Talk:List of restaurant chains

message: Do we really need to have external links next to the items listed it makes the page look ugly, plus most of these could easily go in the article themselves. It also makes it look like blatent advertising. Deathawk 19:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "go in the article themselves"? Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The latest edit by Vegaswikian may have been an attempt to implement that suggestion (without consensus, but Be Bold is not unreasonable), but moved two external links to different restaurants. Be Bold, but don't introduce clear errors when doing so.  I reverted the edit, but more discussion would be appreciated. -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to the edit by Vegaswikian, since I fully agree with his sentiments, along with those od Deathawk. WP:NOT a collection of web links. If there are "two external links" which are wrong then correct those two, but don't revert all the changed. Incidently, I felt your summary "Revert one change..." was misleading, as you clearly reverted everything. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted one of his two edits. "Reverting Vegaswikian to last version by Vegaswikian" makes no sense, which is what the standard reversion texts would have been.  I don't know what you're talking about.  I still don't see concensus for your point of view.  Reverting. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a directory of weblinks. Since the external links are quoted within the individual articles, I see no reason for them to be cited in this list. Doing so makes it into a directory of links, and blatant advertising, which it should not be. Vegaswikian introduced what I would consider to be a compromise, retaining links only for those restaurants on which an article has not been written. I shall revert back to that version since as far as I'm concerned consensus has been reached following [[this policy. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree.  To the extent that this article belongs in Wikipedia at all, What should be linked to (point 1) seems to apply.  Especially since whether the chain has a web site may be informative, and that web site would then have to listed in the article for verifiability.  However, even if you are correct, your reversion is intentionally introducing errors.  If you don't fix them, that's vandalism. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly point 1 does not apply since this is not an article about any restaurant.  That point allows an article on a specific restaurant to include an external link to the web site.  I'm going to start removing them again since the points made above explain why they should not be included when there is a article.  Also, I do not normally follow this article, I just seem to wind up here from other articles.  Vegaswikian 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree, but I don't feel strongly enough to add back in the links -- unless the link doesn't appear in the article, for some reason. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Revert -- some of the links removed were not available in the article, because there was no article.  Please do not automatically remove links unless there is an article for them to appear in. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then create an article. This is a spammer's paradise. Reverting to remove the links per Wikipedia is not a repository of links. -- Linkspamremover 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older discussions 

message: On a separate issue, I've been reorganizing the entries where there is more than one listing of the same chain in multiple countries into a new "International" section. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple listings of the same restaurant in different countries 

message: Should the link that leads to Cheers article actually refer to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheers#Outside_the_bar
Since the only mention of the "chain" of Cheers is located in that paragraph. And apparently it is only two different bars in Boston. --PoeticX 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheers? 

message: I added some new restaurants to the list. I will try to create articles in the future, but for now if anyone doubts the existence of these businesses feel free to use Google to come up with the info.
User:Cardozo 10:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Chain Restaurants 

message: In the list for restaurant chains in the United Kingdom, there are a few chains that should really be in the international category:
* Costa Coffee is the world's second largest coffee chain and is present in 28 countries. 
* Pizza Express is found in 18 countries including France, Spain, Ireland and Hong Kong as well as the UK. Although the chain is called Pizza Marzano in some countries, it remains the same chain.
* Pret a Manger is also in America and Hong Kong.
Chrisloader (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a registered user, you can make these changes. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Chains 

message: Given the data in this chart, McDonald's would have an avg. of 3.4 employees per location. Subway would have 3.18; STARBUCKS 3.62, while Tim Horton's coffee shops would have 27.6 employees per location. None of these numbers seems plausible. What am I missing here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data integrity 

message: I have corrected an error in the table formatting that occurred when someone added this restaurant.  I suspect the information itself does not belong in the International section of the page. 213.105.215.117 (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favorite Indian 

message: I tend to agree that this should not be included in the list. By no stretch is this a "restaurant". The definition of a restaurant is an establishment where meals are prepared and served to customers. Yogen Früz does not serve meals. It's a chain of frozen yogurt stands. Its entire menu consists of frozen yogurt. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the edits from the IP on the basis that it was a food outlet, it obviously does sell food - whether or not it qualifies as a restaurant should be up for debate. We need to be clear on the list criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A restaurant by definition serves meals. Yogen Früz does not serve meals. So it should not be included in a list of restaurants. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Lard Almighty, it does not serve food, it is not a restaurant. It closer resembles a candy store. Same with Smoothie King and related establishments. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

text: In that case, we should list here all the restaurants that we believe do not fit the inclusion criteria and decide which ones to omit from the article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yogen Früz, Yogurtland, and Sweet Frog are all frozen yogurt shops and should be removed from this particular list. All other entries seem to meet restaurant criteria. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yogen Früz