Talk:Panera Bread

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Panera Bread.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] new quote

anybody have any background to the quote on this page? i think its unnecessary and should be deleted.

"They are slightly more expensive than a typical fast-food eatery, however the food is also nicer"

This is POV, though I agree completely :-) --Ihope127 03:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
See the description for Fast casual restaurant, and I think you'll see that it seems to fit in that category. Dr. Cash 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This entry is terrible.

Grammar is poor, and any informational content is smothered under the advertising hype for the product.

This is an encyclopedia, not a commercial. Fix it.

not to mention the four orphan sentences at the end. didn't most wikipedians learn about paragraphs in fourth grade?

I cleaned up this article in several ways. Added the Company Infobox to the right, as well as rewrote the opening paragraph info (there was a lot of inaccurate information there, based on reading info from the Panera website). I also added a corporate history section (mostly paraphrased from the Panera website, but also added the charitable giving details and awards there as well). I removed the link to Atlanta Bread Company - I cannot find anything on ABC's website that says they had any connection to Panera, though the companies are similar in nature. Not even in the Management Bios does it mention Panera. I did add a link to the Fast casual restaurant page, as this seems to fit. Hopefully, the article is of higher standard now. Dr. Cash 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That section doesn't even make sense - that ABP got rid of everything but Panera, and renamed it Panera? I am rewriting that section (using the Panera Bread FAQ that we seemed to have copied over and in the attempt to not copy-violate, we scrambled it. Hopefully it'll be better. Janet13 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Contradiction? People keep inserting that those in St. Louis are called St. Louis Bread Co but their website says "the concept" was renamed Panera Bread - does that mean a company concept but no physical name change? Someone help! Janet13 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In the St. Louis area, the stores are indeed called "The St. Louis Bread Company". Outside of the St. Louis area, they're called "Panera Bread." I don't quite understand the logic of it either, but that's the way it is. Amnewsboy 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Janet13 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
They are still known as "St. Louis Bread Company" in St. Louis only for two reasons. First, when the company initially expanded to other large cities with high regional loyalty, having the name of a rival city (i.e. sports, etc.) was less than helpful. So the company researched and developed the "Panera" label for expansion outside St. Louis. Second, they kept the St. Louis moniker inside the city because of the local affinity for the name. Guests were adament they keep it, as they considered it part of the community. From the outside looking in, it may seem confusing, but St. Louisans are completely familiar. Crazyfortheblue 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the information on their charity and awards because they sound like advertising. The decor description was a little suspect as well so I also removed that. As it stands the article does not look to me like an advertisement so I removed the tag. Barrylb 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the information about panini customizablity being low, while I have found it to be true in my experience, reeks of bias. Perhaps a section could be added on common customer complaints? Forteblast 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what information was listed before edits, maybe it was advertising, but some sort of information about their charitable donations should be readded. It is one of the few companies out there that purposely creates leftovers for the purpose of donations (as well as being able to have product available all day). $12 million a year in bread donations (according to their website) is certainly worth mentioning and is something I would hope to find in a wiki article. There are plenty of positives that could be added, like their move to have all natural, antibiotic free meats, for instance. Negatives might include things like fat, carb, calorie, and sodium counts for much of their menu. I'd add it, but I'm pretty poor at this stuff. 208.104.164.38 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)godot

[edit] franchises

Not all of the bakery-cafes are company owned. Alot of owned by regional franchises. I work for one of them in New England as a Shift Supervisor.--Azathar 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 types of Panera Cafes: Corporate, Franchise, and Joint Venture. Joint Venture cafes become fully corporate after 5 years if I am correct. 208.104.164.38 02:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)godot

[edit] Meaning

I suppose it is just casuality, but at least in Catalan [1] panera is a recipient formed by a hoop and a bottom of interwoven ropes, used to have bread in it and to serve it in restaurants. [2] [3] --83.34.178.181 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Panera as a name is two Latin words put together- PAN=Bread ERA=Time PANERA literally has no meaning and that is why it was chosen but it could be viewed as Bread Time if you wanted to think of it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morry32 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Company website

Is it panera.com or panerabread.com? Both websites seem to be the same. But a change was recently made to the infobox URL, while other occurences in the article use the alternate URL. Clipper471 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

panerabread.com is the official site according to the search engines. The panera.com is simply a redirect URL. User:Griepenm 18:55, 11 December

I checked their Annual Report to verify this. It does state panerabread.com, not panera.com. It seems they use both, however (panera.com does not redirect). I've changed the other instance in the article to panerabread.com. Clipper471 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BreadCoLogo1.png

Image:BreadCoLogo1.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:PaneraLogo.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 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 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Internet Access" section

Hello, the "Internet Access" section is completely sourced except the "Sports Illustrated" sentence. Granted, the second source isn't a very reliable one, but at least it's a source. Any opinion on the "Sports Illustrated" sentence? I unsuccessfully tried to remove it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The need for a citation with that sentence is now noted. —Adavidb 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this section really add anything to the overall article? Does it belong in an encyclopedic entry? To me, it smacks of editorializing on the part of a dissatisfied customer. The internet filtering policy is neither uncommon nor generally controversial nor particularly relevant to the rest of the article. Chevalier3 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article would suffer without this section. Its first two sentences could probably be appended to the lead section, if kept. —Adavidb 12:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Internet filtering can be considered controversial especially when sites with mixed material are completely filtered out. As long as the section is well sourced, I believe it should stay. Which means, the Sports Illustrated sentence, which is not sourced, should go. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the only source for the 'filtering' paragraph is a blog, and most blogs are not acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy, I don't believe it's well sourced. —Adavidb 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The questions of whether or not it is well sourced is a secondary issue, the primary concern is the relevance of this information to an encyclopedia article. If the section is irrelevant, it should be removed, well sourced or not. I agree with both Chevalier3 and Adavidb that this section does, indeed smack of editorializing or even activism. I also agree with Adavidb that content from a blog doesn't qualify as being "well sourced". That having been said, it is worth mentioning that content-filtering is used and which software is employed, but that can be limited to one sentence, which will give the anti-content-blocking crusaders enough information to do the research and find out what that software blocks (at another site/article, of course, as that would be/is irrelevant here).--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I simplified the Internet filtering statement to a single sentence in the article, and updated the source citation. —Adavidb 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Good work, Adavidb (man, your name is hard too type...makes me feel dyslexic!)--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Why McDOnald'sfor yuppies? Jij? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.14.62 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Menu section

I've removed the menu section as unencyclopedic. It was unsourced (though presumably a look n their website would provide most of the basics) but mainly it seems to be entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article unless there has been significant comment on it by significant third party sources. The content seemed to be more like marketing blurb for Panera than a neutral encyclopedia article. -- SiobhanHansa 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Company Name

Why do people continuously remove information about the different name of the bakery-cafes in St. Louis? I think its pretty significant that all the bakery-cafes in the original city (of which there are a lot) are known under a completely different moniker. I don't see a reason for removing this info, it does not detract from the article one bit and is an important fact to know (I would like to know if a bunch of McDonald's were actually called "Charlie's" or something). Can somebody figure out a way to add this bit of info so it's acceptable to all editors? -- Elmedico27 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freshness

Panera premakes their food, it's not really that fresh. Fresher then the sandwiches at the gas station but I wouldn't consider something made 2-8 hours ago to really be that fresh. I think this should be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.8.171.173 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)