Talk:Burger King/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Typo fix

I also tried to fix a typo, but I don't have permission with my account: Under Industry innovations, "In the early 1970s, Burger King was the first fast-food restaurant to offer an enclosed and air-conditioned seating area across its all of its locations" has any extra its that should be removed Explosive Cornflake (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I marked this article with a Clean-up tag. - Davodd (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Foundation date

I thought BK was founded in 1954..at least it has said that on here for a while, now I see it says founded in 1953 then 1955. Credible source? Tinton5 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is already in the article, check the history section. BK started out as Insta-BK before the company was sold to its Miami franchisee who created the comapny that exists today. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Countries currently with Burger King locations

Serbia needs to be added to the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.84.170 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Morton and Glick

I seem to remember them using radio spots with "Morton and Glick" (sp?) at some point in the mid 1990s. Anyone recall this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)}

Copy edit

Following a request at the Guild of Copy Editors, I am currently doing a full copy edit of this article. I have the following question/s:

• For Al Cabrera, is the spelling Cabrera or Cabrerra? Both are used; which is correct?

I will be working on and off on this article over the next day or so. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One "R" is correct. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it. – SMasters (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Burger King/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to promote this article to GA status.

---

Reviewer: RCSprinter123 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This failed the last time, so lets see what's improved, shall we?

Plenty of advertising, grammar, spelling, etc... cleaned up by bots though... just a couple of IP edits...

I may give you this, but work a little harder and we'll have a discussion and see what happens, OK?

Good. - Rcsprinter Talk (Reviewer)

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING AND WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE IT BETTER, A GOOD ARTICLE.

Checking against GA criteria

I think this might pass!

1. Well written:

a) I say is clear and concise, not much spelling/grammar mistakes, and anyway those will have been corrected by a bot;

b) It has a lead section, maybe a little long? Following the manual of style, maybe just pushing the boundaries a bit... No fiction, no proper lists, but layout is good.

2. Factually accuarate and verifiable:

a) Provides plenty of references in sections according to the guide to layout;

b) Plenty of references, from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Maybe!

4. Neutral:

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, but maybe a little bit of advertising slipped in there...

5. Stable

Not really changing, loads of bot edits, but not edit wars.

6. Illustrated by images - only 12 images on whole page including logo; but they are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions; all copyright and everything.

There are eight s and five s, so the majority speaks for itself! I'm not calling it yet though so do your best to correct the s and reply the discussion below.

RCSprinter123 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Tell me what you feel needs to be corrected and I will get on it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrections

Right then, well, the lead section needs shortening a little bit, maybe putting sentances in other paragraphs, deleting them altogether perhaps, just generally shortening.

You could also maybe stay right focused on the topic instead of wondering off... Of course, that may just have been expansion by other users, but it still needs working on.

I'm sure you have had a discussion on the history section before, but that was back in March, and it is still rather long when it has its own article (good providing the link though). A suitable History section for an article with its own history article should be about five lines long. It's getting all these points that make it a Good Article.

You could maybe add a few more images, at least one for each section, naturally making sure of all the copyright and so on and so forth. Now, I'm thinking this article may be leaning slightly towards the biased, advertising side. If you can revert, correct and edit all of the above you'll be well on your way to a Good Article .

Rcsprinter (Reviewer) (Talk) 17:50 26 January 2011

Done...

I have now:

-Moved a paragraph of the lead section down,

-deleted most of the History section,

-corrected a few spelling mistakes.

So what still needs doing is:

-less advertising talk,

-more pictures

and then I will make it a good article. Cheers - Rcsprinter (Talk) - (Reviewer) 17:00 28 January 2011

Overall

Pass/Fail:

This article has passed to a Good Article! All the criteria are met and the disscussion is closed.

RCSprinter123 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2011 (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.

Kid's Club?

Nothing about these? [[1]] Apple8800 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, did that wrong. It should be corrected now. I hate the kid in the wheelchair the most! Apple8800 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The introduction seems kind of biased/opinion-based. It may need a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.233.228 (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Health Department finds Burger King serves undercooked meat

I removed the copy and pasted text of this article as a copyvio. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Front logo

I've been naughty and removed the front logo here. I have replaced it with a very suitable image of a Burger King restaurant which isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article's content. I will personally re-add the image myself if someone here can accurately detail how the front logo is being used with a valid rationale under the current policy of non-free content criteria (i.e I don't want a boilerplate explanation). As it stands, the logo does not meet such a criteria. Non-free content criteria reason number one says that there is no free equivalent. While there is no free equivalent for the logo (obviously, it is a copyrighted/trademarked logo), we have an entire category of images at the Wikimedia Commons which is dedicated to having pictures related to Burger King, and there are a lot. We have a free alternative to using the Burger King logo, and I placed one of the best looking examples of such in the infobox. Is it the logo? No, but the image itself is free to use all over the encyclopedia. Another area where this image lacks its criteria is criteria number eight, contextual significance, quoting policy: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. What in this article is difficult to understand without the Burger King logo, exactly? What will a reader not understand if, instead of a logo, it is a picture of the restaurant itself? I find it difficult to prove that an image like the Burger King logo actually enhances a reader's comprehension. Like I said, if someone can give a valid explanation, I'll re-add it myself. — Moe ε 17:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also done this for Wendy's, KFC, Pizza Hut and various other restaurants. — Moe ε 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LOGO, "Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity." Including a company's logo is a very common editorial practice in reference works because of it's strong association with the brand's identity. It makes for a more professional aesthetic, and helps to reassure the reader about the subject of the article. A photo of a typical restaurant building is useful as well, but (with a very few exceptions) is not iconic enough to serve the same identification purpose as a proper logo. Powers ^T 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on a "professional aesthetic", which in my opinion varies upon who you speak to, it "help[ing] to reassure the reader about the subject of the article", can be achievable without the use of a logo or non-free content. If there were several Burger Kings, I might agree on the basis that identification through a logo would be sufficient. However, the logo that I removed appears on the restaurant itself. I don't know how much identification one would need to actually comprehend that this is the Burger King. How ignorant we are assuming our readers to be that they can't identify a restaurant other than by means of a clear-cut logo? If a logo is all that we have, a logo would be fine for identification of the article infobox, I agree there, but there is no way we can claim there no free alternative for identification purposes when we have an entire Commons category detailing these chains of restaurants (or any other company for that matter). That would directly go against our non-free content criteria policy. Please, also read WP:LOGO for yourself: It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria. — Moe ε 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos of buildings are not valid alternatives to the logo images. They show buildings, which are not realistically useful for identification purposes (witness the common case where a new restaurant moves into an existing building; the new restaurant inherits the onld one's appearance but not its identity). Yes, in many of these cases, a version of the logo is visible, but if the logo is of a size to actually be useful, then it cannot be de minimis and the image isn't really free anyway. Powers ^T 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If these images aren't free, then there might be a bigger problem on Commons [2], however if these truly are free images, then they are alternatives to non-free images. I really am not convinced that someone is going to be confused on whether this is really Burger King based on File:BK no. 5500, Colma.JPG. I am pretty sure anyone familiar with the subject of the article they are looking for, can be assured of what they are looking at regardless of the logo. That is like making a broad statement that the only thing an editor is looking at is the logo, and then skipping to the next article just to make sure we have a Burger King article. How is someone going to misidentify the Burger King article without the logo, is a question I am really posing. The only way that would actually be conceivable, is that they are only looking for a logo and not actually reading the text. The article has significant commentary to assure readers that they are on the correct article. — Moe ε 22:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your changes and have reverted the image to the original based upon WP:BRD.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A laughable excuse for re-inserting contested non-free material into Wikipedia. Since I haven't gotten a reply yet that actually satisfies the non-free content criteria, I ask you then, do you have a valid reason for keeping these images? — Moe ε 04:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all the logos are not contested, they have valid fair use rationales and have been vetted as meeting NFCI 2, which states The image can be used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic, for more than 5 years now. You opinion runs contrary to the fair usage policies of Wikipedia. If your claim were to hold true, every corporate article on WP that uses a trademarked company logo on the main article is improper, and that is a great deal of articles from Audi to Zappos and they would all be contested. The only one here who is contesting these images is you, and you are wrong in regards to validity of the images. In response to the WP:Logo claim you make, you have left out the other part of the rule that the Non-Free usage policy has precedence - This section offers advice on applying the non-free content criteria to logos. It does not replace the policy, which is fully applicable to logos..--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOGO is a guideline, not a policy, and I suggest you go find out and understand what the difference in that is, because they are not one in the same. A guideline simply offers advice and gives editors a means of how things are commonly done, where policies are the actual rules, and WP:NFCC takes precedence, not WP:LOGO. Second, because other violations of policy exist, doesn't mean we have to keep violating it. Like I said, on articles where the only thing we have is a non-free logo, a logo is fine. Most companies on Wikipedia probably won't have a free alternative to the logo. However, if we have an entire WikiMedia Commons page of free images dedicated to topics like Burger King, then it is replaceable. Logos are an appropriate means of identification only if we don't have a free image to replace it, and we do. A template rationale on the image description page doesn't mean jack if it isn't true. Lastly, I suggest you re-read the very thing you wrote, that being what WP:LOGO said: This section offers advice on applying the non-free content criteria to logos. It does not replace the policy, which is fully applicable to logos. What that means is that the policy is WP:NFCC, and that means logos fall under it just as much as any other non-free image and that if it doesn't meet NFCC, it isn't a valid use anymore. — Moe ε 12:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo images used for identification meet the NFCC in every way, and have been determined by consensus to do so in every case in which they've come up. Your personal interpretation of policy does not override that consensus. Powers ^T 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Moe, you are the one that quoted WP:Logo as a justification for the change in your second post. I was pointing out that it clearly states that WP:NFCC is the pertinent policy. Further if you read my last post, I state which part of NCFI (#2) in which the use of the logo is permitted. As Powers has stated, you are the one in error here in your interpretation of the policy about the use of non-free logos. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just another thing: outside the US, Burger King restaurants use a different building format. An individual who is outside the United States may not associate the building you chose as a Burger King location. Additionally, new locations no longer use that format structure with the mansard roof, so the location is not representative of a portion of locations in the United States. Finally, as Powers stated, this is already an consensus derived acceptable use of a corporate logo as an identifying method of said company. I pointed this out to you earlier as being defined in section 2 of WP:NFCC which is part of the fair use section of the MoS guidelines. You are picking and choosing which part of the policies to defend your position as opposed to reading the whole police, which is more nuanced than your black and white reading of those cherry picked sections. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)