Talk:List of restaurant chains
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
- What do you mean "go in the article themselves"? Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
External links have been removed (commented out) per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Links should be placed in articles not lists like this. -- Linkspamremover 16:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Multiple listings of the same restaurant in different countries
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)
[edit] Cheers?
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)