Talk:Ruby Tuesday (restaurant)

Tile floor

I work for Ruby Tuesday (the St. Louis area franchise), and I am one to tell you that I have never heard of Ruby's having three signature items - the double picture, the upside down one, and the floor tile. In fact, I am 100% sure that neither of the two stores I have worked at have a misplaced floor tile. I'll look around the restaurant tomorrow and see if I can find the double picture and the upside-down one... but I've never heard of that before! Whoever added that to the article, where'd you get that info from? --209.145.160.65 08:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have worked in many Ruby Tuesday restaurants and can confirm that more often than not, those items do exist. Typically the misplaced floor tile appears somewhere in the bar area. However, the upside-down artifact is not always a picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.87.244 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

It seems unlikely that this information, even if true, can be cited, and therefore should not be added to the article. Chilled616 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Name

Can we get a citation that the restaurant is indeed named after the Rolling Stones song? I couldn't find anything about it on their website. PolarisSLBM 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The restaurant chain doesn't actually claim that the restaurant is named after the Rolling Stones' song.

As of my article revision on March 5, 2012, a citation was added verifying that the restaurant name is after the song by The Rolling Stones. A more concrete citation was added March 26, 2012 from the founder of the company confirming the origins of the name. Chilled616 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

The information contained in the Controversy section isn't really relevant. This seems like a one time deal that doesn't really affect the company at all. I propose that it be deleted. 207.203.147.20 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This came up in edit summaries a while back... I agree. Done. /Blaxthos 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I have trimmed this per WP:GTL. If there is a fucking reason to include thses articles can it please be discussed here? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO (the specific section of the guideline you are quoting) - The optional See also section provides a bulleted list of blue internal links to related Wikipedia articles. These are major competitors of these companies (Re: all the other edits you made), as such they represent other competitors for the market segment and demographic Ruby's et al are targeting, thus they are related by the field of business that they are in the American pub style chain restaurant. Just as the Ford Mustang and Chevy Corvette compete for the same market segment in the American muscle and are often compared as such. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See also is not a link farm. There are probably 20-30 more links that could be added by your logic. Why are these perticular ones being added? You should provide an explaination per the guideline. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You personally know of twenty or thirty national casual dining chains? Funny, after twenty five years in the hospitality field I only know of the three or four listed here. These are the three largest competitors in the field, they are highly relevant as such. Just as you cannot mention McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King when discussing the Fast food burger chains, the same principal applies here.

This is not an example of WP:not by a major long shot. These links are not indiscriminate links to random restaurant chains but to those in the same field, as stated the American pub casual dining chains or the parent companies if they are part of a large group like Darden or OSI. I believe the policy that you are using is WP:Idontlikeit, so please stop.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to include links to competitors here (or vice-versa). They have no direct relevance to an article about this restaurant, and add no additional content. Repeatedly adding them is considered disruptive behavior. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So is going to dozens of pages and removing them out of hand. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"dozens of pages"? That is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I was just trying to clean up some see also sections. I still think that some of these links are unneccessary but will not edit war here. Good luck. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

is the picture in the Re-branding section needed? Breawycker (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "needed" is intended to mean in that context, nor am I exactly sure to which picture you're referring. I don't see any problems with any of the pictures in the article... is there a specific concern you have with the picture (or its location in the article)? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Size and expanse of chain

It may be interesting to mention the exit from the state of California (except for one location remaining at the San Jose Airport); I believe that there were many in the state at one point. Jim (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

B-Class Assessment

I am looking to have this article assessed and upgraded to B-Class quality. Any comments, ideas, and suggestions on what to improve would be appreciated. Chilled616 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that it is B-Class. To improve the article, try to provide a citation for things which are likely to be challenged. I have tagged these within the article with . If you were looking to try and make the article a GA standard, I would be happy to help and provide more detailed suggestions for improvement for that criteria.Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added references for almost all of the WP:Citation needed tags. I am considering removing the other material as I can not find an adequate citation. I have input additional content recently, and plan to add more to the History section to improve it. I would like to get this article to GA-class, and would like to hear any suggestions you have. Also, you downgraded the article from Mid-importance to Low-importance. Was that a mistake? If not, could you please explain? Chilled616 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The low importance rating is appropriate as it is not a major player in the American Pub style restaurant business. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictures Requested

I would like to add pictures to the article that are not of the front of the buildings. Interior pictures, a picture of one of their race cars, or any other relevant picture that is free and not copyrighted would be appreciated. With the addition, I would like to get rid of at least one of the many redundant building pictures in the article. Any thoughts? Chilled616 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant Closings

At the end of the article, it says that all of the employees of the 95 stores were laid off. I work at RT and that's not true - if there were other stores in the area, employees were allowed to transfer. Also, nowhere on the MSN article cited does it say they were. Can we change this?  :) --97.91.210.39 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am removing that sentence. Some of everything (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruby Tuesday (restaurant)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

• No dablinks
• Link issues
  • FN#6, 20, 38, 39 and 41 are dead
    • Per WP:DEADREF i'm not asking them to be fixed, but if a replacement is available, please add it :)

General comments

• Text on captions might not be aligned as center.
• No information about the international performance of the company is available?
• Comment: I've counted some 10 to 12 references which has Ruby Tuesday, Inc. as the publisher/source. This is allarming considering that it represents about 20% of all references. The article may need more 3P sources, if available, of course.

Lead

• The lead doesn't correctly summarize the article and might be rewritten from scratch.
• "The concept was founded" → "The company was founded"

• Later, the article says "The corporation was formed in 1996", so this along with the line above can create confusion about the actual foundation of the company.

• "between their various concepts" → "between their various franchises" would be better?
• I won't comment further, since i greatly encourage the nominator to rewrite the lead to meet WP:LEAD.

Etymology

• Good, but it will do better as a subsection of History, I think.

History

• Good
• I made some minor edits on the section.

Emerging concepts

• Good.
• I made some minor edits on this section.

Headquarters

• Good, but think bout merging this section into the History one.

Distribution

• "Throughout the first halve of the company history" → "Throughout the first halve of the company's history"

• Please make it "Thoughout the first half of the company's history" BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Way better. Thanks. I overlooked "halve" XD —Hahc21 05:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The company owned and operated 750 Ruby Tuesday restaurants, while domestic and international franchisees operated 43 and 53 restaurants, respectively" → Please rewrite, i didn't clearly understood the phrase.
• Per WP:COMMONPLACE, countries goes delinked.
• "An excerpt from the 2011 Annual Report:" → Transform it into a reference at the end of the quotation.
• I made some minor edits on the section.

Well, I'll stop here by now. After those issues are solved, I continue with the review. I'm putting the article on hold. —Hahc21 04:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is actually showing up still as under review, not on hold. I didn't want to mess with the GA nominee template in case you'd changed your mind. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

o.0 I forgot to change the status. Thanks for the advice. —Hahc21 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am actively working to improve the article and it's content. I have been working quite a bit recently and afterwards I will be on vacation. I have not had the time to address the immediate needs, but will definitely be doing so shortly. Thank you for your feedback and your patience. Chilled616 (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chilled, i appreciate your efforts, but the article hasn't been touched since June 25. I'll wclose this review as not listed and you may renominate it later after you fix all the issues on it. Cheers! —Hahc21 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ruby Tuesday (restaurant). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010202055200/http://www.rubytuesday.com/ to http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/2539/2973
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010202055200/http://www.rubytuesday.com/ to http://www.rubytuesdaycookbook.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010202055200/http://www.rubytuesday.com/ to http://www.wokhay.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)