Talk:Wimpy's Diner

Wimpy (restaurant)

Is the diner chain related to the British burger chain? 67.71.29.79 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between the two franchise operations? - They are spelled differently, and offer two different formats. The UK chain came first however, but its format is of a Burger Restaurant, patterned after the character in the Comic strip, "Popeye" popularized in the '40s and '50s. The UK and South African chain offers a variety of "Burger" specialities, but started out as a corner operation of an existing full service restaurant. Other that the comic strip, there is no relationship between the two. Richard416282 (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested Mike Cline (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Wimpys Diner → Wimpy's Diner – Missing apostrophe, per official site --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC) 184.8.101.78 (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support but I wouldn't object to it being simply called Wimpy's or Wimpy's (diner) . The UK based chain is called "Wimpy (restaurant)" GregKaye 13:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Relisting (again) comment: There is as of yet no rationale in terms of WP:AT, either way. Surprising considering the experienced hands involved in the discussion above. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support: This proposal is in accord with ordinary English formatting, and is supported by at least some official usage. I somewhat wonder about the capitalization of "Diner", but the proposal is certainly an improvement over the current situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I question whether this proposal is in accord with ordinary English formatting. It seems to me that in a title, it's quite normal to omit the apostrophe, as in Scots Kirk or Hobbys Yards. Perhaps not universal, but at least a bit both ways. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Both of the sources currently cited in the article include the apostrophe, and I see no rationale for doing otherwise. In my personal experience, it is dramatically more common to include an apostrophe than to omit it in such a circumstance, especially in North America (except in official place names declared by the U.S. government), and especially in this case where pluralization would seem to dictate a different spelling. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

There seems a strong consensus to move, but still no valid rationale. So if the move goes ahead, as seems likely, it raises some questions in my mind.

Is it because the official name includes the apostrophe? That would represent a change to the article naming policy, IMO.

Is it because this proposal is in accord with ordinary English formatting? That would represent a new article naming convention IMO, or have I missed it? And I'm in some doubt as to whether the claim is even true!

Or, is there some other rationale, still unstated above? Or again, have I missed it? Andrewa (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the proposal is supported by the identified official usage on the company's web site, the common name as it would ordinarily be written (as used in both sources cited by the article), and MOS:TM's guideline saying to "Follow standard English text formatting" for "all business names". —BarrelProof (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability?

C'mon, there are lots of chain restaurants in Wikipedia with fewer than 54 units. Why be a deletionist? Remember, there's room. Wikipedia is not paper. 72.105.5.135 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Erectile distinction

There seems to be a lot of vandalism on this page. 99.239.66.147 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)