Jump to content

Talk:Little Chef

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 13 April 2024 (Signing comment by 60.241.161.153 - "mentioning bbc article"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent BBC article

[edit]

There's a rent retrospective and podcast on the history of Little Chef.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68796980

Little Chefs: What happened to roadside diner chain By Jon Douglas, Producer, Radio 4's Toast podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.161.153 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK Diner

[edit]

Why is this mentioned in the article? It isn't sourced and the claim that it's "the main rival" to Little Chef is contestable - as far as I can tell by looking at their website, OK Diner have 8 restaurants all contained within an area spanning from Middlesbrough to Birmingham. Blankfrackis (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lewis Smith's "review"

[edit]

Come on, this is a bit silly. Victor Lewis Smith is a comedy writer - his "review" of Little Chef is hardly a proper review, any more than Monty Python's parrot sketch is a review of pet shops.

Even if you pretend it's a genuine review, it's completely inane. Little Chefs are located next to motorway service stations, miles from civilisation. They're not competing with Angus Steak Houses (whatever they are) or some eatery in Crouch End (wherever that is, is it anywhere near Inverness by any chance?) - they're competing with Burger King and McDonald's drive-ins. And compared to McDonald's evil breakfast muffins with reconstituted "eggs" (recipe: break 100 eggs, pour yolks into narrow condom, put inside wider condom along with whites, bake for 5 minutes, slice and serve), Little Chef's Olympic Breakfast is a complete gourmet extravaganza. Plus, you can ask for it after 10:30am without the possibility of having to turn into Michael Douglas and machine-gun everyone present.

Some of the other linked reviews completely miss the point as well. (e.g. "my local pub does much better food" - even if I knew where that was, it's not as if I'll be driving past it on my way from Portsmouth to Pwllheli.) The whole point of Little Chef, as a national chain, is that it provides a consistent quality of food wherever you are, even if it's the arse end of nowhere. And as such, in my opinion, it's MUCH better than the alternatives. 217.155.20.163 02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has a grudge?

[edit]

This is incredibly biased and makes a lot of criticisms without citing any acceptable sources. I think a contributor may have a grudge against the chain. 81.152.72.43 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Little Chef are, to put it politely, a very low quality outfit. But of course Wikipedia articles shouldn't be POV 84.68.2.55 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, bear a grudge against poor food. It's difficult to refute a non-specific criticism. Why don't you (81.152.72.43) specify to what, exactly, you refer? Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little Chefs are a standing joke and a byword for awful food, poor service and high prices. The only reason anybody uses them is that they are in the middle of nowhere and there's no alternative nearby. However, it's true that some people (a declining minority) don't mind 1970s style frozen chips, poor quality deep fried sausages etc. Maybe 81.152.72.43 is one of them? Everybody knows what Little Chefs are like so their customers are a self selecting group. Everyone else just keeps on driving. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above comments, I've tagged the article for a POV check.Acather96 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV or not, when people prefer McDonald's to your resturant you know you've got some way to go! Whatever happened to AJ's, that's what i want to know. There used to be one on the A10 between Ely and Cambridge and i seem to remember another in the region of Hunstantion. A lot better, and lovely milkshakes! (I cared about such things in the 90's). The one between Ely and Cambridge turned into a Little thief and then into a curry resturant, but it still has "AJ Rabbit" stained glass! 86.142.170.125 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, Ely Cathedral ought to rescue those stained glass windows before whoever owns it in future decides to get rid of them. They probably only want "jesus-y" ones mind you. 86.142.170.125 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many restaurants?

[edit]

The infobox says 192, the intro says 186. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their website currently claims 180 - 180 too many mind. 84.68.2.55 (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 175! South Cave West (A63)near Hull and Guildford (A3)were the 2 latest casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.161.210 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Rainton Northbound (A1) is also due to close in January 2010 as a result of a motorway upgrade.[reply]

Updated to 173 Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

This is an assessment review of this article. The article had two banners with a C-class rating and two with a B-class rating. I have downgraded them all to C-class based on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team Assessment B-Class criteria checklist.

Here are my findings:
1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

✗ Fail No it is not, there are whole sections that lack sources and the sources present are poorly formatted

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

✓ Pass It does provide a good deal of coverage of the subject

3. The article has a defined structure.

✓ Pass The article meets the standards for article formatting.

4. The article is reasonably well-written.

✓ Pass The article is well written, but the spelling is funny

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

✓ Pass There are plenty of images with captions, an infobox and other supporting materials

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

✗ Fail It is well written in plain English; However, there is a problem with noted municipalities the chain is located in and roadways they are on. The article assumes that the reader is familiar with the British highway system and communities. Wikilink the communities and roadways so people from other English speaking nations know what an "A1" is and the Warwick it is referring to is not the one in Rhode Island. Finally, While I understand what is meant by the term "administration" in British English, not all readers will - please link the term in the article, as well as the lead, so us Yanks will know you mean receivership.

Source this baby up and it will meet the B-class standards. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Looking at the edit history, it appears that the previous logo File:LittleChefLogo.png was part of this article for a number of years. Anyone know why the old logo (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Chef&oldid=424326176 for example) was removed from the article? Wouldn't it be better to incorporate the image into the company's history? I first thought it was a WP:FAIRUSE issue, but the various old logos available under Category:Logos from Brands of the World eliminates that as a possibility. I'd like to suggest that someone re-introduce the old logo for historical purposes. Thanks. 67.101.5.114 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do when I get back to editing this article, after I take a break from the seemingly never-ending but strangely enjoyable image work. Regards, Acather96 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fast food

[edit]

It seems that this is counted in lists and playlists as a chain of fast food retrauns. Little Chef is not fast food, so what can be done about this?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takeover of Happy Eater

[edit]

Listed as 1986, but Happy Eater article states that it was acquired by them in 1995 via their takeover of Trusthouse Forte (who had acquired them in 1986). 1995 sounds more plausible in light of fact that the last Happy Eater had apparently been converted or closed down by 1997 (two years from takeover to convert the chain sounds reasonble, eleven doesn't).

Ubcule (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Little Chef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Little Chef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Little Chef. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Chef is dead

[edit]

I have had reports all over social media from plenty of friends and various colleagues that Little Chef ceased to exist today. The remaining restaurants have been renamed (I forget what) and hopefully the staff can keep their jobs, but as a brand it's dead.

None of this has made it to reliable sources yet, so strictly speaking I'm violating WP:CRYSTAL by saying it's defunct; however I don't believe anyone would reasonably consider this original research - they can't all be lying. Indeed, I'd make the counter-argument that you can't verify that Little Chef hasn't closed, and verifying that a company is still trading is normally pretty straightforward. I'll keep hunting for sources that confirm its demise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're a NUTTER! Why are you adding uncited information? Were they out of NUTS at your nearest shop and so you thought you'd create your own nuttiness on here? NUTTER! 87.113.2.73 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Wikipedian, not a squirrel :-P Anyway, the Daily Telegraph has picked up the story today, so at least we now have a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Little_Chef&oldid=1218803253"