Talk:The Cheesecake Factory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Calorie Content[edit]

I am wondering if there should be a section in the article about the outstandingly high calorie content of the food. a quick check of their nutritional information shows that only their salads and small sandwiches contain less than 1000 calories or 20 grams of fat, and that for years they have attempted to hide this information until required to release it due to federal regulations. Even their "Weight Management California Salad" contains over 40 grams of fat.

http://calorielab.com/news/2007/07/28/calorie-pusher-comes-to-town-the-cheesecake-factory-hits-rochester/

  • This article doesn't mention the ownership of the Grand Lux Cafe. Nyrmetros 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a press release or a paraphrase of company provided information. Some counter point and criticism would be welcome.Wideeyedraven 08:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to see if anything of this sort was in the article. The atrocious lack of healthy content in the food definitely is note-worthy, and without it, slants the article. BLGM5 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

After the double undo of BLGM5, I have to put this in discussion: The unit calories is used in a way which might be general practice, but is scientificly wrong. For one thing, the standard unit of energy measure is Joule not Calories and for another, which is even more important, it must be kCal or kJ respectively. The other way would be to factor the number with 1000, if you insist using Cal. (Please comment or freeze the article to prevent an undo-loop.) SumedokiN (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is about food. Not energy units. In America, food is measured by caloric content, not kilojoules or anything else equally as stupid. BLGM5 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and Praise[edit]

If you have to wait that long, doesn't that mean the : ) food is good?

To whoever asked that... Goodness no. I've seen the wait for a table at Denny's hit 90 minutes on a Saturday morning, and the food there is about as ordinary American as it can possibly be. CosmicJester 11:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources?[edit]

The Cheesecake Factory article in its current state does not reference even a single source of information. This is a violation of Wikipedia's quality standards. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more details. It may be necessary to add the "This article does not cite its references or sources" warning to the top of the page if this is not corrected.

Kem78 07:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Added the warning after giving this article some time to be edited.
Kem78 04:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see if I can improve this one a bit sometime soon. In the meantime, I'm taking out the remark "Diners have also complained that despite the generous portions, the quality of the food is pedestrian," which is not only unsourced and weasel-words, but also completely contradictory to the opinion of *every single person* I've ever met who has been to a Cheesecake Factory (about 20, from all different locations and walks of life). The food is far from pedestrian. Blue Crest 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, "pedestrian" would be more praise than I'd be willing to give it. Granted, I've only had it twice, but everyone I've talked to about it here (D.C. area) thought it was lousy. Also, "generous portions" is not a good thing - you pay a lot for more food than you can possibly eat at one sitting. Fasrad (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking out the "Chris's Crazy Chocolate Cake" part, because, that isn't on the menu. They have Chris's Outragous Cake and Craig's Crazy Carrot Cake Cheesecake.

Fair use rationale for Image:CheesecakeFactoryLogo1.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:CheesecakeFactoryLogo1.png 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 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 08:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory[edit]

For many people in Europe the only reason they've heard of the company is through the US comedy show The Big Bang Theory where the character Penny works in one of the restaurants and the other characters frequently eat, does this deserve a mention? are the uniforms the same?92.2.98.165 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it deserves a mention, The Big Bang Theory made this restaurant famous. It's the reason I came to this article. But obviously this article is compromised by a partisan who sees the association with The Big Bang Theory as negative publicity. This is exactly why Wikipedia can never be a reliable source and it's shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Laughable. I highly doubt that The Cheesecake Factory would have folded up, if not for a mention on a subpar network show. BLGM5 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a small section just saying that the show features the restaurant regularly and one of the characters works there, it's neuatral i belive and not saying if it's a good or bad thing that the show has the restaurant in it. Tbh I first heard about the cheesecake factory on the show being a fan of the show. it also seems stupid that the this article is linked on the big bang theory article but not on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.179.239 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

BLGM5 opinions don't belong on wikipedia , facts do and it's fact that the cheesecake factory is a main location on tv show 'The Big Bang Theory' the show is watched by millions worldwide and to not have this mentioned on this article makes this article uncompleted. and it's not like the show has only had the factory featured once or twice it's been in aLOT of episodes, as one of it's main characters lives, there, i added a small section about this but it has now been deleted for no logical reason, wheather you think the show is subpar doesn't matter, it's a mainstream show and it would be wrong not to have it mentioned on this article, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.179.239 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So make sure it's mentioned on BBT's wiki page. BLGM5 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Labor Lawsuit Controversy[edit]

user:Vapour removed the whole section of labor lawsuit on January 28, 2012‎ claiming "The source of Labour lawsuit is from private site". I believe this particular private site should be considered as a reliable source since it is a law firm's page to recruit victims for an ongoing class action lawsuit. Further, I do not think Wikipedia prohibit the use of private site. As a result, the edit from Vapour was undid. >g2g886 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the guideline on reliable source [1] is clear that, as a rule of thumb, only academia and media are reliable source. The issue is not just about whether the lawsuit exist or not. Rather the question is also about noteworthiness of the lawsuit. If newsmedia does not mention it, then doing so in wikipedia will give the matter an undue weight. Also, the guideline specifically discourage source which is "unduly self serving" and "involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". Wikipedia should not be used to promote and publicise interest of this particular lawsuit (and lawyers). I personally can't see how this site could get a pass in Reilable source noticeboard [2]Vapour (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
From your reply, it seems like the question is more of a whether the issue received an undue weight in the article than the reliability of the case. In my opinion, it does not have the problem of the undue weight since the issue is mentioned in 2 lines and is roughly about 5% of the page's content; however, I do not have much experience in the undue weight discussions and you do have a point in regards whether the weight of the issue is proportional to the society's attention on the case. As a result, I think we should invite other users into this discussion. Another opinions may be helpful. >g2g886 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For this lawsuit to pass the threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia, the matter should be mentioned in at least one independent news media. Wikipedia notability guideline, for example, states that
"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."[3]Vapour (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)