Talk:Hooters/Archives/2012

Article name

Shouldn't this article be Hooters restaurant? It it is really about the restaurant and not the other stuff the corporations run. Vegaswikian 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Well, there's now four things with Hooters. The band, the restaurant (generic), and the two chains that each run some of the restaurant (Hooters, Inc and Hooters of America, Inc). Maybe it's time Hooters just brought you to a disambig page, and then you picked which of the four you meant? --Randal L. Schwartz 4 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Age, alcohol

What's the word on how old you have to be to get in and if alcoholic beverages are sold? -- Anon

If that's a serious question, I've never seen a Hooters without alcohol (and I've been to many!), and it's generally licensed as a "family restaurant", meaning that I've never seen a Hooters that didn't permit children. However, I would bet the rent money that letting minors drink is forbidden everywhere. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as the Hooters restaurants are concerned there is no age restrictions to enter and buy food and non-alcoholic beverages but to purchase alcohol in all U.S. states and territories is 21 years of age or older. The Hooters Casino/Hotel in Las Vegas is a different story, Most Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos have a standing rule that minors are unwelcome on their property unless they and their parent/guardian are guests of the hotel, attending a show or are eating at a restaurant on property and of course minors are most certainly NOT welcome on the casino floor. Misterrick 07:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooters is a family restaurant.

Difference Between Hooters, Inc. and Hooters of America

I am confused, Can someone please explain the different between the Clearwater, Florida based Hooters, Inc. and the Atlanta, Georgia based Hooters of America. Who ultimately is the parent company who owns the rights to the Hooters name and logo etc. and which company franchises the Hooters restaurants. It looks like you have two totally separate companies both claiming to be the main Hooters company. Misterrick 07:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooters Inc is the original six, but they didn't get very far. Hooters of America was originally just a franchisee, but had more money and could move things further. Most of the Hooters in the world are actually franchised through Hooters of America, and only recently the trademark rights were transferred from Hooters Inc to Hooters of America and reverse licensed back to Hooters Inc. Each of them owns some property rights in what you would call "Hooters", hence the need to make various deals clear in the articles. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I nominated this as NPOV for two reasons: 1)There's a controversy section that presents nothing in favor of the restaurant and 2)This article is all about Hooters girls, but mentions almost nothing on food.

I'm not sure how you want it to be fixed. The "food" is actually not really that exciting to talk about. I suppose we could include a menu graphic or something. And unfortunately, anything we say positive about the restaurant will probably just be removed as being sexist in this politically correct environment. --Randal L. Schwartz 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then add it back. Wiki can't be censored simply because of someone's POV. (And you haven't even tried to make any such edits yet.) John Smith's 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as any controversy is cited to a notable source is doesn't matter if it is sexist or not. Having said that the Controversy section as it stands has no sources, which needs to be rectified. Ashmoo 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking the neutrality tag off. This article seems pretty balanced to me. It's certainly not NPOV - the article asserts, correctly, that Hooters is controversial in many respects, gives Hooters' own version of the story, and doesn't itself cirticise Hooters. mgekelly 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "weasel words" tags from the Controversy section. There's no reason to have those in there. The article does not state "The uniform is considered to be objectification of women", it says, "The uniform is considered by some to be objectification of women". Regardless of whether or not you personally think Hooters objectifies women and has a demeaning environment the fact remains that many people DO feel this way and having it say "by some" makes that point very clear.

Er, the "by some" begs the question, "Who feels this way?" What we call "weasel words" simply are those statements that make unsubstantiated claims. The statement would be better written, "Such-and-such organization considers the uniform to objectify women (and here's the credible source that demonstrates their opposition)." That clarifies concerns of verifiability, just as it does concerns of neutral point of view. -- JeffBillman (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooters' chili is great, and their seafood is quite good as well. Of course, I won't mention that in the article, as that would be POV. I will say, however, that I've taken my wife & kids there, and they loved it as well. (And that would be original research, also disallowed in the article. ;-) ) -- JeffBillman (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooters MasterCard

Not sure where it fits in or if it fits in, but the Hooters MasterCard is very popular among those seeking to rebuild their credit because it is reputedly relatively easy to obtain.

International

Get fucked RandalSchwartz ...how dare you make an assumoption like that - the point I am trying to make is about the "trouble" behind the various attempts of Hooters in entering an international market..... get you facts straight before you intitiate a slanderous statement like that --Mikecraig 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I merely said I "suspected". You have a history of making Australian Hooters "special". If your edits had only been parallel to the other 20(?) countries that have restaurants, I'd have no complaint. Add all you want, but don't make Oz special. It's not. It's just another "international" location. --Randal L. Schwartz 08:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex discrimination cases outside the US?

The only references to lawsuits on these grounds are specifically about the US (hence references to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), but as Hooters is international it's important to cover other places properly as well. In Europe especially (where there are often very strong sex-discrimination laws) what is Hooters' situation legally? 81.158.0.152 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, it seems to me that some of the most important cases, such as the Jarman Gray case, are not included in the legal history here. That case has far more to do with honestly describing what kind of a place Hooters really is than most of these other cases. See original petition on The Smoking Gun website. That case was EEOC approved by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.42.121 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hooters logo.jpg

Image:Hooters logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of international locations: vote to remove!

Why has that been added? it's just a list that will get out of date. It doesn't add anything to the article, and it repeats information that is available on the company website. I suggest it be removed --Randal L. Schwartz 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Why does 'Hooters' take you straight here, rather than to the disambiguation page. At the very least there is the band. The disambiguation page does exist, since it's linked at the top of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.89.154 (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is common pattern at WP when there's one "main" meaning, but a lot of other subordinate meanings. --Randal L. Schwartz 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hooters in Peru closed in 2010 or 2009. now a TGI Fridays restaurant is where hotters restaurant was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.250.119 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge

There are currently two one-paragraph stubs for Hooters, Inc. and Hooters of America that should be merged into this article. The two stubs have little context to explain them, and would be more useful merged into the history section of this article. Horologium (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the airline is being revived. While I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, I think that recognizing the complex relationship between the brand, the two companies, the other franchisees, and the peripheral items, like the casino, the racing, and the airline is useful. So if it could be kept clear in a merged article, go for it. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been little debate on this proposal, so I am going to go through with it the first weekend of the 2008. I'll make sure to clarify the ownership status of the various subsidiaries of each of the two chains, which will require some rewriting after the merging and redirecting is completed. Horologium (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The merge has been completed. Both of the "subsidiary" articles are now redirected to this one, and the history section was rewritten to explain the relationship between the two companies. Horologium (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Now to fix all the linked redirects carefully, so that the links get proper renaming treatment. As in [[Hooters|Hooters of America]] so that the original naming is preserved. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed all the redirects, as indicated. I didn't bother with the Talk pages. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"...in popular culture"

The section is a trivia section which is totally unreferenced. I will wait a couple of weeks to allow those interested to find reliable sources for everything in that section; after that, anything that is not sourced will get jettisoned. The trivia section (and the equally pointless list of locations, which I deleted) comprised about two thirds of the article, which is just ridiculous. Horologium (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo controversy?

Is there any information we can put in on how the hooter's logo is infamous for looking like breasts?71.113.8.167 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

wait...

THis isn't exactly about the article but why do they have hooter girls have to dress this way? To impress boys?--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably to impress anyone who likes attractive women. They're a part of the "ambience". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.192.170 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hooters as in the musical instrument?

Just wondering why neither this page or the disambiguation page mentions hooters as in the horn-type of instrument.

Public Perception

This section has two photos, which I nominate for deletion. They are of low quality, and serve no purpose.LorenzoB (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Closures

Can someone explain the logic of having a closures section in this article? Restaurants open and close all the time; the idea that any franchise would close some low-performing locations from time to time strikes me as completely unremarkable. Townlake (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I had the same thought when I first read the article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a commercial, at least at the beginning

"a family oriented restaurant with an educated, hardworking waitstaff of beautiful waitresses, while employing other hardworking males/females as cooks"

Yeah, this sounds way too much like a sales pitch than an article. Changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.19.37 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Waitstaff"

Some might consider the noun "waitstaff" as maybe something of a neologism: more importantly, it's also specifically North American (although admittedly the article has an American subject), and as such - perhaps - it has no place in a supposedly international encyclopedia. 86.179.205.163 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As you said, the article HAS an American subject, however there ARE franchises in other nations. Therefore, I agree with your opinion. That said, what IS an internationally known and accepted term? To be honest, I never noticed while I was abroad.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Waiting staff should be fine. I changed it today. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

History

The history section states that the first Hooters opened on April Fools Day but doesn't state the year.PurpleChez (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)