Talk:List of doughnut shops

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

Inclusion criteria[edit]

What's the inclusion criteria for this page? I just removed Frost as the only one on the list with no Wikipedia article (and no independent sourcing), but what about otherwise? I see Greggs is on the list, and while I've never been to one I see its article lead says "It specialises in savoury products such as pasties, sausage rolls and sandwiches and sweet items including doughnuts and vanilla slices...". So is it sufficient for donuts to be one of the primary products? Does a cronut count? :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of bakers and food stores sell doughnuts along with their other foodstuffs. What we want here is those that specialize in doughnuts. Just take out the outliers per WP:BOLD. Andrew (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of doughnut shops. 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 17:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Donut vs doughnut doesn't need to be re-litigated. We have no preference for UK vs US English, so we retain whatever the original title was. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety. Submit a move request per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial if you feel you absolutely must. But please don't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (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.

{{This page needs to be restored to its ORIGINAL name at List of donut shops. MidAtlanticRidgeback (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

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.
This was created before 2005 as List of donut shops then moved and deleted, not even redirected as it should have been.
List of doughnut shops was created in 2014 with 19 donuts to only 2 doughnuts.
Why are you pushing for "doughnut" against all policy? MidAtlanticRidgeback (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a flying fuck about whether we say donut or doughnut. Debates of things like that wast vast amounts of our time when we could be doing something to build the encyclopedia. As with many words, one is UK English and one is US English, and we let those sleeping dogs lie whenever possible. Your want to contest page move that happened in July, 2005, which was eleven years ago. This issue has been at rest for 11 years. Now you want to reopen it. Now. After 11 years. I consider that obvious disruptive editing. The fact that you insist on a debate over aluminum vs aluminium is further evidence of a battleground motivation. I really think the smart thing for you to do is to stop trying to change UK to US English or vice versa.

Anyway, if you insist on playing this disruptive game, the correct next step, as I said above, for you is to post a move request at according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the United States "donut" is an alternate spelling and "doughnut" is more common. The shorter form is often used in business names, presumably because it takes less horizontal space on signage, but in formal writing the longer spelling dominates. Pburka (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of doughnut shops. 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) 08:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria revisited[edit]

Last time this was briefly discussed (several years ago), the weak consensus was to include only those that specialize in doughnuts. This much makes sense.

I would like to take it one step further and limit this to blue link notable shops. The independent, single location shop a couple of blocks from my office is in no way notable. If they closed tomorrow, a few people locally would notice but no one else would care. Over the past 100 years, there have been thousands of such shops and there is no conceivable way to list them all, nor would such a list be in any way encyclopedic.

Thoughts before I clean the list out? - SummerPhDv2.0 17:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with limiting the list to notable shops, but not all notable shops have blue links. An advantage of lists over categories is that they can have red links. Red links should be allowed if the entry includes references which demonstrate notability. Pburka (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That leads to two possibilities: 1) entries on the list with cites that no one bothers to scrutinize (essentially where we are now) 2) someone scrutinizes entries and we end up with arguments over whether or not an entry makes to cut.
WP:WTAF as a criteria would simplify this and, in the case of shops that should have articles but don't, create a few new articles. If you have two sources to show notability, writing up a quick stub would take 5 minutes if you are slow. Any disputes, rather than taking place on a backwater article's talk page (which is what this is), would get wider input at AfD instead. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently, by my count, six red links in the list. Do you believe that any of these would fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG as the subject of a standalone article? Pburka (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. To ferret that out, we need to check every item on a list to see if we think it would be notable enough for its own article.
As currently listed:
  • Daylight Donuts does not demonstrate notability. Its only source is its own website. The only way to know that, of course, is to check the source.
  • for The Donut Whole, we'd need to examine its source, www.roadsideamerica.com and figure out if it is a reliable source. Anyone wishing to verify that the entry belongs here would have to do that anew each time.
  • Donut World is unsourced and a redlink.
  • Puffin Fresh Donuts is unsourced and a redlink.
  • Southern Maid cites its own website.
  • The Whole Donut is unsourced and a relink.
Pick any one of those and there is a better than even chance you can find a trivial local source to cite and cloud up the question. Thinking of the non-notable donut shop near my office, I know they had a puff piece in the neighborhood paper when they opened and the owner was interviewed in the Philadelphia Inquirer when there was a significant fire on the block. If I add that shop with those two sources, deciding if the references "demonstrate notability" requires not merely seeing the cites, but reading the article's and considering the sources: The puff piece, while detailed, is meaningless local coverage in a source that looks professional, but is little more than a blog in reality. The Philadelphia Inquirer article, while published in a major paper, says very little about the shop, but is hidden behind a paywall. The shop is in no way notable and an article would not survive any meaningful scrutiny. As an entry here, it would likely last unless someone is actively maintaining this backwater list. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think editors aren't monitoring additions to this page? I am, and I think these six are all notable. Again, I ask you which of these would fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG as the subject of a standalone article? Pburka (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think no one is monitoring this page. I think far fewer people are monitoring it than thousands of other lists.
You seem to be asking me to research six topics. I'm suggesting that if you have significant coverage on these shops that popping out stubs would resolve the question and launch six new articles. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. You seem to be worried that this list includes non-notable doughnut shops, and I don't think it does. I'm asking for evidence that even one of those six shops is non-notable. A quick Google search of any of them turns up tons of sources in books, newspapers, magazines and websites. If you'd like to write stubs for them using those sources, even better! But removing notable shops from the list makes it less likely that they'll be written about. WP:REDLINK (a guideline), says "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." I claim that all of the red links in this article are plausible article topics. Pburka (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't provide evidence the shops aren't notable. I can't provide evidence my 7th grade French teacher wasn't (isn't?) notable.
Stubs have tags that draw in editors. Red links do not. At the moment, those shops exist as mere mentions on a seldom-viewed page.
This article could be a hub, linking together relevant articles, showing the size of the chains, where they are/were, when they started and ended and similar info. Or, it can remain a random collection of shops that someone somewhere once thought were notable (or decided to pretend they were), along with a few donut shops that aren't donut shops. In terms of notability, those six shops are completely unsourced. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they might as well not exist. If an editor writes an article where no one will read it, does it exist? - SummerPhDv2.0 23:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they should all be sourced. That's easily fixed, of course, and I encourage you to help improve the encyclopedia by doing do. Again, there are only six red links. I've already added three refs demonstrating the notability of Daylight Donuts. I believe it would easily survive AfD if an article existed. Tell us which ones aren't notable, after following the same diligence you'd do for WP:BEFORE, and let's discuss them. If you're adamant that stubs must exist (which contradicts our WP:REDLINK guideline), then spend a few minutes to create the stubs yourself. Pburka (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE on random entries someone added to a list article? That's a lot to ask. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It turns out there is an edit notice on the page which says, in part: "When adding new links to this page, please observe the following guidelines:...Please do not add links to articles that have yet to be written (redlinks). Please see WP:Write the article first." - SummerPhDv2.0 02:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a grueling 3 minutes of work, Daylight Donuts now has a stub. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that The Donut Whole (Wichita) and Southern Maid Donuts (TX, LA) are clearly notable. Puffin Fresh Donuts (Australia) is marginal. A bit more searching might be find something. The Whole Donut (CT), has been around for 60+ years, so may well have achieved notability, but I'm having trouble finding it. Donut World (Greensboro, NC) appears to have only four locations and little history; I think it should be removed. Pburka (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I also removed a couple of entries yesterday for notable businesses which don't seem to be notable as donut shops.) Pburka (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found this list linked in the "See also" section of the Krispy Kreme article. Clearly difficult to say what counts as a notable store. Not sure where else someone would go if trying to remember a donut shop name from recent travels or from the more distant past. Of the 37 entries, I recognize about 7 (including Psycho Donuts because I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area). Missing is "Happy Donuts" which has many more franchises around here and Los Angeles. Also "Stan's Donuts", which goes way back and still has several locations in its current incarnation. Donut Wheel is missing on the list, though it does have a blue link Wikipedia entry. My personal favorite chain was "Donutland" in eastern Iowa, now down to one remaining shop in Cedar Rapids. No substantial edits here for a few years, so I'm just adding my two cents worth without any strong preferences. Dollars to donuts, somebody else will eventually chime in. Rairden (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of doughnut shops. 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) 01:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add: Pip's Original Doughnuts & Chai[edit]

Reminder to add Pip's Original Doughnuts & Chai ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ Daily Dozen Doughnut Company ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion about inclusion criteria[edit]

A few days ago, I added an entry (Denny's 5th Avenue Bakery), after first reading this Talk page, and the Inclusion Criteria. I thought my entry was in agreement with the discussion. However, it got deleted, and I've had some discussion about that on that editor's Talk page.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency as to what is allowed to remain on this page. It seems strange for my entry to be removed, but to leave Café du Monde on this page - they only serve one kind of doughnut, a beignet - that's hardly a doughnut shop. It should be on a list of well-known cafes, not doughnut shops! My entry, Denny's 5th Avenue Bakery IS a doughnut shop, and is also a far more well-known, and longer established doughnut shop than several of the others included on the page, including Cardigan Doughnuts. Cardigan Doughnuts, established in 2017, does indeed have a wikipedia page, which reads like an advertisement for the shop. I live in the area and never had heard of it until I saw the page. I'm not opposed to Cardigan Doughnuts remaining on the page, but if it does, certainly Denny's 5th Avenue Bakery should be on it. Additionally, when I added my entry, there were other shops included in the list (which another editor subsequently deleted after I questioned his/her deletion of my entry) which did not have links to Wikipedia pages, so although there was some discussion about that, there did not appear to be consensus on that (quite honestly, it seems a strange requirement, given it's only going to encourage self-advertising like the Cardigan Doughnuts page does).

I have no personal link to Denny's 5th Avenue Bakery, other than I've lived in the area for over 50 years, and know it's a well-known, locally owned doughnut shop - google or yelp reviews will back me up on this (I don't know any family members). In fact, it is so well-known, the City of Bloomington did a video (which I included in the citations) commemorating the business, the founding family member, and his current descendants who run the business. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune (link to article was provided) and local neighborhood newspapers have also written about the business. Mpls-St.Paul magazine wrote about it (mspmag.com/eat-and-drink/best-of-local-bakeries/).

This page is titled "List of doughnut shops". As a simple list, it doesn't seem like having a wikipedia page should be required for inclusion. If that is a hard requirement, a more accurate title of the page would be "List of doughnuts shops with wikipedia pages".

When I came across this page, after reading the page AND the Talk page, I thought it was appropriate to add the entry. I question the value of this page, especially given the inconsistencies I've pointed out. Being more inclusive would actually make the page more valuable.75.73.7.4 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you three times now, when you click the edit button on List of doughnut shops a box with very large text says "Attention editors" and clearly explains "Please do not add links to articles that have yet to be written (redlinks). Please see WP:Write the article first." Wikipedia lists are always lists of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. The point of Wikipedia lists is to point readers to other articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I accidentally included the link (when I first added the entry), and then removed a very short time (minutes) later. It isn't the case that you can't add an entry to any Wikipedia list without there being an entry. Quite honestly, it's not clear to me that this is the established practice for this page, seeing as there were a few other entries on the page (when I added my entry) that didn't link to a Wikipedia page. They were on the list for at least many months, until you removed them.
This sentence "Please do not add links to articles that have yet to be written (redlinks)" simply says to not include a link that doesn't go to a page. It doesn't mean that you cannot add something to the page that doesn't have a link.
Additionally, This Wikipedia page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia) contradicts your statement (you incorrectly asserted "The point of Wikipedia lists is to point readers to other articles."). The "Lists in Wikipedia" page makes it clear that "list" pages can indeed have entries that do NOT link to another wikipedia page.
"Don't wikilink every item on the list, without making sure every link goes to an appropriate article – not a disambiguation page, and especially not a different topic with the same name. A reader clicking such a misdirected link might take a long time to realize it's a dead end with no information on the topic he wants."
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first: "One of the main distinctions between lists and article categories in that lists may contain non-notable entries".
You're ignoring what I wrote above, and seem to be being disingenuous and trying to divert from the real issues I've raised. 75.73.7.4 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the policy trumps the obvious editor notice in the edit window on an article that would otherwise clearly attract a lot of spam from every up-and-coming restaurant chef who assumes Wikipedia will help them with SEO and have no idea how it actually functions? Pull the other leg, it has bells on it. We do not take kindly to pettifogging here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems people are quick to accuse, and very slow to actually listen. Lots of wikipedia jargon gets thrown around, but policies are selectively ignored.
It does appear that the Edit notice has been edited in the last day or so from what it was when I made the original post, so I'll take that as a concession that someone agreed with at least 1 point I made (albeit there was no explicit statement of that). It now has this "Please do not add external links, only include articles on Wikipedia." - I'd suggest "Please do not add external links to doughnut shops if they do not have articles on Wikipedia." - otherwise, someone might think they cannot add an external link to a citation.  :) 75.73.7.4 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true. The page notice has not been edited since January 2016. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parlor Doughnuts inclusion[edit]

Could we look into including Parlor Doughnuts (based out of Indiana but rapidly expanding across the United States) and/or getting a page made for them? They are becoming a pretty noteworthy chain, specializing in their "layered donuts" (essentially a cronut) and as aforementioned, are growing fast. Knorcross (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_doughnut_shops&oldid=1219762844"