User talk:Jerem43/BK archive

"Competitive products"[edit]

Hi Jeremy, I would ask that you don't ban USFac until the end of Dec. This is a class and they are learning about Wikipedia rules. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USFac (talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points on your defense of the above title. The products themselves are not "competitive." People, businesses, teams, etc are competitive, sandwiches are not. Also, only the first word of a heading, unless it is a proper noun, is capitalized.

That being said, the current heading title (ie you current title) is still better than anything that either of us have come up with thusfar, however. Any other ideas? youngamerican (yo) 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TenderCrisp[edit]

I am trying to keep the pages for the BK products consistant in layout (Probably should create a standard layout for them) and respond to comments from other users, e.g. the fact that there should be a description of the article at the begining. I also try to keep an eye on my spelling, it is bad...

The facts are of concern to me when others edit the articles, some people don't have put opinions instead of facts regarding the BK products. I have some inside info as a former salaried manager of a now defunct BK franchisee.

I'm going to try to create some more stuff soon

Jerem43 05:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have any friends at BK, bge them to bring back the Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBQ TenderCrisp[edit]

When does that come out? This is the best news that I've heard in weeks :) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a test market sandwich, I saw it advertised at the Burger King in Westborough, MA on its reader board. BK could let it go national if it sells well.
Jerem43 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has finally made its way to the Mid Atlantic/Rust Belt region. Thanks for the heads up last Nov. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King Vandalism[edit]

Hey, thanks for the message. I keep an eye on this article and I have noticed that there has been some vandalism since the article has come off semi-protection. However, 11 incidents in five days isn't really enough to warrant it being taken back to WP:RFPP. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it continues then i'll consider nominating it there again for a longer period. Cheers -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King products[edit]

hi. I just want to let you know that I changed the title of the article to List of Burger King products to fit better with the whole naming format. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and by the way....YUM! --Адам12901 ^T/_C 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have It Your Way[edit]

I saw you took out my article about the demise of Have it Your Way. I didn't understand your comment "Advertising information is wrong article)". Can you please elaborate? Stevenworr 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is advertising related and belongs in the Burger King Advertising article. The "Advertising information is wrong article" comment should have read "Advertising information is in the wrong article" a typo on my part.

Jerem43 12:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the transition using the queues tagged as Have it our way not useful? It wasn't really advertising, so much as a mode of operation to migrate away from cooking the burgers on the spot to the style where it all got cooked in advance. Stevenworr 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of mixed in its settings...

The Have It Your Way jingle is advertising, while the preparation method is historical to the preparation. BK is going towards (back to) a no hold method of preparation, but they are still developing the equipment- probably 2-3 years until they get the cooking equipment ready. The problem is volume, the old methods were not sufficient for a modern QSR and they deployed the holding methods used today. The holding methods have changed quite a bit in the last 25 years, buns are always fresh toasted today verses being held in a steam table.

Actually, you will find that BK was using holding methods in the way back days, in the aforementioned steam tables. Also, the microwaves that they use replaced steam injected warmers. (That is from some old timers I have worked with over the years).

I guess it is subjective, I see the Have It Your Way reference as advertising, the cooking methods is a historical to the menu. The edit I made was in regards to the secondary information in the entry, i.e. the inclusion of the lyrics.

Jerem43 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BK article ratings[edit]

A stub article rated by the WikiProject Food and Drink, generally means that the article gives some information, but unless someone already knows what the product is the article is not specific and needs to be greatly expanded. The Start category gives more information, probably has a picture with it and is generally broken into sections. For a broad over all recommendation, I would suggest a small amount of history, information on marketing the products, sales figures, packaging info., nutrition info., pictures, info on competitors versions, possible usage in popular culture (ie. seen in movies or written about specifically in books such as Fast Food Nation), any changes that may have been made to the product over the years, and make sure you use notes and references for any relevant information used (see food for examples of proper references). It is appropriate to have someone else rate your articles as well, so that was a good idea. If you have any specific questions on certain articles, let me know and I will see what I can suggest. There is more information on the project's rating scale here WikiProject Food and drink: Assessment, stop by and sign the member list as well seeing as you are working on numerous articles related to food. I am working on ideas for a monthly newsletter and being on that list, I will make sure you get a copy.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 20:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, if you have extensively edited an article and want to do a re-assessment feel free to message me and I will take a look at it.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Angus burger (Burger King)[edit]

If you haven't seen yet, I edited the format of the notes and works cited on this page which can help extensively when the articles become bigger. This way you do not have an excessive amount of notes inside the text of the article, which can become cumbersome. I've been using Chicago format for all of my articles in this way and it helps for consistency in the WikiProject, but not a requirement obviously.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BK Chicken Tenders[edit]

I just reassessed this one as it is somewhat more informative than a Stub would be. Sometimes I go through too quickly. These used to be my absolute favorite when they came out, I hated when they turned them into shaped pieces, the quality of the product suffered and lost me as a customer as that was the only thing I ate there. I just thought I throw my opinion out there. Please allow me officially welcome you to the WikiProject Food and Drink as well. Let me know a good Did You Know that... question from the articles you are working on so that I can add it to the Food Portal next month.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Report[edit]

I think it doesn't qualify the report as a soapbox. Let's consider these points...

Point 1 (Propaganda or advocacy): The report as I quote in the reference, from Reuters, and Retuers obtained it from an organization's report. Now, will Reuters report news just to advertise certain company?
Point 2 Self-promotion: I don't work at any of those companies, so it's not self promotion.
Point 3 Advertising: I'm not advertising a product or saying which company is better than others in terms of their products.

It would not be fair if I add the report to fast food instead because it only measures companies based in USA and the report contains more than just fast food companies. I also find it offended because your reverts are shoot-now-and-ask-later. For furthur discussion, please bring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record Task Force instead of my talk page. Thanks. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]