Talk:Applebee's/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old discussions

"On June 25, 2007, the Applebees franchise named Don Corona the employee of the year." - This should be removed. How this is relevant to an encyclopedia article is beyond me. This is just Don or a friend of his trying to make himself look good. Get rid of it.

have a citation for you... couldn't put it in though: http://wwwbizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/04/25/daily37.html

Google hits to personal blogs and My Space accounts dont constitute an encyclopedic fact- we all have had crappy jobs, we all have had nicknames for our crappy companies 206.11.112.251 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Slang expressions can be sufficiently notable to include in articles. The 547 hits is a fairly substantial number and indicates widespread usage and not an isolated nickname. This provides a substantiation for the widespread use of a slang expression that I have heard folks from across the country use. I am sort of confused as to why you are so adamently opposed to including this seemingly notable information.

Interestingstuffadder 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is common from the google hits. Most of these blog and myspace hits are people thinking they invented such a "witty" phrase. Pertinant criticism would be a negative news article, health violation or something else relevant to being informed about the business, not just name calling. And no I dont really care for them either but its just not noteworthy. 206.11.112.251 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't think the sheer quantity of these hits suggests that this is a widely used term, which is my contention? Interestingstuffadder 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so, A. A few hundered in google terms is not many and B. Its obligatory. An article on "Thank You" doesnt need reference that some people like to say "Spank You" even though many people have independently thought this was funny.I used to work for the Gap and we called it the Crap, but its not notable. Thats my opinion.

I agree that this wouldnt be suffieciently notable to merit its own article, but such a widely used expression seems worthy of one sentence within a longer article. And, frankly, if you can provide similar evidence for notability on "Crap" for "Gap", I would absolutely support its inclusion there. Interestingstuffadder 13:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone was successful in getting that pointless comment removed like I was trying to several months ago. Clinevol98 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that Applebee's is moving toward removing "Grill and Bar" from its name, yet I work at an Applebee's restaurant in Winchester, VA that opened November 27, 2006, and our name includes "Grill and Bar". Is this a regional thing or was the statement incorrect? Theweirdguy 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Different Applebee's chains, and redirection

Not all Applebee's restaurants are owned by Applebee's International; our local store is owned by Applebee's America. (Which means they're not affected by the IHOP buyout, which is funny, because there's a brand-new IHOP right across the street from it, but that's as may be.) My point, and I do have one, is that when you search for Applebee's on Wikipedia, it directs you to this article, which only talks about Applebee's International. I don't have enough information to develop the article further, but surely someone around here does, right? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Because of the string of vandalism over the last few days, I have semi-protected the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is "carside to go"?

This article (like a few others, I'm afraid) uses some obscure Americanisms. The one I'm still wrestling with is ""carside to go". What IS this? Is it like the old drive-in places? Or what? If people can be a little careful about using ridiculous local terms like this, it would make Wiki[edia a bit more encyclopaedic and a bit less crap. Thanks. 124.168.46.82 (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The term should probably be capitalized in the image caption; Carside To Go is how Applebee's brands their carry-out service. Outside of Applebee's I've never seen the term used personally, it is if anything an "Applebeesism" if one wishes to invent the term. There's a separate entrance to a pickup counter for food. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

C.Fred pretty much explained it, but "Carside to go" isn't an "Americanism" as much as it's a term invented by Applebee's for their take out service. Not to nitpick, but just because a term is odd or unique about an American business does not mean it's an "Americanism". 98.145.238.99 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

References

I added the Template:Refimprove to the top of the article. After reviewing every reference, the article now contains two templates and two templates. Half of the references for the article only help to cite content in the Controversies section. I added and adjusted most of the links that I could readily fix, but this article still needs more references and overall help. Chilled616 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to Ward Parkway

This was done November of 2011 not September — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.22.100 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The waitress firing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Well, here it is 90 days later and this is no longer in the news and there has been no coverage since the story broke. I'm closing this particular discussion down as such. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is not a major event. While it has received lots of coverage, the event is not significant enough to be included in the article. I am citing Wikipedia:Notability (events) on this, it is not going to have a lasting effect, it does not have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and I can guarantee that it isn't going to receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.

Further this isn't about Applebee's, it is about an Applebee's franchise. The only involvement of Applebee's is a statement that Dine Equity, Applebee's parent, supports the actions of the franchisee.

Can anyone provide anything that shows how this is a major event in Applebee's corporate history that would warrant inclusion? Currently it is nothing more than an widely publicized human event story that has nothing to do with the company known as Applebee's and its franchisee. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• As someone on Facebook so eloquently put it: "When Fox News disagrees with your actions, you truly hit rock bottom." I'd give it a few more days to see if it does blow up more. Figure Monday might be a good barometer?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • three months is a better barometer. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 1 Month or less. There are a ton of articles that utilize info that is a fleeting glance. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
      • This is very much about Applebee's, their President has made a statement and their corporate PR are dealing with it on Facebook and Twitter. It has been picked up by lots of referenced news outletsTiggertim (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC).

The notability guideline is a reason not to have a separate article on the subject. However, given the amount of attention it's received, it's clearly become a significant enough controversy to be worth mentioning in this article. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The amount of attention does not confer notability, it is a relatively small thing that will not last, just like the whole Taco Bell meat lawsuit. This is a product of the twenty-four hour news cycle that dominates cable news. In a month's time this will be but a memory and not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion for events - as it doesn't now. That is why I refer you to the policy on events (above) and say that three months (personally) is a much better barometer of notability. I have been editing restaurant articles since I signed on WP, and am quite familiar with the random news stories that pop up from time-to-time like the aforementioned Taco Bell meat lawsuit. It gets a boatload of press, people rush into update the article claiming that is so notable that it needs to be in the article now! The thing is it comes down to this being a product of social media and a slow news week. Yes it is on every news outlet, but how is it affecting the company known as Applebee's? I mean really affecting it beyond a PR debacle? What will the effects be in the long run? We cannot say because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.

The indecent doesn't even involve Applebee's or Dine Equity beyond the name, it happened at a franchised location that is independently owned and operated. The limit of Applebee's involvement is a statement from its management supporting the actions of the franchisee and the support of the PR department for the franchisee. Since this article is about the company known as Applebee's and not the franchisee, it shouldn't be included here.

As the policy states, just because it is in the news now, does not make it important to the company in the long term. You have to look at the long term effect this will have on the company - Which will be nil.

And one more thing, someone is going to claim that I am a shill for the company (It happens every time this type of incident occurs and I state it is unworthy of inclusion) - I used to work for the Applebee's as a waiter and was fired by them over a similar incedent of a customer behaving like an ass. There is no love lost between me and them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I would provide this link. Considering the PR department tagged and argued tit-for-tat with complainers like a child, blocked large segments of people on both Facebook and Twitter, deleted posts, lied and then self-contradicted, and removed one of their own photos to hide policy hypocrisy, I'd say this is pretty notable. Notable enough to create a sub-section? Maybe not, but then I'm not an expert on notability requirements. Just providing it so those who wanna discuss a potential sub-section have some extra stuff at their fingertips. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw this on the Consumerist when it first came to light several days ago and realized it was going to hit the fan and this whole thing would balloon into everyone scrambling to add it to the article because it is everywhere. Since then it has hit the news wires (Associated Press and Reuters) and been in the lifestyles sections of several print and electronic media outlets. Regardless of it being everywhere, what I am saying is that the quantity of stories does not mean there is the needed quality to the story for it to be included, as our policy on events also states. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me Jeremy? This is probably the single biggest news story in the history of this company. It absolutely belongs on the wiki page at least as a mention in the controversies section... you are trying to suppress information and that is not what Wikipedia is about. What does it hurt to add a mention of this controversy to the already-existent controversies section of the page? Ridiculous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHollman82 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding and this is by no means the biggest thing that ever happened to the company. Not compared to the sale to Dine Equity, a federal case regarding wage garnishments and forced arbitration. You are confusing wide coverage with importance, and you are confusing a franchise with the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not confusing a franchise with the company because the corporate PR are dealing with it and the Company President has been forced to make a statement. I'd say that the notability guidelines support this deserving an entry under the controversies section even if only because of the fact that Applebees corporate PR were caught out claiming that they were not deleting comments from their Facebook page which made the controversy even bigger. To keep removing a well referenced entry here is suspicious. Tiggertim (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So they made a statement and helped out with PR? What else? What effect has this had besides bad PR? Can you tell me how this affects the company besides people bitching about a woman fired for posting something she wasn't supposed to? Remember, no forward looking statements allowed! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Jeremy, you seem to be the only one arguing to exclude this story from the article. I and everyone else commenting here think it deserves mention in the 'controversies' section. I believe that's what Wikipedia considers a consensus. Robofish (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not notable, no evidence of long standing impact with regards to the parent organization. Several editors have removed this tripe aside from Jeremy, we don't all have to be caught up in endless debate of adding minor controversies with no long lasting effect. In addition, the name of the pastor could never be included as a direct violation of WP:BLP regardless of the outcome. Arzel (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Four other editors besides myself have deleted this as non-notable, about he same amount of people that have tried to add it. That means there is no consensus for its inclusion. Those who have participated in this conversation have not provided any concrete evidence of its notability other than "Look it is everywhere!" And since the initial round of stories there haven't been any more, as I stated it would be. It is a tempest in a teapot that doesn't need to be included. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 13:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to the 24 hour news cycle, Jeremy... very few news stories stick around for more than a day or two, if that were the standard we would have to remove terabytes from wiki articles. This was a significant PR event for the company, they began arguing with people on their Facebook page, which received TENS OF THOUSANDS of negative comments from users expressing support for the fired waitress for gods sake. There ALREADY EXISTS a controversies section, this belongs in the controversies section and I won't rest until it gets there. Information should not be suppressed like this, you sound like a corporate shill for Applebees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And you win the prize! Thanks for reading my posts so well and calling me a shill. And please read WP:Notability (events). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm not sure if you have any relationship with Applebee's but your insistence that this event does not deserve a section with the other controversies is not consistent with the notability guidelines that you keep quoting. Even a week after it happened, the event continues to cause Applebee's reputational damage to the extent that it has been featured as a case study on how to avoid social media fails at Columbia Business School. The event continues to receive wide coverage from a variety of sources, including international sources in the UK and Scandinavia that I am aware of. Applebee's facebook page continues to be completely dominated by customer comments about this event, the majority of which are critical of Applebee's action in firing the server, arguing with their customers, deleting customer comments from their page and accusing them of having double standards by posting copies of receipts with positive comments. What is the process by which this dispute can be resolved? Tiggertim (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some question you need to answer:

1. Where are the news reports beyond the initial incident?
2. Where is the independent analysis from reliable sources that clearly state this is a major issue for the company?
3. What is the impact beyond the PR? Honestly, which major outlets have stated that this will affect the company in the long run?
4. Since the initial incident did not involve Applebee's, why does it concern Applebee's? They only involvement that Applebee's has had was their initial statement of support of the franchisee.

The point that you and the others are failing to see is that since the initial burst of publicity, there has been nothing in the press about the indecent and that makes it not worthy for inclusion. This is why I said we need to wait 90 days to see if it truly is notable; 90 days is a really good barometer for notability, when a story is around after 90 days you know it is notable and should be included.

As I stated before, the whole Taco Bell beef lawsuit shows this to a tee. When story first broke, people were screaming that it need to be included, it is so important, etc. and by not including it we were censoring Wikipedia. This is exactly what is happening here. And like that case, 90 days later the story was gone from the public eye and media. If Taco Bell had let the case go after the initial news story, it wouldn't even be in the article. Their response, which was an over the top attempt at getting ahead of the story, was notable because several major sources covered their reaction and pointed out that Taco Bell was overreacting.

You and the other others are providing analysis of and speculating on the importance of the story, which is a form of original research and not allowed. Also directly commenting on or referring to the company's Facebook page and or Twitter account also falls into the realm of original research. We, as contributors, must wait this out and see if it becomes notable beyond the 24-hour news cycle and allow independent, reliable sources to comment on the actions of the company and determine its impact and effects on the company. That is what the policy refers to and that is why we need to show patience to see if it truly worthy of inclusion.

Also, I refer you to WP:BRD. The inclusion was challenged by multiple editors (not just me), deleted and we are discussing it. Until a consensus is developed, re-adding is not allowed and doing so would constitute edit warring. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Applebee's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120801025553/http://adwhois.com:80/2012/07/26/applebees-2012-commercials/ to http://adwhois.com/2012/07/26/applebees-2012-commercials/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)