Talk:Domino's/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Possible Merge

Despite web sites listing Domino's as an incorporated company, I believe that it is actually an L.L.C. This is evidenced not only by their printed communications reading "Domino's Pizza, L.L.C.", but also on their corporate web site, and job postings on Monster, Career Builder, etc.

I'm considering merging this in to Domino's Pizza, L.L.C. and redirecting the "Inc." link, unless there are objections with evidence that Inc. is proper. Kevin 08:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'd oppose a rename, as we go with common, advertised names for companies when possible. Create redirects from those names and mention the correct one on this article's intro, that would be fine. See WP:NAME#Companies, "The legal status of the company (Corp., plc or LLC), is not normally included". This is a case where it shouldn't be. --W.marsh 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• I hadn't notice the move to "inc". That really shouldn't have happened so I've moved it back. --W.marsh 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hotcell

Are the delivery bags called Heatwave in many locations or by other names due to possible trademark issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.59.69 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Domino's launches another industry innovation, Domino's HeatWave®, a hot bag using patented technology that keeps pizza oven-hot to the customer's door. This is from the company's website. As you can see it is referred to as Heatwave. However, it may be possible that it very limited markets it is called the Hotcell due to trademark, cultural, or translation issues. TheDevilYouKnow 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Menu specifics

I moved this stuff to a trivia section. it seems pointlessly specific and too-current for an encylopaedia to me. This stuff is also not suited to or aimed at the UK/Northern Europe market and makes the article seem a bit advertisement-y. --Brideshead 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bain

Anyone have info on whether Domino's is still owned by Bain?--~~~~
Domino's Pizza, LLC is currently owned by Bain Capital, LLC.

Older logo

Does anyone know where one can find the older logo used until about 1996? The logo was straight (as opposed to tilted) and the font was capitalized (possibly Helvetica)? WAVY 10 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Monaghan's involvement

Domino's schedule 14A, dated 4/24/2007, and available online at <http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=5052816&Type=HTML>, shows that Monaghan's financial involvement with Domino's continues. Specifically [info is a public record and not copyrightable]:

Lease arrangements

In connection with the Domino’s recapitalization in 1998, Domino’s Pizza LLC, the Company’s operating subsidiary, entered into a lease with Domino’s Farms Office Park L.L.C., or Domino’s Farms, with respect to its World Resource Center. Thomas S. Monaghan, one of the Company’s former directors and the Company’s former majority shareholder, is the ultimate controlling person of Domino’s Farms.

The lease was amended in August 2002 with an effective date of December 21, 2003 to provide for additional space, new rent and an expiration date of December 20, 2013 with two five-year options to renew. Under the terms of the lease, as amended, the Company paid $5.5 million in rent under this lease in 2006. The base rent is subject to annual increases, based on the lower of the consumer price index or a stated percentage, which varies by year, and the Company expects to pay approximately $5.7 million in 2007.

Contingent notes payable

We were liable under two contingent notes to pay Mr. Monaghan and his wife an aggregate amount not to exceed approximately $15.0 million, plus interest, commencing January 2003 and equal to 8% per annum. Prior to the Domino’s Pizza initial public offering, Mr. Monaghan transferred his interest in his contingent note to the Ave Maria Foundation and certain of his family members. Following the Domino’s Pizza initial public offering, the Company prepaid all of the outstanding amounts due under these notes, totaling approximately $16.9 million.

207.171.180.101 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Among Italians

Shouldn't something be added about the fact that most Italians see Domino's as a disgrace to Italian food? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfellajohnny (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you stalking the pizza pages? ;) Now what if I were to say that Sicilians who brought their oh so Sicilian recipes of 'pizza' up to the new world and ruined the whole concept as a whole? Oh, and American-Chinese food is a disgrace to.... food. 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Pizza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.18.84 (talk)

dominoes is to real pizza what burger king is to real bbq —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Most Italians may THINK Domino's is a disgrace to pizza, but the key word there is "think". Opinions do not have a place on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelodeonfan2007 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'In popular culture' section

This section is arguably unencyclopedic. This article doesn't need to mention every single time Domino's pizzas have appeared or been mentioned in films and TV, and in fact it's better if it doesn't. The 'popular culture' section should be drastically trimmed down, or ideally removed altogether. Terraxos 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of trivia section

User:W.marsh recently reverted an edit to remove the trivia section this is the reasoning on why it was removed

This section was tagged as trivia nearly three months ago, according to the lead of the WP:Trivia guidelines, trivia section should be transitory at best.

A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, as appropriate in text, list or table.

If you wish to quote this policy, do not quote it out of context. Here is the full line:

Such sections should not be categorically removed: it may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate.

The contributors to this article have had three months to properly integrate this data and since they have failed to properly integrate these facts into the main body of the article I deleted it. If you wish to include these data in the article please do so properly and do not misrepresent policy to justify this type of information's existence.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

The guideline you're citing clearly says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." Your stuff about a 3 month time limit appears to be something you made up, and your edits amount to section blanking. You're welcome to convert them to prose but please stop blanking 1/3 of the article citing a guideline that directly tells you not to do so. --W.marsh 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)