. This week the City of Irwindale sought an injunction to shut down the plant that produces all the Sriracha sauce. Claimed it was a public nuisance because of the smell. Today (Halloween) a judge declined to issue the injunction.
David Tran, chief executive and founder of Huy Fong Foods, offered the second-best California court-related rhyming couplet of all time: "If it doesn't smell, we can't sell."
Opus131 ( talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's been a proposal to (once again) merge Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) with Sriracha_sauce posted at Talk:Sriracha_sauce#Proposed merger since mid July, 2013. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 03:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thought I'd post some links I came across while looking for references for the 'Media' section. Some may be useful to other editors looking to flesh out the article.
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 20:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) →
Sriracha sauce (brand) – Per
WP:NCDAB, disambiguating titles should be as general possible: The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic.--
ukexpat (
talk)
12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Noting that the photo of the Huy Fong Foods product that appeared on this page for some time has been removed, and including a link to the discussion that resulted in its removal. Dwpaul Talk 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot edit the article itself because I do not know the phonetics, but for someone who can, please view this "authoritative" YouTube on the pronunciation of the name (which matches the pronunciation on the generic [non-Huy Fong] Sriracha sauce page in Wikipedia).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKgUVxsLAk
Thank you. -- garyZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.206.172.2 ( talk) 05:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You guys are literally arguing here and finally agreeing upon pixelating a bloody rooster, not because the company would have anything against it being shown, not because it wouldn't be covered by fair use, but because of your own inane and ostensibly conflicting policies. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare...I'm just some dude that casually strolled in to learn about Siracha sauces and literally wanted to compare the logo to mine because mine says it was made in Thailand but also has a rooster. Screw you guys, screw you guys so much. Yes I can (and will) go on the coporate site. But really? Should I have to?
Edit: Upon further inspection mine is some other bird but the design is very similar. Copy cat product I guess, I wonder who was first tho...Well my journey countinues scouring the net. but you guys...you should do better. I was thinking of joining the last conference held in Europe but I don't know if it would've made any difference bringing things like this up. 83.252.117.38 ( talk) 17:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: Instead of the present photoshopped fantasy image (with a blank transparent field where in reality a rooster image resides) perhaps it would be more honest and encyclopedic to cover the offending area with a sort of digital 'sticker' explicitly indicating that relevant information has been redacted? Like a black field with "trademarked image redacted" written across it, or some such? Or maybe better yet simply blur out and pixelate the trademarked rooster in a manner similar to how TV shows often redact logos on clothing and such captured in candid footage (a format likely familiar to many readers and hence largely self explanatory; ie. 'least surprise', perhaps)? It seems to me that there'd likely be benefit in displaying something other than the present (fictitious) contrivance 'as is' without qualification.
If some agreement/shared will towards such arises I'm willing to fire up GIMP and perform the necessary image modifications and submit some examples here for consideration but would like some indication that there are others who at least endorse such a change in theory before investing time and effort into image editing.
p.s. -- In the interest of being upfront with the readership, I'm going to at least note the redaction in the infobox thumbnail text for now.
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Use of graphic logos, which says:
If I am reading the policy correctly, we may use the rooster in the infobox at Huy Fong Foods but we must not use the rooster in the infobox at Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods).
In general, it is safe for any Wikipedia editor to use any image from Commons, and if anyone objects, the proper procedure is to challenge it at commons, which is what was done in this case. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So the issue is the trade-marked rooster? In that case what about an image of the bottle taken from an angle that doesn't show the rooster? I have a bottle of the stuff right here and I can take a picture quite easily. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
this entire discussion is ridiculous and you should all be ashamed, especially Elizium23 for forcing your incorrect legal interpretation on everyone else. a manual of style is not a strict policy that requires bending over backwards to satisfy. here is the actual policy: WP:NFCCP if you are so blinkered as to consider that an image of a bottle of hotsauce is a work of art, note that all of the relevant conditions in the non-free image use policy are satisfied to allow the use of the image in this article. pixellating or censoring is not even correct wikipedia policy. -- 157.131.95.172 ( talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not clear from the current version of this article: are some or all of the chilis used by Huy Fong Foods now grown in Mexico? 76.190.213.189 ( talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)