Talk:TGI Fridays/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Map of TGI Friday's

I was just taking a look at the map of countries in which TGI Friday's is operating. Is there a known reason why Germany is the only western european country where they are not? Does anybody has an answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.32.150 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Store closings

I recently removed this section for several reasons:

1. The section is a form of original research known as synthesis, that is several factual sources were used to create a new conclusion. This is not allowed under the guidelines of Wikipedia.
2. The information contained in the section is not about the company known as T.G.I.Fridays but several of its franchises. This is a common error amongst editors with companies that have franchised operations where the actions of these franchises are confused for parent company.

The restoration of the information by User:BlueGold73 did nothing to address these issue and I removed them again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your analysis of the section. New conclusions were not created. The information was already clearly found in the sources. Additionally, the section you deleted clearly indicated that the store closings were franchised locations, and it referenced some of the issues that franchised locations were having with the parent company. I most definitely did not confuse the franchises for their parent company. The issues of franchised operations should be discussed within the article of the parent company. It seems that you have some sort of agenda to keep out information that is relevant to the topic. As I started, please stop removing the information until other editors have had a chance to express their opinions regarding the content and its relevance. WP:BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus. If other editors agree with you that the information is not relevant or that it is all original research, then it can removed or modified at that time. BlueGold73 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your reading of BRD is off. Once information has been challenged, it stays out until such time that a discussion arrives at a consensus for its inclusion or exclusion. I have stated the reasons for the exclusion, while you have failed to provide a viable, policy based reason why the information should be kept in. This discussion is where other editors may chime in as to their opinions of the information's usefulness to the article.

Also, please discuss the issue at hand and do not make allegations of malicious intent against other editors, as it is inappropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What's an "essence salesman"?

Did he sell subscriptions to the magazine "Essence" (in which case it should be capitalized) or something else? In either case, I don't see a reference to it in any of he citations.Originalname37 (Talk?) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Comments from TGI Fridays" in alcohol controversy section

I added the bait and switch booze section. It seemed relevant due to being a current event news story, and was sourced by several news agencies. I tried my best to not add anything original, simply to summarize the information that was in the sourced articles. I wanted to put one of those headers in that say "This section contains a current event and may change as the story develops" or something to that effect, however I am new to editing and don't know how, or if it would be appropriate. In reference to the removed section on store closings, why would information regarding the franchises not be relevant to an article about the parent company? The "bad booze" section relates to franchises, but does differ I suppose in that it contains a response by the parent company. If the section goes against the guidelines, I understand if its taken down, but I'm wondering for future reference. The story seems to be dying down lately, but I'm not sure whats going to happen in the future. These locations could wind up losing their NJ Liquor licenses, which, based on their emphasis on alcoholic beverages would like mean the closing of these establishments, or selling of them from their current owners. Would something like that be relevant in the context?JaghobianMyEars (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed entire section of what appears to be unsourced first party comments from an anonymous editor. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for press releases.

Jbmcb (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the entire section for several reasons:

1. The allegations are not about the corporate entity known as T.G.I. Fridays, but one of its franchises.
2. 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 WP: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. Also see WP:ITSSOURCED.
3. While this incident has received wide coverage, it has not received the depth of coverage that is needed to make it worthy of inclusion. If it is around in 90 days, it will probably be worthy for inclusion - but it won't be around.
4. Just a note, someone is going to claim that I am a shill for the company, I do not work for this company, its parent or any associated entity. I have eaten there several times over the years, but that is it. (It happens every time this type of incident occurs and I state it is unworthy of inclusion and remove it)

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@Jerem43: Since your removals [1] [2] were brought up at COIN, I'm going to chime in. First, the linked notability guideline you linked is not relevant — notability regulates whether a separate article can be written on the topic, it doesn't govern article content. Ditto the essay.

Your "90 day" criterium is an arbitrary made-up rule, many notable events covered on Wikipedia are relevant for a briefer period than that.

Your argument that "it's just a franchise and not TGIF itself" seems to make TGIF immune to any criticism of franchised locations, while they happily claim the credit for all those restaurants. In both instances, sources named TGI Friday's in the article headline and content, so I think it's odd to claim that it is of no relevance to TGIF.

Now, I agree that the original additions may have been unnecessarily long, but both positive and negative aspects need to be covered to arrive at a neutral article. -- intgr [talk] 20:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved most of the franchise-related material to a franchising section. Are there any company-owned units, or is it all franchisees? John Nagle (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Customer Feedback" section sounds like corporate propoganda.

Seriously was this written by the company's own PR group? It is a fluff article that adds absolutely nothing substantive to the article as it is a series of descriptors that could apply to nearly every single company in existence. Surely this was added either as a joke or by a seriously mistaken TGI Fridays intern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.142.63 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I took that out, and much of the peacocking ("legendary drinks", etc.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Apostrope

Hello, why is there an apostrophe in the article name? There is no apostrophe in the actual name on their website and in addition it makes zero grammatical sense to include. Thanks 175.45.116.66 (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the company name at the bottom of your linked page says "TGI Friday's Inc.". But you may be right by WP:COMMONNAME, feel free to file WP:RM. -- intgr [talk] 11:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

TGI Friday's & the alcohol incident in New Jersey

I'm on my iPhone and can't properly respond here so I will make A quick statement here: the information that was in the article that I removed is not about TGI Friday's, it was about a franchise of the company. It doesn't warrant inclusion here because you had nothing to do with Fridays on the fact that the person who did it was a franchise for the company.

I would post a better commentary when I get home. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jerem43: I already addressed this argument in Talk:T.G.I. Friday's/Archive 2#Removal of "Comments from TGI Fridays" in alcohol controversy section. I even pinged you there. You didn't reply for over a year, and now silently attempted to remove the paragraph from the article and incidentially archived the relevant discussion. And now you're edit warring before you even address any of my arguments. This behavior does not inspire any confidence in your motivations. -- intgr [talk] 13:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@JaghobianMyEars, Jbmcb, and Nagle: Pinging participants from the original discussion thread. -- intgr [talk] 13:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "It doesn't warrant inclusion here because you had nothing to do with Fridays on the fact that the person who did it was a franchise for the company." (That sentence needs work.) The article is about the chain, and discusses the restaurants, their decor, and their history. What happens at the restaurants belongs in the article. It's not an article about the financial holding company. We have Sentinel Capital Partners for that. John Nagle (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay here is what I wanted say yesterday before sleep demanded I step away:

Imagine a car dealership group in New Jersey that sells GM cars and trucks across several locations. The NJ Attorney General finds out that this dealership group has been using cheaper, aftermarket car parts when servicing vehicles but was charging for higher quality GM OEM parts. The dealership group was sanctioned, people were arrested and there was a lot of press regarding it. Multiple editors put this on General Motor's Wikipedia page because the incident happened at a company that was selling their products, and the reason the editors use for its inclusion is "Come on it was a General Motors location that did this, so it is about General Motors and it belongs on that page!"

The thing is, General Motors was not committing that criminal act of fraud, its franchisee was. GM in no way was responsible for that scandal and it shouldn't be included there.

That is the exact same thing you are saying about T.G.I. Fridays, but as with the fictional GM example - it is not the case. The company known as T.G.I. Fridays is not responsible for the criminal actions of one of its franchises. The parent company did not instruct the franchisee to do this, they did not advocate on behalf the charged parties and in all probability terminated the franchise as quickly as legally possible.

Additionally the scandal was about a restaurant ownership group that operated other restaurants that were independent of Friday's. Basically, the scandal is about an individual restaurant company committing fraud in multiple locations, some of which happened to be T.G.I. Fridays. If we include this one incident, it opens the gate to post every single issue that comes up with a franchisee because were saying "Look, it happened at a T.G.I. Fridays location, so it is about Fridays and it belongs here."

I am not adverse to adding information like this to an article about a franchiser when it is appropriate to do so. I did this when I added a section to the Cold Stone Creamery article regarding a consistent stream of accusations from franchisees that its franchise system is severely flawed. I added a section to the History of Burger King article about franchises that caused issues for that company (Chart House and AmeriKing). But in those cases, the actions of the franchises actually had a serious effect on the operations of Burger King. Look at what is happening with Chipotle, the incident in Boston where hundreds of people were sickened with the norovirus may not have really warranted inclusion in the article if it were a one time food poisoning incident. But when the Boston incident is coupled with the multiple outbreaks if e-coli in several other states, it goes to the center of the company's food safety systems and how it monitors its franchises procedures.

In the New Jersey liquor adulteration case, the actions of a single franchisee simply doesn't fit into this category. Besides the bad press the company received and it issuance of a press release repudiating the acts, what effect did this have on T.G.I Fridays corporation? What changes did the company have to make to its operations to prevent this from happening again? Does it show underlying issues with the company's operations and franchise management? Did it reveal a systemic problem of T.G.I Friday's franchises defrauding its customers? These are the type of questions I ask every time one of these things come up with a franchised restaurant chain, questions that really go into whether something should be included in an article.

For each of those questions I posed about Fridays, the answer to them is a resounding "no" or "none". That is the reason why I removed it form the article. If you can show me one article that mentions this incident beyond the initial burst of press, one article that actually can show how the whole incident notably effected the company in any manner and I will add it back in myself and expand on it.

You won't, trust me.

Sidenote

Intgr, your accusation of me being a paid editor doing this on behalf of Friday's, accusing me of censoring an article and the other commentaries you made in your edit summaries when reversing my edits shows a horrible lack of good faith. It is like me reversing your edits saying you are working in cahoots with the IP editor that filed the bogus COIN accusation against me (Just to let you know, the IP editor who made that accusation runs or is affiliated with an anti-Wikipedia blog page over on Blogger. That particular blog operator often makes accusations against WP editors, claiming they are making fraudulent or problematic edits on Wikipedia. I do not know the accuracy of those accusations, but in my case they were a load bull.)

So here is what I am going to make this very clear, once again, for you and those who consistently try to discredit me by accusing of being a paid shill: I have at no point ever taken money for editing on Wikipedia in any form what so ever. There is one time and only one time I ever edited on behalf of someone other than myself, and that was when a friend asked me to look at his sister's Wikipedia entry so that it conformed to WP:BLP and other WP standards. (Mary Duffy) In cases where I do have a COI issue, such as when I edit articles whose subject is directly related to my family (Clinton Scollard, Jessie Belle Rittenhouse and Clarence Long), I specifically state that in my edit summaries and on the talk page. The reason I write in these kinds of articles is because I have worked in the restaurant field most of my life. I have worked for (alphabetically) Applebee's, Burger King, Legal Sea Foods, Papa Gino's, Pizza Hut and a now defunct bakery. I have also worked at Filene's, Jordan Marsh, Lechmere, Macy's and Waldenbooks. I have used my knowledge of the restaurant field to work on numerous articles to make them more than lists of stuff they sell or lists of dates stuff happened with the chains.

As you may have gathered I am a tad angry with your behavior. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Briad Group, which is the biggest TGI Friday's franchise owner, did this. It's not somebody with one or two outlets. That's significant to the company. There's even a court decision, in a wage and hour case which notes that "This evidence, coupled with the evidence of defendant’s centralized control over TGI Friday’s restaurants nationwide, suffices to meet the minimal burden for conditional certification" [3]. The Wikipedia text cites the problem to the Briad Group, so that's covered. This seems appropriately balanced. This isn't PR Newswire; the bad stuff has to go in along with the good. John Nagle (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You just said it in your own post - It was not Friday's that did this, it was the Briad group that committed the fraud. Because it wasn't Friday's, it belongs in the Briad article, not this one. Just because something happens at a franchised restaurant or with the franchisee's operations, doesn't mean it belongs in the article on the franchising company unless it relates to the franchising company itself. This is what I have been saying all along, you need to be able to separate the franchisee from the franchiser, they are separate entities bound by a contract that states the franchisee must follow the rule established by the franchiser. The only reasons the actions of a franchisee should be in the article on the franchiser are the ones I listed - if it actually had an effect on the franchising company, in this case the company known as T.G.I. Friday's, beyond the press coverage.

In this case this is pretty much trivia, the subject of this is mentioned in press coverage that is only associated with the actual subject is at the center of the coverage. Look at the theoretical GM example I used above, the franchiser would not be responsible for the fraudulent act of the franchisee. The only reasoning that you or intgr can come up with is "a franchisee of T.G.I. Friday's did something wrong so the information belongs in the T.G.I. Friday's because T.G.I. Friday's!" Look at the questions I asked, and think about it from a neutral position. My whole point is that an association, whether casual or contractual, does not make an accomplice of the associated party. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

When NBC News in New York covered this, they identified it as a TGI Friday's problem and didn't even mention the name of the franchise operator.[4]. John Nagle (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

An initial reporting error - other sources followed up with the correct data reporting that the Briad group did this in all of its restaurant holdings, not just its T.G.I. Friday's holdings. Again this was an action of the Briad Group as a plan to defraud its customers regardless of what property they were at, so it is not appropriate here. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)