Talk:Tim Hortons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Roll up the Rim POV

Does anyone else think that this article, at times, reads less like an encyclopedia entry than an advertisement for Tim Hortons? For example, do we really need that much detail on the "roll up the rim to win" contest? AverageGuy 02:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the wording better before you reduced it. The "Roll up the Rim" campaign is a very significant campaign for them. The aspect of the rolled R's is an important feature of the campaign. -- JamesTeterenko 04:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it was a little POV before. I've reworded it to remove POV. Thanks for pointing it out AverageGuy. CaseInPoint 22:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I like the wording now even better. Good job. -- JamesTeterenko 00:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! CaseInPoint 16:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, the R's are rolled because the promotion was originally done with race car driver Jackie Stewart, a Scot who rolled his R's. Can anyone confirm this? It could make a nice bit of nostalgia/trivia for Canadians. --Country Wife 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

TimsPOV/ownership/suit

I made some changes to the culture section to remove some TimsPOV. Donut shops in general are important in Canadian culture, not just Tims. Tims did not invent the term double double, which antedates it. The Air Farce skit is set in a donut shop with moveable seats, ergo it's not a Tims. I don't know that winning an IgNobel prize makes your work representative of a culture, but I left that bit in.

I find the whole article a bit too glossy. I think it wouldn't hurt to mention (or at least link to) some contrary opinions. I think it should be noted that a lot of TH food is of poor nutritional value. In my opinion, TH food is no better than McDonald's and the McD page has several hundred words of criticism right on their main page. The concept that TH is somehow representative of Canadian culture is the creation of TH fanboys. Would you say the same about Canadian Tire or other Canadian businesses? Caulfield14 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would say the same about Canadian Tire, so this is not really a good argument IMO. Both Canadian Tire and Tim Horton's are very iconic in Canada. It would be tough to find a Canadian who did not know what Canadian Tire Money was, or what Roll-up-the-tim referred to. Outside of Canada, both of these terms would be total nonsense. This facet of Tim Hortons and Canadian Tire can not be carried over to many other company's promotions, if any.

To be perfectly frank, find something by someone with any near the importance of Pierre Berton in Canadian culture, and chuck it in. Of course, now the iconic status of Timmy Ho Ho's is way too understated in the article. Roughly speaking, the proposition about other businesses is rediculous. It'd be like saying The concept that Wayne Gretzky is somehow an icon of hockey in Canada is the creation of Gretzky fanboys. Would you say the same about Rico Fata or Ted Irvine? Of course, criticism of the food is different (and not really for the cultural significance section) - I'm sure you can find a source for that. Criticism of the cultural significance you're free to look for... WilyD 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As to who owns whom, I gather Tims claims it owns Wendy's. Lori Horton's suit was thrown out, as I recall. John FitzGerald 15:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tim Hortons have movable seats, just not at all the tables. ~random

Four or five blocks

Anybody know of a Tims within four or five blocks of Bathurst and St. Clair in Toronto? There are vast areas of TO without donut shops at all. Bathurst north of Eglinton has Coffee Times but I can't think of any Tims offhand.Anyway, I'm thinking of modifying the claim in the opening. John FitzGerald 14:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see my description of the claim as exaggerated has been removed on the grounds that it's true "in high-population areas." Well, I live in a high population area – downtown Toronto – and the nearest Tims is 12 (twelve) blocks away, They are pretty thin on the ground in West Toronto generally. But of course West Torontonians know coffee. Anyway, I'm not going to get in an edit war over something this trivial, but it's just another blemish on this article. If the article were to be serious, it wouldn't adduce an Ig Nobel prize as evidence of Tims' cultural importance, or claim that the inclusion of double double in dictionaries or the Air farce donut shop sketch have something to do with Tims.John FitzGerald 12:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that Av has pointed out that Tims are hard to find in Vancouver, perhaps the original claim should come out. John FitzGerald 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed claim: not notable, not verified

"Through 2004 and 2005, Tim Hortons received local opposition to their plans to build a drive-thru close to a large elementary school - especially when residents learned that the entrance and exit would not be placed on the main street because it was too dangerous. It would instead be located on the side street leading up to the school's front doors and drop-off zone."

• I haven't heard of this. If this is regarding plans for one location and the controversy hasn't been reported widely outside that locality, I highly doubt that it is notable enough to be included. As it is, there isn't enough information to verify the truth of the claim. "local opposition"? What town/city/province/state/country? Remember, though, that it needs to not only be true but also notable enough for inclusion. - Cafemusique 21:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Colloquialisms

I have heard, and sometimes use, Timmy Hoho's, however, an anon apparently thinks Timmy Ho's is the used. Has anyone else heard either of these? SECProto 02:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've heard both, but I'd say "HoHo's". I went in to revert that when I saw it, but Google turn up 2600 (mostly relevant) for "Ho's" vs. 26 for "HoHo's", so I left it. — mendel ☎ 04:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I used to work at Tim Hortons on the West coast, and we often used "Timmy Ho's". I have never heard "Timmy HoHo's". GeeCee 01:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard people (in the Calgary area) using the term "Timmy Ho's" on more than one occasion. Surrealplaces 11:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Niagara region of Ontario seems to use "Timmy Ho" all the time, never heard of HoHo. Should note though, that I only hear it used as a reference to employees of Tim Hortons, similar to McJob, implying that the person is a 'Ho' (whore) for the fastfood chain Sherurcij 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's Timmy's (or rarely Timmy Ho's) in TO. At least downtown -- Samir धर्म 06:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timmy Ho's is quite common, especially in rural Ontario, probably the most common form of the name maybe tied with Tim's/Timmy's. Never heard the "hoho's", perhaps that's a christmas joke. I have heard it used referrin to employees as Timmy's Hoes, and as in the place i.e. "let's go to Timmy Ho's"

--Jadger 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Vile Censorship of the reference to Karla Homolka's "Ice-Cap"

The exclusion of the reference made to Karla Homolka's Tim Hortons comments amounts to a confusing and vile censorship. The very fact that she made those comments to the news media, and the ensuing media frenzy, very much point to the cultural significance Tim Hortons plays in Canada. If anyone rationally disagrees, please step up!

--137.82.79.70 16:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vile? Puh-lease. I am not sure what you are tying to accomplish by redundantly saying these edits are censorship since every edit at the Wikipedia is censorship. Anyhow, the event is virtually insignificant. Homolka isn't a spokesperson for Tim Hortons, nor is Tim Hortons paying her to make celebrity endorsements. No relationship exists between Tim Hortons and Homolka. That being said, it couldn't have been that much of a stir or frenzy since I had not read about it, heard about it, or watched it before you reposted it yesterday. Maybe my experience with the Lethbridge media's infatuation with Dar Heatherington has made me suspect of media that sensationalises everything a public figure (specifically notorious ones). Perhaps the media frenzy you perceived was nothing more than the media trying to make a mountain out of a molehill by trying to create controversy where it does not exist. -- Kmsiever 16:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edit the first time, because I felt they were not worthy to be mentioned in an article. I listen to the news rather a lot, and I heard nothing of Karla Homolka's longing for an ice-cap. I realize that you cited sources, and it's true that she said it, but that does not mean that it is important enough to be in this article. It could possibly be mentioned in a much shorter form, but not as a full paragraph with words such as "media frenzy," as I'm pretty sure it did not create one. Oh, and why not actually join wikipedia instead of just being an anonymous IP? it's much better, you can track what you want, etc etc. And you don't have to multiple post messages such as this one on the tim horton's page, Kmsiever's user page, and my user talk. that's just annoying. SECProto 17:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kmsiever and SECProto, and other "wiki-elite":

Type "homolka" and "tim hortons" in Google, and you will be given 480 results (170 "Canadian results" alone). You'll see several news site references included. Do you consider this an insignificant amount in the one month since the Homolka interview? If you don't access the news enough to have got wind of this stir, good for you! I for one don't put much stock in the news media, which doesn't mean that its activity and effect is not notable. Even without the news, the talk on the street shows the incident's relevance and all the more amplifies the significance of Tim Hortons iconic relevance. If your social circles shield you from such banter, even better for you! Maybe I'll come and join your commune and escape this crazy society I'm stuck in. But here's just one of several notable examples of the news coverage of the Homolka-Tim Hortons-Ice Cap reference that you somehow missed: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120596671887_116005871/?hub=Canada

Yours truly, --142.103.222.78 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC), writer and techno-hobo without my own computer

to Anonymous: It's not that I believe the event never happened. The paragraph that you insert into this article is just full of NPOV-violating words. I think what you're trying to say can be said in this article, but the way you are trying to say it won't work. If it has taken over a month for anyone to write it into this article, it couldn't really have been that much of a media frenzy. anyway, not really my concern, i don't actually care much. (and BTW, you can have a user name even without your own computer! you'd just have to log in whenever you wanted to come onto wikipedia. peace out) SECProto 15:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this type of trivia is notable enough to be included somewhere on the Tim's page. Caulfield14 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some highly publicized Canadian convict said she wants an Iced cappuccino from Tim Hortons ... big deal. Karla Homolka has nothing to do with Tim Hortons, other than the fact that she made a comment about wanting an iced cappuccino from the place. It defiantly does not belong in the history section. I doubt in 10 years Tim Hortons will be having a celebration to remember when Karla Homolka said she wanted an iced cappuccino. Perhaps it would be better in a Trivia sub category. I think it should be removed until a Trivia section is created. Decimal10 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like a violation of Wikipedia is not a collection of random information, rather she is an encyclopaedia. Frankly, it doesn't seem to remark much upon anthing with respect to Tim Horton's ... though if the supposed Bruh-ha-ha about it was big enough, it may warrent a mention on her page. WilyD 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Steeped Tea Campaign

That addition is so much against NPOV that im tempted to delete it outright. -SECProto 20:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The section keeps getting added in once a week or so. It may or may not end up being the next "roll up the rim", but it seems more likely that it will fade into obscurity when it's not being run regularly on TV. Wikipedia isn't really the place to document companies' currently-running ads. In any case, without a source to verify it, claims about its popularity are POV. — mendel ☎ 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I was curious if the campaign was mentioned in this article, since I had noticed that the odd person has picked up the term in response. Seeing the section that was removed, though, maybe it's best to leave it out for now. --142.242.2.248 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"The slang term 'steeped' is now permanently emblazoned on every Canadian and is part of the northern lexicon for the ages." Say what! I have never heard anyone say this outside a Tim's commercial, so it ain't emblazoned on me or on anyone I've run across. The overheated description of the commercial itself is also rubbish. First of all, it's not even clear that the mother is a single mother, let alone heroic. And as noted above the claimed popularity of the commercial needs to be documented. This certainly should be removed and I'm going to go do it right now. John FitzGerald 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I think this was an ironic response to the original commercial; in any event it has no place in an encyclopedia. Radagast 23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could also have been a parody of some of the sillier "serious" contributions to this article. On the other hand, some of the serious contributions have been as preposterous. I'm no fan of Tim's, but it's an important company and deserves serious treatment. I'm glad people with a sense of proportion are keeping an eye on the article. John FitzGerald 12:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd Tim Horton opening

I have anecdotal evidence that the 2nd Tim Horton opened in Cornwall. Can anyone confirm or reject this assertion? D'Iberville 03:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Tales Under the Rim: The Marketing of Tim Hortons, the second store was opened on Consession Street in Hamilton.Toonmon2005 20:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Donuts

The following discussion is an archived discussion on a topic that is now under discussion below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tim Hortons spells donuts 'donuts' on their website - what's with the doughnuts spelling here? Would anyone have any objections to moving the spelling on that? Doughnuts is hurting my eyes .... WilyD 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I say tim horton's is wrong then. i spell it doughnuts :P dunno about others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SECProto (talk • contribs) .

• • I think that "doughnut" is the traditional, proper spelling, whereas "donut" is a commercial variation on the word (right up there with "drive-thru" and "open-all-nite"). Personally, I would prefer that we use the proper spelling (doughnut) as opposed to the spelling preferred in ad copy. Skeezix1000 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also just noticed that "doughnut" is the spelling used in the main article on doughnuts, and is also used for Category:Doughnut shops. So, we either keep "doughnut" here to preserve consistency, or we seek consensus on a much broader switch to "donut". Skeezix1000 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Drive-thru" and "open-all-nite" both look wrong to me, but "donut" looks right, while "doughnut" looks wrong. My initial suspicion is that it may have been a Canadian vs (British?American?) English deal, but your explanation seems more likely Skeezix. WilyD 18:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I pulled out the Canadian Oxford, which perhaps I ought to have done at the start, and it gives "doughnut" as the Canadian spelling, although it mentions "donut" as a North American variation of the word. Skeezix1000 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed the spelling to donut. It has been donut at Tim Horton(s) since it opened 40 years ago. Not only is it acceptable Canadian spelling, it is likely the spelling that most Canadian's under 40 would use. Wiki has a policy of using spelling appropriate to the country that the article is speaking about and, as per this discussion page, Tim Hortons is seen as a Canadian company. If a great Canadian writer, Lucy Maud Montgomery can spell it donut in 'Anne of the Island'[1] some 90 years ago, I think we can see it as not being a 'commercial' spelling like drive-thru. KsprayDad 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikipedia uses the spelling appropriate to the applicable country, I don't think the standard is the "acceptable" Canadian spelling, nor is it speculative claims as to the spelling that is most familiar to particular demographics. The standard is the proper Canadian spelling, not the one most common in commercial use, and I note that the Globe & Mail style guide requires the "doughnut" spelling. Having said all that, if it is good enough for Lucy Maud Montgomery, then it's good enough for me -- good find on that reference! Skeezix1000 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Only 100 in the US?

I have a hard time believing that as there are three, count them; one, two, three, within a single mile of my house! Granted I have no references for this so I won't change it, but it seems as if all 100 of those stores are in Western New York, maybe thats why I like Canada... --T-rex 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"As of February 2006, there are over 290 Tim Hortons locations in the United States" according to the company website. According to our article here: "There were 2,598 outlets in Canada and 288 in the United States as of January 4, 2006." Rmhermen 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I work there, and my boss said there's now over 300... but obviously that's not a fact I can prove... that's just what I was told. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mooseboy0518 (talk • contribs) .

The Tim Hortons website (and this article) indicate that there are currently 297 outlets in the U.S. --Skeezix1000 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is actually alot more in the United States now, just over 300 but Tim Hortons hasn't really approved that fact yet. Decimal10 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Improve or remove the cultural icon section

The section about Tim's as a cultural icon is still weak. First of all, it starts by saying that Tim's is branded as a cultural icon, which is certainly true, but then continues as if Tim's really is a cultural icon. It would be useful to know just what is meant by cultural icon, but even without a definition the evidence seems pretty weak.

For example, we're told that "The store's name is a permanent fixture in Canadian tongue." Well, yeah. If a chain has a name people will remember it; that doesn't make it an icon. Jacques Parizeau's name is a permanent fixture in Canadian tongue, but I don't think he's a Canadian cultural icon.

As for the Mint "choosing" Tim's to distribute those shoddy Remembrance Day quarters, I imagine some money changed hands, eh? I don't imagine anyone at the Mint thought "Hmm, who should distribute our quarters? Say! What about TIm Hortons? It would be perfect because it's a Canadian cultural icon!"

I do not understand how the appearance in an American movie of a donut shop called Stan Mikita's which is in a suburb of Chicago says anything about Canadian culture. I realize Mike Meyers made an in-joke about Tim's, but that makes Tim's an icon for Mike Meyers only. Yes, he could have made the joke because Tim's is a Canadian icon, but where's the evidence that it is?

As I've noted before, the term double-double was around long before Tim's was (as was I, so I know). It therefore clearly says nothing about the cultural status of Tim's.

Since I'd never heard of a Gretzky before, I don't know that it's great evidence of iconic status. And anyway, it's Wayne Gretzky that's the cultural icon here.

A single graduate student writing a single thesis about Tim's does not make Tim's a cultural icon. Cultures have more than one person. And are Canadians supposed to be proud it got an Ig Nobel? If buddy had got a publishing deal for his thesis and Canadians had turned it into a bestseller, then you'd have evidence of iconic status.

And then we're told "Tim Hortons' Iced Cappuccino are extremely popular." Well, so is cocaine. Is that a cultural icon, too? Incidentally, I see the sale of even pseudo-cappucino (which is what the Ice Cap is) by a donut shop as definitely contrary to the iconic definition of a donut shop.

And finally "The sign for Tim Horton's in the Canadian dialect of American Sign Language is the same as the sign for donut. This indicates how tied together these concepts are in Canadian culture." No, it doesn't. It shows that Tim's sells donuts. And that's why the "concepts" (I've never thought of either Tim's or donuts as concepts before, but I guess at least at one time they were), as I was saying, that's why the concepts are tied together. If Tim's sells donuts, then people will think of donuts when they think of Tim's. That's scarcely evidence of any special cultural status.

So unless some real evidence of Tim's supposed iconic status is supplied I suggest we take this section out. I'd also suggest that whatever is done the current contents of the section be removed for the reasons I have just given. John FitzGerald 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say. Although I do believe that Tim's is iconic (I note that on today's CTV news site there is an article on the proposed Tim Hortons in Khandahar, and the article states: "The coffee chain's unique place in Canadian culture and identity should not be underestimated"), some of the examples you've noted are, in fact, irrelevant to the point of the section. Having said that, I don't agree with all of your comments. For example, I think the Stan Mikita's joke, and the expectation that most Canadians would get the in-joke, underlines the chain's status among all Canadians, not just Mike Meyers. Skeezix1000 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your disagreement, but I have a constructive idea. Let's see if we can come up with a definition of cultural icon. I think that would clarify the question.

To begin with, I think a cultural icon is something which is beyond criticism. For example, the news about the possibility that Wayne Gretzky was being investigated for involvement in a sports betting ring was greeted with automatic denials that he could have been involved. His wife's alleged heavy betting was automatically considered to hve been undertaken completely independently from him. The appropriate response would have been to wait and see what came out of the investigation. Personally, I believe Gretzky is innocent till proven guilty, but the public reaction is that he is always guiltless – I actually read press coverage that said he was incapable of breaking the law.

Tim's, on the other hand, is not given that sort of treatment. When it switched to frozen dough, for example, people did not automatically assume that that must be the best thing for them to do. They complained in large numbers. John FitzGerald 13:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. CTV as usual is wrong. Tim's doesn't occupy a unique place in Canadian culture. It's a donut shop. There are plenty of donut shops besides Tim's. As for its place in the Canadian identity, I feel pretty certain that if you asked Canadians what it meant to be a Canadian they would not say that it means buying donuts at Tim's.

I did change the sentence about how most Canadians consider TIm's a significant part of their national identity and culture. Unless there's some research I'm aware of, that's just hype. I doubt that most Canadians consider TIm's a part of their national identity at all, let alone a significant part. Certainly it's part of Canadian culture, but a significant one? Of course, I'll change ot back if some evidence of these assertions can be supplied. John FitzGerald

I got impatient and just added the arguments above to the cultural icon section. I tried to sound temperate. That's not the ideal solution, but I believe that that section seriously detracted from the article. Any better solution will be warmly welcomed. John FitzGerald 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose another solution in the post after next. John FitzGerald 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just saying that Tim Horton's is popular in Canada is like just saying that Newton was a good scientist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.207.26 (talk • contribs) .

And what happened to the rest of the talk page?

Some of the discussion on this page has been removed, too. Was there a reason for that? Is there an archived talk page? John FitzGerald 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution for the cultural section

I see that Canadian Tire describes Canadian Tire money as a national cultural fixture. That sounds an apter description for Tim's than cultural icon. So perhaps we could rewrite that section to describe how Tim's is a cultural fixture. John FitzGerald 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one showed any interest in working co-operatively on this section, so I changed it myself. It occurred to me that the section as it originally stood probably constituted original research and should be removed for that reason. What that section should have contained is the results of other people's published and preferably refereed research which provide real evidence of iconic status. I remain willing to work with others to see if a way can be found to deal with this issue more usefully. However, I'm not going to accept reversion to an article which adduces Karla bloody Homolka as an example of a typical Canadian. John FitzGerald 21:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Specific criticisms of the "A Canadian cultural fixture" section

I find this section suffering from POV and/or lack of citations. Please remember that Wikipedia has a no original research policy, so I'm asking for more citations to show that these conclusions and claims have appeared in reputable sources previously. Quotes and sources should prevent future people (like me! sorry!) from questioning that the business is a "cultural fixture" in Canada. Some concerns:

• "the culturally vital coffee and doughnut market" — this is POV and/or regional

I agree. Also an exageration.--Skeezix1000 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The ubiquity of Tim Hortons does make it a prominent feature of Canadian life." — Why is this relevant? Shell, Esso and Chevron stations are more prominent. Regionally, Starbucks and 7-11 locations are more prominent. Subway is right up there, also.

According to CTV (canadian television), Canadian and Tim Hortons coffee basically go hand in hand. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060306/afghan_timhortons_06030y?s_name=&no_ads=) it doesn't say that exactly that way. The way it is worded in this article still needs quite a bit of work though, i agree.SECProto 01:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

With 2600+ outlets, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is ubiquitous on a national level (even if it does not "saturate" every region of the country, yet, as the article notes). The article does not say it is the only ubiquitous business in the country. But there are not a lot with that many outlets. In comparison, five months ago Starbucks had 434 stores in Canada ([2]). According to its website, Subway has 2124 outlets in Canada, so presumably one could also refer to it as ubiquitous.--Skeezix1000 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The chain's later decision to use frozen dough was greeted by public derision which would otherwise not be directed at a cultural icon." — this is speculative and not encyclopedic unless the conclusion has been published by a reputable source already.
• "Tim Hortons has become a prominent institution in Canadian life." — repetitive and same criticism as the "ubiquity" statement above. --Ds13 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, with all the media attention about the IPO, Khandahar, etc., I don't think it's an exageration to say that it's a prominent institution. Skeezix1000 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As the author of most of what's being criticized, I can say I'd be happy just to see this section disappear. The original version of this section was ludicrous, as detailed above, and my revision was an attempt to make it more acceptable without just deleting everything (and where was you when I was soliciting opinion above about revising it?, one might ask). As now revised the section seems no more defensible than my attempt. It's the original paragraph plus a questionable opinion from Pierre Berton. I think this section is beyond hope and should be put out of its misery. John FitzGerald 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one else seems to be interested in actually doing something about these problems, so I'm just going to take the section out. if people want to put it back, I strongly believe they should follow the guidelines suggested by the anonymous poster who started this section. John FitzGerald 11:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your approach. The comments at the top of this section have been responded to -- if you disagree, you should comment on those before unilaterally removing the section. Further, you should expand on your additional thoughts (what do you mean when you say Pierre Berton's thoughts are questionable?). Skeezix1000 11:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made a full, perfect, and sufficient response to the comments above, not only in this section but in others. I have explained my doubts about Tim's cultural status in another section (assuming no one has removed them, which ain't my problem). Pierre Berton's comments are questionable becuase they are unsupported by evidence. John FitzGerald 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In the section above, you expressed the view that the article should no longer matter-of-factly state that TH is a cultural icon. It no longer does. It now states that that the chain is branded as an icon (a fact that you stated above that you "certainly" agreed with) and that the media routinely refers to it as such (a fact which is now fully sourced). You also criticized the specific "examples" of iconic status that were formerly in the article -- they have all been removed, and no one disputed that. Finally, as for Pierre Berton, he is a famous Canadian author and commentator, and as such, his opinion on Tim Hortons is notable and worthy of inclusion. You disagreeing with it is not good enough reason to blank it. What would be interesting to include in the article is if you found a quote from another notable Canadian disagreeing with Berton or expressing a contrary view -- that would also merit inclusion.

Otherwise, I am quite happy to discuss any other thoughts or criticisms you have of the section. Skeezix1000 12:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the section, the one phrase that is questionable, in my view, is "...makes it a prominent feature of Canadian life". I'm not sure what the original author meant by that. I would agree that this phrase should be removed, by merging the first two sentences of that para. to read: "The ubiquity of Tim Hortons, through both effective marketing and the wide expansion of its outlets, has led to its branding as a Canadian cultural icon, and the media routinely refer to its iconic status."--Skeezix1000 12:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The following sounds a bit heated, but I am grateful that a serious discussion is now under way about this section, one which could produce a much improved (or removed) section.

First of all, I apologize for saying Ds13 was anonymous -- his/her entry seems to have been broken up, so as I didn't see the original intact post I didn't know the poster was identified. As for Pierre Berton, the unsupported opinions of journalists are not considered definitive. I think my earlier post about CTV's opinions of Tim Hortons can be taken as predictive of any reply to the citation of CTV's opinion here. One of the characteristics imposed on journalists by the nature of their work is that they often have to draw conclusions from insufficient evidence. CTV is not an authoritative, scholarly source. Journalists often draw conclusions from insufficient evidence these days because they're bone idle, too. Or because they own Tim Hortons stock.

Anyway, sources which don't do adeqaute fact-checking are not considered reliable, and that seems to include almost the entire journalistic profession these days. As far as i can make out, there are no facts for them to check out, anyway.

The questionable assertions in the earlier version of the article were removed all right – by me. No one else seemed to be interested in them.

Your suggested revision is fine with me, as a start, if the section is to remain in. The question which has not been addressed is why should this section remain in? If all it is to contain are the assertions of journalists I doubt that it is encyclopedic. As for my changing the article unilaterally, how long was I supposed to wait for someone to address the question of removing the section (really, I'm just asking – what is a reasonable time to wait?)? I suppose I could have contacted everyone on their talk pages, but perhaps I didn't because no one had responded to my earlier proposal (or maybe proposals) about improving the section. Anyway, as I implied on your talk page, if we work together on this I expect we can come up with a mutually satisfactory solution.

And finally I apologize for not being as clear as I could have been about this. this section has had me tearing my hair out for months, though. I think, however, we all want to improve this article and that in fact we can, so in future I'll try to be more spcific. John FitzGerald 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I look at the article as it is, and that section seems alright to me. The title is a bit sketchy. It doesn't matter to me what you do to it though; i try not to be too involved in articles/debates like this one, because i rarely have the time to actually think about what people propose. SECProto 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Skeezix1000 and I seem to be the two people really interested in improving this section, so I've suggested to him that we start by trying to find a definition of cultural icon that has some currency. John FitzGerald 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of cultural icon seem rather broad – one of the OED definitions is "a person, institutions, etc., considered worthy of admiration or respect." By that second definition we're all cultural icons. In fact, my Google searches suggest that everyone and everything has been called a cultural icon at one time or another. Tims could possibly qualify as "a person or a thing regarded as a representative symbol, especially of a culture or movement," but only if there were adequate evidence. I don't consider news reports adequate evidence unless they're verified. What is needed is scholarly evidence, of which none seems to be available online.

So i support Skeezix's recommended change. A sentence should be added to note thsat there is no reliable evidence that it is a cultural icon except in the broadest sense, which is too broad to be meaningful. But I'll leave it up to youse. John FitzGerald 01:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, because I think your research is helpful. But the article is not saying that TH is a cultural icon. It is simply saying that the media routinely refers to it as an icon. The article isn't making any substantive claims based on the media reports, so any analysis of whether TH actually is an icon or not seems unnecessary and would likely run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research.

I don't think I agree with your comments on news reports -- they are relied upon as reputable primary and secondary sources all the time. We all know the media is full of hooey sometimes too, as are academic and scholarly works. But I think that's all beside the point. The question is not whether TH is an icon or not. The question is: does the media refer to it as such? That's the statement in the article, and we have the sources to show that, yes, the media does. Whether justified or not.

You are (admirably) trying to get to the bottom of the issue of TH'c iconic status. I don't think there is an answer to that question. Even if Canada's foremost scholar, whoever that may be, wrote a treatise on the subject, it would be at best his or her opinion (although the opinion itself, given its source, would likely be notable enough to merit mention in the article). All we can do in this article is reference the commentary that is out there. I don't think we need to define icon, or cultural icon whatever that means. I also don't think we need to come to conclusions on whether the media is right or not. Let the fact stand for itself, and readers will see the cites and come to their own conlusions. --Skeezix1000 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether quoting news reports is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. In particular, their fact-checking is notoriously poor. News is not produced as a lasting record. Scholars' articles are not "just their opinion" because they are published in refereed journals, they have to share the data on which they base their conclusions, etc. Newspapers and thelevision news don't have their work reviewed by authorities in the field and they don't have to share their data – witness the Toronto Star's report on racial bias in the justice system. The definition of cultural icon is important, because if the issue is to be raised it helps to know what is being talked about. If we say that Tims may or may not be a cultural icon, but we don't know, and we haven't agreed about what a cultural icon is, I don't think we're adding much to the store of human knowledge, or helping readers come to their own conclusions. But as I have said, I can live with a section pretty much like what you've suggested, so perhaps we're arguing at cross-purposes. John FitzGerald 21:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this will make any difference to your disscussion, but in New York at least, Tim Horton's is seen as being very Canadian (like hockey), most places like that arn't as closly tied to any geographic area as Tim Horton's is --T-rex 23:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Roll Up the Rim and Die?

Obviously, the person decided to make a joke out of the bombings, and mentioned this fictional campaign. Do something about the user...

Image: A Timbits player in Niagara Falls

There isn't really much in the photo that relates to Tim Hortons. The Hockey Jersey can't be read, so we can't really see the Tim Hortons logo, or Timbits logo. I don't see how this adds to the article. Decimal10 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tim Hortons is an American fast food company.

Tim Hortons was founded in Canada, but Wendy's (which is an American company) now owns Tim Hortons so wouldn't that make Tim Hortons an American fast food company, and this should be noted in the article? Decimal10 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a can of worms. When Universal was briefly owned by Seagrams, was it a Canadian company, even though it was run in the U.S. and virtually all of its assets were outside Canada's borders? Now that HBC is owned by an American, does that make it an American company, even though all of its stores are located in Canada? If you look only at ownership, as some do, you get answers that might seem absurd. I don't know that there is a right answer to your question. I would suggest, however, that ownership is not the sole indicia of nationality. Tim Hortons' head office is in Canada, the vast majority of its locations are in Canada, and it is incorporated in Canada. I think you'd have a hard time achieving consensus on calling it an American company, but you have raised a good point. The article does mention that Wendy's is American, and my gut instinct would be to leave it at that. Wendy's is about to divest itself of its remaining stake in Tim Hortons, so 100% of the shares will become widely-held, and after that the quetion is moot. Skeezix1000 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire in Store Paragraph

Why has an addition been made including include an extremely insignificant incident at a TH store? It has no relevance to an article about the chain, it is simply a short news story that is long outdated. Unless anyone has an objection in the next few days i will be removing that section of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.72.1.81 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. Why is this in here? If we included every fire/accident/death at a foodservice chain with close to 3,000 outlets, the page would simply be innudated. Pageblank 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a one-day news story, more unusual than it was noteworthy. I removed it from the article. Skeezix1000 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

McDonald's Vs Tim Hortons

The article currently says that McDonald's has a higher revenue than Tim Hortons. This is not true. There are three ways to measure a foodservice chain's value, in descending order: system-wide sales (the value of all the sales to customers), revenue (the value the company gets from franchisees and the locations it operates itself) and profit (the value the company has left over after it has paid all of its bills). System-wide sales is widely considered in the foodservice industry as the most neutral form of comparison, since some chains are not franchised (and would thus have higher revenues). In terms of system-wide sales, which Foodservice & Hospitality unhelpfully calls "revenue" Tim Hortons had about $2.9 billion in 2003, and McDonald's had about $2.3. [3] McDonald's has since reached over 2.5 billion [4], but current issues of F&H (unfortunately not online) show that Tim Hortons has over $3 billion in system-wide sales. If anyone wants further proof that Tim Hortons is the largest, please see this press release from Tim Hortons: [5]

In other words, I'm going to take out the reference to McDonald's having higher revenues. If you disagree with me, I'd love to explain this further to you. Pageblank 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is unfortunate that F&H isn't online, isn't it? It's a shame for Tim Hortons free ad here on Wikipedia. Since it is not online, I think it would be a false statment to claim that Tim Hortons *CURRENTLY* has higher revenue that of McDonald's. It's 2006, almost 2007 . . . not 2003. Only one of the links you provided works (for me). You have evidence of Tim Hortons for 2006 but not official evidence of McDonald's for 2006. Decimal10 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is fine if you disagree with Pageblank, but sarcasm is not helpful, nor appropriate since you yourself have never sourced your original claim that McDonald's revenues have since surpassed Tim Hortons revenues. Further, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, sources need not be online (and often are not) (although Pageblank should provide issue number, page numbers, and other citation information -- and for the online references he provided, should repair the links in his above comment if possible).

The article contains sourced information in the article that TH Canadian revenues surpassed those of McD in 2002 (please do not delete it -- it remains relevant); if you have a source showing that the position is now reversed, that would be important information for the article. Skeezix1000 17:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your question in the comments as to the relevance of TH surpassing McD, it is relevant because McD is the largest restaurant chain in the world, and TH surpassing it in Canada was an important milestone for TH and widely-reported.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeezix1000 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about the F&H link not working, but you can see that it is the July 2004 issue that I'm referring to. And I found something that should settle the issue. The last year for which McDonald's released data (in the PR I referenced above), they said they had C$2.8 billion in system sales. Wendy's AR for 2005 says (on page 4) that Tim Hortons Canadian restaurants have average sales of C$1.7 million. Multiplied by the number of Canadian restaurants, and we have over C$4 billion in system-wide sales (See Wendy's here:[6]). This means that unless McDonald's grew by a third in 2005, Tim Hortons is far and away the largest restaurant chain in Canada.Pageblank 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim Hotons does NOT recycle?

I think we need to mention the fact that many people do not like the fact that Tim Hortons dose not recycle the cups they use. It's a well knowen that Tim Hortons cups are put into regular garbage bins, that are eventually picked up by a garbage truck (obviously) and then dumped at a landfill. The cups can easily be recycled, yet Tim Hortons does not offer "recycle bins" in the storess. Tim Hortons offers a 5% discount to any person who use's a travel mug when getting coffee (has to be a Tim Hortons travel mug though), but the thing is they don't promote this or even sign it anywere in any of the stores. Take a look at this: http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about4767.html - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs) .

That's a good point. Given how many TH coffees are sold in any given day, and that the technology exists to recycle the cups (Toronto's Green Bin program, for example, accepts used paper cups), the landfill implications are huge. We need a verifiable source, however, in respect of TH's lack of commitment to recycling, so we can add something to the article. Skeezix1000 12:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I notice that my local Timmy's has put recycling bins in. -Dhodges 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this week, while walking past the TH at Queen and Victoria in Toronto, that the entrance now has a large recycling sign on it. I didn't go in, and haven't been in a TH in awhile, but it looks like, based on the signage I saw and the bins seen by Dhodges that TH has instituted a new recycling program. Skeezix1000 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They do use recycling bins inside the stores. I would know as I work there part-time.

Weasel Words

I've added a Weasel Word template, because this article is full of Weasel Words, biased to the Tim Hortons company and Canada. Decimal10 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking?? how is saying that they are plentiful in Canada using weasel words? unless you have a real reason for the tag I plan on removing it... --T-rex 22:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble seeing examples of the "weasel words" as well. Kukini 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "weasel words" allegation is somewhat perplexing. Decimal10's latest accusations of bias involve:

1. Removal of the reference of Tim Hortons being plentiful in the Northeastern U.S. He has accused me on my talk page of being anti-American and of trying to take the U.S. "out of the article". Putting the numerous mentions of the U.S. in the article aside for a moment, the U.S.-plentiful reference was removed because the chain does not saturate the market in the N.E. U.S. (where there are less than 100 outlets in New York State, the state with the most locations) the way it does in most parts of Canada (where there is approx. one outlet per 12,500 persons).

2. Decimal10 insists on placing Rudyard Griffiths' critique in a separate section called "Criticism". Griffiths is not criticizing the chain, but is commenting on those who seek to elevate the chain to cultural icon (and, therefore, I would suggest the para. belongs in the section on Canadian culture, rather than as a stand-alone section separated from the topic to which it pertains). Based on Decimal10's edit summary ("I added criticism again. The article in the Toronto Star by Rudyard Griffiths IS criticism. The "regular" editors of this page are the most biased people I have ever come across on Wikipedia"), I am not sure that he appreciates the distinction between critiquing the chain and critiquing its alleged cultural status.

I am not sure how these two points, or anything else, constitute weasel words. Comments on these two points would be appreciated, however. Skeezix1000 11:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section should be merged with the cultural importance (something like Some have lamented Timmy's ascent to the status of cultural Icon ) - it isn't a criticism of the store. For what it's worth, the article is also surprisingly anti-Timmy's, and seems to downplay it's "cultural importence" way too much. WilyD 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd largest in U.S.

The article formerly read: Tim Hortons "was listed as the third largest coffee chain in the United States in the first quarter of 2006 (after Starbucks and Caribou Coffee)" and the source/reference for this claim read: "[7] "The 10 largest coffee chains in the US", Slashfood, June 11, 2006."

Stickguy rightfully pointed out: "For reasons unknown, Tim Hortons is classified as a "coffee shop" while "donut shops" such as rival Dunkin' Donuts, which has several times the number of U.S. locations of Tim Hortons, are not listed."

The source for the 3rd largest claim is a blog, which isn't usually a reliable source, although in this case it does cite the L.A. Times for the figures. The claim does sound dubious, though, and even some of the comments on the blog itself cast doubt on the rankings. I cannot retrieve the original L.A. Times article in which the rankings are allegedly published, to determine what kind of criteria was used (i.e. why would Tim Hortons be included, but not Dunkin Donuts or Einstein Bros, for example, both of which have more U.S. locations than Tims).

The rankings sound suspect. Absent someone retrieving the L.A. Times article so that the criteria can be assessed, the claim as to 3rd largest should be removed for the time being. Skeezix1000 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Timbits player image

Sorry about re-adding it without comment, I quickly scanned page history to first check if there was an edit summary regarding it, but didn't see one. Turns out it wasn't in the last 50 edits, that's all. Anyhow, with a section specifically about TH's community involvement, I wouldn't mind seeing an image of a Timbits player (doesn't have to be my image, any one is fine), and even a Tim Hortons camp would be nice. It'd certainly be of more use than near-identical photographs of restaurants, or an image of a billboard for the company - it's not like Toyota shows billboards for the corporation. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I originally removed the image because the picture of the player was taken from the side, and there was not clear "Timbits player" or Tim Hortons logo that could be seen on the jersey of the hockey player, so it really didn't contribute to the article. It could have been a picture of a local team re/max player for all we know. As for the picture's of the retraunts, I think they are important because they show how Tim Hortons has the same design and style at all locations, whether it be in Maine or Ontario. Decimal10 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as the photographer, obviously I can guarantee you that it's a picture of a Timbits player, not a Re/max player :P I think it served to illustrate the article, if not entirely informative like a picture with the logo would've been. If I find myself asked to photograph another Timbits hockey game, I'll be sure and get a nice shot of a jersey with the logo - but in the meantime, I personally believe it adds to the article. shrugs Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Doughnuts vs. Donuts

For the past few weeks, the article has been edited back and forth, switching the spelling of "doughnuts" to "donuts" and back again. Rather than continuing these ongoing reversions, I have reverted the spellings back to how they read pre-Sept. 29 (when the doughnut vs. donut back and forth started), and have started this section in an attempt to achieve consensus on the spelling to be used in this article. See earlier discussion.

Survey

Add "* Doughnut" or "* Donut", followed by an optional explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~.

• At this point, don't care, as long as we pick one and stick with it. Skeezix1000 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Doughnut -- According to Miriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com) the form "Donut" is a variant of the main form "Doughnut". That being said, this is the most Canadian discussion ever. Amazing. -- Chabuk 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Doughnut -- but as Skeezix1000 said, we need one and to stick with it. Donut is a variant form, but for consistency, we should use the most proper Canadian spelling. (I didn't check all of them, but every Canadian news article listed in the "Notes and References" that I checked used the doughnut spelling.) - Cafemusique 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care as long as we're consistent. For what it's worth, though, this is not a national English style debate; it's more a case of formal writing style versus marketing style. Despite the myth that "doughnut" is inherently Canadian and "donut" is inherently American, it's not even the least bit difficult to find both Canadian donuts and American doughnuts on Google. That said, the argument that we have to use "donut", just because that's the spelling Tim Hortons uses, is pretty hollow; Wikipedia is not bound by corporate style preferences. Bearcat 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Did anyone bother to check Tim's site? Donuts. Who cares about consistance with other articles if Tim's spells it this way (basically the Canadian city moving argument). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've already noted, Wikipedia is not bound by Tim Hortons' own marketing preferences. And by the way, I meant not flipping back and forth between the two spellings within this specific article; I never said or implied that I think all Canadian do(ugh)nut shop chains should necessarily conform to the same spelling. Bearcat 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Royalguard11, the spelling used by Tim Hortons was noted a long time ago, in the earlier discussion noted above. Skeezix1000 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that after, and I realize we aren't bound by what Tim Horton's does. I know I've always spelt is Donuts, but if it's spelt the other way, I don't really mind. Just an opinion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I've changed it all to donut. Because Tim Hortons does use DONUT, not DOUGHNUT. Check the website. If Tim Hortons says Donut, then it should be donut. Dunkin Donuts ... they use donut, but there is no discussion on that page if it should be donut or doughnut. Even though Donut isn't in the company name, Tim Hortons does use DONUT, so that's what it should be. I think certain people who edit this article often are trying to make this as Canadian as possible. Because Doughnut is the more common spelling in Canada. But again, Tim Hortons does use donut as the spelling. Decimal10 06:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Decimal10, it is inappropriate (and constitutes vandalism) for you to circumvent this effort at achieving Consensus. I have reverted your edits. If you wish to make a contribution to this discussion, in a manner in keeping with WP:Civility, we would welcome your input. That said, I have left a comment for you on your talk page (User talk:Decimal10#Your vandalism of Tim Hortons) asking you to stop your constant disruptive behaviour. Thank you. Skeezix1000 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't care as long as it's consistent. But, please, let's decide it here first. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care, and don't even care if it is consistent, also suddenly wondering why I am even discussing it with my level of apathy... --T-rex 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Donut Preference - the manual of style varient of english used should be that of the subject - in the case, I think that implies (but not dictates) we should use "Tim Hortons' English" to write an article about Tim Hortons, as queer as that sounds. WilyD 19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English applies to Australian, British, American, Canadian, etc. variations of the language, and doesn't cover corporate marketing decisions. Having said that, your reference to "Tim Hortons English" made me laugh. Skeezix1000 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I recognise that the MOS doesn't dictate this - I was talking about the spirit of the guideline. WilyD 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim Hortons in UK and Ireland

I just emailed them and got this back:

I would like to thank you for contacting us regarding our Tim Hortons.Please note that we only have locations in Ireland at this time. Inresponse to your inquiry please note the following locations and theproduct lines offered. City Store Address FilterCoffee, Cappuccino and Latté DonutsDublin Mace Mayor St., IFSCYes YesSpar Abbey St. (near Jervis Shopping Centre)Yes YesSpar Grafton St.(opposite Trinity College)No YesZoo Phoenix ParkNo YesAthlone SparYes YesRoscommon Spar (Petrol Station) Racecourse Rd. YesYesCastlebar Spar (Corrib Oil petrol station) Ring Rd.Yes YesGalway Spar Mainguard St.Yes YesCarlow Mace (Maxol Station) Hacketstown Rd. YesYesMidleton Spar Riversdale, Mill Rd.Yes Yes We have also developed a relationship with the Tesco supermarket chain andthe following stores currently offer Tim Hortons donuts. City Store FilterCoffee, Cappuccino and Latté DonutsArtane Tesco NoYesClarehall Tesco NoYesClearwater Tesco NoYesMaynooth Tesco NoYesDundrum Tesco NoYes We appreciate your interest in our company and thank you for contacting us. We look forward to serving you again in the near future. Regards,The TDL Group Corp.

But im sure theres one on the M25?

anyhow,this should be added! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.12.216 (talk • contribs) .

That is important information. The article already states that Tim Hortons food is available at some stores in the U.K. and Ireland, and clearly the reference to U.K. should be removed.

What isn't clear is whether or not these Irish locations constitute separate Tim Hortons outlets or not. Typically, if there is a Tim Hortons counter at, say, your local ESSO gas station or RONA home improvement centre, Tim Hortons counts that as an outlet, even if it is inside another business. But in those cases, Tims has its own cash and staff are wearing Tim Hortons uniforms. It is not clear whether or not the U.K. locations are Tim Hortons outlets or not -- is there a separate cash? is there dedicated staff serving Tim Hortons food and drink? Are these even the proper criteria to determine if they should be considered separate outlets or not? Who knows. What is clear is that Tim Hortons does not count them as outlets on its own website, and we should probably adopt the same policy for now. However, there should be a reference to the Irish locations somewhere in the article, and I will update the existing reference. Skeezix1000 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that the existing reference referred to the Irish locations as "self-serve kiosks", a fact which wasn't sourced, but which might explain why Tims doesn't include them in their outlet count.Skeezix1000 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)