Talk:Denny's

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

Apparent error in the section "Racial discrimination lawsuits"[edit]

This section clearly states the class action lawsuit settlement occurred in 1994, however the incidents after it which "all occurr[ed] after the settlement" includes one which happened in 1993. Which is it? --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC) The sources given (two I could check, anyway) say the settlement was in 1994. The other source says the 1993 incident did occur in 1993. That much is obvious just by checking the source links. --68.196.143.17 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health care section[edit]

This talk section is specifically addressing the edits that ‎Nbauman is adding in the new "Health Care" subsection of the article. The info was trimmed down according to WP:UNDUE:

"...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

The current section is approximately 13% of the text of the article, which way too much for a single news item regarding one franchisee and not the entire company of Denny's, which is the article's subject. If you still believe that the text as added is proper weight for this article, I suggest you start an RfC regarding the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT says:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
This story was published by WP:RSs Slate, Fox News, Politico, MSN, AOL.COM, Daily Mail, Forbes, Nation's Restaurant News, and many others. This article should represent that story in proportion to that coverage, which is substantial. Instead, you blanked it completely, which violates WP:WEIGHT.
I don't think you could find as many WP:RSs for the story about Denny's cage-free eggs. Are you going to delete the section on "Animal welfare efforts"?
I don't think the burden is on me to start an RfC. If you think it's a good idea, you are free to do so. But you shouldn't remove well-sourced text. --Nbauman (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unrelated to the actual company "Denny's" and does not belong. It is not about it's operations or corporate policy, it concerns the actions of a franchisees thus is not appropriate for inclusion. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How should the health care section of this article be handled?[edit]

Consensus is for Option 3, ie Oppose inclusion of the controversy, per WP:NOT#NEWS #2. Additional concerns include WP:Recentism bias and the appropriateness of coverage in the main Denny's article of an individual franchisee's actions.

Support Option 3: NebY (talk · contribs) CorporateM (talk · contribs) Jerem43 (talk · contribs) Richigi (talk · contribs)

Support Option 2: Angryapathy (talk · contribs) Jojalozzo (talk · contribs) (with caveats) JohnChrysostom (talk · contribs) Elinruby (talk · contribs) (with amendment)

Non-admin close by request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 18:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How should the health care section of this article be handled? Angryapathy (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

One of Denny's franchisees announced that they would add a 5% surcharge to all checks to help pay for the additional costs resulting from Obamacare. (See this as an example) It was covered by a variety of sources. There are currently three trains of thought regarding how, or if, this information should be added to the article:

Option 1: Include a long description of the issue. An example of a proposed addition to the article:

In November 2012, John Metz of RREMC Restaurants LLC of West Palm Beach, Fla., a franchisee that operates Denny’s and Dairy Queen, said that in response to the Obama Administration's Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), he was considering adding a 5% surcharge to checks, and suggested that guests decide whether to reduce the waiter tips by that amount.
John Miller, Denny’s chief executive, said that this was the decision of a franchisee, not the corporation. “Unfortunately, the comments of this franchisee, who represents less than 1 percent of our system and who owns restaurants in other concepts, has been portrayed as reflective of the entire Denny’s brand,” Miller said.
Metz issued a retraction, saying that his position was not representative of the Denny’s brand or of other franchisees, which they are not.”
“Our stores do not have a 5-percent surcharge,” Metz said in a statement. “RREMC Restaurants is committed to exploring viable and effective ways to deal with the changing economic climate, including the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We have always been and will continue to be 100-percent dedicated to our employees and customers and will work tirelessly to find solutions that are in their best interests. It is our intention is to fully comply with the law."[1]

Option 2: Include a short description of the issue in the Controversy section. An example of a proposed addition to the article:

In November 2012, John Metz of RREMC Restaurants LLC of West Palm Beach, Fla., a franchisee that operates Denny’s and Dairy Queen, said that in response to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, he was considering adding a 5% surcharge to checks. John Miller, Denny’s chief executive, said that this was the decision of a franchisee, not the corporation.[2]

Option 3: Do not mention the issue at all in the article.

  • Option 2 I believe that since the information is covered in a number of reliable sources, the issue should be described in the article. However, I think it is a very small issue within the scope of Denny's as a whole. The decison which sparked the coverage was by a franchisee of 30 locations, which is less than 2% of the company's locations. Also, the company itself denounced the decison as not being representative of the company. I will re-quote WP:UNDUE: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I think this perfectly describes this situation, where a flurry of reporting was made in a short period of time, but is very low in the overall significance to the topic of the article, namely the Denny's corporation. The other proposed edit in option 1 is approximately 13% of the article, which is much too great for this issue. I suggest 1-3 sentences max to explain the situation, but avoid going into great detail. Angryapathy (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3. Five years from now, will this still seem important to mention? If it were a corporate policy, maybe, but the ill-advised comments of a franchise-owner (which he later retracted)? Might as well add the info to the Florida article, since he lives and does business there. As for the story being covered by a number of news orgs, this is because it was newsworthy; but as outlined in WP:NOT#NEWS, newsworthy does not equal encyclopedia-worthy. Richigi (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 only with conditions: This is an action by the franchisee not by the corporation so we should take care not to make an undue connection to Denny's when it could be any franchise and just happens to be Denny's. The notable connection to Denny's is their denunciation of the action, not the action itself. Emphasis should be on the corporate response not the surcharge or the franchisee's arguments for adding it.

    In November 2012, John Miller, Denny’s chief executive, distanced the corporation from the position of a Denny's franchisee in Florida who was considering adding a 5% surcharge to checks to cover costs of complying with the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Miller said this "perspective is not shared by the company."

Jojalozzo 02:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's too much weight, I'm fine going with option 3. Jojalozzo 02:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - Close call for an option 2, but I agree with the arguments above. We don't normally cover individual franchises, chapters, etc. On the other hand, what the article does need is a good trim for promotionalism: "for the first time ever" "in all 50 US states" and "largest international development deal yet" and the Controversy could be summarized slightly. User:CorporateM 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per Angryapathy. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, rewritten. Say Denny's and Dairy Queen restaurants, add the *number* of restaurants, and before the CEO's disclaimer say that there was considerable outcry (surely a source can be found for this). Then say the CEO distanced the corporation from those remarks x days later. That's my take. Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) PS - the fact that this is Florida and the man suggested reducing tips may be worth briefly noting as well.[reply]
  • Option 3 Entertaining as it might be to start adding to Denny's, McDonald's, Burger King and other articles "A franchisee once got a bit of publicity by saying he might do something daft, but the company didn't like it and he probably wouldn't have done it anyway." NebY (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.

References

  1. ^ Health care views cause clash between restaurant companies, franchisees, Ron Ruggless, Nation's Restaurant News, Nov. 20, 2012
  2. ^ Health care views cause clash between restaurant companies, franchisees, Ron Ruggless, Nation's Restaurant News, Nov. 20, 2012

Regular Menu?[edit]

This article states: "There is also a Denny's attached to the Holiday Beach Hotel in Otrabanda, Willemstad, Curaçao in the Netherlands Antilles.[9] Along with the regular Denny's Menu, the Curaçao restaurant offers a selection of local ("kriyoyo") dishes. There are also about 578 Denny's restaurants in Japan operated independently under a license by a subsidiary of Seven & I Holdings." The restaurants in Japan don't serve anything like the "regular Denny's Menu" (assuming this is the menu in U.S. restaurants) although there are some things that aren't too way out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


History[edit]

I would like to see information about Denny's Cocktail Lounges and the chain's acquisitions of other chains in the 1980s. A discussion of the fact that many stores are franchised, while others are corporate, would also be more appropriate than discussing modern egg propaganda and arguing about covering one store's healthcare blah blah blah. Other missing information relevant would be current number of stores, sales numbers and stock performance history, Denny's opposition to cigarette prohibition in Arizona and Florida, examples of menu changes through the years,etc. More history, less recent corporate spin. --Vic, a Denny's employee from 1998-1999.107.4.103.90 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Denny's. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Denny's. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denny's. 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: 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) 09:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denny's Germany is probably a hoax[edit]

Denny's opening restaurants in Germany is very likely a hoax (a big one), because as of Dec. 11th 2017, not only the Facebook page has been deleted, but also some linked-to youtube videos, plus, both registered websites (dannydeutschland.com and de-danny.com) have been suspended, very likely by Denny's Inc., Spartanburg, itself.

Many media fell for that, just citing the Facebook page (which is now blank).

See Mimikama.at research report [1] (de) (Mimikama.at is a community against internet abuse)

--DscheJ-Ouh (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits from Denny's[edit]

Hello, everyone. I lead Digital Marketing at Denny's and along with some folks on our Legal team, have found some potential edits for the team to consider. Main considerations: 1. updates to info box, 2. updates to menu items served, and 3. some local, franchisee-specific news stories that made it onto the main national company page. Pinging @Vanisaac: because this editor closed the prior request for comment re: including content about individual franchisees.

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luismartinez88/draft

Luismartinez88 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News Crew Attack[edit]

On May 2019, CBS46 news tried to interview Denny’s employees over a bad Health inspection. When interviewed, they told the news crew to stop recording & they tried to attack the cameraman. The manager of that Denny’s had taken action against the employees. The same restaurant closed in December of that year. GuyUser81 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denny%27s&oldid=1206936305"